Reds v Chiefs
-
@toddy said in Reds v Chiefs:
Shit that was a real piece of filth from DMac.
Serious dumb arse filth that was only ever going to result in a flat red. Did the speedy hobbit get over-excited because he was playing against someone even tinier than him?
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
-
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
The "how" is a bit tougher, but financial penalties and bans should encourage them to be more wary of the other players wellbeing.
Having read the thread it sounds like the Chiefs even getting close was a good result.
-
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
The "how" is a bit tougher, but financial penalties and bans should encourage them to be more wary of the other players wellbeing.
Having read the thread it sounds like the Chiefs even getting close was a good result.
-
How on earth do you punish the player but not the team? You can't replace the guy, them you'll just have thugs hurting people as part of the game.
Maybe there is a 20min bin solution or similar, but it certainly has to be long enough to hurt the team.
And in this particular case, anyone arguing in favour of the little midget needs their head read. Terrible play, deserved everything he got.
-
I thought the 20 minute red card sanction held up a bit in this game.
But for the knowledge that 15 vs 15 would resume after 20 mins I would have taken my advertising metric elsewhere.
Some progress I guess. My preference would be a yellow to DMac with "bracing for contact" being a mitigating factor, but that's entertainment trumping a principle of the law - so not very objective
-
How on earth do you punish the player but not the team? You can't replace the guy, them you'll just have thugs hurting people as part of the game.
Maybe there is a 20min bin solution or similar, but it certainly has to be long enough to hurt the team.
And in this particular case, anyone arguing in favour of the little midget needs their head read. Terrible play, deserved everything he got.
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
How on earth do you punish the player but not the team? You can't replace the guy, them you'll just have thugs hurting people as part of the game.
Maybe there is a 20min bin solution or similar, but it certainly has to be long enough to hurt the team.
And in this particular case, anyone arguing in favour of the little midget needs their head read. Terrible play, deserved everything he got.
I did say how in my post.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
How on earth do you punish the player but not the team? You can't replace the guy, them you'll just have thugs hurting people as part of the game.
Maybe there is a 20min bin solution or similar, but it certainly has to be long enough to hurt the team.
And in this particular case, anyone arguing in favour of the little midget needs their head read. Terrible play, deserved everything he got.
I did say how in my post.
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
-
@snowy I have been banging on for years about hating cards and feeling like they are ruining the game for me. Good to see the rest of you plebs are starting to catch up.
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I have been banging on for years about hating cards and feeling like they are ruining the game for me. Good to see the rest of you plebs are starting to catch up.
Whilst being at risk of admitting to be a pleb, I've also gone on about it for a while. Thousands of people pay to go and see a match that has the "fair contest" removed from it.
-
The thing is, rugby is a team game. One guy misses a tackle, hurts the whole team. One guy doesn't scramble back on D, can be the difference between saving or conceding a try.
If someone makes a reckless or dangerous tackle, it can and absolutely should impact the team.
The key for me is making sure that we penalise the right things. Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
-
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
Mate, I'm miles away from you here. Let's agree to disagree.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
-
Dear God, those Chiefs jerseys!!
Deserved a hiding for that alone!What a stupid decision for colour TV. Looked fucking ridiculous. Constantly, are they faded, covered in coal dust, patched together from different coloured material, been fire damaged, borrowed from the homeless, fucken certainly ain't "white".
Hope the ponytailed marketing queefs lose a truckload on that abomination!
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
@hydro11 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Edit: I'd be happy with a 10 minute red. 20 mins still ruins it a bit for me.
-
The thing is, rugby is a team game. One guy misses a tackle, hurts the whole team. One guy doesn't scramble back on D, can be the difference between saving or conceding a try.
If someone makes a reckless or dangerous tackle, it can and absolutely should impact the team.
The key for me is making sure that we penalise the right things. Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Edit: I'd be happy with a 10 minute red. 20 mins still ruins it a bit for me.
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Tom Williams and the fake blood springs to mind. Most thugs and cheats get called out eventually.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
What about increasing the value for a penalty when the team are on a warning?
I remember there was a theory floating around years ago, around the time they increased tries to 5 points. The theory was defending teams give away penalties to not concede tries and their extra points, so if the value of penalty was to increase teams would be more reluctant to concede one.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Most thugs and cheats get called out eventually.
Exactly. In today's world if a team was to have deliberate tactic to maim an opponent they would be found out eventually and the repercussions would be severe.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
What about increasing the value for a penalty when the team are on a warning?
I remember there was a theory floating around years ago, around the time they increased tries to 5 points. The theory was defending teams give away penalties to not concede tries and their extra points, so if the value of penalty was to increase teams would be more reluctant to concede one.
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
What about increasing the value for a penalty when the team are on a warning?
Interesting idea. Probably some unintended consequences...
