European Club Rugby
-
Looking at the video rather than selective screenshots, what nails Pisi is the he turns his back on the collision. It's difficult to argue going for the ball or managing the collision safely in that position. This is not arguing whether the decision was right but under the current guidance to refs it was a red all day long.
-
Looking at the video rather than selective screenshots, what nails Pisi is the he turns his back on the collision. It's difficult to argue going for the ball or managing the collision safely in that position. This is not arguing whether the decision was right but under the current guidance to refs it was a red all day long.
@Catogrande dunno, I reckon as he leaps he then realises, too late he isnt gonna get it first, so braces for the impact.
-
@Catogrande dunno, I reckon as he leaps he then realises, too late he isnt gonna get it first, so braces for the impact.
@taniwharugby Yeah, I'd agree TR but this then means he is not then paying due care and attention to the collision (under the current guidelines). So he's almost automatically a goner. Similar to the Daly red v Argentina. Can't really argue with either..
Whether that's right or wrong is another matter.
-
@taniwharugby Yeah, I'd agree TR but this then means he is not then paying due care and attention to the collision (under the current guidelines). So he's almost automatically a goner. Similar to the Daly red v Argentina. Can't really argue with either..
Whether that's right or wrong is another matter.
@Catogrande From that point of argument, your not wrong.
But it's wrong that it's gotten to the point that you have to think about how you jump to catch a ball to avoid being sent off. Not penalised, not yellow carded, sent off.
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
-
@Catogrande From that point of argument, your not wrong.
But it's wrong that it's gotten to the point that you have to think about how you jump to catch a ball to avoid being sent off. Not penalised, not yellow carded, sent off.
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
@MajorRage Yep, IMO you're right but it is two different arguments at the moment.
- Was the Pisi incident a red card? yes.
- Are the laws and guidelines around contest for the ball in the air fair to both sides? No
The real poser though is how to make the answer to question 2 a yes.
This sort of thing was never much of an issue back in the day and I've been wondering why that was so. Jumping for the ball was always allowed (I think) and it was certainly prevalent in AFL. So it's not a new thing. Perhaps it is the effect of more intensified coaching, where the coaches feel they can have an immediate impact, sort of "if you jump higher, you'll either get the ball or win a penalty. So that's what you must do". Dunno but maybe blokes didn't used to do this because it is potentially dangerous?
-
@Catogrande has it right IMO.
Personally I think that WR has gone about trying to change thinks for the right reasons but in a clumsy way just as the new tackle laws will play out.
Instead of looking for a solution to a normal part of playing the game that has become dangerous due to the increased abilities and strength of players, they have thrown all responsibility to foresee outcomes on the players. The odd cynical act aside most accidents are happening when two players have both calculated in their own minds that they have the best chance in a competition (isn't that what sport is about?). They are being forced to throw the dice in a normal act of playing the game.
One simple rule change could reduce the number of these accidents and that is to make it that the onside player closest to the place the ball comes down at the time it is kicked has first rights to the ball. If you want to kick and chase then you need to time your run to cover the player on the ground and not take a flying leap at the incoming ball. Defensively midfield bombs would then be encouraged to be taken by any player close by rather than an outside back steaming into the picture from behind.
-
Our sport is getting fucked up when a guy jumping forward with his knee raised is considered fine but a guy who arrives at the ball at the same time is red carded because he turned to shield himself from impact.
Or Pisi did it all deliberately as Bones is implying.
-
@MajorRage Yep, IMO you're right but it is two different arguments at the moment.
- Was the Pisi incident a red card? yes.
- Are the laws and guidelines around contest for the ball in the air fair to both sides? No
The real poser though is how to make the answer to question 2 a yes.
This sort of thing was never much of an issue back in the day and I've been wondering why that was so. Jumping for the ball was always allowed (I think) and it was certainly prevalent in AFL. So it's not a new thing. Perhaps it is the effect of more intensified coaching, where the coaches feel they can have an immediate impact, sort of "if you jump higher, you'll either get the ball or win a penalty. So that's what you must do". Dunno but maybe blokes didn't used to do this because it is potentially dangerous?
@Catogrande 3 really - the "pisi took him out" argument, i.e it wasn't a collision from 2 guys going for the ball.
But to argue the world rugby stance - I think the whole things bullshit. yes, there has been accidents here and though, but it's a contact sport. Surely having 8 strong guys pushing against each creates much more danger for the props/hookers of the world than the collisions in the air. Why aren't world rugby ruling out scrums then? Surely thats safer?
World Rugby have completely fucked this up in my opinion.
Penalise - sure. Yellow Card for obvious, ok I get that. But straight red card. Nup, fuck that.
-
Aki not declaring for Ireland reeks of a negotiation tactic. To squeeze the last few euros out of them that he can.
Nothing more he won't come back to NZ where he has no guarantee of anything and won't play for peanuts for Samoa.
Just his agent earning his paycheck if you ask me.
-
@Catogrande From that point of argument, your not wrong.
But it's wrong that it's gotten to the point that you have to think about how you jump to catch a ball to avoid being sent off. Not penalised, not yellow carded, sent off.
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
@Catogrande From that point of argument, your not wrong.
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
Difference is you can get serious long term injury - especially to the neck, from being taken out in the air, not so much from a punch in the face.
All the law changes are aimed at stoping the really bad injuries - the tackle area will move down due to the increase in high front on tackles meaning head clashes keep happening, the neck roll thing came in to help rucks, the bomb issue to stop guys landing on their head from 5 feet up etc.
Its all about stopping someone eventually breaking his neck in a test. Or George North being a vegetable by 28. Go back to the 80's & early 90's guys got punched a LOT, and rucked shitless, but there were less injuries because most tackles were low, guys were smaller, jumping & catching was only done by Tim Horan, no one got lifted (and dropped) etc.
-
Aki not declaring for Ireland reeks of a negotiation tactic. To squeeze the last few euros out of them that he can.
Nothing more he won't come back to NZ where he has no guarantee of anything and won't play for peanuts for Samoa.
Just his agent earning his paycheck if you ask me.
@mooshld said in NH club rugby:
Aki not declaring for Ireland reeks of a negotiation tactic. To squeeze the last few euros out of them that he can.
Nothing more he won't come back to NZ where he has no guarantee of anything and won't play for peanuts for Samoa.
Just his agent earning his paycheck if you ask me.
Not at all. He's signed a new contract - there isn't anything to squeeze. Player payments for test matches are fixed team amounts, there is no difference in these either. He could declare for Samoa and there would be nothing to stop him contractually.
-
If he declared for Samoa and played for them this June that may mess with the Irish Qualified Quota in the Connacht squad and see him asked to leave as Ruan Pienaar was at Ulster. So he could force the IRFU's hand to get himself removed from a team he no longer wants to play for.
And with a juicy Top 14 contract dangled in front of him then a couple of Tests for the Manu this year could be just the ticket out of Galway.
@Wurzel said in NH club rugby:
If he declared for Samoa and played for them this June that may mess with the Irish Qualified Quota in the Connacht squad and see him asked to leave as Ruan Pienaar was at Ulster. So he could force the IRFU's hand to get himself removed from a team he no longer wants to play for.
And with a juicy Top 14 contract dangled in front of him then a couple of Tests for the Manu this year could be just the ticket out of Galway.
Connacht does not have quotas. The Player Succession Strategy applies to Leinster, Munster and Ulster only. The new policy is to find and develop Irish qualified players. All provincial coaches have now said this in media in the last couple of months.
What it might do is if he became a NIQ player then his contract could not be renewed in 2020 in line with current foreign player contract policy. If he doesn't want to play for Connacht any more, then he's got a problem on his hands but the IRFU couldn't afford to leave him sitting there or have a Goosen situation on their hands. They could just insist a Top14/English team to buy him out of his contract. -
The other obvious thing he will have to weigh up is how long he thinks an international career for Ireland would last. If he feels that he may be a stopgap player and would rather play for Manu Samoa and probably go to a RWC then he may take that route rather than become the guy that plays a couple of games and goes the rest of his career without international play.
You would think this scenario would have to be tied up with a good T14 contract though as playing for MS doesn't exactly pay the bills. -
@Catogrande From that point of argument, your not wrong.
But it's wrong that it's gotten to the point that you have to think about how you jump to catch a ball to avoid being sent off. Not penalised, not yellow carded, sent off.
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
No it's not. Pisi got sanctioned for recklessly creating the scenario where the guy actually going for the ball ended up in a very dangerous position. It's got nothing at all to do with how high he jumped. That's like saying a guy getting a red for a shoulder charge got carded for attempting a tackle, it's not his fault the tacklee didn't make himself hit the guys arms first is it?
-
In other (unconfirmed) news: according to L'Equipe, Clermont considers signing Stephen Brett as injury replacement player for injured first-five Patricio Fernandez (out for 10 weeks), and possibly also to replace Camille Lopez if the latter is named in the French team for the 6 Nations. Brett now plays for Narbonne in the Pro D2 competition.
-
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
No it's not. Pisi got sanctioned for recklessly creating the scenario where the guy actually going for the ball ended up in a very dangerous position. It's got nothing at all to do with how high he jumped. That's like saying a guy getting a red for a shoulder charge got carded for attempting a tackle, it's not his fault the tacklee didn't make himself hit the guys arms first is it?
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
No it's not. Pisi got sanctioned for recklessly creating the scenario where the guy actually going for the ball ended up in a very dangerous position. It's got nothing at all to do with how high he jumped. That's like saying a guy getting a red for a shoulder charge got carded for attempting a tackle, it's not his fault the tacklee didn't make himself hit the guys arms first is it?
Sorry Bones I think you have gone all Winger on us on this one. I get your pov but you seem fixated on dispelling any concept that, however poorly, Pisi was actually trying to catch the ball while totally ignoring that the 'victim' (under current ruling) is entitled to place himself in a position of high risk knowing that another player was likely to enter the same area.
-
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
No it's not. Pisi got sanctioned for recklessly creating the scenario where the guy actually going for the ball ended up in a very dangerous position. It's got nothing at all to do with how high he jumped. That's like saying a guy getting a red for a shoulder charge got carded for attempting a tackle, it's not his fault the tacklee didn't make himself hit the guys arms first is it?
Sorry Bones I think you have gone all Winger on us on this one. I get your pov but you seem fixated on dispelling any concept that, however poorly, Pisi was actually trying to catch the ball while totally ignoring that the 'victim' (under current ruling) is entitled to place himself in a position of high risk knowing that another player was likely to enter the same area.
@Crucial said in NH club rugby:
@Bones said in NH club rugby:
@MajorRage said in NH club rugby:
The sanction, for punching a bloke in the face off the ball, is the same for not jumping high enough to catch a ball.
No it's not. Pisi got sanctioned for recklessly creating the scenario where the guy actually going for the ball ended up in a very dangerous position. It's got nothing at all to do with how high he jumped. That's like saying a guy getting a red for a shoulder charge got carded for attempting a tackle, it's not his fault the tacklee didn't make himself hit the guys arms first is it?
Sorry Bones I think you have gone all Winger on us on this one. I get your pov but you seem fixated on dispelling any concept that, however poorly, Pisi was actually trying to catch the ball while totally ignoring that the 'victim' (under current ruling) is entitled to place himself in a position of high risk knowing that another player was likely to enter the same area.
Well no, the 'victim' was trying to collect the ball fair and square. Just like in the other scenario I posed where the'victim' was trying to run the ball. The guy doing the shoulder charge wasn't at fault right? How could he be, it's just the 'victim' didn't run into contact correctly.
-
Running the ball is a standard part of the game and the many risks are understood and mitigated (although the current mitigations on head contact are yet to be proved effective). Although the professional game has brought in bigger players and harder impacts you can train to take those impacts.
Jumping for the ball and placing your centre of gravity above everyone else is high risk. You may not be at fault for an accident or breaking any laws but you have made a decision to increase the risk of injury to yourself.
What WR have failed to do effectively is decide how to mitigate this high risk yet legal activity. The proof is in the number of players without intent falling foul of the law when they are simply playing the game.
If you want to believe that Pisi intentionally decided to risk breaking someones neck then I won't change your mind. I just don't think that is the case. -
Running the ball is a standard part of the game and the many risks are understood and mitigated (although the current mitigations on head contact are yet to be proved effective). Although the professional game has brought in bigger players and harder impacts you can train to take those impacts.
Jumping for the ball and placing your centre of gravity above everyone else is high risk. You may not be at fault for an accident or breaking any laws but you have made a decision to increase the risk of injury to yourself.
What WR have failed to do effectively is decide how to mitigate this high risk yet legal activity. The proof is in the number of players without intent falling foul of the law when they are simply playing the game.
If you want to believe that Pisi intentionally decided to risk breaking someones neck then I won't change your mind. I just don't think that is the case.@Crucial said in NH club rugby:
If you want to believe that Pisi intentionally decided to risk breaking someones neck then I won't change your mind. I just don't think that is the case.
I don't for a second think he intentionally tried to hurt him. I think he did know he had lost the jump & took the collision to stop the oppo player galloping off down field with the ball, rather than doing everything he could to avoid the collision.
Under the new laws the emphasis is on the "losing" player to do all he can not to be in Pisi's position. And I'd argue he could have done a LOT more, but it would have handed a huge advantage to the jumper. So he didn't.
It's the same way you will often see a high shot on a player going in in the corner. The tackler has 2 options, high shot or try, so he goes high shot & pleads "it slipped up". Under the new laws thats an instant binning (at best).
-
If you have to sprint to get to the contest zone then you aren't going to be able to effectively contest against an opponent who has has had time to slow down, and maximised their vertical jump.
Coaches are going to have to stress to their players that if they are in Pisi's position, then they need to be holding off for a split second, to tackle the jumper as they hit the deck. (Done correctly this is still a good turnover opportunity).
Spear tackles are red cards, and the consequences of these incidents really are at a similar level.
