Planet Rugby Forum

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Andalu wrote:Is it possible they take into account the body position of the attacker now?

Could ruin a game if a guy intentionally fell into a textbook tackle to take the defender out of the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s3qols_Ch4#t=2m56s

Nigel Owens suggests that if you're attempting a legal tackle and someone falls into it, it's a pen but not a card. Now, Ofa has been adjudged by the judiciary to be at least yellow card level but regardless - they do clearly take into account if the initial tackle attempt is low.

Great link. Pretty much ends the thread.

It should never have started but, because they have been doing it wrong up North, they now want us to do it wrong down here.

Now, Ofa has been adjudged by the judiciary to be at least yellow card level

No, he has been judged Yellow card level AT MOST

shabadoo wrote:

Toro wrote:

That's a joke if the second guy in that tackle got punished, he just moved into the carrier's line but does little more than wait for him, arms out. Based on that gif anyway.

That's exactly what happened...but its not a joke - it is the World Rugby directive to punish these incidents...so you can understand why everyone is a bit confused that Ofa was not punished.

Actually I think people should be confused as to why that player was punished, while still be confused that Of a was not. If he'd just stood still that player would've smashed his face into some part his body, he doesn't even cock his shoulder, just puts his arm out and the guy actually head butts his shoulder haha. If you just watch the player rather than the whole collision it doesn't look bad at all, even in slow motion where everything looks ten times worse.
In real time it is an absolute joke to think he could do anything else.

The slow motion sh-t gets everyone hysterical, if you see someone get hit in the face with a swiss ball in super slo-mo the impact looks brutal. it also makes everything look way more premeditated. These collisions happen so quickly.

Neig is right too, winning the collision is so important every tackle risks a red card if someone slips or is pushed in sideways by another tackle at the last second.

I'm sure there are 10-20 tackles and clean-outs in every game we watch where a shoulder meets a face/head with force, it just takes someone to put it up on the big screen.

shabadoo wrote:

Toro wrote:

That's a joke if the second guy in that tackle got punished, he just moved into the carrier's line but does little more than wait for him, arms out. Based on that gif anyway.

That's exactly what happened...but its not a joke - it is the World Rugby directive to punish these incidents...so you can understand why everyone is a bit confused that Ofa was not punished.

If you pick any team and find someone with too much time on their hands I'm pretty sure they could find examples where a player wasn't carded for contact with the head since the directive came out.

This one's only getting so much attention because it's attracted the usual bitter one eyed tin foil brigade that leap on anything that might seem to support their contention that the ABs get a free ride. While of course ignoring anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

Fat Old Git wrote:

shabadoo wrote:

Toro wrote:

That's a joke if the second guy in that tackle got punished, he just moved into the carrier's line but does little more than wait for him, arms out. Based on that gif anyway.

That's exactly what happened...but its not a joke - it is the World Rugby directive to punish these incidents...so you can understand why everyone is a bit confused that Ofa was not punished.

If you pick any team and find someone with too much time on their hands I'm pretty sure they could find examples where a player wasn't carded for contact with the head since the directive came out.

This one's only getting so much attention because it's attracted the usual bitter one eyed tin foil brigade that leap on anything that might seem to support their contention that the ABs get a free ride. While of course ignoring anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

Probably an element of truth in that.

That said - it is a high profile game (which, tbf, most AB games are - which might be unfortunate for the AB's) and the player did end up with a double fracture to the face...I think that is the main reason this is getting a lot of attention. You would also have to admit that there have been a good few incidents like this involving AB players in the last few years. Some punished and some not.

Also, I do think that the match against Ireland has left a bad taste in a few peoples mouths. The AB's definitely came with the intention of going hard and they crossed the line a few times without any "real" punishment...it was not long after that the new directives came out.

Enzedder wrote:

shabadoo wrote:

Diego wrote:Kid A is right. This is how it's been refereed for the last season, accidental or not. Why they chose to ignore that for this incident I don't know.

Exactly.

His tackle technique here is fine IMO. He was unlucky to make contact with Grosso's face...but these incidents have been red cards all year and I just cant understand how this one was not. Whether there is truth to the accusation that NZ in general get off with a bit more I don't know...but in THIS incident it should have been a Red.

Not here it hasn't. The powers that be up North have made one plus one = three.

If that is true it might explain a lot tbf.

shabadoo wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

Not here it hasn't. The powers that be up North have made one plus one = three.

If that is true it might explain a lot tbf.

And yet, when you listen to Owens in that recent link, it shouldn't be adjudicated that way up north either - and the ref on Saturday didn't ref it that way either - and the citing commissioner didn't either.

I think the confusion is up there, not down here.

Owens doesn't referee the same as everyone else. I'd be very reluctant to follow his lead on protocol.

Andalu wrote:Is it the illuminati, lizard people or banking families behind it?

Or did a young British referee not ref a perfect game?

Tune in next week for more of Kid A's persecution complex.

Look you might think this is funny, but Kid A has deep psychological problems, he needs help and this is just a cry for that help. Hopefully someone can provide the professional care he needs before he ends up running down his main street, buck naked, with a feather duster jammed in his arse screaming out ""I'm the Christmas turkey and I need a good stuffing".

shabadoo wrote:Also, I do think that the match against Ireland has left a bad taste in a few peoples mouths. The AB's definitely came with the intention of going hard and they crossed the line a few times without any "real" punishment...it was not long after that the new directives came out.

Got any gifs?

Salient wrote:

Andalu wrote:Is it the illuminati, lizard people or banking families behind it?

Or did a young British referee not ref a perfect game?

Tune in next week for more of Kid A's persecution complex.

Look you might think this is funny, but Kid A has deep psychological problems, he needs help and this is just a cry for that help. Hopefully someone can provide the professional care he needs before he ends up running down his main street, buck naked, with a feather duster jammed in his arse screaming out ""I'm the Christmas turkey and I need a good stuffing".

Sorry, I was trying to write something to develop your point, but I think it's already been well made ... thanks ...

If I remember correctly it wasn't only the ABs who got away with some dodgy tackles in that game.

RodneyRegis wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Andalu wrote:Is it possible they take into account the body position of the attacker now?

Could ruin a game if a guy intentionally fell into a textbook tackle to take the defender out of the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s3qols_Ch4#t=2m56s

Nigel Owens suggests that if you're attempting a legal tackle and someone falls into it, it's a pen but not a card. Now, Ofa has been adjudged by the judiciary to be at least yellow card level but regardless - they do clearly take into account if the initial tackle attempt is low.

Yeah, Nige is a clown.

What a dumb comment.

I’m pretty sure he’s fairly senior and would not be issuing this guidance without the consent of world rugby in order to help armchair fvckwits to better understand on field calls.

But I’m sure you’re right. And he is just a clown who needs silencing.

usermame wrote:

shabadoo wrote:Also, I do think that the match against Ireland has left a bad taste in a few peoples mouths. The AB's definitely came with the intention of going hard and they crossed the line a few times without any "real" punishment...it was not long after that the new directives came out.

Got any gifs?

No arms tackle/shoulder charge.



Swinging arm to the head.

Fat Old Git wrote:

shabadoo wrote:

Toro wrote:

That's a joke if the second guy in that tackle got punished, he just moved into the carrier's line but does little more than wait for him, arms out. Based on that gif anyway.

That's exactly what happened...but its not a joke - it is the World Rugby directive to punish these incidents...so you can understand why everyone is a bit confused that Ofa was not punished.

If you pick any team and find someone with too much time on their hands I'm pretty sure they could find examples where a player wasn't carded for contact with the head since the directive came out.

This one's only getting so much attention because it's attracted the usual bitter one eyed tin foil brigade that leap on anything that might seem to support their contention that the ABs get a free ride. While of course ignoring anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

You guys really do not help yourselves at all with this shit. It got attention because it was a high profile match, there was a weird set of refereeing decisions surrounding this and the previous incident, there's some history over citings, and it was a very serious head injury as a result. It's a joke to accuse other people being a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade" when you're coming out with crap like this.

Enzedder wrote:

shabadoo wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

Not here it hasn't. The powers that be up North have made one plus one = three.

If that is true it might explain a lot tbf.

And yet, when you listen to Owens in that recent link, it shouldn't be adjudicated that way up north either - and the ref on Saturday didn't ref it that way either - and the citing commissioner didn't either.

I think the confusion is up there, not down here.

There's always confusion when WR issue a memo and then it's applied really unevenly, with some competitions caring more than others, and in the case of foul play laws some citing commissioners caring more than others.

Certainly WR are trying to avoid armageddon for the sport with concussion but they're going about it in a haphazard and frankly bizarre manner.

It's not just the foul play laws - the new breakdown laws are an absolute crapshoot depending on where the ref's from. I was laughing in disbelief watching turnovers be allowed from the 4th or 5th man to the ruck in the SA/England game, while a different ref in another match reffed it the way we'd expect in the Premiership.

JM2K6 wrote:
You guys really do not help yourselves at all with this shit. It got attention because it was a high profile match, there was a weird set of refereeing decisions surrounding this and the previous incident, there's some history over citings, and it was a very serious head injury as a result. It's a joke to accuse other people being a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade" when you're coming out with crap like this.

So you're just gonna pretend there haven't been loads of articles, tweets & posts claiming NZ is reffed differently to other countries - y'know, like a 17 page thread on PR for instance? You really think it would have got the same amount of attention if it were an Australian who got off?

It got some attention cause of the reasons you state. However, it unquestionably got MORE attention than it otherwise would have cause it involved NZ.

There's two issues here - firstly inconsistency in officiating & the judiciary and secondly, the conspiracy theory/subconscious bias towards NZ angle. The former needs to discussed and addressed. The latter is batshit bullshit and actually serves to hamper meaningful discussion on the former.

JM2K6 wrote: It's a joke to accuse other people being a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade"...

actually, it isn't - otherwise the thread title and subsequent discussion would be "refereeing inconsistencies in the modern game" opposed to "comparing how NZ are refereed to others"

Help ourselves with what exactly?

He's spot on to be honest, these things get dragged out by the usual click bait on-line whingers and used to push a narrative that the All Blacks get treated differently, that's what he's referring to. Most have agreed the French card was harsh, and Ofa and Cane were lucky, but the aftermath is the typical bulls.t that comes out every time, and the OP if this very thread is testament.

Where was the ABs special deal when SBW got red carded? When Sinckler jumped into a tackle, when the refs come up with the biggest farce of a decision in history to deny the ABs a series win?

Suddenly they changed things after BOD but nothing was said about Rua Tupoki getting speared straight onto his head without the ball on the same tour.

They reviewed the head highs after the ABs ireland game apparently but no mention of the decade of head attacks GOAT alone suffered during the best part of a decade. Elbows, forearms, knees, spear tackles, clotheslines and having his eyes raked. F all collective outrage for any of those incidents yet if an AB steps out of line or gets the rub of the green god help us.

There was much more talk after 2011 about the ref favouring the ABs than the French filth not getting cited for the most disgusting act one can commit on a rugby field.

I remember reading there was a pundit who refused to call the All Blacks the All Blacks and suggested others followed his lead. Funny that he didn't mention the Wallabies, Springboks, Pumas, Les Blues etc.

Which is basically the spirit behind this thread.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:
You guys really do not help yourselves at all with this shit. It got attention because it was a high profile match, there was a weird set of refereeing decisions surrounding this and the previous incident, there's some history over citings, and it was a very serious head injury as a result. It's a joke to accuse other people being a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade" when you're coming out with crap like this.

So you're just gonna pretend there haven't been loads of articles, tweets & posts claiming NZ is reffed differently to other countries - y'know, like a 17 page thread on PR for instance? You really think it would have got the same amount of attention if it were an Australian who got off?

It got some attention cause of the reasons you state. However, it unquestionably got MORE attention than it otherwise would have cause it involved NZ.

There's two issues here - firstly inconsistency in officiating & the judiciary and secondly, the conspiracy theory/subconscious bias towards NZ angle. The former needs to discussed and addressed. The latter is batshit bullshit and actually serves to hamper meaningful discussion on the former.

Pretending this is 17 pages of people arguing that NZ get treated differently is quite funny given how many of those pages were taken up with arguing about what actually happened with that incident, given I was part of that argument and largely responsible for a big chunk of the thread.

NZ are the biggest draw card in the game and the #1 side in the world. With that comes scrutiny. Additionally, you have a reputation for being a little sanctimonious and occasionally spin some utter bullshit about how nice your players are and how they're so clean on the field. They're not. They're just like everyone else.

I, personally, think there's an issue with certain tackling techniques being allowed when they shouldn't (see for example *that* Dublin game, where Israel Dagg concussed CJ Stander) that I see NZ attempt more than most, and most of us can easily remember incidents where NZ 'got away' with some really dirty play (Ali Williams on Grewcock would be the English highlight I suspect). On balance it's probably no more than any other team gets away with, but some of them seem like such a blatant pisstake that it really sticks in the craw, and when you add in the aforementioned sanctimony (and the "xyz player is so clean" nonsense that comes out from the NZ management) it's not hard to see why NZ might get a rough ride from everyone else.

Shit, I got angry on behalf of NZ rugby when Broadhurst knee-dropped a fellow Kiwi who was lying prone and got a severe concussion - leading to some absolutely piddly ban. I prefer the Kiwis to the Irish but was arguing on the Irish side for that Dublin match just because of what happened and how frustrating it was to have so many Kiwi fans flat-out deny what had happened. Just because I think there's been a few too many instances of NZ getting lucky with the citing commissioner doesn't mean I think there's a conspiracy; that'd be like claiming that just because one team got the rub of the green with the ref in a match, the ref was bent - it's a huge leap and one I absolutely disagree with. I have no truck with suggesting that WR deliberately handles NZ differently. But I do think you guys get seriously lucky at times.

... refused to call the All Blacks the All Blacks...

lord bald went down that road - Lions 05 tour i think...

Toro wrote:
There was much more talk after 2011 about the ref favouring the ABs than the French filth not getting cited for the most disgusting act one can commit on a rugby field.

The differing reactions to Cardiff 2007 and the 2011 final tells an awful lot about rugby media and supposed neutrals.

Obviously not everyone feels the same way, but there is clearly a sizeable percentage of the rugby world that is fairly anti-NZ. Some of it is just betting against the favourite/supporting the underdog of course, but there's also a decent element of genuine antipathy and the whole cheating/refs favouring NZ has a big overlap with it.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Toro wrote:
There was much more talk after 2011 about the ref favouring the ABs than the French filth not getting cited for the most disgusting act one can commit on a rugby field.

The differing reactions to Cardiff 2007 and the 2011 final tells an awful lot about rugby media and supposed neutrals.

Obviously not everyone feels the same way, but there is clearly a sizeable percentage of the rugby world that is fairly anti-NZ. Some of it is just betting against the favourite/supporting the underdog of course, but there's also a decent element of genuine antipathy and the whole cheating/refs favouring NZ has a big overlap with it.

Why do you think that is?

JM2K6 wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Toro wrote:
There was much more talk after 2011 about the ref favouring the ABs than the French filth not getting cited for the most disgusting act one can commit on a rugby field.

The differing reactions to Cardiff 2007 and the 2011 final tells an awful lot about rugby media and supposed neutrals.

Obviously not everyone feels the same way, but there is clearly a sizeable percentage of the rugby world that is fairly anti-NZ. Some of it is just betting against the favourite/supporting the underdog of course, but there's also a decent element of genuine antipathy and the whole cheating/refs favouring NZ has a big overlap with it.

Why do you think that is?

because they win.. a lot

if nz lost last Saturday's game - this thread may well not have made it past a page

JM2K6 wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:
You guys really do not help yourselves at all with this shit. It got attention because it was a high profile match, there was a weird set of refereeing decisions surrounding this and the previous incident, there's some history over citings, and it was a very serious head injury as a result. It's a joke to accuse other people being a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade" when you're coming out with crap like this.

So you're just gonna pretend there haven't been loads of articles, tweets & posts claiming NZ is reffed differently to other countries - y'know, like a 17 page thread on PR for instance? You really think it would have got the same amount of attention if it were an Australian who got off?

It got some attention cause of the reasons you state. However, it unquestionably got MORE attention than it otherwise would have cause it involved NZ.

There's two issues here - firstly inconsistency in officiating & the judiciary and secondly, the conspiracy theory/subconscious bias towards NZ angle. The former needs to discussed and addressed. The latter is batshit bullshit and actually serves to hamper meaningful discussion on the former.

Pretending this is 17 pages of people arguing that NZ get treated differently is quite funny given how many of those pages were taken up with arguing about what actually happened with that incident, given I was part of that argument and largely responsible for a big chunk of the thread.

NZ are the biggest draw card in the game and the #1 side in the world. With that comes scrutiny. Additionally, you have a reputation for being a little sanctimonious and occasionally spin some utter bullshit about how nice your players are and how they're so clean on the field. They're not. They're just like everyone else.

I, personally, think there's an issue with certain tackling techniques being allowed when they shouldn't (see for example *that* Dublin game, where Israel Dagg concussed CJ Stander) that I see NZ attempt more than most, and most of us can easily remember incidents where NZ 'got away' with some really dirty play (Ali Williams on Grewcock would be the English highlight I suspect). On balance it's probably no more than any other team gets away with, but some of them seem like such a blatant pisstake that it really sticks in the craw, and when you add in the aforementioned sanctimony (and the "xyz player is so clean" nonsense that comes out from the NZ management) it's not hard to see why NZ might get a rough ride from everyone else.

Shit, I got angry on behalf of NZ rugby when Broadhurst knee-dropped a fellow Kiwi who was lying prone and got a severe concussion - leading to some absolutely piddly ban. I prefer the Kiwis to the Irish but was arguing on the Irish side for that Dublin match just because of what happened and how frustrating it was to have so many Kiwi fans flat-out deny what had happened. Just because I think there's been a few too many instances of NZ getting lucky with the citing commissioner doesn't mean I think there's a conspiracy; that'd be like claiming that just because one team got the rub of the green with the ref in a match, the ref was bent - it's a huge leap and one I absolutely disagree with. I have no truck with suggesting that WR deliberately handles NZ differently. But I do think you guys get seriously lucky at times.

'

It's not 17 pages of that, no. Nor is the entire discussion about how WR and refs favour NZ. But a lot of is and so is a lot of the discussion in the media (professional and social).

And we can all remember other countries getting away with loads of shit. Burger not getting red carded for a blatant eye gouge. Horwill getting away with stomping on someone's head. Every man and his dog getting away with smashing McCaw illegally. Was everyone angry that Sexton got away with a high tackle in that Dublin match? No? Wonder why.

JM2K6 wrote:
Why do you think that is?

I think it's generally a case of the tendency of losing fans (and neutrals supporting the underdog) to look at some other way to express their disappointment & anger combined with good old confirmation bias.

Toro wrote:Help ourselves with what exactly?

He's spot on to be honest, these things get dragged out by the usual click bait on-line wingers and used to push a narrative that the All Blacks get treated differently, that's what he's referring to. Most have agreed the French card was harsh, and Ofa and Cane were lucky, but the aftermath is the typical bulls.t that comes out every time, and the OP if this very thread is testament.

Where was the ABs special deal when SBW got red carded? When Sinckler jumped into a tackle, when the refs come up with the biggest farce of a decision in history to deny the ABs a series win?

Suddenly they changed things after BOD but nothing was said about Rua Tupoki getting speared straight onto his head without the ball on the same tour.

They reviewed the head highs after the ABs ireland game apparently but no mention of the decade of head attacks GOAT alone suffered during the best part of a decade. Elbows, forearms, knees, spear tackles, clotheslines and having his eyes raked. F all collective outrage for any of those incidents yet if an AB steps out of line or gets the rub of the green god help us.

There was much more talk after 2011 about the ref favouring the ABs than the French filth not getting cited for the most disgusting act one can commit on a rugby field.

Is this meant to be a serious post or a parody?

Nieghorn wrote:The Barrington one I'm most sympathetic with. Virtually no time to do anything about it. Carrier more falls into him than him hitting the carrier. Ofa doesn't have much time either, but still lunges a bit with the shoulder toward a falling man. Lova and Filise no forgiveness for (though head contact in Lova's case is in question, he still aims high knowing full well he could slide up and over)

I contend that these incidents and 'harsh' cards should aim to get players to think twice about their actions. Protecting the head has to take precedence above all or after a while we're not going to have a game with all the lawsuits coming WR's / various leagues' way.

Ofa had no time to actively move out of the way, but could have done better to recognise Cane had brought Grosso down low and accepted contact rather than lean into it. Would have avoided a head clash as well doing that.

There's too much of an emphasis on 'winning the collision', imo. So many double tackles in a game that are unnecessary, with the first man doing enough to bring the carrier down. Funnily enough, it's better for a jackal as well, with the second man staying out to poach a la George Smith (not to mention bringing the ball carrier onto your side, making it more difficult for him to lay the ball back / exposing it to the jackaller).

Perhaps worth pointing out that the Barrington red card was later rescinded

If Franks had done what Kepu did in the 2015 final you think we'd have heard so little about it?

It's all good using yourself as an example JMK but when they all come crawling out of the woodwork both on here, social media, the media etc etc there certainly is a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade", distancing yourself from it doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for what the coaches say, I've yet to see any coach publicly throw one if his players under a bus for on-field discretions so I don't know what surprises you about it. You forget that the media baits them on various occasions with the accusation that players are dirty, which is usually refuted then backed up with a personal opinion of said players character.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:Was everyone angry that Sexton got away with a high tackle in that Dublin match? No? Wonder why.

Because it was just a high tackle that didn't injure anyone, from memory. It was dirty, but certainly very few people defended him over it. Let's see which major incidents involving NZ have kicked off shitfights:

BOD's shoulder injury after being picked up in a ruck and driven head first into the ground by Umaga and Mealamu
Cane knocking out Henshaw
(smaller fight) Dagg concussing CJ out of the game
Ofa + Cane breaking Grosso's skull

The common thread here is injury. It's silly to pretend that doesn't influence things. (edit: note there wasn't really a shitfight over SBW, because a) Watson wasn't too badly hurt, and b) SBW was appropriately sanctioned)

I think it's generally a case of the tendency of losing fans (and neutrals supporting the underdog) to look at some other way to express their disappointment & anger combined with good old confirmation bias.

Sure, that's part of it. The Aussies used to say the same about their cricket team, though



icon: if you'd have lost that match, this would be 40 pages, and 10 of them would be filled by Kiwis talking about how people love to see NZ lose.

He is an irritating Yorkshire terrier of a poster but it’s fair to say that JMK does at least argue these points in good faith, the same cannot always be said of other posters in this thread - including kiwis.

PR itself on the whole is far more reasonable than, say, Twitter when it comes to tin foil hat conspiracies

Toro wrote:If Franks had done what Kepu did in the 2015 final you think we'd have heard so little about it?

It's all good using yourself as an example JMK but when they all come crawling out of the woodwork both on here, social media, the media etc etc there certainly is a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade", distancing yourself from it doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for what the coaches say, I've yet to see any coach publicly throw one if his players under a bus for on-field discretions so I don't know what surprises you about it. You forget that the media baits them on various occasions with the accusation that players are dirty, which is usually refuted then backed up with a personal opinion of said players character.

On the flip side, some of you are far too quick to screech about non-Kiwis criticising NZ rugby or their players. You yourself had a bizarre reaction to a couple of posters getting pissed off with the U20 scrumhalf appearing to stamp on 2 players, including on the head of one of them. You're so quick to be defensive.

Don't forget the 2011 world cup final, in many ways that injured rugby.

JM2K6 wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:Was everyone angry that Sexton got away with a high tackle in that Dublin match? No? Wonder why.

Because it was just a high tackle that didn't injure anyone, from memory. It was dirty, but certainly very few people defended him over it. Let's see which major incidents involving NZ have kicked off shitfights:

BOD's shoulder injury after being picked up in a ruck and driven head first into the ground by Umaga and Mealamu
Cane knocking out Henshaw
(smaller fight) Dagg concussing CJ out of the game
Ofa + Cane breaking Grosso's skull

The common thread here is injury. It's silly to pretend that doesn't influence things.

SOB knocked out Naholo & put him out of the Lions series - no card, no citing, no penalty, no worldwide outrage.

Floppykid wrote:Don't forget the 2011 world cup final, in many ways that injured rugby.

And yet, 2007......

Floppykid wrote:Don't forget the 2011 world cup final, in many ways that injured rugby.

JM2K6 wrote:

Toro wrote:If Franks had done what Kepu did in the 2015 final you think we'd have heard so little about it?

It's all good using yourself as an example JMK but when they all come crawling out of the woodwork both on here, social media, the media etc etc there certainly is a "bitter one eyed tin foil brigade", distancing yourself from it doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for what the coaches say, I've yet to see any coach publicly throw one if his players under a bus for on-field discretions so I don't know what surprises you about it. You forget that the media baits them on various occasions with the accusation that players are dirty, which is usually refuted then backed up with a personal opinion of said players character.

On the flip side, some of you are far too quick to screech about non-Kiwis criticising NZ rugby or their players. You yourself had a bizarre reaction to a couple of posters getting pissed off with the U20 scrumhalf appearing to stamp on 2 players, including on the head of one of them. You're so quick to be defensive.

That's true. Part of it is people being sick of the same tired arguments and often this will lead to them over-reacting or getting defensive before any real accusations have been made. And there are trolls and dicks everywhere, NZ included.

JM2K6 wrote:
icon: if you'd have lost that match, this would be 40 pages, and 10 of them would be filled by Kiwis talking about how people love to see NZ lose.

lol - although 29 pages would be me alone screaming blue murder about Waisake's non selection [which they've gone and doubled down on today]

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:Was everyone angry that Sexton got away with a high tackle in that Dublin match? No? Wonder why.

Because it was just a high tackle that didn't injure anyone, from memory. It was dirty, but certainly very few people defended him over it. Let's see which major incidents involving NZ have kicked off shitfights:

BOD's shoulder injury after being picked up in a ruck and driven head first into the ground by Umaga and Mealamu
Cane knocking out Henshaw
(smaller fight) Dagg concussing CJ out of the game
Ofa + Cane breaking Grosso's skull

The common thread here is injury. It's silly to pretend that doesn't influence things.

SOB knocked out Naholo & put him out of the Lions series - no card, no citing, no penalty, no worldwide outrage.

What point is it you're making beyond whataboutery? Are you planning on bringing up every incident involving a NZ player being on the receiving end? What is it you think I'm arguing with the post you've quoted?

I'm not going to sit here and argue the toss about SOB. Not least because I don't really remember how that all played out; I don't remember it looking particularly bad at the time, and I don't remember if people on here shrugged and went "he got away with that" or spent a week denying it ever happened. I will say I just watched it again and it's not at all what I expected - it's a second man in on a tackle and I can easily see how it might be ruled as totally accidental, or ruled as a red card worthy offence.