RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't read more than the first paragraph of this because of the paywall, but what I can read appears to both reasonable and balanced: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/a ... d=12257480

Puja

It's the Herald. They're a bad joke.

Mind you, the reffing we get here often does take into account intention and any other mitigating factors (like, say, did Barrett mistime his hit, etc.). That said, I have no problem with the red card itself. He did hit Hooper in the back of his head, and knowing what we know about concussions, he should've been more careful.

What I do have an issue with though, is the lack of consistency in Garces' refereeing - as much as Australia deserved to win, Garces' influence can not be ignored. Even putting aside the red card, the fact that the decisive score came off of him fucking up and awarding the Wallabies about 30m of territory, or the fact that he watched and ignored a few incidents where All Blacks were cleaned out of the ruck by their neck, like this





is pretty fucking frustrating.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't see how that's harsh. It's a shoulder charge with force, which is a yellow even before it's contact direct to the head. You could argue that he's unlucky that he's hit the head, but you could also argue that that's his own problem for throwing his shoulder into a challenge.

Massive opportunity for Australia here. If they can't win from this position, they may as well stop playing New Zealand.

Puja

Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:I can't see how that's harsh. It's a shoulder charge with force, which is a yellow even before it's contact direct to the head. You could argue that he's unlucky that he's hit the head, but you could also argue that that's his own problem for throwing his shoulder into a challenge.

Massive opportunity for Australia here. If they can't win from this position, they may as well stop playing New Zealand.

Puja

Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

cashead wrote:So where to for the All Blacks?

Crotty - unavailable
Rettalick - unavailable
Barrett - probably gone for at least 1 game
Goodhue - probably out for at least 1 game

I did wonder about the balance of the loose forwards, but I suppose I'd convinced myself too that Savea/Cane/Read was workable.

So who would you go with? I'd call in Nonu, for starters. If you don't think his 100+ test caps worth of experience would be useful right now, I don't know what to tell you. Put Hemopo in at 6, and tell him to do what got him on the radar in the first place - tackling the fuck out of anyone in the other team that happens to have the ball. It would also bring a bit of weight and height for the setpieces, and allows for more freedom on the bench.

1. Moody
2. Coles
3. Franks
4. Tuipulotu
5. Whitelock
6. Hemopo
7. Cane
8. Read (C)
9. Smith
10. Mo'unga
11. Ioane
12. SBW
13. ALB
14. Smith
15. B Barrett

16. Taylor
17. Moli
18. Tu'ungafasi
19. Fifita
20. Savea
21. Perenara
22. Nonu
23. J Barrett/Reece/Ennor

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Harsh red for me. Real time had no time to react to Hooper being spun round by Coles, and initial contact wasn't with shoulder imo. Greenwood has it right- you could red card almost every breakdown. If there is any argument, as you posit, then it is harsh.

Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Under the directives it’s as red as red can be. He positively tucks his arm in a sling position and hits head / neck with force, which starts sanctions at red. None of the potential mitigation’s apply so no option to reduce one level, which is the maximum reduction.

43B2AF0B-0395-42CA-AE39-2DFC01C72CA0.jpeg

yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

cashead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Sure, I agree that it deserved a red, but I'm also arguing that Garces has no business refereeing at the test level, and has proven time and time again that he is unfit for officiating at a high level.

A referee has failed at their job when they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, and even ignoring the red card, his complete lack of consistency in applying the law, and failing to recognise that he'd unfairly rewarded the Wallabies about 30m of territory off of their knock-on which led to a fairly decisive score is something he should be getting raked over the coals for.

His entire performance was the kind thing that reminds me of Ricky Stuart's rant last year when the Raiders were jobbed by some shitty refereeing against Cronulla, when he demanded that the refs attend the press conference too to explain themselves.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

cashead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Sure, I agree that it deserved a red, but I'm also arguing that Garces has no business refereeing at the test level, and has proven time and time again that he is unfit for officiating at a high level.

A referee has failed at their job when they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, and even ignoring the red card, his complete lack of consistency in applying the law, and failing to recognise that he'd unfairly rewarded the Wallabies about 30m of territory off of their knock-on which led to a fairly decisive score is something he should be getting raked over the coals for.

His entire performance was the kind thing that reminds me of Ricky Stuart's rant last year when the Raiders were jobbed by some shitty refereeing against Cronulla, when he demanded that the refs attend the press conference too to explain themselves.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

Different views tell different tales; one angle, as I said looks like a cheap shot, another angle looks like Barrett changing his mind as a result of Hooper swinging into him with a different direction from Coles tackle, whilst definitely going to ground- I do agree on multiple re-watches, that the body height change, whilst there, is negligable. My take is that it was accidental, yours a cheap shot. Again, I see why red was given.

( I note the exact same points and graphic from Twitter ).
Moving on, why do we not get the same reaction from refs on shouldering in ruck clear outs- the scatter rucking is illegal in the first place, and so many piledriving in with shoulders goes utterly unpunished................and its all intentional.

Silvercloud wrote:My question is: If the force of the contact to the head is deemed sufficient to warrant a red card, why is it not mandatory to send the player suffering the said offence for an HIA?

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

Silvercloud wrote:My question is: If the force of the contact to the head is deemed sufficient to warrant a red card, why is it not mandatory to send the player suffering the said offence for an HIA?

You're not wrong at all. There's been a few this weekend that should have gone - Francis in the England game was absolutely spark outand was allowed to play on for another two minutes.

We can't pick and choose when we give a sh*t about concussion.

Puja

Yeah, like saying "That's a red card because he hit him in the head. I have to protect the player," and then 20 minutes later "Oh, a deliberate shoulder to the head of a prone player? Is that even a penalty? Fine, I'll give him a yellow."

Puja wrote: Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja