Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 132

Thread: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

      
  1. #31

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    Interesting that "intent" is now back in the equation.

    Second time recently RC rescinded for lack of intent, isn't it?

    Intent rather than outcome is a big change
    If that is how they are rolling, that all I can say is... its about time!
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  2. #32

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by thepercy View Post
    How would one know? This is an amazingly idiotic statement. Your glasses are tinted so black that you can't see.
    Hahaha! You clearly did not see the game.

    There is no black tint in what I said.. even most of the staunchest Wallaby supporters would agree that they were ****ing woeful!
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 08-09-21 at 10:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  3. #33

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post

    Yeah, there are some blindingly obvious differences there.

    1st: Tevita Nabura - Jumps, then looks down directly at the opponent's head, and then kicks out.

    2nd: Paolo Odogwu - Jumps, then looks at the opponent's head, then lands, and then kicks out.

    3rd: Dan Evans - Jumps, then lands, and then kicks out.

    4th: Adam Hastings -Jumps, then lands, and then kicks upwards to hit the opponent in the face.

    6th: Lester Etien - Jumps, then looks directly at the opponent's head, and then kicks out.

    1st and 6th look intentional to me, 1st more so that 6th

    2nd, 3rd and 4th were completely unnecessary - the other foot was down so there was no need for those players to lift a leg at all.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  4. #34
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,310

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

    Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(

  5. #35
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    626

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    For all of the above, the leg movements (to extend up) start before the players (who looked at their opponents), looked. For all of the clips on the twitter link, they were all Red Card offences. Watching the Barrett one, I disagree with the rotation issue. He had leaned slightly back, yes. But he wasn't going any further back. He was on his way down and both feet would've landed perfectly well. IMO he knew what he was doing and put his foot up to deter the Aussie guy from attempting a tackle. he may not have intended a "Kick" but it was a definite attempt to avoid a big hit.

    As for the jumping issues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them. If both player have a chance of catching the ball we play on. But for that to happen both catcher and chaser need to be on the ground or in the air (at the same height, well more or less). If one is on the ground running, he/she needs to check their run to tackle on the ground. In this case the play on the ground is in a position of strength and rightly so, we need to protect the more vulnerable player. Likewise if a foot gets thrown up the player on the ground becomes most vulnerable. So with the same logic they now need protected.

    As a player, if you don't want to be wiped out in the air, don't jump. But you might lose the ball to a player who is jumping. Your choice.

  6. #36
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,437

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Ridiculous call by SANZAAR. I've not seen a single ref from outside NZ who disagreed with the RC, it's confused what was a clear framework that refs could use to explain calls, and brought intent back into things.

  7. #37
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,560

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    The problem for me is that I can get in position early, be perfectly positioned to catch the ball without risking jumping, and if someone jumps at me, I can be red carded.

  8. #38

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,259

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by Flish View Post
    Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

    Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(
    isn't the head contact process for TACKLES...

  9. #39

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,259

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by Camquin View Post
    The problem for me is that I can get in position early, be perfectly positioned to catch the ball without risking jumping, and if someone jumps at me, I can be red carded.
    and if that someone jumps at you high enough to kick you in the face.... well that's just a rugby rugby incident, play on.

  10. #40

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

    Quote Originally Posted by Flish View Post
    Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

    Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(

    We weren't snookered for the 100+ years before this outcome-driven BS that has infected WR started a few years back, why in earth would we suddenly be snookered now?
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •