Chiefs v Blues
-
The severity of the sanction is entirely due to the definition of a dangerous tackle from the 3rd of January. The type of tackle for which Luatua was sent off is considered a dangerous tackle since that date. The World Rugby Lawbook literally says that "A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction." (Law No. 10.4(e)) The mid-range penalty for dangerous tackles is 6 weeks. That's World Rugby legislation. SANZAAR has to apply that law. No room for conspiracy theories here.
I bet Luatua has shown early remorse and apologised, and I assume he has a reasonably clean sheet, which will have led to a two week deduction. Result: four weeks.
-
The severity of the sanction is entirely due to the definition of a dangerous tackle from the 3rd of January. The type of tackle for which Luatua was sent off is considered a dangerous tackle since that date. The World Rugby Lawbook literally says that "A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction." (Law No. 10.4(e)) The mid-range penalty for dangerous tackles is 6 weeks. That's World Rugby legislation. SANZAAR has to apply that law. No room for conspiracy theories here.
I bet Luatua has shown early remorse and apologised, and I assume he has a reasonably clean sheet, which will have led to a two week deduction. Result: four weeks.
@Stargazer said in Chiefs v Blues:
The severity of the sanction is entirely due to the definition of a dangerous tackle from the 3rd of January. The type of tackle for which Luatua was sent off is considered a dangerous tackle since that date. The World Rugby Lawbook literally says that "A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction." (Law No. 10.4(e)) The mid-range penalty for dangerous tackles is 6 weeks. That's World Rugby legislation. SANZAAR has to apply that law. No room for conspiracy theories here.
I bet Luatua has shown early remorse and apologised, and I assume he has a reasonably clean sheet, which will have led to a two week deduction. Result: four weeks.
Yep, that all makes sense. No conspiracy, just that the definition change has resulted in some instances rising from a 10 minute spell to a RC and baseline 4 weeks. That's a crazy jump in definition of dangerous.
It's the equivalent of dropping drink driving thresholds to minimal levels so someone that was previously considered worthy of a word of warning for being just under the limit is now banned from driving. -
Going to be a lot of players having holidays if that's the standard.
Nobody to blame but himself, but I'm willing to bet we won't see consistency for this sort of thing.
@Kirwan You got that right!
-
@Stargazer said in Chiefs v Blues:
The severity of the sanction is entirely due to the definition of a dangerous tackle from the 3rd of January. The type of tackle for which Luatua was sent off is considered a dangerous tackle since that date. The World Rugby Lawbook literally says that "A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction." (Law No. 10.4(e)) The mid-range penalty for dangerous tackles is 6 weeks. That's World Rugby legislation. SANZAAR has to apply that law. No room for conspiracy theories here.
I bet Luatua has shown early remorse and apologised, and I assume he has a reasonably clean sheet, which will have led to a two week deduction. Result: four weeks.
Yep, that all makes sense. No conspiracy, just that the definition change has resulted in some instances rising from a 10 minute spell to a RC and baseline 4 weeks. That's a crazy jump in definition of dangerous.
It's the equivalent of dropping drink driving thresholds to minimal levels so someone that was previously considered worthy of a word of warning for being just under the limit is now banned from driving.@Crucial I agree. What's important too is whether the ref considers contact with the head accidental (minimum sanction: penalty) or reckless (minimum YC, maximum RC), but even then, I assume the Citing Commissioner will be able to cite a player if he doesn't agree with the ref's assessment that a tackle is 'only' accidental. It's here where the inconsistencies may come in. You can also count on it that you're more likely to get red in the NH than in the SH.
-
Here is the summary:
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee of Nigel Hampton QC (Chairman), Stefan Terblanche and John Langford assessed the case.
In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following:
“Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the Player and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the red-carding of the Player under Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent”
“With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid range entry point of 6 weeks. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player’s early admission of guilt and his remorse for his actions, the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension by 2 weeks.”
“The player is therefore suspended for 4 weeks, up to and including Saturday 1 April 2017.”
-
-
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
@Crash said in Chiefs v Blues:
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
??
So you feel bans should be discontinued because it punishes the team.
No doubt you vote greens too.
-
A lot of people believe Luatua's card cost the Blues the game. If that's the case then the onfield punishment was massive for the whole organisation. I wish they would take the punishment already dished out when handing out the ban.
@Milk said in Chiefs v Blues:
A lot of people believe Luatua's card cost the Blues the game. If that's the case then the onfield punishment was massive for the whole organisation. I wish they would take the punishment already dished out when handing out the ban.
I agree with the sentiment but that adds whole new levels of subjectivity around the effect on the game and another level of unfairness depending on when in the game an offence occurred
-
I dont have a problem with Luatuas card given the new law,
But have concerns at what point they draw the line as to who stays on the field in the near future ,
I can imagine a send off in a really big game happening soon such as a lions test in a nothing incident that will probably ruin the game ,
That worrys me
-
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
-
its more the fans I feel for when a RC is issued early in a match that effectively ruins the contest, they pay money to watch the game and it is then for all intents and purposes ruined...but we don't wanna end up in a situation where the public turned against David Beckham all those years ago either
-
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
-
@Crash said in Chiefs v Blues:
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
Que?
Team game.
Blues dumb enough to select someone dumb enough to do what he did
@booboo said in Chiefs v Blues:
@Crash said in Chiefs v Blues:
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
Que?
Team game.
Blues dumb enough to select someone dumb enough to do what he did
Taking notes over here, I expect to see no squealing when it happens to your team. And with this new Law it's going to happen to most.
-
@booboo said in Chiefs v Blues:
@Crash said in Chiefs v Blues:
Why should the Blues be made to pay for what was ultimately Luatua's own reckless stupidity?
Que?
Team game.
Blues dumb enough to select someone dumb enough to do what he did
Taking notes over here, I expect to see no squealing when it happens to your team. And with this new Law it's going to happen to most.
@Kirwan
I don't get that though? It's a damn daft thing to say 'why does the team get penalised for action on one person'(sic)It would not surprise me if Messam ends up wtih something similar but that is rugby, one persons actions always has an inmpact on the team
-
I don't watch NH rugby so I have no idea if the new rules are being policed consistently between the hemispheres, but I have been thinking up until now the new head high laws haven't affected the games as much as I thought they would. And mainly because I am pessimistic bastard, this worries me. Are we seeing a difference in interpretation between NH and SH refs? Will we get a rude shock during the Lions series when/if interpretations are more in line with the NH? I would fucking hate it if the Lions series was shrouded in controversy over this.
-
@Kirwan
I don't get that though? It's a damn daft thing to say 'why does the team get penalised for action on one person'(sic)It would not surprise me if Messam ends up wtih something similar but that is rugby, one persons actions always has an inmpact on the team
@Hooroo said in Chiefs v Blues:
@Kirwan
I don't get that though? It's a damn daft thing to say 'why does the team get penalised for action on one person'(sic)It would not surprise me if Messam ends up wtih something similar but that is rugby, one persons actions always has an inmpact on the team
I completely disagree with the sentiment of "why is the team getting penalised".
I do, however, think that a RC was more than enough of a punishment for that tackle. To add on potentially six weeks (reduced by two) is massive overkill.
If that's the standard (and I truely doubt it is, I expect to see massive inconsistency), then I expect to see bans like that every couple of weeks.
