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
The Rugby Championship 2023
[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)
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="BobbyM" data-source="post: 952449" data-attributes="member: 73737"><p>I think "not qualifying for mitigation" would be if both Hooper and Barrett were both in open space, which doesn't apply here. </p><p></p><p>On your second paragraph, I do like the rationale you put forward; effectively although Hooper did drop in height from the Coles tackle where Barrett's shoulder would've have hit had he not dropped would still have been high, if I have interpreted it correctly?</p><p></p><p>Looking at the tackle and the height at point of contact, I'm estimating it would've been collarbone, neck or shoulderblade as point of contact if Hoopers position hadn't been altered by the tackle, but that is very subjective.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately I can understand the decision that was made (despite Garces not articulating the agreed framework in his explanation), but disagree with the application of the framework in this case due to the mitigating circumstances of sudden change in body height. I do this whole acknowledging your point that there is a chance that had the tackle by Coles not occurred, the point of contact may have still been high.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BobbyM, post: 952449, member: 73737"] I think “not qualifying for mitigation” would be if both Hooper and Barrett were both in open space, which doesn’t apply here. On your second paragraph, I do like the rationale you put forward; effectively although Hooper did drop in height from the Coles tackle where Barrett’s shoulder would’ve have hit had he not dropped would still have been high, if I have interpreted it correctly? Looking at the tackle and the height at point of contact, I’m estimating it would’ve been collarbone, neck or shoulderblade as point of contact if Hoopers position hadn’t been altered by the tackle, but that is very subjective. Ultimately I can understand the decision that was made (despite Garces not articulating the agreed framework in his explanation), but disagree with the application of the framework in this case due to the mitigating circumstances of sudden change in body height. I do this whole acknowledging your point that there is a chance that had the tackle by Coles not occurred, the point of contact may have still been high.:) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
The Rugby Championship 2023
[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)
Top