The Rugby thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh suppose worth mentioning, while the french haven't played together since 6 nations, the theory is, while they may be rusty, they could arguably be a lot fresher than the Boks who have been giving it stick through July and the rugby championship.

Having said that one can't ignore the fact that the french internationals have been active in a rather vigorous and demanding Top 14 league while we've been playing test rugby. So the disparity in 'freshness' is not necessarily that significant.
 
sand_man said:
Oh suppose worth mentioning, while the french haven't played together since 6 nations, the theory is, while they may be rusty, they could arguably be a lot fresher than the Boks who have been giving it stick through July and the rugby championship.

Having said that one can't ignore the fact that the french internationals have been active in a rather vigorous and demanding Top 14 league while we've been playing test rugby. So the disparity in 'freshness' is not necessarily that significant.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget just how well playing minutes is managed in the Bok camp with the squad depth developed over the past couple years.
 
L-Dog said:
Ireland vs New Zealand game and one of the softest red cards I have seen...
Click to expand...
Ridiculous red, definitely a penalty, maybe a yellow, never red.

The 'tackler' was passive, Barret took the pass so flat and so fast, the 'tackler' barely had time to react. I use the term 'tackler' loosely. Barret basically ran into him, from a forward pass no less... 'tackler' was bracing for impact, all he had time to do...

High level of danger has to be considered when upgrading from yellow to red. Barret didn't even go for a HIA, therefore not a high level of danger...

Ridiculous!!

Bottomline, European mentality coming from a football culture where cards are only more popular at Xmas...
 
sand_man said:
Ridiculous red, definitely a penalty, maybe a yellow, never red.

The 'tackler' was passive, Barret took the pass so flat and so fast, the 'tackler' barely had time to react. I use the term 'tackler' loosely. Barret basically ran into him, from a forward pass no less... 'tackler' was bracing for impact, all he had time to do...

High level of danger has to be considered when upgrading from yellow to red. Barret didn't even go for a HIA, therefore not a high level of danger...

Ridiculous!!

Bottomline, European mentality coming from a football culture where cards are only more popular at Xmas...
Click to expand...
Level of danger doesn't come in to play when it's a shoulder charge/no arms.
 
sand_man said:
Ridiculous red, definitely a penalty, maybe a yellow, never red.

The 'tackler' was passive, Barret took the pass so flat and so fast, the 'tackler' barely had time to react.
Click to expand...
That's nonsense though he knew the ball was coming in that direction, he should have been going low before the ball even got to Barret to prepare to tackle him. Watch the replay and you can see the player outside of Berine was already crouched down, why didn't he do the same?
 
Cray said:
That's nonsense though he knew the ball was coming in that direction, he should have been going low before the ball even got to Barret to prepare to tackle him. Watch the replay and you can see the player outside of Berine was already crouched down, why didn't he do the same?
Click to expand...
He was... How did he know the ball was going to Barrett and not Clarke? Very flat attack and forward to Barret to boot...

Screenshot 2025-11-04 123913.png
 
Last edited:
sand_man said:
The yellow was upgraded to red. Mitigating factors would have been considered before upgrading to red, including level of danger.... wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

That's not quite true. The current protocol the on field ref doesn't evaluate whether it's yellow or red (except for cases of extreme foul play). The ref just asks whether it is at least yellow, and then the foul-play review officer determines whether it should be yellow or red. There is no mitigation for a shoulder charge, the question is simply whether there was head contact or not.

 
sand_man said:
He was... How did he know the ball was going to Barrett and not Clarke? Very flat attack and forward to Barret to boot...
Click to expand...
So then why did he stand up, he was already low to make the tackle?

He cleary assumed the ball was going to Clarke and stood up which then gave him zero chance to make a legal tackle once Barrett received the ball, hence the shoulder charge.
 
Cray said:
So then why did he stand up, he was already low to make the tackle?

He cleary assumed the ball was going to Clarke and stood up which then gave him zero chance to make a legal tackle once Barrett received the ball, hence the shoulder charge.
Click to expand...
Yes, his error was he was upright. Penalty? Definitely... Yellow? fair enough... Red? Never...
 
sand_man said:
Yes, his error was he was upright. Penalty? Definitely... Yellow? fair enough... Red? Never...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for him the rules are crystal clear. The point of the framework is to keep decisions objective and consistent. There was no malice but he was upright, shoulder charge (as per WR definition) to the head. The facts are the facts and the decision was correct.
 
Speedster said:
Unfortunately for him the rules are crystal clear. The point of the framework is to keep decisions objective and consistent. There was no malice but he was upright, shoulder charge (as per WR definition) to the head. The facts are the facts and the decision was correct.
Click to expand...
Nuance of the sport and the frame work/laws... makes for a farce...
 
sand_man said:
Nuance of the sport and the frame work/laws... makes for a farce...
Click to expand...
I'm of the opposing view. Prior to the framework it was open for interpretation by the referee and decisions were haphazard and highly inconsistent. Now by following the framework you should arrive at a consistant answer, irrespective of the emotion involved.

It's really not complicated, shoulder charge to the head is a red card. I don't know why people are trying to argue otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Speedster said:
I'm of the opposing view. Prior to the framework it was open for interpretation by the referee and decisions were haphazard and highly inconsistent. Now by following the framework you should arrive at a consistant answer, irrespective of the emotion involved.

It's really not complicated, shoulder charge to the head is a red card. I don't know why people are trying to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think calling that a 'shoulder charge' is a bit a stretch.
 
Speedster said:
I'm of the opposing view. Prior to the framework it was open for interpretation by the referee and decisions were haphazard and highly inconsistent. Now by following the framework you should arrive at a consistant answer, irrespective of the emotion involved.

It's really not complicated, shoulder charge to the head is a red card. I don't know why people are trying to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
Was it a shoulder charge though? Or was it one player bracing as another ran into him? Was it poor tackle technique? Or a purposely malicious attack?

The framework fails in that it doesn't allow for context in a dynamic sport that is typically grey as opposed to black and white. It doesn't allow for common sense. It doesn't allow for accidents. It doesn't allow for rugby incidences... it assumes officials are also medical doctors... people argue cause they understand the sport and the dynamic nature of it...

Anyway, take a listen to what some pundits thought of the decision...




 
sand_man said:
Here's a great analysis of why it met the threshold for red..

Click to expand...
That's informative but, I believe, incorrect in that he's using the tackle flow chart while he should be using the shoulder charge one (as posted earlier). Either way it gets to the same result though.
 
sand_man said:
Red card rescinded
Click to expand...
These disciplinary hearings are becoming a farce. If WR doesn't like the outcomes of decisions they should change the protocol, not throw their refs under the bus.

Murphy punches a guy (twice) - red card rescinded.
Beirne shoulder charge to the head - red card rescinded.
Wessels accused of foul play (no evidence) - 9 week ban (reduced to 8 on appeal).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X