Champions Cup 2020/2021 General Thread

Boscoirl

Gloucester have ruined The Shed with those advertisements

Akrasia

May really should have scored there

thomond2006

Belter of a game.

AdamD

Accidental offside is utter nonsense there

Eod100

thomond2006 wrote: »

Belter of a game.

Great game so far

Squidgy Black

Johnny May is having a stinker so far

thomond2006

That's a costly missed touch for both sides.

Buer

AdamD wrote: »

Accidental offside is utter nonsense there

He kicked the ball into a guy in front of him. It was an accident. I'm a little lost.

It's an unfortunate incident but it's always given when spotted.

Buer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Johnny May is having a stinker so far

He has looked vulnerable in defence and is certainly off in attack. A year ago, he'd have taken that cross field kick at full tilt and gone round under the posts. The two kicks ahead when put into space have been terrible.

They're missing LRZ. They're getting the ball wide repeatedly but making little of it.

AdamD

Buer wrote: »

He kicked the ball into a guy in front of him. It was an accident. I'm a little lost.

It's an unfortunate incident but it's always given when spotted.

At that minor a contact it happens 10 times a game and is never called

Buer

AdamD wrote: »

At that minor a contact it happens 10 times a game and is never called

Rarely spotted, in fairness. When it's spotted during a TMO review because of a suspected knock on, they can't ignore it. Very unlucky but it was fairly clear.

OldRio

Lá Rochelle are lovely on the eye. Wonderful off loading and yet.... Scrum? Lineout? Thought?
Gloucester are....... Crap. Only 2 points in it at half time so a glimmer of hope for them.

You'd love to play Gloucester in the next round. La Rochelle not so much.

sydthebeat

atkinson at 12 for gloucester is quite handy

Buer

OldRio wrote: »

Lá Rochelle are lovely on the eye. Wonderful off loading and yet.... Scrum? Lineout? Thought?
Gloucester are....... Crap. Only 2 points in it at half time so a glimmer of hope for them.

You'd love to play Gloucester in the next round. La Rochelle not so much.

Not so sure. La Rochelle are very good in attack at running a hard line with support. They're punching holes and Gloucester are poor defensively. Yet, I think the scoreline isn't too far off.

La Rochelle are making a fair few errors themselves. They can also be relieved they don't have to deal with a French referee as they'd have 3 or 4 penalties against them in the scrum at this point.

I think La Rochelle are gonna pull away shortly though given the bench they have. Gloucester have had opportunities and wasted them which they cannot afford to do.

thomond2006

La Rochelle have their chance now.

thomond2006

Taking a kick up a man in that position?
I hate it.

Boscoirl

Am I right in saying RoG is the head coach in LAR? And the job isn’t shared with Gibbs?

Not for the first time I have noticed that BT announce that a sub is made by Gibbs

OldRio

Some of Lá Rochelle off loading is quite simply stunning.

Bazzo

Here we go with the high shot wheel of fortune! I wonder how that one's explained in the framework? He's unlucky but his body position looked almost identical to Aki's to me

Burkie1203

How has Brace determined the Glaws player was trying to make a legal tackle when he led with his shoulder

Buer

Boscoirl wrote: »

Am I right in saying RoG is the head coach in LAR? And the job isn’t shared with Gibbs?

Not for the first time I have noticed that BT announce that a sub is made by Gibbs

Gibbes is the head man. ROG, for obvious reasons, gets the coverage in Irish media.

ROG is the Lancaster to Gibbes' Cullen.

Squidgy Black

There is absolutely zero consistency when it comes to head contact.

corny

That's puzzling. I thought they reffed on outcome. It was a shoulder to the head.

yosser hughes

Burkie1203 wrote: »

How has Brace determined the Glaws player was trying to make a legal tackle when he led with his shoulder

I can't believe Brace interpreted it that way. Bad decision

Boscoirl

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There is absolutely zero consistency when it comes to head contact.

That was worse than the red in the Not Nots game IMO

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

Here we go with the high shot wheel of fortune! I wonder how that one's explained in the framework? He's very unlucky but his body position looked almost identical to Aki's to me

The carrier was falling directly into him due to the tackle of a third player. I'm surprised at no sanction but it was not comparable to the Aki incident at all where it was two players on their feet colliding.

I'd have said red card mitigated to yellow due to the sudden drop. Barton clearly moved forward to initiate contact.

Burkie1203

Squidgy Black wrote: »

There is absolutely zero consistency when it comes to head contact.

It was Pen and YC

Vito being tackled is reasonable mitigation

Boscoirl

Buer wrote: »

Gibbes is the head man. ROG, for obvious reasons, gets the coverage in Irish media.

ROG is the Lancaster to Gibbes' Cullen.

Cheers. Was JG brought in over RoG? I think he was there first ( I may be wrong)

Cookiemunster

Boscoirl wrote: »

Cheers. Was JG brought in over RoG? I think he was there first ( I may be wrong)

You are. Gibbs brought in ROG. He was there a year when he brought him in.

sydthebeat

yosser hughes wrote: »

I can't believe Brace interpreted it that way. Bad decision

Thought it was a great decision.

Not every head contact can be foul play.

If you think it is then youre opening a huge can of worms as regards game play

irelandrover

sydthebeat wrote: »

Thought it was a great decision.

Not every head contact can be foul play.

If you think it is then youre opening a huge can of worms as regards game play

I think if you go into a tackle, dip yourself and take a shoulder to the head it's fair enough.

If you are tackled and then take a shoulder to the head then you should get a penalty.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Thought it was a great decision.

Not every head contact can be foul play.

If you think it is then youre opening a huge can of worms as regards game play

I get your take but I'd say that because Barton stepped into it, he needs to be aware of what's happening. It was forceful head contact. Unlike Porter last week, he clearly made a hit on the player but the sudden drop dictated the point of contact. I think there should have been a sanction just not red.

realhorrorshow

Raymond Rhule has gotten huge, I remember him as quite a small winger from his time at the Cheetahs. Was also an atrocious defender, can't believe he's playing centre

Dave_The_Sheep

Do neither side want to win this?

AdamD

Did La Rochelle rest players? Plisson and Aldrid off the bench

sydthebeat

irelandrover wrote: »

I think if you go into a tackle, dip yourself and take a shoulder to the head it's fair enough.

If you are tackled and then take a shoulder to the head then you should get a penalty.

Penalties are not awarded to ball carriers, they're awarded against defenders

irelandrover

So you agree. If you take a shoulder to the head through no fault of your own then you get a penalty

sydthebeat

irelandrover wrote: »

So you agree. If you take a shoulder to the head through no fault of your own then you get a penalty

??

You didn't read my post did you.

I'll repeat.

Penalties are not awarded TO ball carriers.

They are awarded AGAINST defenders.

irelandrover

sydthebeat wrote: »

Penalties are awarded to ball carriers,s

sydthebeat wrote: »

??


Penalties are not awarded TO ball carriers.

d

You could be clearer on what your point is

sydthebeat

irelandrover wrote: »

You could be clearer on what your point is

You don't get penalties on what you think you deserve as a ball carrier

Edit: typo in my first post

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

The carrier was falling directly into him due to the tackle of a third player. I'm surprised at no sanction but it was not comparable to the Aki incident at all where it was two players on their feet colliding.

I'd have said red card mitigated to yellow due to the sudden drop. Barton clearly moved forward to initiate contact.

I wasn't trying to compare it to the Aki incident really, just his body position which was nearly identical. And as was pointed out at the time, if you go into a tackle in that position it's your own fault if you end up hitting someone high.

Ending up with no sanction play on when that's clearly a red mitigated to yellow following the framework is a joke but entirely to be expected with the consistency of the refereeing we've seen on high hits.

sydthebeat

https://rugbyreferee.net/2021/03/11/new-head-contact-process-unveiled-by-world-rugby/#:~:text=World%20Rugby%20has%20announced%20new,with%20the%20head%20and%20neck.

If there's no foul play... It's play on

Bazzo

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://rugbyreferee.net/2021/03/11/new-head-contact-process-unveiled-by-world-rugby/#:~:text=World%20Rugby%20has%20announced%20new,with%20the%20head%20and%20neck.

If there's no foul play... It's play on

There is foul play. He attempted to tackle a player and hit him square in the head. The trajectory/height/whatever changing is mitigation.

sydthebeat

Bazzo wrote: »

There is foul play. He attempted to tackle a player and hit him square in the head. The trajectory/height/whatever changing is mitigation.

Nope

It didn't even get to the point of applying mitigation.

The ref team agreed there was no foul play, therefore no sanction.

Not every head contact is a foul

prawnsambo

Bazzo wrote: »

There is foul play. He attempted to tackle a player and hit him square in the head. The trajectory/height/whatever changing is mitigation.

There's nothing to prevent it being mitigated down to nothing that I know of.

Bazzo

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nope

It didn't even get to the point of applying mitigation.

The ref team agreed there was no foul play, therefore no sanction.

Not every head contact is a foul

I don't particularly feel like going around in a circular arguement all evening so I'll just say we must see this particular incident fundamentally differently somehow.

prawnsambo wrote: »

There's nothing to prevent it being mitigated down to nothing that I know of.

The mitigation follows a clear pathway in the framework. A high force/danger shot to the head starts at a red and can be mitigated down to a yellow. An incident can only be mitigated down one level of sanction: red to yellow, yellow to penalty, penalty to no sanction.

Akrasia

irelandrover wrote: »

I think if you go into a tackle, dip yourself and take a shoulder to the head it's fair enough.

If you are tackled and then take a shoulder to the head then you should get a penalty.

rugby incidents are where everyone did the right thing independently, but a confluence of events caused someone to get injured

I think this was one of those. Would you ask any of the players to do anything differently to prevent the head contact?

I don't think I would, so I think the referee decision was correct

sydthebeat

Bazzo wrote: »

I don't particularly feel like going around in a circular arguement all evening so I'll just say we must see this particular incident fundamentally differently somehow.

The mitigation follows a clear pathway in the framework. A high force/danger shot to the head starts at a red and can be mitigated down to a yellow. An incident can only be mitigated down one level of sanction: red to yellow, yellow to penalty, penalty to no sanction.

We do see it differently.
My starting point is "every head contact does not automatically constitute foul play".... Whereas yours seems to be.

You mustn't have read the framework because the very first question after "was there head contact" is "was there foul play".... That's the pathway.

Any argument about mitigation and sanction being dropped one level is moot when the refereeing team come to the conclusion that there's no foul play.

Bazzo

sydthebeat wrote: »

We do see it differently.
My starting point is "every head contact does not automatically constitute foul play".... Whereas yours seems to be.

You mustn't have read the framework because the very first question after "was there head contact" is "was there foul play".... That's the pathway.

Any argument about mitigation and sanction being dropped one level is moot when the refereeing team come to the conclusion that there's no foul play.

Well this is all super condescending but I'll just ignore that.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/18

You and I obviously disagree that this particular incident was anything like 2 in the above guidelines. I don't think it was, you think it was.

irelandrover

sydthebeat wrote: »

You don't get penalties on what you think you deserve as a ball carrier

Edit: typo in my first post

I liked how condescending you were as you contradicted yourself.