Official Tri-Nations 2009 Thread

[The_Techie]

Techie: He didn't even make an attempt for the ball. You can't seriously be saying that it was 'bad timing' when he ran into Habana. The fact that he didn't compete at all surely means that he did have 'bad' intent?

That's why the tackle was badly timed. He attempted to tackle the ballcarrier, however his timing was off (he arrived there a fraction of a second early) and the man was still in the air. When he made contact he pulled away which to me clearly shows his intent was not to tackle the man in the air, though it did happen.

Penalty, yes. More than a penalty? Not in my opinion.

 

[Sting]

TBH when I saw the Fourie/Nonu tackle I also thought "Oh No!!". It was a bad tackle but 4 weeks is a bit rough. Hopefully they appeal the sentence down to around 2 weeks based on his "clean record".

 

[Sting]

That's why the tackle was badly timed. He attempted to tackle the ballcarrier, however his timing was off (he arrived there a fraction of a second early) and the man was still in the air. When he made contact he pulled away which to me clearly shows his intent was not to tackle the man in the air, though it did happen.

Penalty, yes. More than a penalty? Not in my opinion.

Agree with you. Most extreme sanction would have been a yellow card.

 

[buffalobill]

I also just watched again on blitz and to me it is a neck breaking tackle that did not need to happen. Sorry but regardless if you are clean player that can break someone's neck.

It looked very close to bad at the time and I'm surprised that the ref didn't pick it up at the time. I don't have a problem with the citing - these things happen, although the sentence seems a bit harsh, given that I feel it was more reckless than intentional. But the lack of anything against the New Zealanders given the fouls on Habana irks. There's the inconsistency if you want to find some.

And then there's the silver lining - at least one Bok gets a well-needed rest.

 

[killadoob]

Sandman regardless of why no one else was cited it was still a nasty tackle. You need to move on from the others not getting cited and just accept it is a deserved ban man.

The one in the air is not that bad, nor is the shoulder charge but basically spear tackling someone can lead to a broken neck.

 

[I am Penguin]

You guys are missing the point. Why has Sivivatu not been cited for tackling Habana in the air? Here you go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td5dlkXcm-0

nuff said...

Because the whole Fsuking Bunch of Rugby officials down under are Fsucking idiots we know that already.

 

[LancelotSA]

I'm sorry but how can a panel decide what the intention of the player was? Do they do a psychological examination to determine this?

If it was Fourie's intention to deliberately maim and injure Nonu, and not just drive him back with the ball as I saw it, then why was it not Rokocoko's intention to maim and injure Habana?

Both acts were equally dangerous and deserve the same punishment.

The law states you cannot lift a player above vertical and drop them. Fourie did, so he must get punished.

The law states you cannot tackle a player in the air. Rokocoko did, so he must get punished.


We always hear the term consistency bandied around. That's all we want.

Both laws are in place to prevent serious injuries to players.

Again, a South African player ends up sucking the hind tit and the opposition gets off scot free!

 

[The_Techie]

I'm sorry but how can a panel decide what the intention of the player was? Do they do a psychological examination to determine this?

If it was Fourie's intention to deliberately maim and injure Nonu, and not just drive him back with the ball as I saw it, then why was it not Rokocoko's intention to maim and injure Habana?

Both acts were equally dangerous and deserve the same punishment.

The law states you cannot lift a player above vertical and drop them. Fourie did, so he must get punished.

The law states you cannot tackle a player in the air. Rokocoko did, so he must get punished.


We always hear the term consistency bandied around. That's all we want.

Both laws are in place to prevent serious injuries to players.

Again, a South African player ends up sucking the hind tit and the opposition gets off scot free!

Tackling a player in the air results in a penalty (in this case he made a clear attempt to move away from the player and not drive forward in the tackle after making contact, which does indeed give a clue as to his intent if you are willing to keep an open mind), see law 10.4(e).

A spear tackle, as of May 2009, is also a penalty (see law 10.4(i)) however they are seen as far more dangerous than a high tackle, for example, which, at the discretion of the referee, may warrant a yellow or red card. (how many commas did I use there?! )

I'd also say it's much more difficult to, without intent, pick up 120-odd kilograms and throw it kop-oor-gat (as the Afrikaans people say) than to tackle a man in the air a split second before his feet hit the ground.

Then again, it might have been his intent to injure Habana while seeming innocent. We'll never know his true intent.

 

[Vox Populi Vox Dei]

@Techie: I see your point, but just looking at that YT clip again, it seems that Rokocoko sort of just ran into Habana - in other words, he didn't even try to tackle him nor attempt to get the ball. You can't just run into people in rugby...you're supposed to at least get an attempt at a tackle in.

 

[The_Techie]

@Techie: I see your point, but just looking at that YT clip again, it seems that Rokocoko sort of just ran into Habana - in other words, he didn't even try to tackle him nor attempt to get the ball. You can't just run into people in rugby...you're supposed to at least get an attempt at a tackle in.

Have a look at his left arm in particular if you would, you can see it clearly wrapping around Habana.

 

[LancelotSA]

Tackling a player in the air may also warrant a yellow or red card. They are both equally dangerous. Both can result in a player landing on his neck, and this is the reason they are viewed in such a serious light.

You are giving way too much of the benefit to Rokocoko. He tackled Habana while he was still well in the air. It reminded one of Giteau's act of savagery against Fourie Du Preez. Why are these guys not getting punished? Are they waiting for a Tony Watson-Uli Schmidt situation first before they clamp down on it?

While we are on this discussion. Why was there no yellow card for the blatant foul play with the shoulder charge on Habana later on? The only intention here was to injure the player. Yes, a shoulder charge may not result in a broken neck but it deserves at least some punishment... more than a mere kick at goals. It was deliberate.

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

he wasn't looking at the ball .... he was looking to inflict some damage only.

 

[LancelotSA]

Have a look at his left arm in particular if you would, you can see it clearly wrapping around Habana.

Well then that makes it worse as it means he fully INTENDED to take him out in the air! The human body is an amazing thing. It is able to stop and turn in the quickest time and the smallest amount of space.... he could have pulled out and not wrapped his arms around him if it was not his intention to take him out in the air.

As someone else has stated. I have no problem with our players getting bans for "foul play" but then we want consistency. As far as I am aware Rokocoko did not even appear before a disciplinary committee... again like Giteau.

 

[The_Techie]

Tackling a player in the air may also warrant a yellow or red card. They are both equally dangerous. Both can result in a player landing on his neck, and this is the reason they are viewed in such a serious light.

If it was seen as deliberate and dangerous, certainly. Please refer back to my point about him stepping back just after making contact.

You are giving way too much of the benefit to Rokocoko. He tackled Habana while he was still well in the air. It reminded one of Giteau's act of savagery against Fourie Du Preez. Why are these guys not getting punished? Are they waiting for a Tony Watson-Uli Schmidt situation first before they clamp down on it?

And Habana would've stayed in the air for a few more milliseconds. When running 30-odd meters it's easy to get your timing off by a few milliseconds.

While we are on this discussion. Why was there no yellow card for the blatant foul play with the shoulder charge on Habana later on? The only intention here was to injure the player. Yes, a shoulder charge may not result in a broken neck but it deserves at least some punishment... more than a mere kick at goals. It was deliberate.

I do believe that I already expressed my view that the late shoulder charge should've resulted in a yellow card. Shocking refereeing there.

Well then that makes it worse as it means he fully INTENDED to take him out in the air! The human body is an amazing thing. It is able to stop and turn in the quickest time and the smallest amount of space.... he could have pulled out and not wrapped his arms around him if it was not his intention to take him out in the air.

As someone else has stated. I have no problem with our players getting bans for "foul play" but then we want consistency. As far as I am aware Rokocoko did not even appear before a disciplinary committee... again like Giteau.

You might be surprised at the amount of momentum that he can generate within 30 meters. Would you rather he changed course and thundered into the players next to Habana (tackling the player without the ball, for example) in the split second that he might've seen that his timing was off by a few milliseconds?

he wasn't looking at the ball .... he was looking to inflict some damage only.

Indeed. I am in no way arguing that he went for the ball, he went to tackle the ballcarrier. However, his timing was off by a few milliseconds so he made contact while Habana was still in the air. He pulled away as soon as he made contact. Malicious intent? I doubt it. Penalty? Definitely.

 

[buffalobill]

ike Owens said, it was a matter of bad timing not bad intent.

As for the late shoulder charge, nothing less than a yellow card in my opinion.

I disagree here. Not bad timing- he tackled the man in the air with his arms and then immediately pulled away and played the innocent. There was absolutely no intention of competing for the ball in the air. Timing or intent is not the issue, it was dangerous. A definite citing.

The shoulder charge was completely deliberate and cynical. Again, a definite citing.

 

[Milano]

he wasn't looking at the ball .... he was looking to inflict some damage only.

Yes, very apparent.

 

[The_Techie]

I disagree here. Not bad timing- he tackled the man in the air with his arms and then immediately pulled away and played the innocent. There was absolutely no intention of competing for the ball in the air. Timing or intent is not the issue, it was dangerous. A definite citing.

I do not argue that he went for the ball, he most certainly went to tackle the ballcarrier. However, he misjudged his timing and made contact while Habana was still in the air and then immediately moved away from the ballcarrier.

Dangerous? Probably. Definitely worth a penalty. However he did nothing more than to play a man in the air (which can be argued that it wasn't his intent to tackle him while he was still in the air and he took every measure available to him after playing the man in the air to ensure that he did not cause harm to that player), which is a penalty.

 

[LancelotSA]

I disagree here. Not bad timing- he tackled the man in the air with his arms and then immediately pulled away and played the innocent. There was absolutely no intention of competing for the ball in the air. Timing or intent is not the issue, it was dangerous. A definite citing.

The shoulder charge was completely deliberate and cynical. Again, a definite citing.

I agree with you here. Of course you are going to play innocent afterwards. They are all professional players. They know the laws. He probably realised he may be in big trouble.

How often have we seen a player deliberately infringe and then immediately throw their arms up in innocence?

And again I agree regarding the citing. That is the biggest problem I have. They were not even cited. If they were and got away with it then at least we can feel justice ran it's course.

 

[The_Techie]

I agree with you here. Of course you are going to play innocent afterwards. They are all professional players. They know the laws. He probably realised he may be in big trouble.

How often have we seen a player deliberately infringe and then immediately throw their arms up in innocence?

And again I agree regarding the citing. That is the biggest problem I have. They were not even cited. If they were and got away with it then at least we can feel justice ran it's course.

Well I have argued my opinion on the matter. If you feel that he faked innocence then nothing I can say or show you can change your mind, as everything he did which could count in his favour was faked by him. I won't continue defending him while you bay for his blood.

At least we can agree on the shoulder charge

 

[LancelotSA]

However he did nothing more than to play a man in the air (which can be argued that it wasn't his intent to tackle him while he was still in the air and he took every measure available to him after playing the man in the air to ensure that he did not cause harm to that player), which is a penalty.

And it was Jacque Fourie's intent, once he realised that he had managed to lift Nonu, to gently place him back to the ground after driving him back but after he got him above vertical he realised that he was a lot heavier than he originally thought and could not hold him up so they fell....

These players are not idiots. They are trained to get their timing just right... if the player is still in the air you stand off until he lands. Many others manage to do it. Is Rokocoko a bit "slow" then?