Hurricanes v Reds
-
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind.Holy fuck, then you'd never apply the law. What else do you have other than his actions which clearly propelled the ball dead?
Do you concede that it is possible to send the ball dead while trying to legally play it?
That’s all I am saying. IMO the ref could have gone for benefit of the doubt in the circumstances or could have made the decision he did.
It certainly wasn’t obvious like the SBW example.
It’s interesting in that we don’t see it called very often and certainly not when a judgement call. I can’t remember that call being made other than in very obvious situations.
However, call made, the PT part was also not clear and probable so IMO a bit of a double whammy. -
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind.Holy fuck, then you'd never apply the law. What else do you have other than his actions which clearly propelled the ball dead?
Do you concede that it is possible to send the ball dead while trying to legally play it?
Yes, not that it's relevant in this case.
That’s all I am saying.
It reads like you're arguing the ref applied the law incorrectly.
IMO the ref could have gone for benefit of the doubt in the circumstances or could have made the decision he did.
Hegarty propelled the ball out, not downwards. Ergo no doubt.
-
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
It's a pretty easy job, when you just read the law, and apply it.
Edit: Oh, and add on the "interpretations" of the law which have become case law.
Such as... YES - the law is that if foul play is committed, you have to "imagine" what would have happened if the player committing that foul play didn't exist, and had never been there.
Harsh, and debatable as to whether the laws should exist that way... not even going into that whole bullshit about how "should intent be a factor" especially in these cases, but... it's the fucking law. -
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
Is that you Prof Weisbrot?
-
I missed that at the time (don't have kids!) but I can't see how that can't be ruled as the player deliberately knocking the ball dead.
He had an option to try to catch it which he didn't do, and from that distance there is no way that he would have been able to control it all the way to the ground with one hand and that action.
-
Ok haven't read the thread as only just watching the second half, but I'm 65 minutes in and absolutely fuck Justin Marshall. I'm sick of his shit, commentators shouldn't be going out if their way to constantly bemoan refereeing decisions, especially when that commentator is blatantly wrong.
What can we do about this? Letter to the editor?
Where's @Disgusted-of-TW when I need him.
-
@bones said in Hurricanes v Reds:
Ok haven't read the thread as only just watching the second half, but I'm 65 minutes in and absolutely fuck Justin Marshall. I'm sick of his shit, commentators shouldn't be going out if their way to constantly bemoan refereeing decisions, especially when that commentator is blatantly wrong.
What can we do about this? Letter to the editor?
Where's @Disgusted-of-TW when I need him.
Justin Marshall is a fucking disgrace. Can't think of another co-commentator in world sport who is so full of shit.
-
@anonymous said in Hurricanes v Reds:
Guy obviously knocks the ball dead.
Justin Marshall: "I don't think he intentionally knocked it dead"
Trying to remember a worse bit of commentary, ever. Sorry I can't.
-
@sparky honestly with the state of his commentary lately I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a substance abuse problem!
He just always tries to find a way to disagree with the ref, especially if the ref's call benefits a kiwi team, completely ignoring the picture in front of him.
Shittest advertisement for rugby you could find.
-
-
-
@bones said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@sparky honestly with the state of his commentary lately I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a substance abuse problem!
Leave Sir Rod Stewart's and John Lydon's forgotten bogan love child alone!
-
@gt12 said in Hurricanes v Reds:
He had an option to try to catch it which he didn't do, and from that distance there is no way that he would have been able to control it all the way to the ground with one hand and that action.
Based on your logic: neither would Laumape. At the point where Hegarty contacts the ball, Laumape has one hand on the ground and one in the air.
At that point, is the try still "probable"?
-
@nta said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@gt12 said in Hurricanes v Reds:
He had an option to try to catch it which he didn't do, and from that distance there is no way that he would have been able to control it all the way to the ground with one hand and that action.
Based on your logic: neither would Laumape. At the point where Hegarty contacts the ball, Laumape has one hand on the ground and one in the air.
At that point, is the try still "probable"?
I think it's marginal about whether Laumape would have had a good crack at controlling that if Hegarty doesn't bat the ball away. It's a marginal call - but once you bat the ball, the refs seem to want to err on the side of the attacking team.
I think the foul play law is stupid as it is applied in terms of taking a player away completely... and a YC+PT is a super harsh penalty. Still, in theory it's dissuading people from foul play right?
Hegarty was struggling to get there, made a big play for the ball and got it wrong. I can see why they PT+YC, but there's a strong argument for just a YC.
grainy image without arrows below. If you go back, you'll see Jordie get tackled with no arms too ... which was arguably worse in the modern game
