Blues v Crusaders
-
@nzzp That's the disconnect between the Head Contact Process and the Regulations, I posted about. The Regulations don't require head contact (that's only relevant for the entry-point used for determining the length of suspension).
@stargazer weird.
I've been waiting for the decision to land at Sanzaar, but nothing yet.
https://super.rugby/superrugby/documents/judiciary/ -
@stargazer weird.
I've been waiting for the decision to land at Sanzaar, but nothing yet.
https://super.rugby/superrugby/documents/judiciary/ -
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
-
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
-
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
@kiwi_expat said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
Yep I agree totally
-
@nzzp Yeah, I'd love to read the decision, too, but they usually only publish the summaries (news releases), not the full decisions.
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yeah, I'd love to read the decision, too, but they usually only publish the summaries (news releases), not the full decisions.
that's annoying. Still I got on the SANZAAR Super website... the most recent decisions were from 2016. FML.
https://super.rugby/superrugby/news/category/other-categories/judiciary/
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yeah, I'd love to read the decision, too, but they usually only publish the summaries (news releases), not the full decisions.
that's annoying. Still I got on the SANZAAR Super website... the most recent decisions were from 2016. FML.
https://super.rugby/superrugby/news/category/other-categories/judiciary/
-
@nzzp You're looking at the wrong place. Here's the correct link.
@stargazer yeah I linked to that above. Just amused that they've got a linked section that's 5 years out of date
-
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
-
Ofa cost the game against the Aussies a few months ago. His bad habits are a problem, but the ABs have only two THPs of international calibre so he should keep on be selected again and again. Lomax is not yet ready, Angus T and Fidow cannot scrum while Jager is irish and Moli always injured (and seen as a LHP). It's urgent to give Newell and T. Williams some game time.
-
@chris In fairness to Ofa his technique was pretty good. It wasn’t a Scott Barret straight on leading with the shoulder. In my opinion incidental contact with head shouldn’t be a red.
@broughie said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris In fairness to Ofa his technique was pretty good. It wasn’t a Scott Barret straight on leading with the shoulder. In my opinion incidental contact with head shouldn’t be a red.
Ofa hardly even dipped, technique was awful. He's a prop so is used to getting low and bent over. He would have fucking creamed that guy if he'd dropped and put his shoulder through the midriff.
-
Ofa cost the game against the Aussies a few months ago. His bad habits are a problem, but the ABs have only two THPs of international calibre so he should keep on be selected again and again. Lomax is not yet ready, Angus T and Fidow cannot scrum while Jager is irish and Moli always injured (and seen as a LHP). It's urgent to give Newell and T. Williams some game time.
@cgrant said in Blues v Crusaders:
Ofa cost the game against the Aussies a few months ago. His bad habits are a problem, but the ABs have only two THPs of international calibre so he should keep on be selected again and again. Lomax is not yet ready, Angus T and Fidow cannot scrum while Jager is irish and Moli always injured (and seen as a LHP). It's urgent to give Newell and T. Williams some game time.
Careful, that is going to upset Canes4Life.
