Brumbies v Crusaders
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="574898" data-time="1461638433">
<div>
<p>where can I see footage of the tackle? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The same video that I posted earlier is bigger in this article: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/crusaders-winger-nemani-nadolo-cops-four-week-ban-for-lifting-tackle-2016042614#axzz46smP7Re6?platform=hootsuite'>http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/crusaders-winger-nemani-nadolo-cops-four-week-ban-for-lifting-tackle-2016042614#axzz46smP7Re6?platform=hootsuite</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Considering that Evemy also got 4 weeks, I think Nadolo's ban is a bit harsh.</p> -
<p>So he'll miss games against the reds (home), highlanders (away) and tahs (home).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Could be worse, the highlanders game is the biggest concern.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wonder if Fruen is far away? I'll keep an on club rugby as Toddy likes his players to return from injury that way</p> -
<p>From One News Sport (more details):</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p><strong><span style="font-size:18px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Nemani Nadolo cops four-week suspension for tackle</span></span></strong><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>Crusaders winger Nemani Nadolo has been banned for four weeks after a dangerous tackle against the Brumbies.</strong></span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">SANZAAR duty judicial officer Chris Morris accepted a guilty plea from Nadolo after he was cited for a dangerous lifting tackle on Brumbies halfback Tomas Cubelli.</span></span><br><br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"After careful consideration of the available evidence ... the offence was categorised as low-end which carries a four weeks suspension," Morris said. </span></span><br><br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"I took into account as mitigating factors the player's disciplinary record after a lengthy professional career, his guilty plea and the fact that the tackle was reckless rather than deliberate. The player was therefore given a two week discount on the original sanction creating a recommended sanction of two weeks.</span></span><br><br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"<strong>I took into account World Rugby memorandums about lifting tackles and the need to deter this very action from the game. As such I found it necessary to add two additional weeks to the recommended sanction</strong>.</span></span><br><br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">"The player is accordingly suspended from all rugby for four weeks until 21 May 2016 which effectively is a three match Super Rugby suspension. We were provided with proof that he would have been selected to play in a club match on 30 April 2016, which the player will also miss as a result of the suspension."</span></span><br><br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">With the Crusaders due for a bye next week, Nadolo will only miss three games and will be available for selection when they play the Waratahs on May 20. </span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
I find it absolutely ridiculous that they add two weeks, just to deter others. The law alone should be sufficient deterrence. If they don't consider 4 weeks enough, than they should lift the initial penalty, not something arbitrary like this.<br>
As I said above, Evemy also got 4 weeks for a worse offence (mid-range v Nadolo's low-range). How can the penalty be the same?</p> -
<p>just highlights the inconsistencies of the Judiciary when WWE moves can get away with much lesser punishment.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Apparently the starting point for Emery was 6 weeks, discounted because of guilty plea and remorse (Grr) but suspect that as he all but missed the Sharks match was taken into account...which I thnk was about right, it was careless with no intent and deserved a decent ban.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll have to watch Nadolos again on a better feed cos it didn't look that bad, so he pleads guilty, probably remorseful and they add 2 weeks as a deterrent!</p> -
<p>Really? Nadolo was going to play club rugby in the bye week? yeah right. The guy is one of the first names on the team sheet, so I doubt he was going to be risked playing some grade footy.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="574902" data-time="1461639467">
<div>
<p>So he'll miss games against the reds (home), highlanders (away) and tahs (home).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Could be worse, the highlanders game is the biggest concern.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Wonder if Fruen is far away</strong>? I'll keep an on club rugby as Toddy likes his players to return from injury that way</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I remember reading that they expected him to return in May, but whether that will be after the bye ...?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="574905" data-time="1461640449">
<div>
<p>Really? Nadolo was going to play club rugby in the bye week? yeah right. The guy is one of the first names on the team sheet, so I doubt he was going to be risked playing some grade footy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Was wondering about that, too. Maybe they put crucial players on local clubs' team sheets "just in case"?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="574908" data-time="1461640678">
<div>
<p>Was wondering about that, too. Maybe they put crucial players on local clubs' team sheets "just in case"?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Or they were concerned after watching the tape that some admin person at the Crusaders rang up Marist and said 'name him'....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="574912" data-time="1461640951">
<div>
<p>Or they were concerned after watching the tape that some admin person at the Crusaders rang up Marist and said 'name him'....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Club teams won't have been named yet for the weekend, so not really a valid point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>it's not the first time that club games have counted anyway, didn't the same happen with the Pocock suspension?</p> -
<p>has happened plenty of times, we all agree it sucks, but is a loophole they use and SANZAR don't seem fussed on closing it or even if they consider it an issue.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="574913" data-time="1461641076">
<div>
<p><strong>Club teams won't have been named yet </strong>for the weekend, so not really a valid point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>it's not the first time that club games have counted anyway, didn't the same happen with the Pocock suspension?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, true, but the sentence of the judicial officer says that evidence was provided that he 'would have been selected to play in a club match on 30 April'. What else could that evidence be? I don't remember the Pocock ruling saying anything about evidence being provided he would play club rugby.</p> -
<p>The only other thing that I could imagine as evidence of him going to play this Saturday is some document signed by the Saders effectively releasing him to the club to play.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="574918" data-time="1461641687">
<div>
<p>The only other thing that I could imagine as evidence of him going to play this Saturday is some document signed by the Saders effectively releasing him to the club to play.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess the thing is, knowing the possibility of players getting a ban over Bye week and it counting toward the overall ban, the Franchises have some system in place ready to deal with it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You'd be dumb not to be ready for it should any player be facing the judiciary.</p> -
<p>I've lost the will to complain about judiciary decisions. I just accept it's a lottery and move on.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="574842" data-time="1461622937">
<div>
<p>If anyone is interested I watched Ben Volavola and Mitchell Hunt play at 15 on opposing sides in Club Rugby on Saturday.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Volavola was pretty unimpressive, but Hunt was outstanding, reminded me a little bit of MacKenzie</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I see Sydenham's attack improved with him there. Watched them the previous week against New Brighton and they showed very little anywhere apart from their scrambling defence.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="574913" data-time="1461641076">
<div>
<p>Club teams won't have been named yet for the weekend, so not really a valid point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>it's not the first time that club games have counted anyway, didn't the same happen with the Pocock suspension?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No Pocock didn't use the club trick to avoid a week.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="574905" data-time="1461640449">
<div>
<p>Really? Nadolo was going to play club rugby in the bye week? yeah right. The guy is one of the first names on the team sheet, so I doubt he was going to be risked playing some grade footy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The expression, "If bullshit was music, they'd be brass band", springs to mind. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Significant loss for the Crusaders - let's hope it doesn't bite us on the arse. Who's the back-up left wing? Macilai? Havili? Wainui? Fonotia? Freuan? Fifita? Hunt?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd like to see what Fifita can offer - is he still injured?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dan54" data-cid="574955" data-time="1461649721">
<div>
<p>No Pocock didn't use the club trick to avoid a week.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:15.3695px;">Brumbies flanker David Pocock has been suspended for three weeks after being cited and then pleading guilty dangerously tackling Chiefs No.8 Michael Leitch.</span></p>
<p style="font-size:15.3695px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Pocock has been given a three week suspension for the incident and is suspended up to and including Sunday 24th April. <strong>Due to the fact the Brumbies have a scheduled bye in Rd 7, Pocock will miss Rd 8 and Rd 9 of Super Rugby, in effect making it a two match sanction.</strong></p>
<br><br><span style="margin:0px;font-size:15.3695px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Read more: <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.superxv.com/pocock-miss-waratahs-crusaders-matches/#ixzz46uRL7hag'>http://www.superxv.com/pocock-miss-waratahs-crusaders-matches/#ixzz46uRL7hag</a></span></blockquote> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dan54" data-cid="574955" data-time="1461649721">
<div>
<p>No Pocock didn't use the club trick to avoid a week.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah, but he did avoid a week because one of his weeks was a bye week. So, again, difference in requirements. </p>
