Brumbies v Chiefs
-
<p>Pity that the Pocock incident wasn't picked up during the game. The ref knew something had happened but then the replay he was shown wasn't even of the players concerned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it was in SA I would make the cynical accusation the the TV producer was being deliberately incompetent
, but it was in Oz and the whole game looked like it was being done last minute by a team pissed off that they weren't at a Raiders game. Close up when there was need for wide shots and vice-versa.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569491" data-time="1459633557">
<div>
<p>Pity that the Pocock incident wasn't picked up during the game. The ref knew something had happened but then the replay he was shown wasn't even of the players concerned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it was in SA I would make the cynical accusation the the TV producer was being deliberately incompetent , but it was in Oz and the whole game looked like it was being done last minute by a team pissed off that they weren't at a Raiders game. Close up when there was need for wide shots and vice-versa.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Did the ref ask for the replay? They were asking for a lot of stuff during the game and looked at least one other possible choking incident by the Brumbies - are they the Storm of rugby now?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569492" data-time="1459633568"><p>
Reckless is all. Pocock ain't malicious. I prefer seeing people banned for intent.<br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Intent is pretty hard to prove without admissions. Pocock is getting a bit of history for 'reckless' acts... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569496" data-time="1459633940">
<div>
<p>Did the ref ask for the replay? They were asking for a lot of stuff during the game and looked at least one other possible choking incident by the Brumbies - are they the Storm of rugby now?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>They looked at one potential 'neck roll' as that is the foul play of focus at present. It wasn't worth pursuing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you can watch the clip in the link I posted, this was the incident when the ref asked the TMO to show the maul as Leitch had obviously been grabbed around the neck. They only showed on very brief shot which wasn't of Pocock or Leitch and decided there was nothing they could see. I think they will get marked down for missing it when all the clues were in front of them.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569492" data-time="1459633568">
<div>
<p>Reckless is all. Pocock ain't malicious. I prefer seeing people banned for intent.<br><br>
Mann-Rea only got 1 week for punching Oli Kebble square in the face repeatedly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Intent doesn't come into dangerous play at all for good reason. Judge the act then take intent into account in setting the punishment.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569499" data-time="1459634191">
<div>
<p>They looked at one potential 'neck roll' as that is the foul play of focus at present. It wasn't worth pursuing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you can watch the clip in the link I posted, this was the incident when the ref asked the TMO to show the maul as Leitch had obviously been grabbed around the neck. They only showed on very brief shot which wasn't of Pocock or Leitch and decided there was nothing they could see. I think they will get marked down for missing it when all the clues were in front of them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If they got a bad clip from the producers as you say, should they really get marked down for it? They must get some credit for noticing it? As much as he let the rucks become a free for all, and we were laying into him last night, I actually think he got better as the game went on - and he shouldn't get a black mark for something a bit out of his control, he can get his black marks for ignoring most of the laws of rucks. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569504" data-time="1459634807">
<div>
<p>If they got a bad clip from the producers as you say, should they really get marked down for it? They must get some credit for noticing it? As much as he let the rucks become a free for all, and we were laying into him last night, I actually think he got better as the game went on - and he shouldn't get a black mark for something a bit out of his control, he can get his black marks for ignoring most of the laws of rucks. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Both the ref and TMO were way to quick to move on. If he suspected something bad had happened, looked at the replay and didn't even see the player involved he should have asked if there was any shot showing white 8 in the maul.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="569501" data-time="1459634436">
<div>
<p>Just seen the highlights reel.<br><br>
Classic chiefs tries.<br><br>
Don't believe in it myself, but that right there has gotta be what they're talking about when they talk about the game they play in heaven!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If they can keep dishing up games like that I wouldn't even really care if they won the comp or not. Great entertainment.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569481" data-time="1459625428">
<div>
<p>It's way too soon to call the Chiefs favourites. Too long to go in the season. As a Crusaders fan I was surprised at our attack vs the Lions.<br><br>
I think the title will fall (as usual) to a NZ side, Chiefs or Highlanders (if their key men stay fit) or Crusaders (If the backs can kick on).<br><br>
From watching super rugby I think NZ might cream Wales.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well, someone has to be favourites. If it isn't the Chiefs, then who? Crusaders and Highlanders do both look good. The only problem is if you don't top your conference then you probably have to go on a trip to South Africa.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569492" data-time="1459633568">
<div>
<p>Reckless is all. Pocock ain't malicious. I prefer seeing people banned for intent.<br><br>
Mann-Rea only got 1 week for punching Oli Kebble square in the face repeatedly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He grabs him around the neck and holds on for a good while. You can see Leitch is trying to get himself out of that situation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mann-Rea was also red carded at the time, which is taken into account.</p> -
<p>Actually, the more I watch it the more I think Pocock should (but won't) get a decent ban out of this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He had to have known he had a player around the neck and was squeezing hard. The player was even whacking him him to tell him to let go. In a similar situation in a scrum players will even back off if they get a danger call.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He not only didn't let go he didn't even relax his hold as the situation got even more dangerous and the maul twisted and collapsed.</p> -
Maybe he mistook his neck for some mining equipment. <br><br>
If rugby was a Yank sport, Pocock would only be subbed on in defence. He does fark all on attack. -
Pocock's a saint because he hugs trees, does silent clapping on a visual media because deaf people can't work out what the fuck clapping looks like and refuses to put a ring on his girlfriend's finger because the gays can't marry. Ergo any act that looks like he's a dirty fluffybunny on the field is always out of context.<br><br>In this example he's saved Leitch's life by preventing him from swallowing something...
-
<p>What! Saint pocock surely not. HE deserves a ban for this because it is the latest in a long line of 'accidental' dirty play from him.</p>
<p>IIRC the ref only had a quick look at what was being replayed on the big screen rather than having a proper look through the TMO.</p>
<p>It's a pity because it is one of the times a proper look at an incident would have been justified.</p>
