Super Rugby News
-
@stargazer I think that's a bit high, from my recollection it was his head that did the damage, not his shoulder, I think 2-4 weeks would have been sufficient, especially when you weight the potential games he is to miss out on as well, although once again the judiciary show they are muppets by reducing a supposed repeat offenders sentence due to remorse...didn't look remorseful on the night after it happened.
@taniwharugby No, it's really not high at all; it's spot on. I think you're confusing Fa'auli's hit with the Caleb Timu yellow in the Reds v Sunwolves game? That was a head clash, although he was leading with the shoulder and the intent seemed to be the same as Fa'auli's; that will be a 6-week entry point as well, I think, because he just dived towards the "victim" who was already on the ground.
Fa'auli definitely hit Goosen in the head with his shoulder and didn't even try to wrap his arms. That's a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks and as a repeat offender, he was always going to get one or two weeks extra. The two weeks deduction seems a bit much, but he didn't get the full 50% deduction, for obvious reasons. Correct and consistent decision.
See in this video from 1 min 33 sec (62nd minute of the game):
.
-
Ardie Savea and Jordie Barrett have re-signed with NZR and the Hurricanes, both through to the end of the 2019 season.
But why one year only? Especially Jordie?
http://www.allblacks.com/News/32696/ardie-savea-and-jordie-barrett-recommit-to-new-zealand-rugby
-
@stargazer I'd suggest the 1 year deal for Jordie is because he probably figures he can negotiate for much more $ in a year's time when Ben Smith is on the way out.
-
Odds for Friday night's game was Chiefs $2.30 and Hurricanes $1.57. So the Canes are stronger favourites?
-
@kiwimurph Yeah, but why dit NZR agree? Jordie really isn't going overseas if they refuse a one-year deal.
-
@stargazer No one thought Piutau was going overseas until he did.
-
@kiwimurph Yeah, but a Barrett isn't a Piutau.
@stargazer it's dangerous to assume.
-
@taniwharugby No, it's really not high at all; it's spot on. I think you're confusing Fa'auli's hit with the Caleb Timu yellow in the Reds v Sunwolves game? That was a head clash, although he was leading with the shoulder and the intent seemed to be the same as Fa'auli's; that will be a 6-week entry point as well, I think, because he just dived towards the "victim" who was already on the ground.
Fa'auli definitely hit Goosen in the head with his shoulder and didn't even try to wrap his arms. That's a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks and as a repeat offender, he was always going to get one or two weeks extra. The two weeks deduction seems a bit much, but he didn't get the full 50% deduction, for obvious reasons. Correct and consistent decision.
See in this video from 1 min 33 sec (62nd minute of the game):
.
@stargazer do you read what people post, I'm not confusing it with anything, given I didnt watch that other game.
Watch that clip you posted, his head makes contact first, and IMO its his head that does the damage, I wasnt arguing it wasnt a shoulder charge, I was arguing his head made contact with Goosens
-
@stargazer do you read what people post, I'm not confusing it with anything, given I didnt watch that other game.
Watch that clip you posted, his head makes contact first, and IMO its his head that does the damage, I wasnt arguing it wasnt a shoulder charge, I was arguing his head made contact with Goosens
@taniwharugby I don't see the head making contact first, I see clearly a shoulder making contact with the head. But for the sake of the argument, for the offending it doesn't make much of a difference. It was a dangerous tackle, without arms, and he made contact with the head. Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders) has a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks. It doesn't distinguish between a player being hit in the head with a shoulder or a head clash, considering it was always dangerous. His intent was clear, too. There was nothing accidental about it.
And if you didn't watch that Reds v Sunwolves game, you may want to have a look at this clip. That was a clear head clash, but whether it will make a difference for the outcome of the citing?
-
@taniwharugby I don't see the head making contact first, I see clearly a shoulder making contact with the head. But for the sake of the argument, for the offending it doesn't make much of a difference. It was a dangerous tackle, without arms, and he made contact with the head. Law 9.13 (A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders) has a mid-range entry point of 6 weeks. It doesn't distinguish between a player being hit in the head with a shoulder or a head clash, considering it was always dangerous. His intent was clear, too. There was nothing accidental about it.
And if you didn't watch that Reds v Sunwolves game, you may want to have a look at this clip. That was a clear head clash, but whether it will make a difference for the outcome of the citing?
@stargazer head contact was accidental, the shoulder charge not.
I think with some of the other punishment inconsistenacies, 6 weeks is harsh, given it includes a '2 week discount''
-
@stargazer head contact was accidental, the shoulder charge not.
I think with some of the other punishment inconsistenacies, 6 weeks is harsh, given it includes a '2 week discount''
@taniwharugby I have read all decisions this year and they haven't been inconsistent at all. Referees have been, but not the Foul Play Review Committee.
-
@stargazer head contact was accidental, the shoulder charge not.
I think with some of the other punishment inconsistenacies, 6 weeks is harsh, given it includes a '2 week discount''
-
6 weeks? For that? 6 weeks is an enormous ban, especially when compared with other sports.
Add that to the softest red card in history on the weekend, and it's clear that World Rugby wants us playing touch.
-
6 weeks? For that? 6 weeks is an enormous ban, especially when compared with other sports.
Add that to the softest red card in history on the weekend, and it's clear that World Rugby wants us playing touch.
-
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
@stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
Number of Judicial Findings read by M4L in his life = 0
-
@stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
Number of Judicial Findings read by M4L in his life = 0
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:
@stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@mariner4life Have you already seen the decision of the Foul Play Review Committee regarding that red card that was given to Ed Quirk? (I haven't)
Number of Judicial Findings read by M4L in his life = 0
There's love for the game and then there's love for the game...
-
@toddy said in Super Rugby News:
I reckon good job. It was a filthy act and he fully deserves it.
Same as Ofa T's in the test, and we all agreed he should have got off.
