Van der mervha red

[Aimless ponderings]

His red card yesterday was utter ********.
This is rugby not line dancing

 

[Gavin]

*van der Merwe

Good first post

Leading forearm / elbow into the face of opposition player, red card all day

 

[Aimless ponderings]

The tackling player was very upright and van der mervha was ghosting the touchline, he merely pushed his hand/arm out.
It was a ridiculous decision.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nice to see you back, Peter

Peter de Villiers: Go to the ballet and grab your tutu if rugby is too rough

South Africa coach Peter de Villiers last night defended gouger Schalk Burger and said people who don't like rugby's physicality should take up ballet.

www.google.com

 

[Aimless ponderings]

That is clearly a cretinous conflation.
It was a hand off.
Patently nothing to do with gouging.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

This is rugby not line dancing

It was more this silly little line that gave me similar vibes

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Forearm to face = red unless there's mitigation.

Just because it wasn't dangerous in this case doesn't mean the act itself is safe. If we start making these decisions by the result and not the action it'll be a shitshow. It's also rampant at amateur level so I'm always glad to see cards dished out for it.

 

[Aimless ponderings]

Forearm to face = red unless there's mitigation.

Just because it wasn't dangerous in this case doesn't mean the act itself is safe. If we start making these decisions by the result and not the action it'll be a shitshow. It's also rampant at amateur level so I'm always glad to see cards dished out for it.

 

[Aimless ponderings]

If it wasn't dangerous in this case, it clearly didn't warrant a red card.
This case is the case in question!!
Trying to 2nd guess intention is impossible.
I've no idea how van der mervha was supposed to fend off the attempted tackle, bar what he did.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If it wasn't dangerous in this case, it clearly didn't warrant a red card.
This case is the case in question!!
Trying to 2nd guess intention is impossible.
I've no idea how van der mervha was supposed to fend off the attempted tackle, bar what he did.

It was a forearm to the face so it did warrant a red card. It's the rule, you not liking it is irrelevant.

 

[Aimless ponderings]

It was a forearm to the face so it did warrant a red card. It's the rule, you not liking it is irrelevant.

It's an odd dichotomy though isn't it, if a tackling player is judged to not have dipped sufficiently and then hits someone in the head...its a red.
The tackling player in this case clearly could have gone lower but didn't, and then got a face full of hand/arm for his troubles.
The law is inconsistent and arbitrary.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

No, it's perfectly simple, there is no excuse for DVDM's forearm to be at head height and outstretched. It was a full on elbow to the face. There really isn't anything to debate.

If a tackling player doesn't dip enough and hits someone in the head, it's a red. If the defending player outstretches their arm and smacks a tackler in the head, it's a red. That is perfectly consistent, smack a player in the face and you get a red.

 

[Goodey]

When people say 'consistent' they usually mean 'consistently agree with me'

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

1 - Don't dip enough and hit player in the face with force = red
2 - Raise your arm and extend your elbow and then smack a player in the face with force = red

Where is the inconsistency? There have been many cases of the laws not being applied consistently but this is not one of them.

 

[BPM]

There's definitely some inconsistency with the spelling of the guys name. I find it quite bizarre that a poster can use words like dichotomy and still get the players name so wrong.

I happen to think red was harsh. I think it was a flappy hand that inadvertently became a forearm without much force. Yellow, yes. Red, I'm not so sure.

 

[Aimless ponderings]

1 - Don't dip enough and hit player in the face with force = red
2 - Raise your arm and extend your elbow and then smack a player in the face with force = red

Where is the inconsistency? There have been many cases of the laws not being applied consistently but this is not one of them.

Is the onus on the player attempting the tackle to regulate his height in the tackle ?
Given the difference in height of the tackler and van der merve, it is difficult to see where else he could have fended him off.!!

 

[Aimless ponderings]

Is the onus on the player attempting the tackle to regulate his height in the tackle ?
Given the difference in height of the tackler and van der merve, it is difficult to see where else he could have fended him off.!!

Is the onus on the player attempting the tackle to regulate his height in the tackle ?
Given the difference in height of the tackler and van der merve, it is difficult to see where else he could have fended him off.!!

I apologise unreservedly for the tardiness in regard to my grammatical inconsistency.
It's clearly a hanging offence!!

 

[TW27BA]

At least spell the guys name correctly
Van der Merwe

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Is the onus on the player attempting the tackle to regulate his height in the tackle ?
Given the difference in height of the tackler and van der merve, it is difficult to see where else he could have fended him off.!!

Yes, and the onus is on the player with the ball to ensure a fend doesn't turn into a forearm hit. That was a definite forearm hit. It's well established height difference is not an excuse.

 

[Scotty]

Is the onus on the player attempting the tackle to regulate his height in the tackle ?
Given the difference in height of the tackler and van der merve, it is difficult to see where else he could have fended him off.!!

That is next a hand off, there is no excuse for leading with the forearm on a hand off.

What constitutes a hand off? I always thought it was straight arm as in you couldnt propell your arm into them. But not sure on this.

I have no doubt Van de Merwe had no intent to hurt and was it high force but to me it is a clear red due to the rules regardless of your personal thoughts.