[November Tests 2016 EOYT] Ireland vs. New Zealand (19/11/2016)

Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by TRF_heineken, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. smartcooky

    smartcooky Referee Coach and Advisor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,730
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Tasman

    So Blue 13 is the ball carrier, he sidesteps Gold 12, trips over his own feet and as he falls to the ground, his head strikes the knee of Gold 13 and he is knocked out

    Yellow card for Gold 13.... really?
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. GoTheNaki

    GoTheNaki Bench Player

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    817
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Hurricanes

    Honestly, Fekitoa only a week is a joke really... What do you have to do to be sat down for a few weeks? **** was dangerous.

    If Cane got sanctioned, it would have been the death of rugby tbh. Does that sound dramatic? Yes... But it's RUGBY, there are collisions all the time.. It was clearly accidental. The guy turned, pretty sure tucked his head down, and it got hit by a shoulder, with wrapped arms. Zero in it. He didn't know Cane was there, damn certain Cane didn't know he was going to turn like he did. BAM, good night Henshaw.

    Whilst we are on the whole subject... Who is that disgusting Argentine player that dives? Head gear wearing forward player. Now THAT GUY is bad for the game. Leguisamon? Something? Got touched, and literally dived on the ground. Filth.
     
  4. nzlizard

    nzlizard Bench Player

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    942
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Chiefs

    Pretty much this, Fekitoas wasn't intentional but was really reckless and a couple of weeks was fair, he got a week off due to his clean record, which I am not sure is a good thing.

    Those 2 or 3 Argentinian players who took dives against the AB's are worse, they bring the game down to a whole new level and should be banned for a period of time.
     
  5. Makos

    Makos Academy Player

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Tasman

    Well they are a soccer-football nation, South Americans are notorious for those pathetic antics in football.



    Whats the ruling if first contact is below the shoulder line then moves up due to momentum?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  6. ALJ

    ALJ Academy Player

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2016
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    Stroud
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Gloucester

    I once knocked a player out tackling him - right in front of the ref, tackled the ball, didn't slide up or make any contact with his head, neck or shoulders - somehow it just happened.

    I would have been mightily ****** off had I got a yellow card for it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Maybe I am doing the Argentinians a disservice but they and the Italians seem to be the ones who really introduced diving and feigning injuries into rugby and the French appeared to follow suit for a while.
    Pichot was terrible for it if I remember rightly.

    I did think it was far less prevalent these days though - seemed they'd worked out that the fans wouldn't accept it but I could be mistaken.
     
  7. kesh

    kesh Academy Player

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Harlequins

    Uh, within the realm of "dangerous play" play of course. If someone falls on to someone's knee then no. Players get carded without intentionally meaning to take someones head off. If we are referring to Cane's tackle then yes players do run low initially and duck a lot, i thought these new laws meant responsibility is up to the tackler to ensure they're either low or adjust.

    Basically i'd rather see more yellows (a lot more if necessary) than World Rugby been forced to make fundamental rule changes, like when a compensation culture in the NFL changed the sport entirely after people were left mentally disabled once their careers finished.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2016
  8. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    Your really wanna take cheap shots at other nations other than Ireland on this thread? There is a Union Jack on your bloody flag mate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. themole25

    themole25 First XV

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Sad Meow
    Club or Nation:

    Western Province

    good that cane gets off, it was a yellow card at most but really should just be an admonishment... it was really just your run of the mill high tackle

    now with fekitoa, i honestly have no idea how he got off that easy... i have honestly never seen a tackle like that in the modern game
     
  10. Five Meters Out

    Five Meters Out Academy Player

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    242
    Country Flag:

    Tajikistan

    I agree with the theme of your post Master Muffin. Refs, TMO's and the Rugby judiciary are currently ruling on outcomes. This has been most obvious when ruling on "taking out/tackling a player in the air".
    Re: Cane "Leading with the shoulder." I would be certain that in his mind that shoulder was going to drill the Irish boy in the upper torso. However, the Irish boy turned and arrived too soon for him to correct. There is always the chance of this occurring in those ball and all tackles. I make the point again as I did earlier, if you want to eliminate the injury possibility then tackle rule needs to be "below the nipple line" as is the rule in U13 rugby and below throughout NZ.
    Re: Reason - His rants are now starting to beggar belief and merely read as written in a manner so as to incite dumb Kiwi's. When he writes seriously he often makes some valid points. At other times, such as this week, I really don't think he actually believes what he is writing.
     
  11. Larksea

    Larksea First XV

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,180
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    I don't get this at all, Fekitoa's arm hits the shoulder and rides up.

    As Ive said before, if you have played enough rugby you have been hit with a tackle like that before and you will know what I'm talking about. They look dramatic, they are a penalty but you get up and play on. Its not a clean head shot deserving a card and a week off.

    IMO canes tackle was far worse, accidental but Cane was still too high.

    To me it would have made far more sense if the way these two tackles were sanctioned was reversed. Fekitoas was an on field penalty nothing more. Canes should have been a yellow card and a week off.
     
  12. munstermuffin

    munstermuffin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    13,661
    Location:
    Munster
    Country Flag:

    Ireland

    Club or Nation:

    Munster

    Well it is at WR now a consultation on trialling tackling below waist only.
    I agree injury is part and parcel of game and having watched Cane tackle numerous times I'm still not sure. Yes he did catch Henshaw in head but hit shoulder first.
     
  13. themole25

    themole25 First XV

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    Sad Meow
    Club or Nation:

    Western Province

    fekitoa jumped on zebo like a stripper pole

    it's the fact that he goes in with one arm jumping and grabs the guy around the neck and then did a wrestling finishing move... that's not a rugby play
     
  14. corny

    corny Bench Player

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2015
    Messages:
    530
    Country Flag:

    Ireland

    Club or Nation:

    Leinster

    I agree Fekitoa's is easily the softer of the two incidents but if Cane gets a holiday that means the correct decision is a red card. It can't be yellow card and holiday because sanction implies the correct on field decision should have been red.

    FWIW Fekitoa was unlucky on two counts. One, more than one high tackle went in before his and the atmosphere in the stadium demanded action be taken. Second, the NZ'ers gave him up pretty quickly so it wasn't uncomfortable for World Rugby to ban him.

    Also on a wider point, one week is a nothing sanction. All the bluster from WR about getting serious on head shots is exactly that, bluster, if they don't increase the sanction on high tackles. The mixed message is ridiculous.
     
  15. smartcooky

    smartcooky Referee Coach and Advisor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,730
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Tasman

    The thing is mole, that he didn't "get off" as such. He wasn't found guilty and then given just a warning or not suspended. The citing complaint was dismissed, and Cane was deemed to have done nothing wrong..

    [TEXTAREA]The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.
    [/TEXTAREA]

    That is a CLEAR decision that accidental contact with the head is NOT foul play. This means that Jaco Peyper and the TMO were actually wrong to have even penalised Cane at all, and should have restarted the game with a scrum with Ireland to feed.

    And they should not be. Former WR Referees boss Joel Jutge was the prime mover behind this idealistic fantasy land idea of believing that everything can can be judged on outcomes and fixed with "cookie cutter" solutions. Reality isn't like that. The game of rugby is far too complicated and dynamic for "one size fits all" solutions to work

    IMO, WR might just be beginning to move back to a commonsense approach where they recognise that sometimes accident happen and no-one is to blame; the Cane decision might well be an example of that. I really hope so, because this foray into outcome driven judgements has damaged the game. I know of a least two referees in my area who no longer referee precisely because they disagree with the idea that they have to give mandatory red cards for certain situations. They felt their judgement was being pre-empted by those above them, and that they were not being trusted to make the right call. Jutge's "man in the air" edict was the last straw for them.

    Interesting to note that in the WR mailer on head contact that everyone is referring to...

    http://worldrugby.matchdaymail.com/index.php?action=social&c=dc6a6489640ca02b0d42dabeb8e46bb7.483

    ... there is absolutely NO mention of accidental contact or intent. It seems WR might well be pulling back from that policy.


    THIS!

    "Not above the line of the armpits" would be better as armpits are a clearly visible reference point. Keeping tackles below the armpits still allows tackler to make a hard hit and to attempt to wrap up the ball. However, there would need to be some flexibility in this, because with such a Law, coaches/players would soon work out that if they carried the ball high on their chest, the tackler would never be able to wrap up the ball to prevent the offload. Perhaps the proposal should be..

    "A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the armpits, or above the top of the ball being carried by the opponent, whichever is the higher"

    This would place the onus on the ball carrier not to carry the ball in such a way as to draw an opponent into a high tackle - if the ball carrier chooses to carry the ball high on his chest above the line of the armpits, then he widens the legitimate target zone for the tackle.
     
  16. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    I actually like that idea, a lot.
     
  17. ragerancher

    ragerancher First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,907
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Bath

    Doesn't that also open it to abuse that if a player lift the ball higher, for example to offload, it now makes a high tackle legitimate? Obviously common sense says no but writing laws that then need to be ignored and invoking a "common sense" aspect seems daft.
     
  18. eidde

    eidde Academy Player

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    59
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Hawke's Bay

    That'd be covered by the broader common sense 'duty of care' thing I'd have thought.

    I mean currently you can't tackle above the shoulders, but if a player is waving the ball above his head and you take out his arms and ignore his head you wouldn't get penalized would you? It does sound like a ridiculous situation but it does happen - watch Sanaila Waqa (Hawkes Bay for the last couple of seasons) run with the ball - often one handed above his head. Taking out the arm wouldn't be penalizable for a high tackle could it?
     
  19. OneBlackEye

    OneBlackEye Academy Player

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Messages:
    140
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Waikato

    It's a shame the players have to think and play in real time while they get refereed and analysed in slow motion.

    And enough with still photos and gifs showing "leading with the shoulder" and "swinging arms", you can take a still from footage of a perfectly legal normal big tackle and make it look bad. Unless you're supposed to play the game with your elbows bent and your arms out in front of you like superman the whole time.

    For the record I think Fekitoa should have been banned longer and agree Cane shouldn't have been banned.
     
  20. smartcooky

    smartcooky Referee Coach and Advisor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,730
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Tasman

    Cane's collision with Henshaw is definitely one of those situations where viewing what happened in slow motion makes it look a lot worse than it really was. The reason for that is, while you are seeing it in slow motion, your brain is still operating in real time, so you your perception of the available reaction time is distorted. This phenomenon is known as "Slow Motion Intentionality Bias", and this is not BS, its real, and is becoming something of a worry for criminal defence and prosecution lawyers with the increasing amount of video evidence being shown in courts and legal proceedings

    Here are the significance statement and the abstract from a scientific study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

    [TEXTAREA]SIGNIFICANCE
    When determining responsibility for harmful actions, people often consider whether the actor behaved intentionally. The spread of surveillance cameras, “on-officer” recording devices, and smart-phone video makes it increasingly likely that such judgments are aided by video replay. Yet, little is known about how different qualities of the video, such as replay speed, affect human judgment. We demonstrate that slow motion replay can systematically increase judgments of intent because it gives viewers the false impression that the actor had more time to premeditate before acting. In legal proceedings, these judgments of intent can mean the difference between life and death. Thus, any benefits of video replay should be weighed against its potentially biasing effects. [/TEXTAREA]

    [TEXTAREA]ABSTRACT
    To determine the appropriate punishment for a harmful action, people must often make inferences about the transgressor’s intent. In courtrooms and popular media, such inferences increasingly rely on video evidence, which is often played in “slow motion.” Four experiments (n = 1,610) involving real surveillance footage from a murder or broadcast replays of violent contact in professional football demonstrate that viewing an action in slow motion, compared with regular speed, can cause viewers to perceive an action as more intentional. This slow motion intentionality bias occurred, in part, because slow motion video caused participants to feel like the actor had more time to act, even when they knew how much clock time had actually elapsed. Four additional experiments (n = 2,737) reveal that allowing viewers to see both regular speed and slow motion replay mitigates the bias, but does not eliminate it. We conclude that an empirical understanding of the effect of slow motion on mental state attribution should inform the life-or-death decisions that are currently based on tacit assumptions about the objectivity of human perception.[/TEXTAREA]

    I know there are a few of you here with a scientific bent so you might find the whole thing interesting. You can read the full scientific study here (free, not behind a paywall). Of particular interest is Study 2 as it deals with professional sport.

    Warning: there is some video in this link that some may find disturbing. Its probably work safe but not child safe - the link itself is safe because none of the video will start automatically.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250.full

    I think this is certainly going to change the way I look at foul play replays in the future.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2016
  21. KeyboardWorrier

    KeyboardWorrier Bench Player

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    595
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Chiefs

    How's this debate still going? Irish fans; you got owned. Get over it.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page