PDA

View Full Version : Nicholas Sanchez's "mistimed" offences



Baylion
14-03-17, 08:03
Two offences deemed to be not serious, only mistimed - Penalty only

https://youtu.be/9Ar9enc9J_4

Sanchez was subsequently cited for the "mistimed" jump

ChuckieB
14-03-17, 10:03
Context helps. I watched the whole game and it was pretty frenetic. Under such circumstances the Jaguares are prone to scuh aberrations more so than many other

The first was a poor "attempt" at a wrap and the second.........?

NS is not "that sort" of player but I have often thought his tackling technique is pretty poor. In many instances when he gets it wrong he comes off just as badly as his opponent!

No excuses and hardly surprising!

Guyseep
14-03-17, 13:03
For the first "offence" (the tackle) I would say play on. I don't see what was wrong, he went low, tried to wrap, but took the full brunt of the hit in his shoulder/upper chest.

For the jump I would say penalty or yellow card. There's no reason for him to jump. He had a look, saw where the red player was and that he had already won the ball.

Baylion
14-03-17, 15:03
Suspended for 1 week

The SANZAAR Judicial Hearing held via video conference on March 14 was before Robert Stelzner, John Langford and David Croft.In his finding, the Judicial Committee Chairman Stelzner ruled the following: "Having considered the citing commissioner's description of the incident and the available video footage the Committee amended the charge to Law 10.4(g) Dangerous Charging and accept the player's admission in respect of that contravention.
"Having further considered all the available evidence, including the player's own account, and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Judicial Committee found the player's actions to have breached the red card threshold."

"With respect to sanction the Judicial Committee deemed the act of foul play to merit a low end entry point of two weeks. Taking into account various mitigating factors, including the player's excellent record and early guilty plea, the Judicial Committee reduced the suspension to one week."
"The player is therefore suspended for one week, up to and including Saturday, March 18."

Not Kurt Weaver
15-03-17, 11:03
Me thinks NS has a similar problem to this young athlete. It is very similar to a child who begins to cry immediately after he has been caught doing something wrong. NS seems to feign injury after his failures.

Watch the reaction of this basketball player after his childish acts.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18328895

Ian_Cook
15-03-17, 19:03
There was nothing at all dangerous about the tackle (at least, not to the ball carrier). It just happened that the initial contact took place at a part of the ball carrier's stride which was that moment in every running stride (called the "float" phase) when both the runner's feet are off the ground. A PK for this is just a joke really, and shows me that the officials don't understand the first thing about running gait dynamics. Tackling seems to have become something of a lottery.

As for the jumping offense, C.J. Stander anyone?

Baylion
16-03-17, 11:03
There was nothing at all dangerous about the tackle (at least, not to the ball carrier). It just happened that the initial contact took place at a part of the ball carrier's stride which was that moment in every running stride (called the "float" phase) when both the runner's feet are off the ground. A PK for this is just a joke really, and shows me that the officials don't understand the first thing about running gait dynamics. Tackling seems to have become something of a lottery.

As for the jumping offense, C.J. Stander anyone?

I'm not with you. Are you saying that the tackle didn't fulfil the requirements for a dangerous tackle (no arms chop tackle and tackled player going past horizontal) or that in this instance it didn't turn out to be dangerous?

ChuckieB
16-03-17, 11:03
I'm not with you. Are you saying that the tackle didn't fulfil the requirements for a dangerous tackle (no arms chop tackle and tackled player going past horizontal) or that in this instance it didn't turn out to be dangerous?

In light of a very close inspection that shows NS made an "attempt", pretty poor as it was, to wrap his right arm (fist was closed), not technically a chop.

Baylion
16-03-17, 11:03
In light of a very close inspection that shows NS made an "attempt", pretty poor as it was, to wrap his right arm (fist was closed), not technically a chop.

I was going to remove the "chop" part but was already logged out. A chop tackle is essentially a no arms tackle, isn't it? Merely one aimed at the legs?

Still interested to know why Ian_Cook felt the tackle wasn't a "dangerous tackle"

didds
16-03-17, 11:03
Chop tackle to me means a very low tackle eg aroujd the ankles, tyhat brings the ball carrier down very quickly with hardly any go forward. It removes thebtackler from the immediate area of the ball allowing maximum access for any jackler.

I do see stuff online for chop tackles that look like thigh height!

didds

L'irlandais
16-03-17, 11:03
...

As for the jumping offense, C.J. Stander anyone?Ian, Do you mean the Ireland flanker's (WTF was he doing) moment which led to his sending off following this (http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/06/5151/cj-stander-banned-for-1-week-after-red-card-for-knocking-out-pat-lambie) first-half mid-air collision with South Africa number ten Pat Lambie?

Ian_Cook
16-03-17, 12:03
I'm not with you. Are you saying that the tackle didn't fulfil the requirements for a dangerous tackle (no arms chop tackle and tackled player going past horizontal) or that in this instance it didn't turn out to be dangerous?

No Arms?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lho4xpg1rp2msc9/Sanchez-Tackle.png?dl=1

Beyond horizontal?

Very important to keep this in mind....Just because a player is upended does not make it a tip tackle, and this is not one .

A tip tackle requires a grasp & lift (absent from this tackle), and a rotation of the player followed by a drop or drive (also absent from this tackle). Have a read of the following

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

If a player gets tipped over because they were hit below CofG at the moment their feet were off the ground whole running, that is what we call an accident.

This tackle is no better or worse than what Sanchez did..


https://youtu.be/oGY83tyX66I

... although the player was YC on the night, the SANZAR judiciary later rescinded it and said it should not have even been a PK.

ChuckieB
16-03-17, 13:03
This tackle is no better or worse than what Sanchez did..



In isolation. But on any given day, I bet I know which of the two actually knows how to tackle!

Paule23
16-03-17, 14:03
I thought the first one was heading towards a dangerous tip tackle, but I'm happy to give hm the benefit of the doubt. It is all very fat, and by going low momentum of the attacker may flip him with nothing illegal happening, but he does clearly have an upwards movement as the tackled player goes over his shoulder. But as I said, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The jump on the other hand is clearly dangerous and worthy of a red card. You cannot see from the initial view, but from the deadball line he clearly looks at the player not the ball, and jumps into him. Dangerous play and contact, RC.

I wasn't particularly impressed with the feigning of injury in both incidents as well.

didds
16-03-17, 14:03
Nothing wrong with that tackle. Its hard to comprehend what must have been going through the officials minds on replays etc.


didds

thepercy
16-03-17, 17:03
No Arms?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lho4xpg1rp2msc9/Sanchez-Tackle.png?dl=1

Beyond horizontal?

Very important to keep this in mind....Just because a player is upended does not make it a tip tackle, and this is not one .

A tip tackle requires a grasp & lift (absent from this tackle), and a rotation of the player followed by a drop or drive (also absent from this tackle). Have a read of the following

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?231-The-Dynamics-of-a-Tip-Tackle

If a player gets tipped over because they were hit below CofG at the moment their feet were off the ground whole running, that is what we call an accident.

This tackle is no better or worse than what Sanchez did..


https://youtu.be/oGY83tyX66I

... although the player was YC on the night, the SANZAR judiciary later rescinded it and said it should not have even been a PK.

Does 10.4.E (4th paragraph) not apply because the player is running?

DocY
16-03-17, 17:03
My opinion, FWIW:

I was pleasantly surprised the tackle wasn't a card and don't think it was even a penalty - the red player basically tripped over him - though I think if he'd wrapped his arms more successfully and been carried by the red player's momentum it would have been seen as a red card. Such is the way of these things these days.

The jump... I think 'mistimed' is an understatement. TBH I think he was trying to milk a penalty after a poor kick. After jumping into red'd head and with the recent guidelines on head contact I think we'd be looking at red.

DocY
16-03-17, 17:03
Does 10.4.E (4th paragraph) not apply because the player is running?If it did, or a referee ever justified a penalty on that basis, it would be beyond ridiculous.

Ian_Cook
16-03-17, 20:03
Does 10.4.E (4th paragraph) not apply because the player is running?

You do understand that when a person is running, the float phase (the period of time during which their feet are off the ground in the normal course of a running gait) can be between 15% and 35% of the time depending on how fast they are running?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFvEXHUPcg
[Notice how the sprint runner spends a higher proportion of time in the air]


As such, the phrase in Law 10.4 (e) "an opponent whose feet are off the ground" is not absolute needs to be taken in context, i.o.w., you need to use commonsense. If you were to apply Law 10.4 (e) as strictly as you appear to want to, you would PK between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 tackles regardless of other factors.