Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 132

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

      
  1. #41

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,365

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    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?
    I suspect that for the previous 100 years Jordie Barrat would have got a RC !

  2. #42

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,633

    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.
    This is the main issue for me.

    If you charge at another player and clatter him at any other time in the game, you get penalised, but because you choose to jump, you magically get immunity, and the person you clatter gets to sit down for 10 minutes or more.

    For mine, this wrong. It goes against everything the game is about.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 08-09-21 at 14:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  3. #43

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,365

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    This is the main issue for me.

    If you charge at another player and clatter him at any other time in the game, you get penalised, but because you choose to jump, you magically get immunity, and the person you clatter gets to sit down for 10 minutes or more.

    For mine, this wrong. It goes against everything the game is about.
    So therefore Barrat SHOULD have been penalised

  4. #44
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    642

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    isn't the head contact process for TACKLES...

    In a word, No.

    It used in rucks and mauls an when there's a jackler being cleared out.

  5. #45
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,468

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    isn't the head contact process for TACKLES...
    No, it's all head contact.

  6. #46

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    I suspect that for the previous 100 years Jordie Barrat would have got a RC !
    Not an ice-cube's chance in hell.

    Firstly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, there wasn't even any such thing as a red card.

    Secondly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, player never jumped for kicks in general play, they stood their ground.

    Lastly, for the vast majority of the last 100+ years, sendings off were very rare, and almost always for obvious and intentional acts of foul play (punches, stamping, bag-snatching, eye gouging, coathanger tackles etc).
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  7. #47

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    So therefore Barrat SHOULD have been penalised
    Yes and no!

    As I have posted previousy, the current state of affairs where we have players being allowed to sprint at full speed, jump 3-6 metres recklessly into a crowd of players and be granted immunity for any damage they do, is a complete ****ing farce, and we have the idiocracy at WR to thank for it.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 08-09-21 at 15:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  8. #48
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,346

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    isn't the head contact process for TACKLES...
    Not entirely, and I think we have this mentality because it does replace the old high tackle framework, however from the process doc;

    "The Head Contact Process is a Law Application Guideline. Under 9.11, the referee is always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything deemed to be reckless orLAW 9 Foul play
    dangerous. However, this process is intended to aid consistency in the application of



    sanctions by providing guidance on how contact with the head should be approached by


    REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS


    match officials and disciplinary personnel."

    Specifically it mentions high tackles, but also shoulder charges, clean outs, leading arms, some of the red card recipients have been ball carriers and ruck engagements, so not just tacklers, or tackle situations, the victim of the head contact was a would be tackler. Does it apply? Not sure, I think the logic applies, and the end goal applies, and certainly doesn't say that it doesn't apply. It is the 'Head Contact Process' after all, and that happened.

    Alternative approach, why wouldn't is apply?

  9. #49
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,346

    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.
    Exactly, I've never understood this logic, luckily I've not had to make a call on this yet, but I struggle to penalise someone stood still on the ground that's being jumped on!

  10. #50
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    1,346

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    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?
    *shrug* can't comment, before my time in the middle, but in terms of mental processes, outcome is black and white, it's happened, I can process that backwards and come to a decision. I can't do that with intent as I can't judge it (being apologetic after the fact is not the same thing).

    I can have sympathy, and empathy for the recipient of the card, but if they do a thing, that ends badly, then they need to take some responsibility for it, just like if they do a thing that *could* end badly, good chance they'll get punished for that too.

    If I'm playing with my car stereo and mow someone over should I not be punished because I didn't mean it?

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
  •