Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth)
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
In fairness to Kerevi, he was a long way back, and waiting to tackle
Thanks Nisbo.
@bones said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
In fairness to Kerevi, he was a long way back, and waiting to tackle
Thanks Nisbo.
glad I'm not alone at this party...
-
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
-
@landp you do realize invoking Wayne Barnes' name is instant PTSD?
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@landp you do realize invoking Wayne Barnes' name is instant PTSD?
Yeah I do, totally.
But after years of psychotherapy I admit he became a bloody good referee. And he's a seriously good rugby person if you check out his interviews. I know there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance required to see this as an AB supporter :winking_face:
I mean would you prefer Wayne Barnes or say a random French or NZ referee versus the Boks now?
-
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
I was pretty taken aback by how Murphy dealt with Jordie and the ABs in that instance too - came off really angry and almost like he'd been personally slighted.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
@nevorian said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
Glad you didn't say the large NZer contingent!
Carefully crafted phrasing!
NB I notice that photo depicts a hand about to grab a player in the air.. -
Jordie will get 3 weeks.
Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.
Low-end: 2 weeks
Mid-range: 6 weeks
Top-end: 10+ weeks
Max: 52 weeksIt's a mid range offence because it's contact with the head. He will get maximum discount of 50% leaving a sanction of 3 weeks.
Mark my words. They barely even need to have the hearing.
-
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
reed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.I don't really agree with you here. It is also to stamp out dangerous actions, caused by poor technique whether they are deliberate or not.
The guy was kicked in the head. It wasn't deliberate but it was foreseeable. Players have stopped lifting inthe tackle because they know if they get it wrong they get a red card (even if it isn't deliberate). Players going to catch the ball should stop leading with their feet.
-
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
-
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
@no-quarter said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
Another take might’ve that he kicked his leg out to get himself closer to Koroibete so that Koroibete was drawn in to tackling him in the air.
-
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
reed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.I don't really agree with you here. It is also to stamp out dangerous actions, caused by poor technique whether they are deliberate or not.
The guy was kicked in the head. It wasn't deliberate but it was foreseeable. Players have stopped lifting inthe tackle because they know if they get it wrong they get a red card (even if it isn't deliberate). Players going to catch the ball should stop leading with their feet.
@damo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
reed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.I don't really agree with you here. It is also to stamp out dangerous actions, caused by poor technique whether they are deliberate or not.
The guy was kicked in the head. It wasn't deliberate but it was foreseeable. Players have stopped lifting inthe tackle because they know if they get it wrong they get a red card (even if it isn't deliberate). Players going to catch the ball should stop leading with their feet.
well, based on your thinking it was also poor technique from the Wallaby: if he should only tackle him when he has landed he should be looking at the AB's feet.
-
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
@no-quarter said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
Yeah definitely, but fair to say it's probably still reckless. Many high tackles wouldn't occur if the player didn't drop...
Edit : As I said at the time, it's such a Jordie thing to happen. Throw a koroibete into the mix...you'd struggle to find two more unco players.
-
@stargazer Owens on the red card - at 2:30 mins -
-
Well we haven't woken to any news about JB so either the defence is really digging in strong or the panel is struggling to justify what they want.
As said in an earlier post the system of pleading guilty even when you aren't to limit damage has created precedents in this regard when they should have been argued out properly.
You can't be acting recklessly if you are acting deliberately e.g. sticking your foot out to deter would be tacklers is reckless while an instinctive leg out to correct balance isn't.
Hopefully this leads to a clarification to the application of the law. If you allow jumping you have to allow safe landing and that means the onus is on others to keep out of the way. Simple. -
Jordie will get 3 weeks.
Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.
Low-end: 2 weeks
Mid-range: 6 weeks
Top-end: 10+ weeks
Max: 52 weeksIt's a mid range offence because it's contact with the head. He will get maximum discount of 50% leaving a sanction of 3 weeks.
Mark my words. They barely even need to have the hearing.
@damo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Mark my words. They barely even need to have the hearing.
Koroibete's red resulted in no suspension and now the same story for Jordie.
