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.
@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.
-
Fall is still on the ground (he got off the ground didnt he, meaning he leapt after this contact - I know we are talking split second stuff here) when BB has been in the air for a good second or so, BB has his front knee up as you are taught, looking at that, there is no way Fall wasn't well aware of BB in his peripheral, otherwise the French need to employ Clive Woodwards spatial aareness coach.
Judiciary have made an arse of Gardner and THIER directives...
Although, has Fall been issued with a warning, maybe they issued one without publicizing it this week?
While I don't agree with the RC (due to the way it can ruin a game) the judiciary have got this completely wrong, not only with their ruling, but also the message this sends (although I don't expect we will see the levels of outrage (as in none) we would have if this was the opposite way around - I expect we'd hear more calls for assault charges, lifetime bans, probably expulsion from the next RWC due to our thuggish ways)
-
Ok World Rugby, let's dial this back a bit.
Punishments are a tool or a way to modify behaviour from undesirable and damaging to something more sustainable and in this case less dangerous.
Sometimes the punishment needs extra reinforcing to facilitate understanding and clarify the undesirable behaviour . e.g. a red card at the time and usually a suspension or fine later.
The red cards tell all players and spectators what behaviour is unwanted.
So what the fuck sort of behaviour are you fluffybunnies trying to modify
and
What behaviour outcomes are you trying to instill?Fucken imbeciles
-
Fall is still on the ground (he got off the ground didnt he, meaning he leapt after this contact - I know we are talking split second stuff here) when BB has been in the air for a good second or so, BB has his front knee up as you are taught, looking at that, there is no way Fall wasn't well aware of BB in his peripheral, otherwise the French need to employ Clive Woodwards spatial aareness coach.
Judiciary have made an arse of Gardner and THIER directives...
Although, has Fall been issued with a warning, maybe they issued one without publicizing it this week?
While I don't agree with the RC (due to the way it can ruin a game) the judiciary have got this completely wrong, not only with their ruling, but also the message this sends (although I don't expect we will see the levels of outrage (as in none) we would have if this was the opposite way around - I expect we'd hear more calls for assault charges, lifetime bans, probably expulsion from the next RWC due to our thuggish ways)
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Fall is still on the ground (he got off the ground didnt he, meaning he leapt after this contact - I know we are talking split second stuff here) when BB has been in the air for a good second or so, BB has his front knee up as you are taught, looking at that, there is no way Fall wasn't well aware of BB in his peripheral, otherwise the French need to employ Clive Woodwards spatial aareness coach.
Judiciary have made an arse of Gardner and THIER directives...
Although, has Fall been issued with a warning, maybe they issued one without publicizing it this week?
While I don't agree with the RC (due to the way it can ruin a game) the judiciary have got this completely wrong, not only with their ruling, but also the message this sends (although I don't expect we will see the levels of outrage (as in none) we would have if this was the opposite way around - I expect we'd hear more calls for assault charges, lifetime bans, probably expulsion from the next RWC due to our thuggish ways)
Edited:
From the WR Handbook:
17.9.3 Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to issue a Citing Commissioner Warning to a Player who has in his opinion committed an act(s) of Foul Play which falls just short of warranting that the Player concerned be Ordered Off in circumstances where the act of Foul Play was not subject to a Temporary Suspension or Ordering Off.Fall was ordered off and cited, so basically the case was out of the CC's hands.
-
Ok World Rugby, let's dial this back a bit.
Punishments are a tool or a way to modify behaviour from undesirable and damaging to something more sustainable and in this case less dangerous.
Sometimes the punishment needs extra reinforcing to facilitate understanding and clarify the undesirable behaviour . e.g. a red card at the time and usually a suspension or fine later.
The red cards tell all players and spectators what behaviour is unwanted.
So what the fuck sort of behaviour are you fluffybunnies trying to modify
and
What behaviour outcomes are you trying to instill?Fucken imbeciles
@siam said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Ok World Rugby, let's dial this back a bit.
Punishments are a tool or a way to modify behaviour from undesirable and damaging to something more sustainable and in this case less dangerous.
Sometimes the punishment needs extra reinforcing to facilitate understanding and clarify the undesirable behaviour . e.g. a red card at the time and usually a suspension or fine later.
The red cards tell all players and spectators what behaviour is unwanted.
So what the fuck sort of behaviour are you fluffybunnies trying to modify
and
What behaviour outcomes are you trying to instill?Fucken imbeciles
The IRB are a bunch of weak assholes. If roles were reversed and one of our guys had chopped down a French player I'm sure the outrage and calls for a lifetime ban along with clapping the player in irons would have been deafening from north of the equator. As it is Gardner is like the teacher who sent the naughty boy to the principal's office only for him to be let off Scott free. Great message of consistency to the refs
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Fall is still on the ground (he got off the ground didnt he, meaning he leapt after this contact - I know we are talking split second stuff here) when BB has been in the air for a good second or so, BB has his front knee up as you are taught, looking at that, there is no way Fall wasn't well aware of BB in his peripheral, otherwise the French need to employ Clive Woodwards spatial aareness coach.
Judiciary have made an arse of Gardner and THIER directives...
Although, has Fall been issued with a warning, maybe they issued one without publicizing it this week?
While I don't agree with the RC (due to the way it can ruin a game) the judiciary have got this completely wrong, not only with their ruling, but also the message this sends (although I don't expect we will see the levels of outrage (as in none) we would have if this was the opposite way around - I expect we'd hear more calls for assault charges, lifetime bans, probably expulsion from the next RWC due to our thuggish ways)
Edited:
From the WR Handbook:
17.9.3 Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to issue a Citing Commissioner Warning to a Player who has in his opinion committed an act(s) of Foul Play which falls just short of warranting that the Player concerned be Ordered Off in circumstances where the act of Foul Play was not subject to a Temporary Suspension or Ordering Off.Fall was ordered off and cited, so basically the case was out of the CC's hands.
-
I wonder if in their opinion, it even met YC threshold, based on their wording, you'd have to think not?
Did they just think it should be play on even?
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
I wonder if in their opinion, it even met YC threshold, based on their wording, you'd have to think not?
Did they just think it should be play on even?
Looks like another Frenchman cut a deal
-
just more evidence the refs favour the AB's, dishing out fake red cards to assist us!
