Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by TRF_heineken, Jun 4, 2018.
And Hartley's level would be what exactly? Dirty, but not a cheat
do you not know who richardLoe and troyFlavell are?
yes i mean downlow dirty cheating. then whingers would have something concrete to complain about.
if you have the time do the crime.
Glad theres been nothing so far from the Citing Commissioner; when do announcements usually come through?
Problem is Mania that if you lose while cheating, no one cares or remembers. If Lance Armstrong had won zero TdF’s in his time no one would give a toss. It’s very easy for others to throw stones at the ABs (there was a comment earlier in this thread that said it was clear the ABs got preferential treatment from referees) but there’s been nothing that demonstrates it empirically. It just makes victories more delicious when they're combined with grumbles
There is a video angle on this twitter thread that I had not seen prior. This angle doesn't look good for Ofa because it leans toward 'intent to harm'. It kind of looks like Ofa looks at Remy before driving his shoulders into his face. Now it's still not conclusive because I have known players (including myself at times) to close their eyes just before going in. Nice apology by Ofa though as he wasnt allowed to do it in person.
Intent really doesn't matter when deciding if it's a red and therefore a suspension, it only is considered at deciding the length of the suspension. I don't think Of a intended to hit Grosso in the head at all, that's only going to harm him and his team but the tackle was reckless and should result in the same on field punishment as if it was on purpose. I reckon it should be closer to a two week break than a six week one though.
Hmm...I see a loophole in that. Players could take advantage of that and pretend theyre slipping into a tackle, receive a shoulder to the head and get a fair play defender red carded, if of course spotted. This could actually be cleverly disguised by the attacker as a slip. The 'no intent' defender will get red carded for a high shot everytime.
Did he officially get off that charge?
As smartcooky pointed out a slip into a tackle is considered, it's also the rule now that any contact above the neck is a penalty and players don't purposely slip into tackles to gain an advantage. I also fear to think of the sort of players you know who'd take a concussion or worse to force a red!
Yes it would be stupid to risk your head like that for a penalty/red card offence. However, as they say, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, world cup final, team needs a penalty to win, attacking player "accidentally" ducks his head into a defenders shoulders. Theres guys a told to put their body on the line and a lot of them follow that instruction to a tee.
I think if we follow exactly what smartcooky was saying, a yellow can be the only punishment as that is what Im sure he was suggesting.
Something I hadn't really noticed before (because I was being a bit lazy and just browsing the highlights) was this.
EDIT: OK, the damned useless forum software won't show the gif. Just try quoting this post and you will see it in the edit window.
Have a look at his feet... they are firmly planted and he is stationary, there isn't much else he can do other than brace for the impact; almost all of the velocity of that impact results from Blue 11's forward motion. Blue 11's head drops considerably when Black 7 tackles him; if there was no tackle, then IMO they would hit almost shoulder to shoulder.
It also contrasts sharply with the SBW red card from last year. Those who think this looks anything like SBW's RC are just plain wrong.
SBW recklessly charged from a distance with a leading shoulder into a player that was held in the tackle and slowing down. Almost all of the force of that direct contact to the head came from SBW's forward motion. It was a shoulder charge that made direct contact to the head, with force; he deserved the red card
in super rugby this year, where they are being extra harsh, the french one would have been either no penalty or at most a penalty (depending on ref), sam cane would have been red (according to all refs), ofa would have been at yellow or red (depending on ref). combine those three things (best case for all blacks the french get penalised, all blacks get two yellows. worst case, french get no penalty, all blacks get two reds), would have been a very different game.
anybody know how different the french team will be next week? i'm hearing only 3 or so changes?
? so you guys made me wonder if i'd been fooled by propaganda so i looked at test match history, and nope. the all blacks have dominated world ruby for 113 years.
but don't worry, your guys tried.
p.s. where can i find that documentary? it sounds amazing.
Amazon Prime... It's ok
Strange that he didn't get cited then (the citing commissioner was South African)
While Cane's forearm made direct contact to the head, as I have already explained, it lacked the force to meet the red card threshold, i.e. it was not a swinging arm. Had it been, then I would agree that it could have been a red card.
Ridiculous, world rugby has no shame.
Seen talk that Grosso might not play rugby again because of the location of the breaks, He also can't travel back to France yet because of the severity of his injuries.
There was no citing because the infringement didn't meet the red card threshold (IMO, its not even a yellow card)
While I do feel sorry for Grosso, his injuries have nothing to do with any sanctions (and nor should they).
They'll probably just make new rules later that are no different to the current rules so everyone but an All Black gets in trouble afterward. I believe it's comes under World Rugby's rule changing protocols™ sponsored by Sam Cane.
Whilst the talk around Grosso injury sounds bad, I for one am happy that no punishment was given to what was an accident.
English referee Luke Pearce was right there in the replays, staring right at that collision. What he saw must be nothing out of the norm from what he sees in England.
From the way he talked about it after the incident, didn't seem like he saw it properly and thought it was just a head on head. Didn't seem like he noticed the Cane high tackle/whack in the jaw, or the shoulder to the face from Ofa?
Weird that people keep bringing up the result, as very clearly they deserved to win? For me it wasn't in doubt and doesn't even factor into the annoyance that no-one got punished for the Grosso incident. Cane should've been in the bin (his was far worse than the one the French lock was binned for), and Ofa's in minimum a yellow, probably a red.
It's different to the SBW for me in the sense that's there probably no intent, but it's a reckless shoulder into head collision with force - I have seen less given a red in NH rugby this season!
Separate names with a comma.