Official Super Rugby 2016 Thread

Yeah I'm also leaning towards a yellow. It's only because of the way he landed he got a red and that method of punishment is wrong. It's the action not the outcome.
 
I can't watch the game. Now with the red card does it look like the Sharks will be able to score tries? Or are they still useless in that department?
 
FoXtroT said:
Yeah I'm also leaning towards a yellow. It's only because of the way he landed he got a red and that method of punishment is wrong. It's the action not the outcome.
Click to expand...

And if it was yellow and the outcome was a cracked vertebrae? In the air is dangerous, that is all.
 
APoc184 said:
^ broken link.

Fixed. Thanks.

I think the problem is he never really went for the ball. His eyes are not even looking at the ball.

Tough to be a ref. Tough call.
Click to expand...

Yeah, solid brain fade. Was his first start for the Highlanders, too. Probably just a bit overzealous.

FoXtroT said:
Yeah I'm also leaning towards a yellow. It's only because of the way he landed he got a red and that method of punishment is wrong. It's the action not the outcome.
Click to expand...

They're saying intent is irrelevant, but I find this 'punish the outcome' method a bit odd. Because then you're not actually punishing the unlawful action, only the outcome. If he jumped a bit higher (while still not contesting) and Willie merely bounced backward and landed on his feet it would just have been a penalty, while the action was effectively the same.
 
Okay, I don't watch the Saaaks that often because Lions... But... Where are the basic skills here? So many errors.
 
Sharks doing everything in their power to not take advantage of the red
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Yeah, but what about a high tackle that ends up crushing someone's esophagus, even though it'll generally just be a penalty?
Click to expand...

High tackles aren't the same as a player in the air for me. I'd also guess there were far fewer injuries from high tackles than there are from players landing badly after being taken out in the air. Now, neck rolls on the other hand...
 
OrbitalDawn said:
They're saying intent is irrelevant, but I find this 'punish the outcome' method a bit odd. Because then you're not actually punishing the unlawful action, only the outcome. If he jumped a bit higher (while still not contesting) and Willie merely bounced backward and landed on his feet it would just have been a penalty, while the action was effectively the same.
Click to expand...

Yeah always thought it a bit daft that someone throwing a wild swing at someone and missing is hardly punished yet a punch that lands is? Seems that you get away with things for not being able to throw a punch properly...
 
The way the Sharks are playing my SuperBru pick is safe despite the red card.
 
Sounds like a bit of a clanger...

Guys on Twitter saying ref should have checked the grounding, cynical play stopping the try, but also that the ref sent off the wrong player with the yellow... :wtf:
 
FoXtroT said:
Sharks doing everything in their power to not take advantage of the red
Click to expand...

They always find a way to not take advantage :(

Couple years back we beat the Crusaders in NZ with a man down...When the odds are with us, the skills are not :(
 
Cray said:
The way the Sharks are playing my SuperBru pick is safe despite the red card.
Click to expand...

Breyton just said the Shark's attack wasn't clinical enough. Clinical? They're not on the same continent as clinical. The need to get through the acquainted, proficient, average, good and excellent stages first.
 
greg0205 said:
Breyton just said the Shark's attack wasn't clinical enough. Clinical? They're not on the same continent as clinical. The need to get the acquainted, proficient, average, good and excellent stages first.
Click to expand...

LOL, too true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X