Chiefs vs Hurricanes
-
-
@raznomore said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
Hard game to like as a canes supporter. Chiefs are now my hatiest kiwi team.
We were rightly beaten. No complaints. Good for us going forward.
I hate Liam Messam.
He water-boied the shit out of the Canes last night.
The Canes are no longer my second hatiest kiwi team, I think the stench of the Hammettuer has finally washed away.
TBF to the Canes it was a hard match for them to go in to considering they'd only had opposed training runs where the Chiefs had had tough matches against decent opposition.
-
The Perenara try was incorrectly awarded. His knee hit the ground. Should have gone to the TMO
-
@Crucial I can confirm, much to my surprise, that it actually rained in both halves of the field.
The weather was more akin to what I've seen in games from Wellington than I've ever experienced in Hamilton so don't be using that as an excuse. One team played to the conditions better and won - simple.
I haven't watched a replay of the game but I would have thought that if Leitch is cited Fatialofa should also have been.
-
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
The Perenara try was incorrectly awarded. His knee hit the ground. Should have gone to the TMO
Is this about All Bundy's touchdown?
-
@Tim said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
How the hell did he get away with that? At least one of the officials must have seen it.
-
@Bones said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
The Perenara try was incorrectly awarded. His knee hit the ground. Should have gone to the TMO
Is this about All Bundy's touchdown?
What?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel I assume you mean Bird, but I'm also looking at Retallick in this footage.
-
Re: Consistency of punishment, does anyone know if the Foul Play Review Committee publishes its full decisions? I'd love to see how they analyse the severity of offence, and, in particular, the prescribed criteria applied. Would then be able to assess consistency base on the 'official secrets' guidelines!
-
@Stargazer said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
@Rancid-Schnitzel I assume you mean Bird, but I'm also looking at Retallick in this footage.
Damn, didn't see that! Both should have been yellowed.
-
@pakman SANZAAR have a judiciary news section on their website but they haven't published the Luatua decision there at all. Planet Rugby published at least the relevant bits of the decision on their website, but I'm not sure it's the full decision.
-
@Stargazer Thanks. IMO such decisions ought to be published in full on SANZAAR website. Will take a look at Planet Rugby.
-
Low end for a shoulder to the head. What a joke.
-
A fairly simple way of comparing would be to ask which of the two tackles would one least want to be in the receiving end of. That's the one which merits four weeks. If the refs had issued the reverse cards that's what the committee would have done, notwithstanding the 'facts'!
-
@antipodean said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
Low end for a shoulder to the head. What a joke.
Thing is that once they set a precedent with Luatua the subsequent decisions need to be relative to it. Because mid entry point is four weeks (Luatua) and Leitchs one was not off the ball, swinging arm (it was a misjudged tackle that made contact with head), all they could do to reflect the lower severity was to make it a low entry (2 weeks). They are then also obliged through consistency to apply mitigation such as record.
The process is quite clear. It isn't a matter of just looking at the event and pulling a number out (which may work better sometimes)
-
@Crucial Luatua's was a misjudged tackle that made contact with the head. I don't see how buying a dummy and tackling out of suspicion gets double the punishment.
I also don't get this fascination with swinging arm; foul play in tackling is using a ‘stiff-arm tackle’. How do you not swing your arms to tackle?
Anyway, either they're concerned about head impacts or they're not, but the judiciary is consistent only in their inconsistency.
-
@antipodean said in Chiefs vs Hurricanes:
@Crucial Luatua's was a misjudged tackle that made contact with the head. I don't see how buying a dummy and tackling out of suspicion gets double the punishment.
I also don't get this fascination with swinging arm; foul play in tackling is using a ‘stiff-arm tackle’. How do you not swing your arms to tackle?
Anyway, either they're concerned about head impacts or they're not, but the judiciary is consistent only in their inconsistency.
I don't have any major issue with your view, just pointing out how the apparent disparity in punishment will occur given the way the judiciary is set up. In this case they are actually being consistent in the use of their methods, it is then the outcome which appears inconsistent.
The thing about 'swinging arm' is valid. In effect it is just like high tackles. Yes, you will often have to swing your arm to make a legal tackle but the onus is on you to ensure that you get your timing correct and don't connect only with your arm in a manner that is equivalent to a 'stiff arm' or 'striking a player with arm 10.4(a)'
That's what Luatua did. He effectively committed three crimes. Connected with a swinging arm, connected high and connected off the ball. Even if all of this is non-deliberate he has failed to take care in three different ways each of which could have been penalised on their own.The issue with the judicial methodology is that you can have two instances like this with similar outcomes but different ways of reaching it. The process goes like this.....
- judge the action(s) on a set of ordered criteria to reach a start point (low, medium, high). This includes things like intent, injury caused, amount of force, retaliation, provocation etc etc
- see if there are any Aggravating Factors. These are things like poor disciplinary record, need to stamp out act, and any 'off-field' factors (I can only guess this may mean something like evidence of bad blood between players)
- look for Mitigating Factors. These are good record, acknowledgement of wrongdoing, remorse, conduct, inexperience etc
You will see that the only factor that focuses on the act and outcome is point 1.
Once they established Luatua's one as a Mid level when there were three 'fouls' it would be pretty difficult to do anything with Leitch's except make it Low. Instantly he gets a sentence 4 weeks less before factor 2 and 3 come in.
I don't think there is a fair way under this construct they could have ended up with only one or two weeks difference between the two which is what would appear fairer. In fact they appear to have tried to bring the sentences closer by only giving Leitch one week mitigation for the same reasons Luatua got two weeks.
What would be good would be to add a step 4 now they use only one consistent judiciary across Super Rugby.
Step 4 would be to adjust the outcome of steps 1-3 for the purpose of a punishment consistent with similar offences during the competition.
