Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 303 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5676
DOB wrote:
obelixtim wrote:
That has been a red for quite a long time now.

Its amazing the contortions people are going through to blame Barrett for this. Had the roles been reversed, I have no doubt all of these truth twisters and shape shifters would be screaming blue bloody murder about AB filth.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

But not surprising.

You’ve missed a lot of the debates after those past red cards where it’s been pointed out again and again that it’s completely wrong to penalise, let alone red card, player A for standing his ground under the ball when player B comes in at speed, from the blindside, and jumps into and over A. This point has been repeated consistently and regularly time and again, after club and international games, over the past 5 years or more, regardless of the colours worn by either player or the hemisphere in which the game is played.

As for contortions to blame Barrett, it’s an embarrassment to the laws of the game that the original contortion in all of this somehow managed to apportion all blame in such cases to the bloke who has no notion in the world that he’s about to get smashed in the head by a flying femur.


So its BBs fault because Fall was running around with a blindfold on?

Irrespective, thats how its been reffed for ages now, players know about it. So either Fall was blind, with no spatial awareness, or he was just dumb. Take your pick.

BTW, as soon as the card was given it immediately spoiled the game for everyone, me included. The crowd reaction showed it. A win in those circumstances is rather hollow. But at least the Frogs put up a fight this time around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31528
Location: Chickenrunning...
You all know you can’t even tickle a AB flyhalf. Ask Bismarck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21877
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Posts: 4583
Location: NZ
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848

Is there another angle that shows a shove or a fuller video? I don't see one in that clip.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6921
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


I hadn't seen that before and suspected there was a bit of anti AB spite in this, but that shove makes him slightly stumble and hinders his jump. Its an outrageous decision.

I'll make an offer now to compare the two incidents. For anyone who thinks the French incident was worse, I'll jump for the ball with you, and I promise I'll let you jump lower and I'll fly over your head, but then I get to lift you up and drive you into the ground head first a la the second incident.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16834
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


That's not a shove. It's 3 steps and about 8m from where he jumped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5676
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


That's not a shove. It's 3 steps and about 8m from where he jumped.


You don't get it. ALB was on the park at the same time. He's an AB. So he must be guilty....

Of something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5676
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


That's not a shove. It's 3 steps and about 8m from where he jumped.


You don't get it. ALB was on the park at the same time. He's an AB. So he must be guilty....

Of something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
Thomas wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.



As Shanky (i think) pointed out, there's a whole sport in Australia dedicated to the contest in the air. This incident wouldn't have even made a highlight reel in the AFL.


I rest my case M'Lud. Morronicans, a whole continent spilling over with them. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
It was possibly to the letter of the law, but it was undoubtedly harsh on the French player.

Just for the idiot band-waggoners, there were several other aerial contests in that game, a couple almost as spectacular, that didn't even attract a penalty. Take those on board before spouting off with your stupidity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:02 am
Posts: 3022
Nobody wants to see a game between 15 and 14, except in very rare circumstances where deliberate violence is used.


The obvious answer in a situation like the one being to discussed is to dismiss the offending player from further participation in the match, then after ten minutes, allow his team to bring on a substitute. So they have played 10 minutes with fourteen players, and have also lost one off their bench.


That is sufficient, except in cases of extreme violence in which a blatant attempt is made to injure an opposition player, in which case the team deserves to play with 14 for the whole game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
wamberal99 wrote:
Nobody wants to see a game between 15 and 14, except in very rare circumstances where deliberate violence is used.


The obvious answer in a situation like the one being to discussed is to dismiss the offending player from further participation in the match, then after ten minutes, allow his team to bring on a substitute. So they have played 10 minutes with fourteen players, and have also lost one off their bench.


That is sufficient, except in cases of extreme violence in which a blatant attempt is made to injure an opposition player, in which case the team deserves to play with 14 for the whole game.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848


What gives, DOB?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21648
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
I've just accepted it as gospel that their was a shove involved as so many have touted it, but that video doesn't actually show one.

:?

Can we see another angle, or a clip that starts a second or so earlier?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5676
Fat Old Git wrote:
I've just accepted it as gospel that their was a shove involved as so many have touted it, but that video doesn't actually show one.

:?

Can we see another angle, or a clip that starts a second or so earlier?


Can't be done....because it didn't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
Fat Old Git wrote:
I've just accepted it as gospel that their was a shove involved as so many have touted it, but that video doesn't actually show one.

:?

Can we see another angle, or a clip that starts a second or so earlier?


The first video here gives you the best look from side on, unfortunately it's at a distance and the closer shot isn't replayed.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... lacks-test

The shove claims are risible. Idiocy or trolling, it doesn't really matter. I have not time for either type of claimant. At worst, Fall brushes past ALB who doesn't change his line and is perffectly entitled to be where he is, indeed Fall hits him quite some distance from the clash with BB, but but, whatabout All Blacks, Cheats, Thugs, Conspiracy.

Talking of thugs, Sam Cane is walking a slippery slope. It seems he can't help being involved in borderline and downright unsavoury incidents. I am now starting to review some of his unfortunate slip-ups and clashes. All the same, we can't do without him so he needs to settle down somehow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
Where's Kid A with his super slo mo gifs when you need him...... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16834
Flametop wrote:
Just had a look at the footage.
Another ridiculous decision.
Fall is already under the ball in position waiting to make the catch.


No he's f*cking not. If you freeze frame a bit before they take off, Barrett's closer to the point the ball came down than Fall is, hence why Barrett was able to jump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am
Posts: 6993
Location: Sydney
DOB wrote:
No, as I said above, it was Lienert Brown’s fault for shoving Fall in the back as he was about to jump;

https://mobile.twitter.com/murrayg9/sta ... 4439502848

That’s the “shove” we’ve all been hearing about?
:lol: :lol:
Not to mention the comments under that Twitter post.Delusional.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22240
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Ted. wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I just saw the NZ-France card.

It was an absolutely brutal landing, but FFS there was barely anything in it. You can't red card someone because the opposition player landed awkwardly. As genuinely dangerous as the situation was, if BB had landed on his stomach that probably wouldn't even have been a penalty. The French player had his eyes on the ball the entire time, a split second to react, and really barely even "hit" him. It's a massive stretch to call that a tackle in the air. He was just lower than BB, who jumped "over" him and was carthweeled when he hit resistance. BB was in genuine danger of serious injury, but it so is anyone who steps foot on a rugby field and he has to take some responsibility for his own safety too. You can't red card players for that.

The commentators, referee and TMO seemed totally convinced it was incontrovertibly a red card, and big Mathieu Bastaraud didn't even argue, so I guess I've just got to trust their judgement.

It seems very harsh to me and I agree with the OP the Koriobete's seemed much more deliberate and intentional and preventable.



As Shanky (i think) pointed out, there's a whole sport in Australia dedicated to the contest in the air. This incident wouldn't have even made a highlight reel in the AFL.


I rest my case M'Lud. Morronicans, a whole continent spilling over with them. :nod:

Im with Shanky and Thomas here. It was a card to the letter of the law, but that is ridiculous. The French player had eyes for the ball and contested for it. He was beaten by Barrett who landed poorly. It should have been nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22240
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16834
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.



Yeah, but these days 'realistic' takes into account the jump and as he arrived a fraction later, he wasn't ever going to be able to get up above Barrett and therefore not realistic.

HK - I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a red under the current guidelines, just that the law has gone a bit too far in protecting the player in the air.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.



Yeah, but these days 'realistic' takes into account the jump and as he arrived a fraction later, he wasn't ever going to be able to get up above Barrett and therefore not realistic.

HK - I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a red under the current guidelines, just that the law has gone a bit too far in protecting the player in the air.


Understand your, and others, position: I’m just explaining what process the refs use to decide what colour the card will be


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38556
Location: in transit
Hong Kong wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Following your logic here, all Fall had to do was jump into Barrett then.


The Law in this case is an ass. Barrett put himself in danger and Fall took the...rap.

Either we ban jumping for the ball outside of lineouts or we throw our hands up in the air and accept that trying to contest a high ball will cost you a man.

That's ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6603
Hong Kong wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.



Yeah, but these days 'realistic' takes into account the jump and as he arrived a fraction later, he wasn't ever going to be able to get up above Barrett and therefore not realistic.

HK - I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a red under the current guidelines, just that the law has gone a bit too far in protecting the player in the air.


Understand your, and others, position: I’m just explaining what process the refs use to decide what colour the card will be



This technique?

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am
Posts: 6993
Location: Sydney
Fall was underneath Barrett when he “kind of” jumped.
If he took his eyes off the ball for a second and jumped from slightly further back he probably would have been ok and so would Barrett.
Quite easily preventable if Fall had his wits about him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
guy smiley wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Following your logic here, all Fall had to do was jump into Barrett then.absolutely NO!!!


The Law in this case is an ass. Barrett put himself in danger and Fall took the...rap.quite possibly

Either we ban jumping for the ball outside of lineouts or we throw our hands up in the air and accept that trying to contest a high ball will cost you a man.not necessarily - ther is still a contest and at a push, I could find examples where ther has been a legit contest with contest and one player goes down, even hurt but it’s play on.

That's ridiculous.


I understand the concerns but unless you are in a realistic position to contest the ball, then don’t put yourself in that position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
Clogs wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.



Yeah, but these days 'realistic' takes into account the jump and as he arrived a fraction later, he wasn't ever going to be able to get up above Barrett and therefore not realistic.

HK - I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a red under the current guidelines, just that the law has gone a bit too far in protecting the player in the air.


Understand your, and others, position: I’m just explaining what process the refs use to decide what colour the card will be



This technique?

Image


😱. You are saying red all day long? Good to know you’ve learnt something


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38556
Location: in transit
Hong Kong wrote:
I understand the concerns but unless you are in a realistic position to contest the ball, then don’t put yourself in that position.


Here's where my frustration stems from HK... I understand what you're saying, of course and I didn't mean to imply I was attacking your statement personally... but the speed the game is moving at and the split second timing involved means expecting a player to not put himself in a poor position is unrealistic when the penalty is a red card.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21877
Hong Kong wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Here's the problem with your interpretation, HK.

I mentioned this incident above, but I got the Welsh 10 wrong, it was Biggar, not Patchell. Russell sees Biggar coming at the last second, and realises that Biggar is coming in faster and higher. He does everything he reasonably can to get out of the way, but ends up getting clocked in the face anyway. And got a yellow card. Which the judiciary saw fit to upgrade to a red and a 2 week suspension.

So even when a player realises that his position is not realistic to compete and tries to avoid contact, the powers that be will still throw the book at him for the heinous crime of not jumping as high as the other bloke.

So even if Fall saw Barrett coming (and he didn't, because he was looking at the ball the whole time), by the time Barrett was in the air, Fall was fcuked either way. Might as well make some sort of effort to jump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10588
I understand your concerns DOB and Guy and I even maybe sympathetic towards the sentiments, but WR have a duty to minimise the risk to players. By having such a stringent standard, I guess the belief is this will help reduce the number of incidents and will definitely take away the lazy or malicious attacks in the air. For sure, some “innocents” may get caught up in the x-fire but if fewer dangerous landings occur as a result, then, so be it.

DOB - for the record, I believe (and said at the time) that Finn could have avoided contact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38556
Location: in transit
Hong Kong wrote:
but WR have a duty to minimise the risk to players.


Yes, they do and the head injury risk is something we are still, slowly it must be said, coming to understand and realise. In that case then, let's ban them from jumping and putting themselves in such high risk positions :smug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:24 pm
Posts: 1969
guy smiley wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
but WR have a duty to minimise the risk to players.


Yes, they do and the head injury risk is something we are still, slowly it must be said, coming to understand and realise. In that case then, let's ban them from jumping and putting themselves in such high risk positions :smug:


This may well happen. It's the only way to really minimize the risk. Won't stop injuries though. As Enz pointed out, only by going to Touch will we do that, and who wants that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13269
I just watched the event again and can we dispense with this "push" nonsense? Anyone saying or insinuating is just looking for an excuse to fling mud.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Posts: 4583
Location: NZ
The Native wrote:
I just watched the event again and can we dispense with this "push" nonsense? Anyone saying or insinuating is just looking for an excuse to fling mud.

That "push" is like a fiordland moose. I keep looking for it but can't see a thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5853
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
guy smiley wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Following your logic here, all Fall had to do was jump into Barrett then.


The Law in this case is an ass. Barrett put himself in danger and Fall took the...rap.

Either we ban jumping for the ball outside of lineouts or we throw our hands up in the air and accept that trying to contest a high ball will cost you a man.

That's ridiculous.

The same law applies in a lineout


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 35
This could easily be solved by a law change which prohibits players jumping for high balls, in the same way as they are currently prohibited from hurdling tackles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38556
Location: in transit
message #2527204 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hong Kong wrote:
Was Fall in a realistic position to compete for the ball? No.
Did he make contact with the player in the air? Yes.
Did the player in the air fall dangerously? Yes.

It’s ticking all the right boxes for a red.

He was in a realistic position to compete for the ball. Had Barrett not outjumped him he could have taken it. Barrett just outjumped him.

Not disputing its a red by the laws, just that the law is poor and makes it difdicult to have a competirion for high balls.

And there is why he was NOT in a realistic position to compete for the ball


Following your logic here, all Fall had to do was jump into Barrett then.


The Law in this case is an ass. Barrett put himself in danger and Fall took the...rap.

Either we ban jumping for the ball outside of lineouts or we throw our hands up in the air and accept that trying to contest a high ball will cost you a man.

That's ridiculous.

The same law applies in a lineout



Well done, Einstein... the difference being that players aren't running at speed into the collision.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 303 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beaver_Shark, Big D, BokJock, Boomslang, Boxcar Ira, clydecloggie, dargotronV.1, duke, earl the beaver, Google Adsense [Bot], hermie, houtkabouter, jdogscoop, Kiwias, Kiwiz007, La soule, Lenny, lorcanoworms, Margin_Walker, OomPB, PCPhil, penguin, P in VG, Rinkals, SamShark, Santa, Smutley, sockwithaticket, St_Badger, Steamin Beamin, themaddog, The Man Without Fear, Toro, Toulon's Not Toulouse, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group