Red Cards & HIA
-
@gt12 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@taniwharugby said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@antipodean I'm more concerned with the fact the TMO had all that time to look at it, made his call and it was deemed wrong.
Does he get sanctioned for that? I mean in terms of his job, that is almighty fuck-up, and as some have said, while we will never know, it has potentially impacted the outcome of the game.
Credibility of the sport continues to fall.
It is a joke. In this case, I thought a YC looked about right, but by the letter of the law and recent interpretation, it should be a RC.
I contrast that completely illegal act with Cane's RWC RC and I cannot fathom how they come to the conclusion the most recent is the one that should be downgraded.
Unless of course they've determined the RWC outcome was a farce but don't want to admit it.
There has to be a system that allows the game to flow with some penalty for the player, but doesn't ruin the event for fans.
Penalty with after game review and much, much longer suspension.
@antipodean I am dead against it being rescinded unless they are/have actually changed the framework (which I would be in favour of).
But compared to Cane: Sam had time to go lower, he was making a tackle, and he hit with more force. It was significantly worse... But of course then Kolisi should have seen red too.
I don't think there is any conspiracy, but the whole thing is very much a lottery and a farce. See also Ta'avao and Porter. -
Seems like you want something like ice hockey.
Just man advantage power-play team penalties, and ejections and suspensions for individual players.
I like that myself.
In ice hockey and rugby the action is super dynamic (or should be) with a lot of speed and physicality.
Rugby has more in common with that sport, than a sport like soccer.
Yellow and red cards, soccer crap.@mohikamo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Seems like you want something like ice hockey.
Just man advantage power-play team penalties, and ejections and suspensions for individual players.
I like that myself.
In ice hockey and rugby the action is super dynamic (or should be) with a lot of speed and physicality.
Rugby has more in common with that sport, than a sport like soccer.
Yellow and red cards, soccer crap.That's a better explanation than mine. Let's start there.
-
@antipodean I am dead against it being rescinded unless they are/have actually changed the framework (which I would be in favour of).
But compared to Cane: Sam had time to go lower, he was making a tackle, and he hit with more force. It was significantly worse... But of course then Kolisi should have seen red too.
I don't think there is any conspiracy, but the whole thing is very much a lottery and a farce. See also Ta'avao and Porter.@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@antipodean I am dead against it being rescinded unless they are/have actually changed the framework (which I would be in favour of).
But compared to Cane: Sam had time to go lower, he was making a tackle, and he hit with more force. It was significantly worse... But of course then Kolisi should have seen red too.
I don't think there is any conspiracy, but the whole thing is very much a lottery and a farce. See also Ta'avao and Porter.They are all red, all yellow or all nothing. It cant be reffed any other way in my opinion.
We cant get into semantics on a case by case basis. I read a great point earlier elsewhere
"we dont just need consistency in refereeing, we need consistency in fan reactions".We all need to be on board. They are all red, all yellow or all nothing.
Kolisi and Cane and Beirne, and Cipriani and Porter and Taavao etc etc etc ad infinitum cant all have different sanctions.
If the head is sacred. Fine. Kolisi and Cane both walk in the final. Etzebeth walks too for elbowing Cane in the face.
Whats happening now is literally judiciary/refereeing roulette. It's patently unaceptble to the players and fans.
I need to believe what im watching is real.
Irish fans now feel hatcheted (rightly or wrongly) and will think "what if?".
We will look at RWC final and think "what if?".
It really has descended into utter farce.
This isnt a whinge. This is officialdom pissing on my neck and telling me its raining.
-
@ACT-Crusader
Have you seen Beauden talking about it?@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader
Have you seen Beauden talking about it?I have.
The players code alive and well
-
@antipodean I am dead against it being rescinded unless they are/have actually changed the framework (which I would be in favour of).
But compared to Cane: Sam had time to go lower, he was making a tackle, and he hit with more force. It was significantly worse... But of course then Kolisi should have seen red too.
I don't think there is any conspiracy, but the whole thing is very much a lottery and a farce. See also Ta'avao and Porter.@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@antipodean I am dead against it being rescinded unless they are/have actually changed the framework (which I would be in favour of).
But compared to Cane: Sam had time to go lower, he was making a tackle, and he hit with more force. It was significantly worse... But of course then Kolisi should have seen red too.
I don't think there is any conspiracy, but the whole thing is very much a lottery and a farce. See also Ta'avao and Porter.My recollection of Cane's card he was definitely high and deserved to be penalized for that aspect, but it was a step by Kriel into Cane so short notice and a clear example of an "absorbing tackle"
Barnes as Kriel dominated the collision and they fell in the direction Kriel was moving.In every other aspect I agree with your post.
-
@Dodge that's an interesting perspective, thanks. I don't have time to watch a lot of NH rugby, so my impression from the last RWC is that the push for cards for these types of incidents came strongly from the north. And further to that, Ireland themselves have a history of calling for cards for the opposition whenever there is some form of accidental head contact. So to that end, they made their bed, they can lie in it now. If that is changing then that's a good thing, but as we are all saying, the directive from WR has to be crystal clear on this, but right now it's as clear as mud.
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge that's an interesting perspective, thanks. I don't have time to watch a lot of NH rugby, so my impression from the last RWC is that the push for cards for these types of incidents came strongly from the north. And further to that, Ireland themselves have a history of calling for cards for the opposition whenever there is some form of accidental head contact. So to that end, they made their bed, they can lie in it now. If that is changing then that's a good thing, but as we are all saying, the directive from WR has to be crystal clear on this, but right now it's as clear as mud.
I don’t know whether the push came from the NH but it was certainly refereed a lot more harshly in the NH in the year before the WC. I’ve said it before that I called out a head contact in that year in Super Rugby that would have been a red up North and wasn’t even commented on. I predicted a car crash in the WC at that moment.
The interpretations changed as the WC wore on after a few reds early doors. The watering down of the punishment has definitely continued.
As TR says, this is entirely the fault of WR that so many of us find it difficult to predict now. Find it irritating that in the statement from WR about the above, it says it didn’t meet the threshold for red but doesn’t explain why.
-
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
-
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
That would be a penalty against Beirne for tackling a player without the ball, as you say, but not if Beirne hits Barrett high, as he does in this instance.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
That would be a penalty against Beirne for tackling a player without the ball, as you say, but not if Beirne hits Barrett high, as he does in this instance.
@Mr-Fish said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
That would be a penalty against Beirne for tackling a player without the ball, as you say, but not if Beirne hits Barrett high, as he does in this instance.
Thanks
See that doesn’t make sense to me
In that scenario, BB would never be in a position to catch the ball and in my view is obstructing the defender
That’s something I’d like to see changed
In my day, an M-1 or M-2 had to go across the chest of the ‘missed’ player, not his arse
-
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
Depends if Beauden takes Beirne out preventing him from being able to make a tackle
Because Beirne didn't "tackle" Brauden, he'd be fine IMO.
-
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
We had an iteration of that when Freddie Steward and Hugo Keenan collided.
Whomever hits the other in the head (regardless of game state) gets sent off. It’s that simple.
Forward pass, dummy runners etc etc are all red herrings. Don’t hit the other lad in the head. That’s the point of all this nonsense in the first place. To protect the head.
For the record I’m from the “it’s not tiddlywinks” school of hard knocks. I don’t think anyone should be sent off bar ripping out someone’s testicle.
But if you send off one of my lads this week , I expect to see the lad from the opposition sent off the next week if he does a version of the same offense. And I expect fans of that team to go “fair enough”.
What we have now is just garbage.
We could have won the Lions series if Vunipola gets same sanction as SBW for forearm smashing a prone Beaudy Barrett in the face.
We could have won the Lions series if Sean O Brien gets red for knocking Naholo out with a swinging arm.
We could have won the Irish series if Taavao and Porter received the same sanction.
We could have won World Cup final if Cane and Kolisi received the same sanction.
Etc etc etc.
I don’t forget, but officialdom and opposition fans seem to.
The Irish (Sexton and Murray) were the worst onfield card chasers. Hands aloft at every ruck looking for referee intervention.
Now the Irish feel aggrieved and their fans will lean on this card as the reason they lost
It’s lamentable carry on from World Rugby.
-
@Mr-Fish said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
That would be a penalty against Beirne for tackling a player without the ball, as you say, but not if Beirne hits Barrett high, as he does in this instance.
Thanks
See that doesn’t make sense to me
In that scenario, BB would never be in a position to catch the ball and in my view is obstructing the defender
That’s something I’d like to see changed
In my day, an M-1 or M-2 had to go across the chest of the ‘missed’ player, not his arse
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
In my day, an M-1 or M-2 had to go across the chest of the ‘missed’ player, not his arse
Christ that's not been the case since I started playing, so you're going back more than 40 years to justify this incident?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
We had an iteration of that when Freddie Steward and Hugo Keenan collided.
Whomever hits the other in the head (regardless of game state) gets sent off. It’s that simple.
Forward pass, dummy runners etc etc are all red herrings. Don’t hit the other lad in the head. That’s the point of all this nonsense in the first place. To protect the head.
For the record I’m from the “it’s not tiddlywinks” school of hard knocks. I don’t think anyone should be sent off bar ripping out someone’s testicle.
But if you send off one of my lads this week , I expect to see the lad from the opposition sent off the next week if he does a version of the same offense. And I expect fans of that team to go “fair enough”.
What we have now is just garbage.
We could have won the Lions series if Vunipola gets same sanction as SBW for forearm smashing a prone Beaudy Barrett in the face.
We could have won the Lions series if Sean O Brien gets red for knocking Naholo out with a swinging arm.
We could have won the Irish series if Taavao and Porter received the same sanction.
We could have won World Cup final if Cane and Kolisi received the same sanction.
Etc etc etc.
I don’t forget, but officialdom and opposition fans seem to.
The Irish (Sexton and Murray) were the worst onfield card chasers. Hands aloft at every ruck looking for referee intervention.
Now the Irish feel aggrieved and their fans will lean on this card as the reason they lost
It’s lamentable carry on from World Rugby.
@Jet said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
We had an iteration of that when Freddie Steward and Hugo Keenan collided.
Whomever hits the other in the head (regardless of game state) gets sent off. It’s that simple.
Forward pass, dummy runners etc etc are all red herrings. Don’t hit the other lad in the head. That’s the point of all this nonsense in the first place. To protect the head.
For the record I’m from the “it’s not tiddlywinks” school of hard knocks. I don’t think anyone should be sent off bar ripping out someone’s testicle.
But if you send off one of my lads this week , I expect to see the lad from the opposition sent off the next week if he does a version of the same offense. And I expect fans of that team to go “fair enough”.
What we have now is just garbage.
We could have won the Lions series if Vunipola gets same sanction as SBW for forearm smashing a prone Beaudy Barrett in the face.
We could have won the Lions series if Sean O Brien gets red for knocking Naholo out with a swinging arm.
We could have won the Irish series if Taavao and Porter received the same sanction.
We could have won World Cup final if Cane and Kolisi received the same sanction.
Etc etc etc.
I don’t forget, but officialdom and opposition fans seem to.
The Irish (Sexton and Murray) were the worst onfield card chasers. Hands aloft at every ruck looking for referee intervention.
Now the Irish feel aggrieved and their fans will lean on this card as the reason they lost
It’s lamentable carry on from World Rugby.
You see, this was given red at the time and I called it live as that was consistent with how it was being reffed at that point. Before the decision was made, people were calling me an idiot and saying i didn't understand rugby if i thought that would be a red.
I don't think that would be given as a red today, they would look harder for mitigation. I think it would be more likely decided a rugby incident with two players going for a bouncing ball, maybe a penalty for high contact but mitigated because the Irish player dipped to collect the ball, or because Steward looked like he was pulling out of the contact / bracing for contact etc.
The lack of consistent application of the decision making process is the problem but that is in part because of how fans reacted to individual decisions feeling unfair.
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
-
@Jet said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Genuine question, not stirring the pot.
So please take a moment before knee jerking down my throat.
If Roigard had passed behind the oncoming BB, with BB acting as the dummy runner, and BB had clattered into Beirne is that a penalty against BB for obstruction or a penalty against Beirne for ‘tackling’ the man (BB) without the ball?
We had an iteration of that when Freddie Steward and Hugo Keenan collided.
Whomever hits the other in the head (regardless of game state) gets sent off. It’s that simple.
Forward pass, dummy runners etc etc are all red herrings. Don’t hit the other lad in the head. That’s the point of all this nonsense in the first place. To protect the head.
For the record I’m from the “it’s not tiddlywinks” school of hard knocks. I don’t think anyone should be sent off bar ripping out someone’s testicle.
But if you send off one of my lads this week , I expect to see the lad from the opposition sent off the next week if he does a version of the same offense. And I expect fans of that team to go “fair enough”.
What we have now is just garbage.
We could have won the Lions series if Vunipola gets same sanction as SBW for forearm smashing a prone Beaudy Barrett in the face.
We could have won the Lions series if Sean O Brien gets red for knocking Naholo out with a swinging arm.
We could have won the Irish series if Taavao and Porter received the same sanction.
We could have won World Cup final if Cane and Kolisi received the same sanction.
Etc etc etc.
I don’t forget, but officialdom and opposition fans seem to.
The Irish (Sexton and Murray) were the worst onfield card chasers. Hands aloft at every ruck looking for referee intervention.
Now the Irish feel aggrieved and their fans will lean on this card as the reason they lost
It’s lamentable carry on from World Rugby.
You see, this was given red at the time and I called it live as that was consistent with how it was being reffed at that point. Before the decision was made, people were calling me an idiot and saying i didn't understand rugby if i thought that would be a red.
I don't think that would be given as a red today, they would look harder for mitigation. I think it would be more likely decided a rugby incident with two players going for a bouncing ball, maybe a penalty for high contact but mitigated because the Irish player dipped to collect the ball, or because Steward looked like he was pulling out of the contact / bracing for contact etc.
The lack of consistent application of the decision making process is the problem but that is in part because of how fans reacted to individual decisions feeling unfair.
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
-
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
and if i step out of the 'is it red or not in the context of the current rules' and think about 'should that be a red' then I am in favour of more mitigation being applied. It is somewhat inevitable that with more mitigation, then the clear lines between what is and isn't red get more blurred.
In the WC Final, from memory I didn't think Kolisi would be sent off when i saw it live but did think Cane would be - but had it happened earlier that year they both would have been.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
and if i step out of the 'is it red or not in the context of the current rules' and think about 'should that be a red' then I am in favour of more mitigation being applied. It is somewhat inevitable that with more mitigation, then the clear lines between what is and isn't red get more blurred.
In the WC Final, from memory I didn't think Kolisi would be sent off when i saw it live but did think Cane would be - but had it happened earlier that year they both would have been.
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
and if i step out of the 'is it red or not in the context of the current rules' and think about 'should that be a red' then I am in favour of more mitigation being applied. It is somewhat inevitable that with more mitigation, then the clear lines between what is and isn't red get more blurred.
In the WC Final, from memory I didn't think Kolisi would be sent off when i saw it live but did think Cane would be - but had it happened earlier that year they both would have been.
I've watched them both again recently for some reason. I'm genuinely baffled how Kolisi didn't get a red for leading with his head. That happens now - red, that happens before the final - red.
I remember watching a tik tok, pommy accented dude
,where he went out of his way to claim no mitigation for Kriel changing direction but that there was all sorts of mitigation in Kolisi's tackle including that the head contact was indirect, I guess head to head doesn't count if you also hit on the shoulder. What's even worse is that Kolisi had come in on a straight line from quite a distance, meanwhile Cane was tracking across field and Kriel turned in after he was running the opposite way.Actually I think I need to leave this discussion, I'll just wind up hating rugby again at this rate.
-
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
and if i step out of the 'is it red or not in the context of the current rules' and think about 'should that be a red' then I am in favour of more mitigation being applied. It is somewhat inevitable that with more mitigation, then the clear lines between what is and isn't red get more blurred.
In the WC Final, from memory I didn't think Kolisi would be sent off when i saw it live but did think Cane would be - but had it happened earlier that year they both would have been.
I've watched them both again recently for some reason. I'm genuinely baffled how Kolisi didn't get a red for leading with his head. That happens now - red, that happens before the final - red.
I remember watching a tik tok, pommy accented dude
,where he went out of his way to claim no mitigation for Kriel changing direction but that there was all sorts of mitigation in Kolisi's tackle including that the head contact was indirect, I guess head to head doesn't count if you also hit on the shoulder. What's even worse is that Kolisi had come in on a straight line from quite a distance, meanwhile Cane was tracking across field and Kriel turned in after he was running the opposite way.Actually I think I need to leave this discussion, I'll just wind up hating rugby again at this rate.
@Nepia said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Dodge said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
As it happens, I still think the Cane tackle would be red today.
Agree.
I’m not sure consistency is the problem, but what has evolved is the fine lines from incident to incident. They’ve tied themselves in knots somewhat.
and if i step out of the 'is it red or not in the context of the current rules' and think about 'should that be a red' then I am in favour of more mitigation being applied. It is somewhat inevitable that with more mitigation, then the clear lines between what is and isn't red get more blurred.
In the WC Final, from memory I didn't think Kolisi would be sent off when i saw it live but did think Cane would be - but had it happened earlier that year they both would have been.
I've watched them both again recently for some reason. I'm genuinely baffled how Kolisi didn't get a red for leading with his head. That happens now - red, that happens before the final - red.
I remember watching a tik tok, pommy accented dude
,where he went out of his way to claim no mitigation for Kriel changing direction but that there was all sorts of mitigation in Kolisi's tackle including that the head contact was indirect, I guess head to head doesn't count if you also hit on the shoulder. What's even worse is that Kolisi had come in on a straight line from quite a distance, meanwhile Cane was tracking across field and Kriel turned in after he was running the opposite way.Actually I think I need to leave this discussion, I'll just wind up hating rugby again at this rate.
The only way to do this is for head contact to be all red, all yellow, penalty only or nothing.
If ruling out head injuries in the goal, then just ref them all the same.
I have zero problem with Cane getting his red card in the RWC final.
BUT... I should have been sat with a Springbok fan with a beer saying "Jesus that was mental eh, both our captains sent off in the World Cup final".
Instead our fella gets marched, and theirs stays on to lift the trophy.
And im sat there thinking "what have I just watched?".
Wayne Barnes and Tom Foley decided the outcome of that game in the most random arbitrary fashion.
Particularly so, when Foley interjected for absolutely everything, going back phase after phase to rule out tries, bar Ardie Savea's legal turnover, which ultimately cost us the game points wise.
If we want NFL level pedantry and slo mo's then every decision needs the same microscopic scrutiny or at least the availability of a coaches challenge.
Spurious or ad-hoc pedantry just winds everyone up and is patently unfair in its implementation.
Otherwise put your whistle away and let it flow.
Rugby is a fabulous sport, but I wouldnt want to play the current version of it.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
In my day, an M-1 or M-2 had to go across the chest of the ‘missed’ player, not his arse
Christ that's not been the case since I started playing, so you're going back more than 40 years to justify this incident?
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
In my day, an M-1 or M-2 had to go across the chest of the ‘missed’ player, not his arse
Christ that's not been the case since I started playing, so you're going back more than 40 years to justify this incident?
I’m not trying to justify this incident
I’m trying to get a sense of what the officials are looking at
