SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs
-
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
-
@snowy said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@booboo said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
Just the vibe I got from the game is I'm not as down about the All Blacks as I was. Played at pace with great skill.
Foster.
Don't buy in to the hate.
@booboo said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@snowy said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@booboo said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
Just the vibe I got from the game is I'm not as down about the All Blacks as I was. Played at pace with great skill.
Foster.
Don't buy in to the hate.
Me neither , I just don't get it.
-
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Both Nanai-Seturo's high tackles were also direct contact to the head.
-
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
There's an enormous difference between how SRA is controlled and how other Rugby competitions are currently officiated. NZ-based players, coaches and fans are going to be shocked when they encounter the rest of the world's refereeing in 2021. I suspect there will be a lot of Yellow and Red cards for what in SRA has been deemed okay.
-
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
There's an enormous difference between how SRA is controlled and how other Rugby competitions are currently officiated. NZ-based players, coaches and fans are going to be shocked when they encounter the rest of the world's refereeing in 2021. I suspect there will be a lot of Yellow and Red cards for what in SRA has been deemed okay.
-
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Both Nanai-Seturo's high tackles were also direct contact to the head.
@cantab79 said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Both Nanai-Seturo's high tackles were also direct contact to the head.
That doesn’t seem to matter as it was the chiefs so it doesn’t count apparently.
Just makes winning sweeter to stick it up the jealous bitter ones. -
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
There's an enormous difference between how SRA is controlled and how other Rugby competitions are currently officiated. NZ-based players, coaches and fans are going to be shocked when they encounter the rest of the world's refereeing in 2021. I suspect there will be a lot of Yellow and Red cards for what in SRA has been deemed okay.
@sparky said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
There's an enormous difference between how SRA is controlled and how other Rugby competitions are currently officiated. NZ-based players, coaches and fans are going to be shocked when they encounter the rest of the world's refereeing in 2021. I suspect there will be a lot of Yellow and Red cards for what in SRA has been deemed okay.
I think you're taking the sparky and being massively over dramatic on it. Our refs are massively inconsistent at the moment and it's really hard to figure out why, but watching the GP yesterday and while the ref was more consistent in his application, there wasn't any huge difference in interpretation.
-
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Wrapping the arm is the mitigation for me. Reece is trying to make a proper tackle.
-
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Wrapping the arm is the mitigation for me. Reece is trying to make a proper tackle.
@hydro11 said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
What's the deal with the reffing? There is no interpretation that allows the ref to award Reece a yellow. Direct contact to the head without a mitigating factor is red. O'Keefe seemed to say that it didn't result in serious harm and so it was just a yellow.
Wrapping the arm is the mitigation for me. Reece is trying to make a proper tackle.
Huh? It's a high tackle.
-
@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
DMac jumped.
And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.@gunner said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
DMac jumped.
And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.You know what 180 degrees is, yeah? I only just watched the highlights, but I'm sure they would have included a clip of dMac being upside down.
-
@gunner said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
DMac jumped.
And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.You know what 180 degrees is, yeah? I only just watched the highlights, but I'm sure they would have included a clip of dMac being upside down.
-
I hope to God the game was a damn sight better than the dumpster fire that is the last 5 pages of this thread
Congratulations to the Crusaders on once again being the benchmark. A great organisation that all others have to beat to become champs. It's amazing and something to admire.
I'm not sure if our Christchurch brethren of a certain age understand how many of us feel about rugby teams. If you've only known rugby since the late 90s it's been provincial, super, and international success on a reoccurring basis. Some of us only know fleeting highs among years and years of lows.
-
@mariner4life said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
I hope to God the game was a damn sight better than the dumpster fire that is the last 5 pages of this thread
Congratulations to the Crusaders on once again being the benchmark. A great organisation that all others have to beat to become champs. It's amazing and something to admire.
I'm not sure if our Christchurch brethren of a certain age understand how many of us feel about rugby teams. If you've only known rugby since the late 90s it's been provincial, super, and international success on a reoccurring basis. Some of us only know fleeting highs among years and years of lows.
I blame World Rugby.
They've massively escalated the penalties for "inaccurate play" without reflecting on or mitigating the impact on the game as a whole.
In the olden days, Cyril Brownlie's red card was handed down in folklore in the same envelope as Bob Dean's try.
Then Pinetree got a red card in about 1963 - handed out at 30+ year intervals.
Now we're litigating for two in one match - and two penalty tries with attendant yellow cards - plus maybe a few for Chiefs' head highs.
Up until the late-1960s, you weren't allowed to replace injured players - so you see quite a few international teams that got beaten in tour matches or a minnow team got close - and then read the match description and it turns out the internationals played much of the game with 13 players.
Eventually, the IRB realised that people didn't want games decided by who didn't get injured, rather than the better team winning.
I don't want to see a succession of hollow matches decided by who can keep 15 players on the park.
One obvious solution is to allow replacement of a red carded player after 10 minutes - unless he's been red-carded for an act of out and out thuggery.
But, there needs to be more review of laws and protocols - the idea that Jordan's tackle on Lowe warranted a penalty try and a yellow card is, frankly, ridiculous - but, Aaron Goile was arguing for it in the media, because "it's in the rules".
Imagine losing a World Cup final on that!!!
-
Based on matches I’ve seen in the NH this year, Reece was lucky to not see red.
Otherwise I didn’t see any major differences in the reffing (law variations excepted).
-
Based on matches I’ve seen in the NH this year, Reece was lucky to not see red.
Otherwise I didn’t see any major differences in the reffing (law variations excepted).
@billy-tell said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
Based on matches I’ve seen in the NH this year, Reece was lucky to not see red.
Otherwise I didn’t see any major differences in the reffing (law variations excepted).
Never in danger of that judging by the standards they apply to Owen Farrell.
-
@mariner4life said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
I hope to God the game was a damn sight better than the dumpster fire that is the last 5 pages of this thread
Congratulations to the Crusaders on once again being the benchmark. A great organisation that all others have to beat to become champs. It's amazing and something to admire.
I'm not sure if our Christchurch brethren of a certain age understand how many of us feel about rugby teams. If you've only known rugby since the late 90s it's been provincial, super, and international success on a reoccurring basis. Some of us only know fleeting highs among years and years of lows.
I blame World Rugby.
They've massively escalated the penalties for "inaccurate play" without reflecting on or mitigating the impact on the game as a whole.
In the olden days, Cyril Brownlie's red card was handed down in folklore in the same envelope as Bob Dean's try.
Then Pinetree got a red card in about 1963 - handed out at 30+ year intervals.
Now we're litigating for two in one match - and two penalty tries with attendant yellow cards - plus maybe a few for Chiefs' head highs.
Up until the late-1960s, you weren't allowed to replace injured players - so you see quite a few international teams that got beaten in tour matches or a minnow team got close - and then read the match description and it turns out the internationals played much of the game with 13 players.
Eventually, the IRB realised that people didn't want games decided by who didn't get injured, rather than the better team winning.
I don't want to see a succession of hollow matches decided by who can keep 15 players on the park.
One obvious solution is to allow replacement of a red carded player after 10 minutes - unless he's been red-carded for an act of out and out thuggery.
But, there needs to be more review of laws and protocols - the idea that Jordan's tackle on Lowe warranted a penalty try and a yellow card is, frankly, ridiculous - but, Aaron Goile was arguing for it in the media, because "it's in the rules".
Imagine losing a World Cup final on that!!!
@chris-b
I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.
That said, maybe we change the safety-oriented penalties to suspensions. So instead of a red card contact to the head is an automatic 1 match ban, mitigations and intentions irrelevant. The penalty is roughly equivalent, but the match stays 15v15.
I get that it means the team on the receiving end doesn't benefit, but I think if you ignored the safety aspects it would generally be fair to be penalty only in those circumstances so I think that's reasonable.
-
@gunner said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
DMac jumped.
And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.You know what 180 degrees is, yeah? I only just watched the highlights, but I'm sure they would have included a clip of dMac being upside down.
@kruse said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@gunner said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
DMac jumped.
And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.You know what 180 degrees is, yeah?
A helluva lot of time spent at varsity?
-
@chris-b
I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.
That said, maybe we change the safety-oriented penalties to suspensions. So instead of a red card contact to the head is an automatic 1 match ban, mitigations and intentions irrelevant. The penalty is roughly equivalent, but the match stays 15v15.
I get that it means the team on the receiving end doesn't benefit, but I think if you ignored the safety aspects it would generally be fair to be penalty only in those circumstances so I think that's reasonable.
@cyclops said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@chris-b
I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.
Yeah - without doubt.
But, surely this can be done without ruining the game.
Red card offences being 10 minutes in the bin and the player having to be replaced just seems obvious to me - then deal with offence using suspensions. Not only maintains the integrity of the match, but less hanging out the ref to dry - having to make an instant decision, where panel hearings go on for hours and involve QCs!!!
It's pretty rare IMO that you see anything in the way of genuine dirt these days - most cards are timing gone horribly wrong. I'm pretty doubtful that the current red card rules add anything much to safety. I doubt players are balancing their decisions on whether they'll get a yellow or a red - both are highly undesirable.
-
@cyclops said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:
@chris-b
I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.
Yeah - without doubt.
But, surely this can be done without ruining the game.
Red card offences being 10 minutes in the bin and the player having to be replaced just seems obvious to me - then deal with offence using suspensions. Not only maintains the integrity of the match, but less hanging out the ref to dry - having to make an instant decision, where panel hearings go on for hours and involve QCs!!!
It's pretty rare IMO that you see anything in the way of genuine dirt these days - most cards are timing gone horribly wrong. I'm pretty doubtful that the current red card rules add anything much to safety. I doubt players are balancing their decisions on whether they'll get a yellow or a red - both are highly undesirable.
@chris-b yep. it would be hard to argue that the current situation is reducing anything. It's certainly not reducing viewer frustration.
