2018 New Zealand U20s
-
Agree that really the better team won. We had no go forward and therefore backs looked poor, although they were poor in general. Some stars in that French team though. We really missed Telea'a and Fiaanganukus go forward today, backs just shovelled it.
-
-
-
https://twitter.com/Smallclone/status/1006630093576384512
One day a NZ U20 coach will select a front row for its scrummaging prowess first and foremost. And that front row will demand the other five keep their backs straight and push.
-
Pfew, I was expecting Renton to be sent off for stomping. French were milking it. TMO involved; penalty only. His foot didn't touch the French head.
@stargazer said in 2018 New Zealand U20s:
Pfew, I was expecting Renton to be sent off for stomping. French were milking it. TMO involved; penalty only. His foot didn't touch the French head.
Hard to see how that was a penalty only. Looked deliberate and that should be a card.
-
@stargazer said in 2018 New Zealand U20s:
Pfew, I was expecting Renton to be sent off for stomping. French were milking it. TMO involved; penalty only. His foot didn't touch the French head.
Hard to see how that was a penalty only. Looked deliberate and that should be a card.
@antipodean I didn't see a replay, but IIRC, the TMO looked at it off-screen. Obviously, the TMO had more angles, so he probably had a good view of Renton's foot made any contact with the French player and where. It didn't look good in real time, but I don't have to benefit of the TMO's footage. We'll see whether he gets cited or not.
Edit: Just saw this clip and it doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/greub1/status/1006632729457446912
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets cited, and the length of the possible suspension will probably depend on whether/where he hit the French player and any resulting injury.
-
@antipodean I didn't see a replay, but IIRC, the TMO looked at it off-screen. Obviously, the TMO had more angles, so he probably had a good view of Renton's foot made any contact with the French player and where. It didn't look good in real time, but I don't have to benefit of the TMO's footage. We'll see whether he gets cited or not.
Edit: Just saw this clip and it doesn't look good.
https://twitter.com/greub1/status/1006632729457446912
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets cited, and the length of the possible suspension will probably depend on whether/where he hit the French player and any resulting injury.
-
@stargazer What a dipshit, you can't do that in this day an age.
So this team was Philpott coached?
-
There's something that should be cited.
Then the judiciary can decide whether it's intentional or accidental. If he's found guilty, I'd say 6-12 weeks.
@chris-b That's not how it works. The citing commissioner can only cite red cardable offences. Accidental offences are hardly ever red cardable, so won't get cited. In the case of stomping, I think it's hard to argue that it's accidental anyway; it's more likely to be reckless. That could reach the red card threshhold and get cited.
-
@chris-b That's not how it works. The citing commissioner can only cite red cardable offences. Accidental offences are hardly ever red cardable, so won't get cited. In the case of stomping, I think it's hard to argue that it's accidental anyway; it's more likely to be reckless. That could reach the red card threshhold and get cited.
-
@stargazer I think that is how it works - otherwise how did Squire escape?
The citing commissioner cites things that in his opinion reach the red card threshold - he's the policeman.
The judiciary then hold a hearing - they're the court.
-
@chris-b It only reached the Judicial Committe because the Citing Commissioner got it wrong. He thought it was red-cardable and the JC didn't agree.
@stargazer That's what I'm saying.
The process is very much like the civil court system. The citing commissioner acts like the police and "brings charges" i.e. things he thinks meet the red card threshold.
Then there's a hearing and players can plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead"not guilty", they get to defend their actions and the JC either agree with the commissioner or agree with the player (as in Squire's case).
In this case, that footage looks pretty damning, but it's possible e.g. that Renton has caught his foot on the French player and stumbled onto him rather than stamping him - and maybe there will be footage from another angle that might support that case. Or maybe Renton has been a dirty bastard who will get deservedly banned.
-
@stargazer That's what I'm saying.
The process is very much like the civil court system. The citing commissioner acts like the police and "brings charges" i.e. things he thinks meet the red card threshold.
Then there's a hearing and players can plead guilty or not guilty. If they plead"not guilty", they get to defend their actions and the JC either agree with the commissioner or agree with the player (as in Squire's case).
In this case, that footage looks pretty damning, but it's possible e.g. that Renton has caught his foot on the French player and stumbled onto him rather than stamping him - and maybe there will be footage from another angle that might support that case. Or maybe Renton has been a dirty bastard who will get deservedly banned.
@chris-b Sorry, I understood your comment as meaning that - because there was a serious incident - this was enough reason to cite the player and then let the Judicial Committee decide whether its intentional or accidental.
That's why I said that the Citing Commissioner can only cite red-cardable offences and to do that, he must himself determine whether an incident meets the red card trheshold, and for that he himself has to establish whether it was reckless or accidental. So it's the CC in the first instance who has to make that determination.
A lot of people seem to think (maybe not you) that the CC can just cite any serious looking incident and leave it to the JC to determine whether it's reckless or accidental. Accidental incidents don't reach the JC very often.
-
@chris-b Sorry, I understood your comment as meaning that - because there was a serious incident - this was enough reason to cite the player and then let the Judicial Committee decide whether its intentional or accidental.
That's why I said that the Citing Commissioner can only cite red-cardable offences and to do that, he must himself determine whether an incident meets the red card trheshold, and for that he himself has to establish whether it was reckless or accidental. So it's the CC in the first instance who has to make that determination.
A lot of people seem to think (maybe not you) that the CC can just cite any serious looking incident and leave it to the JC to determine whether it's reckless or accidental. Accidental incidents don't reach the JC very often.
@stargazer Incidents like this one, I tend to give the player a bit of benefit of the doubt, because with referees and TV cameras watching it is highly unlikely you're going to get away with blatantly stamping on someone.
So you've got to be both a grub and an idiot!
Incidentally, was interesting to see Owen Franks on TV a couple of nights ago saying he didn't even know he'd collected Parsons until he saw it on the big screen. At a different point in the season, I reckon he might have pleaded not guilty on that one.
