Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final
-
@Siam said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Winger No real debate about the decisions - some questions about the laws though
Peyper put in a good shift...for a refI watched the replay in slow motion . When Havili jumped it was impossible for the Lions players to avoid him. He basically jumped into the lions player at the very last minute. and jumped forward into him at head shoulder level. If the lions player had jumped and Havilli hadn't the same thing would have happened. so the reckless player was Havilli not the lion. But the key is lets not yet these decision ruin games as this red card did. Make red a lesser penalty so ref decision = 10 minutes then a replacement.
edit Crucial said the same thing below. but I don't feel the decision was correct
-
@Siam said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Winger No real debate about the decisions - some questions about the laws though
Peyper put in a good shift...for a refI watched the replay in slow motion . When Havili jumped it was impossible for the Lions players to avoid him. He basically jumped into the lions player at the very last minute. and jumped forward into him at head shoulder level. If the lions player had jumped and Havilli hadn't the same thing would have happened. so the reckless player was Havilli not the lion. But the key is lets not yet these decision ruin games as this red card did. Make red a lesser penalty so ref decision = 10 minutes then a replacement.
edit Crucial said the same thing below. but I don't feel the decision was correct
@Winger said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
I watched the replay in slow motion . When Havili jumped it was impossible for the Lions players to avoid him. He basically jumped into the lions player at the very last minute. and jumped forward into him at head shoulder level.
Can't you leave your attention seeking at your conspiracy theories? It was a red card every day of the week.
-
@Siam I just can't understand this need to see the player's as blameless and devoid of responsibility. Why was it the administration's fault? Looked very, very similar to Smith out on the field, odd. Was he being controlled by the administration? Or could he have taken more care?
@Bones said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Siam I just can't understand this need to see the player's as blameless and devoid of responsibility. Why was it the administration's fault? Looked very, very similar to Smith out on the field, odd. Was he being controlled by the administration? Or could he have taken more care?
it's contentious because unlike foul play red cards, there are two players contributing to the situation and also there's a huge subjective element for such a harsh penalty
and
the after the fact analysis of how he landed is entirely arbitrary to the actions of the transgressor and determines his sanction - that's spuriousergo administrators gave us this edict and it's pretty irrational and inconsistent
Whereas a red card kick or knee or punch is only really one way traffic
-
@Winger
When I wrote your first post, I thought you were joking. But it seems you are not !
Havili was jumping towards the ball (look at his eyes), not towards Smith's head. Peyper did what he had to do : to show a red card to Kwagga Smith. -
There have been several games this season where players got their timing exactly right and tackled the jumping player as soon as his feet touched the ground; often because the player arriving last held back in time. It's a matter of anticipating what is going to happen if there is a high kick. Kwagga Smith could have and should have anticipated that Havili was going for the ball and was going to jump. It was also clear he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball himself and he should have held back until Havili had landed. He didn't hold back; just moved his arms forward in the last second before impact. No way the ball was in the middle between both players.
-
Here's an example from the Jaguares v Lions game (round 3) where the jumper is penalised because he got his timing wrong; the "victim" wasn't jumping (or had already landed after something that can hardly be called a jump). I hope the link works:
http://www.espn.com.ar/video/clip?id=3025524
If I remember it correctly, Sánchez was yellow carded for this incident. However, he was cited and received a one-week suspension.
-
There have been several games this season where players got their timing exactly right and tackled the jumping player as soon as his feet touched the ground; often because the player arriving last held back in time. It's a matter of anticipating what is going to happen if there is a high kick. Kwagga Smith could have and should have anticipated that Havili was going for the ball and was going to jump. It was also clear he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball himself and he should have held back until Havili had landed. He didn't hold back; just moved his arms forward in the last second before impact. No way the ball was in the middle between both players.
-
Here's an example from the Jaguares v Lions game (round 3) where the jumper is penalised because he got his timing wrong; the "victim" wasn't jumping (or had already landed after something that can hardly be called a jump). I hope the link works:
http://www.espn.com.ar/video/clip?id=3025524
If I remember it correctly, Sánchez was yellow carded for this incident. However, he was cited and received a one-week suspension.
-
There have been several games this season where players got their timing exactly right and tackled the jumping player as soon as his feet touched the ground; often because the player arriving last held back in time. It's a matter of anticipating what is going to happen if there is a high kick. Kwagga Smith could have and should have anticipated that Havili was going for the ball and was going to jump. It was also clear he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball himself and he should have held back until Havili had landed. He didn't hold back; just moved his arms forward in the last second before impact. No way the ball was in the middle between both players.
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
There have been several games this season where players got their timing exactly right and tackled the jumping player as soon as his feet touched the ground; often because the player arriving last held back in time. It's a matter of anticipating what is going to happen if there is a high kick. Kwagga Smith could have and should have anticipated that Havili was going for the ball and was going to jump. It was also clear he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball himself and he should have held back until Havili had landed. He didn't hold back; just moved his arms forward in the last second before impact. No way the ball was in the middle between both players.
That is a dreadful challenge and I can understand the red card. Havili never took his eyes off the ball, had it in his grasp when Smith took him out. It was clumsy, it was dangerous, and you can't do that under the current law interpretations
-
At the time I thought it was a clear red.
To be fair, though, the slow mo doesn't show definitively what Smith was doing just before the jump. Tafua was also in the vicinity (but turned away) and a number of players were moving towards the play. Was Smith challenging? Not sure he was. I think he put his hands up at least in part as self protection.
Would like to see slo mo/replay of Smith in second before impact.
And if he wasn't trying to challenge, what WAS he meant to do: catch Havelli in his arms, dive out of the way?
So maybe not as clear cut as it seemed at the time? -
Using the patented play pause technique on the YouTube clip it seems Smith propped when Havili jumped. I don't think he challenged. But to be honest it all happened so quickly I'm not sure Smith had time to think. He certainly was too slow to avoid being smacked in the way through.
So, whilst the red seems correct under the guidelines, it seems doubtful to me that Smith could have done much differently. In which case an accident, not reckless and not a situation where protocol ought to be mandatory red.
Which begs the question of the jumper... -
This post is deleted!
-
At the time I thought it was a clear red.
To be fair, though, the slow mo doesn't show definitively what Smith was doing just before the jump. Tafua was also in the vicinity (but turned away) and a number of players were moving towards the play. Was Smith challenging? Not sure he was. I think he put his hands up at least in part as self protection.
Would like to see slo mo/replay of Smith in second before impact.
And if he wasn't trying to challenge, what WAS he meant to do: catch Havelli in his arms, dive out of the way?
So maybe not as clear cut as it seemed at the time? -
There was a play during the game that Tamanivalu kicked an up and under, chased and then he and one of the Lions both jumped to challenge for the ball.
I must admit that I held my breath thinking Setu was not going to make it and would up end some Lions player. But it showed exactly how those plays can be a fair contest for both sides with both players in the air. A good hard challenge.
Smith got not only his timing completely wrong but failed to contest the ball. The result of which went from just not only dangerous but to reckless. The impact of the fall and how Havili landed is important as is the case of a dangerous tackle.
Smith should've jumped and challenged for the ball if he was in the vicinity. He failed to contest or play for the ball and rugby is about the contest.
-
There was a play during the game that Tamanivalu kicked an up and under, chased and then he and one of the Lions both jumped to challenge for the ball.
I must admit that I held my breath thinking Setu was not going to make it and would up end some Lions player. But it showed exactly how those plays can be a fair contest for both sides with both players in the air. A good hard challenge.
Smith got not only his timing completely wrong but failed to contest the ball. The result of which went from just not only dangerous but to reckless. The impact of the fall and how Havili landed is important as is the case of a dangerous tackle.
Smith should've jumped and challenged for the ball if he was in the vicinity. He failed to contest or play for the ball and rugby is about the contest.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Smith should've jumped and challenged for the ball if he was in the vicinity. He failed to contest or play for the ball and rugby is about the contest.
This - if you charge at full speed towards a high kick and don't jump, all you're going to be able to do in the play is make the tackle, and he royally fucked it up.
Nothing controversial about it.
-
During the match, they had a stat up for the Crusaders that this is their 17th win on the trot? Didn't they lose to the canes a few weeks back?
@Hooroo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
During the match, they had a stat up for the Crusaders that this is their 17th win on the trot? Didn't they lose to the canes a few weeks back?
Round robin: 14 wins - one loss
QF: win
SF: win
F: winTotal: 17 wins
