All Blacks v France Test #2
-
@billy-tell said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Luatua is SO over-rated on this forum. All this misty-eyed nostalgia. Just another player who looked good at Super Rugby level and couldn't make the step up. I'd have Vito back though for sure.
pffft hahaha really? Vito? Who has misty eyed nostalgia now? An entirely forgettable All Black.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@billy-tell said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Luatua is SO over-rated on this forum. All this misty-eyed nostalgia. Just another player who looked good at Super Rugby level and couldn't make the step up. I'd have Vito back though for sure.
pffft hahaha really? Vito? Who has misty eyed nostalgia now? An entirely forgettable All Black.
He was crap at the start but by the end a very good player. He's been in excellent form this year too. It's quite a Blues-franchise based forum this one, and the bias flows through. Luatua MAY have gone on to be the answer, but he had a nothing AB career if that is the evidence base people are basing their lamenting on.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@billy-tell said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Luatua is SO over-rated on this forum. All this misty-eyed nostalgia. Just another player who looked good at Super Rugby level and couldn't make the step up. I'd have Vito back though for sure.
pffft hahaha really? Vito? Who has misty eyed nostalgia now? An entirely forgettable All Black.
He was crap at the start but by the end a very good player. He's been in excellent form this year too. It's quite a Blues-franchise based forum this one, and the bias flows through. Luatua MAY have gone on to be the answer, but he had a nothing AB career if that is the evidence base people are basing their lamenting on.
@billy-tell said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@billy-tell said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Luatua is SO over-rated on this forum. All this misty-eyed nostalgia. Just another player who looked good at Super Rugby level and couldn't make the step up. I'd have Vito back though for sure.
pffft hahaha really? Vito? Who has misty eyed nostalgia now? An entirely forgettable All Black.
He was crap at the start but by the end a very good player. He's been in excellent form this year too. It's quite a Blues-franchise based forum this one, and the bias flows through. Luatua MAY have gone on to be the answer, but he had a nothing AB career if that is the evidence base people are basing their lamenting on.
Blues-based? haha. Take the piss out of some over-rated 'canes players and see where all the loud voices are based.
-
Luatua is SO over-rated on this forum. All this misty-eyed nostalgia. Just another player who looked good at Super Rugby level and couldn't make the step up. I'd have Vito back though for sure.
The issue with Luatua's treatment is the coaching group went with Elliot Dixon instead in 2016 (as really a reward for 2015 form) and it backfired completely.
It's a two fold fail - Dixon showed nothing and can't even start at Super level now let alone be a test player meanwhile Luatua has left.
-
Looking at that incident again, I can't see how anyone can say it wasnt a red. Yes it might have killed the game as a contest, but tough shit. I'll happily see more of that if it provides a adequate deterrent.
That ALB played a major role is complete horseshit.
-
Looking at that incident again, I can't see how anyone can say it wasnt a red. Yes it might have killed the game as a contest, but tough shit. I'll happily see more of that if it provides a adequate deterrent.
That ALB played a major role is complete horseshit.
-
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
-
wtf?? where is the mention of the player (french) NOT checking out who was also competing for the ball.
Fuck our two new strats should be bombs with the entire team chasing eyes skyward, and jumping into tackles. We will be unbeatable!!
Feel for the ref - you could clearly tell he was looking for a way to avoid a red card, but followed the rules as they've been laid out. Now we get back tracking, with some glib comments about having more time and angles etc, and confirmation that just looking at the ball is enough to avoid RC sanctions.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@gt12 said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
I'm having an afternoon at home today, so I'm planning to watch the game again, but I'd agree that he tends to make tackles, but not necessarily dominant ones. At least, that's my impression. However, I've wondered whether he is like Nayman on the Wire (season 4), where his ridiculous hairstyle makes everything he does so visible. He's clearly one of the players, who has had time invested in him, who hasn't made the next step. However, I agree that he still has the tools if he can be used right. My problem with him right now is that he seems to be hanging around looking for turnovers, when he could have a much simpler role, which is high energy tackles and runs, like a energizer Cane.
Mate, if I had the afternoon off I can think of thousands of better things to do than to watch that dross again.
Ha ha, too true, but it's pissing down with rain, I have beer, and I am genuinely interested in see how we played that badly.
-
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
@rancid-schnitzel don't think you have to bother jumping do you?
Similarly, you must now be able to get away with a shoulder charge or similar to a players head if you're able to arrive just after he's caught it after being passed by another player. Simply claim you only had eyes for the ball and it was in the air until a millisecond before you broke his jaw.
-
"Having conducted a detailed review of all the evidence available, including all video footage and additional evidence from the player and submissions from his legal representative Aaron Lloyd, the Independent Judicial Committee dismissed the red card issued by the referee," a statement issued by the New Zealand Rugby Union said.
Video footage showed Fall at all times "had his eyes on the ball whilst it was in the air, which showed, in our opinion, a clear intention, on the part of the player, that he intended to contest it," the committee found.
@tim said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
"Having conducted a detailed review of all the evidence available, including all video footage and additional evidence from the player and submissions from his legal representative Aaron Lloyd, the Independent Judicial Committee dismissed the red card issued by the referee," a statement issued by the New Zealand Rugby Union said.
Video footage showed Fall at all times "had his eyes on the ball whilst it was in the air, which showed, in our opinion, a clear intention, on the part of the player, that he intended to contest it," the committee found.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
y'all motherfuckers better start apologising...
Get fucked. World Rugby have shown themselves to be pathetic imbeciles incapable of consistency. This now sets a precedent that as long as you only ever look at the ball and would be in a position to catch it when it fell from the sky, you can blindly run into anyone and fuck the consequences.
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
-
@rancid-schnitzel don't think you have to bother jumping do you?
Similarly, you must now be able to get away with a shoulder charge or similar to a players head if you're able to arrive just after he's caught it after being passed by another player. Simply claim you only had eyes for the ball and it was in the air until a millisecond before you broke his jaw.
@bones sets a dangerous precedent for arguing this further down the track for further mid-air collisions.
-
@rancid-schnitzel don't think you have to bother jumping do you?
Similarly, you must now be able to get away with a shoulder charge or similar to a players head if you're able to arrive just after he's caught it after being passed by another player. Simply claim you only had eyes for the ball and it was in the air until a millisecond before you broke his jaw.
@bones said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel don't think you have to bother jumping do you?
Similarly, you must now be able to get away with a shoulder charge or similar to a players head if you're able to arrive just after he's caught it after being passed by another player. Simply claim you only had eyes for the ball and it was in the air until a millisecond before you broke his jaw.
Bingo.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
What a ridiculous argument.
-
I thought I must have fallen into a coma and missed this amazing international play where Luatua proved he's the answer. Rather than a patchy career where he had the odd blazing game but otherwise looked pretty ordinary. Pretty much like most of our loosies since 2015 apart from maybe Read, Cane and Todd.
But thankfully @Billy-Tell kindly pointed out there's just some amazingly Luatua tinted glasses around here.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
Beauden was fielding the kick, Fall was chasing. Duty of care is on Fall. I agree it's not a perfect system, but if what WR is saying about player safety then it's probably as good as you'll get.
But they've now just randomly thrown all that on its head, I assume because twits on twitter were outraged about something.
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@beardie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel
I'm quite uneasy at that finding. Makes deciding on similar situations harder for refs. Undercuts the protection of players emphasis that WR nailed down several years ago.Interestingly, all the panel are Aussies.
It makes zero sense and goes against everything they've been working towards recently. As @antipodean mentioned, as long as you're "looking at the ball" and make a half arse attempted jump you can legitimately take out a player in the air. How is that promoting or helping player safety?
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
Does this mean props should never be able to contest for a ball in the air because there's no chance of out jumping any other player on the field?
sounds like we need to rule out jumping for the ball to make it fair...
Beauden was fielding the kick, Fall was chasing. Duty of care is on Fall. I agree it's not a perfect system, but if what WR is saying about player safety then it's probably as good as you'll get.
But they've now just randomly thrown all that on its head, I assume because twits on twitter were outraged about something.
@no-quarter I didn't go on Facebook for about a day after the game as hadn't seen it. When I go back on I see a few posts still popping up from before the game, one that I remember being a Welsh git going "Let's see what NZ can get away with this time".
-
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
If Beauden was going to do an orthodox rugby catch to his chest, he would have been a meter to the left in this picture. As he is doing an AFL catch he starts his jump a metre closer to Fall. This has the biggest part IMO in his being cartwheeled.
The ALB push is a complete red herring.
I think IRB need to find a consistent applicable way to rule these contests. They should look to AFL and Basketball and find out how they have stopped people getting their legs chopped out from under them.
