Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2017 Super Rugby] The FINAL: Lions vs. Crusaders (05/08/2017)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nubiwan" data-source="post: 868436" data-attributes="member: 43441"><p>I find myself nodding with this. It was a harsh red in my opinion, and served only to show just how fair peyper was willing to show himself to be. Not saying he was wrong, but had he given a yellow, then it would have probably saved a decent match for everyone. Not that the match wasn't close anyway. In the end, just a bridge too far for the lions, who must be left wondering - what if? Their own daft fault in the end.</p><p></p><p>Another in this season's bizarre rugby moments were refs have been in a position to use a bit of common sense for the sake of the game. But rather nailed the outcome themselves. Either by doing it right or wrong.</p><p></p><p>I personally might have looked at the incident as smith being somewhat wreckless, but without malicious intent. Clearly attempted to back off once he knew he had cocked it up. The player landing awkward, and it was dangerous, but he got up, none worse for wear, I assume. Yellow card under the circumstances - and rather in hindsight, would have been acceptable.</p><p></p><p>Can I just ask, if the player had landed on his arse, that is, not his head or neck, then assume correct call would have been yellow. Is that right? </p><p></p><p>What's happening in rugby now is the opposition running about waving arms like footballers every time a player gets hit in the conk. Yes players need protecting, and going to be difficult to measure the extent of the injury from each collision, but if no damage done, some of the Reds appear too harsh to me. Some clear cut, others silly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nubiwan, post: 868436, member: 43441"] I find myself nodding with this. It was a harsh red in my opinion, and served only to show just how fair peyper was willing to show himself to be. Not saying he was wrong, but had he given a yellow, then it would have probably saved a decent match for everyone. Not that the match wasn't close anyway. In the end, just a bridge too far for the lions, who must be left wondering - what if? Their own daft fault in the end. Another in this season's bizarre rugby moments were refs have been in a position to use a bit of common sense for the sake of the game. But rather nailed the outcome themselves. Either by doing it right or wrong. I personally might have looked at the incident as smith being somewhat wreckless, but without malicious intent. Clearly attempted to back off once he knew he had cocked it up. The player landing awkward, and it was dangerous, but he got up, none worse for wear, I assume. Yellow card under the circumstances - and rather in hindsight, would have been acceptable. Can I just ask, if the player had landed on his arse, that is, not his head or neck, then assume correct call would have been yellow. Is that right? What's happening in rugby now is the opposition running about waving arms like footballers every time a player gets hit in the conk. Yes players need protecting, and going to be difficult to measure the extent of the injury from each collision, but if no damage done, some of the Reds appear too harsh to me. Some clear cut, others silly. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2017 Super Rugby] The FINAL: Lions vs. Crusaders (05/08/2017)
Top