• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Red Cards

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
228 Posts 38 Posters 8.2k Views
Red Cards
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • nzzpN Online
    nzzpN Online
    nzzp
    replied to NTA on last edited by
    #107

    @NTA said in Red Cards:

    @MajorRage said in Red Cards:

    People aren't perfect and never have been. Modern game you need to tackle around the chest to stop plays. As long as this remains the key way to clear people out / collide, then head knocks are always going to happen.

    Agreed. That's why the mitigation framework for high tackles is in place to reduce the responsibility on tacklers.

    We saw that in action over the weekend where player falling into a tackle in ?Brumbies v Highlanders? was "play on" after neck/head contact.

    I'll keep banging my drum that if the outcome you want is to reduce head injuries, teh ball carrier has a responsibility as well. Voluntarily lowering should get pinged.

    Foster made the piont on Breakdown that it's the second tackler who is getting pinged. I think it's really insightful - when you go back, it's rare that the primary tackler is the one hitting the head with force.

    ChrisC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ChrisC Away
    ChrisC Away
    Chris
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #108

    @nzzp said in Red Cards:

    @NTA said in Red Cards:

    @MajorRage said in Red Cards:

    People aren't perfect and never have been. Modern game you need to tackle around the chest to stop plays. As long as this remains the key way to clear people out / collide, then head knocks are always going to happen.

    Agreed. That's why the mitigation framework for high tackles is in place to reduce the responsibility on tacklers.

    We saw that in action over the weekend where player falling into a tackle in ?Brumbies v Highlanders? was "play on" after neck/head contact.

    I'll keep banging my drum that if the outcome you want is to reduce head injuries, teh ball carrier has a responsibility as well. Voluntarily lowering should get pinged.

    Foster made the piont on Breakdown that it's the second tackler who is getting pinged. I think it's really insightful - when you go back, it's rare that the primary tackler is the one hitting the head with force.

    Is it though insightful.
    It is pretty accurate to say the player tackling below the hips is not hitting anyone in the head.
    It is pretty obvious the player coming in higher for the wrap up tackle is the one in danger of head contact.
    If we hold off on the 2nd tackler it will free up off loads if we don't commit the 2nd tackler.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • chimoausC Offline
    chimoausC Offline
    chimoaus
    wrote on last edited by
    #109

    I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?

    MiketheSnowM 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • gt12G Offline
    gt12G Offline
    gt12
    wrote on last edited by
    #110

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    I would love to see a proper analysis on the impact of cards on the outcome of the game.

    For example how many points on average are scored when a team is down a player, two players. Is this higher than without. How many teams who lose a player to red actually win a game.

    If cards are having an overwhelming impact on the outcome of a game/contest then that dilutes the product for the fans and viewing public. We should be penalising the player not the fans.

    My personal solution is if it's a yellow or red you simply replace the player instantly and then perhaps give the attacking team 3 points for yellow and 7 for a red. That keeps it at 15 v 15 and the contest is still alive. The risk of 3 points and a penalty so in theory could be 6 point turnaround for cynical play may deter behaviour.

    Some data here.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #111

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?

    With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique

    chimoausC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • chimoausC Offline
    chimoausC Offline
    chimoaus
    replied to MiketheSnow on last edited by
    #112

    @MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?

    With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique

    It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
    They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
    This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
    We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think.

    MiketheSnowM J 2 Replies Last reply
    3
  • MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnowM Offline
    MiketheSnow
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #113

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    @MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?

    With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique

    It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
    They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
    This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
    We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think.

    Perhaps the risk/reward of dominant tackles no longer makes it a 'winning' strategy.

    The coaches and players who change their game quickest may well reap the rewards.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    junior
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #114

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    @MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:

    @chimoaus said in Red Cards:

    I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?

    With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique

    It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
    They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
    This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
    We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think.

    Or maybe what we think is good technique is not the technique that is being coached?

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • NTAN Offline
    NTAN Offline
    NTA
    wrote on last edited by
    #115

    FFS.... This is more bullshit...

    nzzpN chimoausC 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • nzzpN Online
    nzzpN Online
    nzzp
    replied to NTA on last edited by
    #116

    @NTA I don't get it.

    He lifted, he drove, and Cane dropped on his head. What's the mitigation?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • NTAN Offline
    NTAN Offline
    NTA
    wrote on last edited by
    #117

    Somewhere in the explanation it mitigates his behaviour by inferring the actions of others affected the outcome....

    nzzpN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nzzpN Online
    nzzpN Online
    nzzp
    replied to NTA on last edited by
    #118

    @NTA said in Red Cards:

    Somewhere in the explanation it mitigates his behaviour by inferring the actions of others affected the outcome....

    But... Lift and you are responsible right?

    This has shades of Benjamin Fall

    KiwiMurphK 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • KiwiMurphK Online
    KiwiMurphK Online
    KiwiMurph
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #119

    @nzzp

    Further replays seemed to indicate Chiefs teammate Angus Ta'avao assisted Cane's body going over the horizontal and contributed to the dangerous nature.
    
    After reviewing the incident, SANZAAR's Judiciary has confirmed 'the significant involvement of other players contributed to the incident', deeming it did not meet the red card threshold.
    
    nzzpN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nzzpN Online
    nzzpN Online
    nzzp
    replied to KiwiMurph on last edited by
    #120

    @KiwiMurph thanks. I think they are wrong, it's a tackle technique that's been cracked down on since 2005

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • chimoausC Offline
    chimoausC Offline
    chimoaus
    replied to NTA on last edited by
    #121

    @NTA said in Red Cards:

    FFS.... This is more bullshit...

    This just makes it even more confusing for the on-field ref and TMO doesn't it, like what the fuck is a red card and what isn't. That was clear driving him headfirst into the turf. Just another reason that we need a report system as clearly the panel are the experts and they should decide after the game and not ruin the actual game by reducing teams to 13 or 14 players.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    5
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #122

    @chimoaus Agree with everything you've said, apart from calling the judicial panel experts. Their determinations are at odds with nearly everyone else in the rugby world.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • Daffy JaffyD Offline
    Daffy JaffyD Offline
    Daffy Jaffy
    wrote on last edited by
    #123

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    wrote on last edited by
    #124

    So is Ray Nuu one of the first people to go through this tackle technique course to get a reduction in sentence.... and then gets a red card on his return from suspension. Great stuff judiciary.

    1 Reply Last reply
    5
  • BonesB Offline
    BonesB Offline
    Bones
    wrote on last edited by
    #125

    As a thought, further to that, does he now get an extra week on the upcoming suspension?

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Bones on last edited by
    #126

    @Bones Yep, he'll get at least 4 weeks is he's lucky; 5 weeks also possible.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

Red Cards
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.