Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth)
-
I found that thread and am watching the similar examples.
Nabura's one was intentional and the ref says so before even watching a second time. He catches the ball, looks at the incoming player and sticks his leg out deliberately while coming down.
Dan Evans on Teddy Thomas. Similar to JBs in that the leg went out for balance and Thomas ran into it. At the time the commentators said 'just unfortunate accident' and were very surprised at the RC. Not sure if the ruling was published but will have a search.
Adam Hastings. Completely overbalanced after a fairly low jump.
I really don't understand what the law makers want. They don't want to remove jumping for the ball as that is an exciting athletic part of the game yet it seems that accidents in the jumping zone get harshly punished. A 'tackler' can't touch the jumper in the air in case they land badly yet a jumper can't try and land safely themselves without it being a reckless act?
Surely the easiest thing to do here is to keep with the judgement of it being a 'competition for the ball' but if you aren't in that competition you cannot move into the jumpers landing space. There will still be times when you are jumped into and haven't got out of the way but it is well understood now to watch your position when a high kick comes and either contest the ball or get away.
-
Found some quotes on the Dan Evans one. IMO this is the precedent that will cause us problems in defending this.
Firstly Ospreys didn't challenge the ruling. They decided the risk of an 8 week ban was too costly and cut their losses with a guilty plea (this is why I hate that system. Bad decisions get justification because challenging is punished)
A statement from the independent disciplinary panel continued: "There were no aggravating factors, and taking into account the player's guilty plea and timely expression of remorse, the committee reduced the sanction by the maximum of 50 per cent before imposing a four-week suspension."
They upheld the RC by saying his action was reckless. I would strongly question how a human instinct to stop yourself falling over can be reckless.
-
You'd have to go back and find when Marshall first went for the blonde highlights to know the timeframe for the nickname. It was certainly used on r.s.r.u (usenet newsgroups), which predate TSF and other web-based sites.
@bovidae said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
You'd have to go back and find when Marshall first went for the blonde highlights to know the timeframe for the nickname. It was certainly used on r.s.r.u (usenet newsgroups), which predate TSF and other web-based sites.
Boy. Just had a look at that usenet group and it is now a repository of the biggest pile of shite imaginable. Just by looking at the page I am now probably on a watchlist!
Surely google should be shutting down these unmonitored feral sounding boards. They are a gateway to all the things wrong with the world. -
Found some quotes on the Dan Evans one. IMO this is the precedent that will cause us problems in defending this.
Firstly Ospreys didn't challenge the ruling. They decided the risk of an 8 week ban was too costly and cut their losses with a guilty plea (this is why I hate that system. Bad decisions get justification because challenging is punished)
A statement from the independent disciplinary panel continued: "There were no aggravating factors, and taking into account the player's guilty plea and timely expression of remorse, the committee reduced the sanction by the maximum of 50 per cent before imposing a four-week suspension."
They upheld the RC by saying his action was reckless. I would strongly question how a human instinct to stop yourself falling over can be reckless.
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
I cant see anything lower than 3 weeks.
-
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
I cant see anything lower than 3 weeks.
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
I cant see anything lower than 3 weeks.
Would be minimum 4 weeks even with a guilty plea which is why the ABs are disputing.
Any head contact RC goes in a minimum 8 weeks. Mitigation can reduce that by half but pleading not guilty and therefore not owning it takes away one of the common mitigations.The definition of reckless implies a voluntary action. If I was arguing this to the judiciary that would be the main point. If he had no control over lifting that leg other than an instinctive action to not fall and risk injury then his action can't be reckless by definition.
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial its the ABs, he will get it reversed, RC rescinded and a try awarded to his record.
I cant see anything lower than 3 weeks.
Would be minimum 4 weeks even with a guilty plea which is why the ABs are disputing.
Any head contact RC goes in a minimum 8 weeks. Mitigation can reduce that by half but pleading not guilty and therefore not owning it takes away one of the common mitigations.The definition of reckless implies a voluntary action. If I was arguing this to the judiciary that would be the main point. If he had no control over lifting that leg other than an instinctive action to not fall and risk injury then his action can't be reckless by definition.
-
@crucial have seen dangerous tackles with head contact and a RC get 3 weeks? Are they treated differently?
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial have seen dangerous tackles with head contact and a RC get 3 weeks? Are they treated differently?
I think it is the original charge situation. Maybe dangerous tackle mid point is 6 weeks and kick in head is 8?
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial have seen dangerous tackles with head contact and a RC get 3 weeks? Are they treated differently?
I think it is the original charge situation. Maybe dangerous tackle mid point is 6 weeks and kick in head is 8?
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
-
Knees lift in the jump to gain height and used as protection. It’s pretty standard technique for players. You can see he arched backward just before he caught the ball which lead to his leg raising up.
Its the direct contact to the face that will see him get some time off. They won’t ignore that.
Which is a problem for us as I don’t think we won’t to be facing the kick boks with Dmac as fullback. JBs height would
Be invaluable along with his kicking from hand.Especially when you consider the games are in sub tropical Townsville. The Boks won’t want a fast paced game and will kick the crap out of it.
@dagrubster said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Knees lift in the jump to gain height and used as protection. It’s pretty standard technique for players. You can see he arched backward just before he caught the ball which lead to his leg raising up.
Its the direct contact to the face that will see him get some time off. They won’t ignore that.
Which is a problem for us as I don’t think we won’t to be facing the kick boks with Dmac as fullback. JBs height would
Be invaluable along with his kicking from hand.Especially when you consider the games are in sub tropical Townsville. The Boks won’t want a fast paced game and will kick the crap out of it.
Mate, I think red card was fair enough, but will not be surprised if it seen as enough. There will be lawyers, and experts on dynamics of jumping etc to show why this or that happened, and I suspect the fact that Marika was moving into his space will have a lot to do with outcome, even Dave Rennie was adamant it was completely accidental in press conference etc and think just maybe the board will say that is enough punishment.
-
@dagrubster said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Knees lift in the jump to gain height and used as protection. It’s pretty standard technique for players. You can see he arched backward just before he caught the ball which lead to his leg raising up.
Its the direct contact to the face that will see him get some time off. They won’t ignore that.
Which is a problem for us as I don’t think we won’t to be facing the kick boks with Dmac as fullback. JBs height would
Be invaluable along with his kicking from hand.Especially when you consider the games are in sub tropical Townsville. The Boks won’t want a fast paced game and will kick the crap out of it.
Mate, I think red card was fair enough, but will not be surprised if it seen as enough. There will be lawyers, and experts on dynamics of jumping etc to show why this or that happened, and I suspect the fact that Marika was moving into his space will have a lot to do with outcome, even Dave Rennie was adamant it was completely accidental in press conference etc and think just maybe the board will say that is enough punishment.
@dan54 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@dagrubster said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Knees lift in the jump to gain height and used as protection. It’s pretty standard technique for players. You can see he arched backward just before he caught the ball which lead to his leg raising up.
Its the direct contact to the face that will see him get some time off. They won’t ignore that.
Which is a problem for us as I don’t think we won’t to be facing the kick boks with Dmac as fullback. JBs height would
Be invaluable along with his kicking from hand.Especially when you consider the games are in sub tropical Townsville. The Boks won’t want a fast paced game and will kick the crap out of it.
Mate, I think red card was fair enough, but will not be surprised if it seen as enough. There will be lawyers, and experts on dynamics of jumping etc to show why this or that happened, and I suspect the fact that Marika was moving into his space will have a lot to do with outcome, even Dave Rennie was adamant it was completely accidental in press conference etc and think just maybe the board will say that is enough punishment.
That would be reasonable IMHO
-
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
That's what they have used in the past for similar.
Have looked at regs and yes mid-range dangerous tackle is 6 weeks, kicking (irrespective of contact point)is 8.
If they charge him with kicking then it should be thrown out as that is under the section 9.12 A player must not physically abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to:.......
No way can that be classed as physical abuse.
As said above I think 'reckless' is a stretch by definition as well.
-
@toddy said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Fucken dammit. Too slow.
What are you, Scott Barrett playing 6?
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@toddy said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Fucken dammit. Too slow.
What are you, Scott Barrett playing 6?
If he was slower he wouldn't have overrun the ruck leaving a gaping hole.
-
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
-
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
One of those things is coachable.
I was watching the game whilst at a birthday party, and although I didn't think JB deserved a RC, the moment it happened I turned to another one of the guys and said - that's a RC.
Whether it should be or not is different, but with catching being a coached skill I assume they want to make sure that nothing dodgy creeps in with players raising feet etc.
Again, I don't think it was intentional, but it is coachable.
-
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
@dan54 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
That's Hooper's fault and he should've been penalised - have to be on your feet to play the game.
-
@dan54 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I think we all have to remember is that contact to the head should be rightfully jumped on, but Retallic's boot was what caused Hooper's cut to face, completely accidental as he was running through, so next argument could be, you have to look where you put feet when running! Does anyone on here think that should of been RCed, as he did a lot more damage.
That's Hooper's fault and he should've been penalised - have to be on your feet to play the game.
@antipodean said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
That's Hooper's fault and he should've been penalised - have to be on your feet to play the game.
Nice.
You also can't run in to take a player in the air, so if you get a foot in the face - tough.
What happened to personal responsibility? If Jordie was reckless, so was he about his own safety, shouldn't be that close to a player in the air anyway.
We can all stop rugby now, it's just dangerous.
Facetious comments above but FFS accidents happen. It's a contact sport.
-
Interesting comments here about BB’s game by Mark Reason. It used to be that we talked about kicking in the first 40 i.e. not playing with the ball, as our strategy. So I can see why he kicked a lot in the first 30 minutes. The only time I had a problem was when we had a penalty advantage and used the cross kick to marked players. Just a waste.
-
One kick I really liked from Beaudy was after Wallabies had scored at 18-7. ABs attacking about 40 out from Wallaby line but not really going anywhere - Beaudy puts in a check/cross kick across his body to to the corner. The balls roll into the in goal with Havili chasing ensuring the Wallabies have to force it and have a goal line drop out.
ABs collect the drop out and set up a ruck. ABs then score the next phase with Akira's break and putting Jordan away.
It was a good example of pinning Wallabies back and re-setting.
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
-
One kick I really liked from Beaudy was after Wallabies had scored at 18-7. ABs attacking about 40 out from Wallaby line but not really going anywhere - Beaudy puts in a check/cross kick across his body to to the corner. The balls roll into the in goal with Havili chasing ensuring the Wallabies have to force it and have a goal line drop out.
ABs collect the drop out and set up a ruck. ABs then score the next phase with Akira's break and putting Jordan away.
It was a good example of pinning Wallabies back and re-setting.
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
One kick I really liked from Beaudy was after Wallabies had scored at 18-7. ABs attacking about 40 out from Wallaby line but not really going anywhere - Beaudy puts in a check/cross kick across his body to to the corner. The balls roll into the in goal with Havili chasing ensuring the Wallabies have to force it and have a goal line drop out.
ABs collect the drop out and set up a ruck. ABs then score the next phase with Akira's break and putting Jordan away.
It was a good example of pinning Wallabies back and re-setting.
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I'm glad, that's an annoying league style change I dislike more than the goal line drop out (hmm, maybe I should post this on grumpy old man thread too).
