Chiefs v Blues
-
-
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.
-
@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.
@Kirwan said in Chiefs v Blues:
@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.
Agreed, it seems harsh at the moment but I think we will get used to it, hopefully. No need for that sort of thing in Rugby.
Mistakes happen etc but that was off the ball dross and if they can eliminate that play by being so tough then I am all for it.
And if another team beat Messam to the punch for the ban, then that is even better!
-
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.
@Crazy-Horse last tour here was shrouded in controversy too!
-
@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
-
@Crazy-Horse last tour here was shrouded in controversy too!
@taniwharugby yep and we all know how stupid that got!
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Blues:
Kaino should shut up and do his talking on the field.
Was dopey as hell from Luatua
