Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 559 | 560 | 561 | 562 | 563 | 564 | 565 | 566 | 567 | 568 | 569 | ... | 640

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119274 23-Aug-2023 09:56

GV27:

Best I can tell he got a 30% discount for having done this before in the last 12 months.

I look forward to All Black reds being given the same treatment come RWC time.

Do it once, get a 3 week ban, do it 10 times, get 4 weeks! Seems logical :)

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119665 24-Aug-2023 09:43

AB's to Face SA this Weekend.

All Blacks: Beauden Barrett, Will Jordan, Rieko Ioane, Jordie Barrett, Mark Telea, Richie Mo’unga, Aaron Smith; Ardie Savea, Sam Cane (capt), Luke Jacobson, Scott Barrett, Sam Whitelock, Tyrel Lomax, Dane Coles, Ethan de Groot. Reserves: Samisoni Taukei’aho, Tamaiti Williams, Fletcher Newell, Josh Lord, Tupou Vaa’i, Dalton Papalii, Cam Roigard, Anton Lienert-Brown

Foster has nothing to lose, he may as well just throw caution to the wind. No matter what he does, in some peoples eyes, if he wins everything it will be because of Schmidt and Ryan, but if he loses, it will be all Fosters fault.

It's kind of weird though, when we won everything under Hansen, people wanted closer matches, for the AB's to lose occasionally, and for the rest of the world to catch up. When that happens, we want nail the coach to the cross.

GV27

5883 posts

Uber Geek

#3119676 24-Aug-2023 10:18

Wow, this is... something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyKyjeYCnA0&ab

On a World Rugby channel no, less. Pretty much lays out why it's a clear-cut red. So I'm curious how the initial panel deemed it not a red offence at all.

tieke

674 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3119762 24-Aug-2023 12:33

GV27:

On a World Rugby channel no, less. Pretty much lays out why it's a clear-cut red. So I'm curious how the initial panel deemed it not a red offence at all.

It's because the original appeal only looked at part of the tackle - Farrell contested the head-high ruling and managed to get mitigation. World Rugby's subsequent appeal to this ruling was successful because the failure to wrap meant that the tackle was illegal from the start, so mitigation couldn't be applied. Bizarrely, the Disciplinary Committee ignored the first half of the tackle and made its judgement solely on the head-contact.

"In the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision," a statement said on Tuesday.

The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer's (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee's yellow card to a red card during the match.

Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card."

As many people pointed out, if Farrell was not an integral part of a tier one team about to play in the world cup the initial appeal wouldn't have been nearly as successful. As it is, they reduced the standard six-week suspension down to four weeks ("Taking all considerations into account, including the player's acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension."), and as that includes the Ireland game for which he had been available but hadn't actually been selected for, it is essentially only a three week suspension.

Some would say that stating that Farrell "accepted foul-play" when he literally appealed it could seem a bit weird, and it's also strange that while they are not allowed to increase the suspension period based on previous infractions for exactly the same offence, they are allowed to reduce it because of "good character".

Oh well, RFU is going to RFU. At least the original judgement was appealed.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119769 24-Aug-2023 13:32

tieke:

Some would say that stating that Farrell "accepted foul-play" when he literally appealed it could seem a bit weird, and it's also strange that while they are not allowed to increase the suspension period based on previous infractions for exactly the same offence, they are allowed to reduce it because of "good character".

Oh well, RFU is going to RFU. At least the original judgement was appealed.

There is a special term used for the type of appeal they did. It means effectively the first hearing never happened. This is why Farrell's not guilty plea wasn't able to be considered. In the second meeting, he knew his goose was cooked and therefore knew the best path to the shortest punishment was 'true remorse'.

The sanction can be raised from the starting point. The facility exists, they didn't choose to use it. I think a few cases relatively recently have had punishments increased from the starting point.

Obviously, some players are more likely to receive that than others.

JPNZ

1520 posts

Uber Geek

#3119777 24-Aug-2023 13:49

networkn:

AB's to Face SA this Weekend.

Nice to have a 6:30am Saturday kick off too!

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119781 24-Aug-2023 14:05

I really like how Foster handles the press. He is easy to understand, reasonable, *incredibly* patient and open.

He isn't quite the smarty pants that Hansen was, but there is less stirring and mind games.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3119785 24-Aug-2023 14:11

JPNZ:

networkn:

AB's to Face SA this Weekend.

Nice to have a 6:30am Saturday kick off too!

Nice isn't how I'd describe anything at 6am.

JPNZ

1520 posts

Uber Geek

#3120009 25-Aug-2023 09:50

networkn:

Nice isn't how I'd describe anything at 6am.

Hah, I'm up at that hour for exercise everyday so IMO its better than the 2-4am that it could have been being in the UK

Panasonic 65GZ1000, Onkyo RZ730, Atmos 5.1.2, AppleTV 4K, Nest Mini's, PS5, PS3, MacbookPro, iPad Pro, Apple watch SE2, iPhone 15+

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3120099 25-Aug-2023 13:39

thermonuclear

576 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3120360 26-Aug-2023 08:37

networkn:

No.....

k1w1k1d

1486 posts

Uber Geek

#3120363 26-Aug-2023 08:48

Just heard that the AB's got their butts kicked!

Dingbatt

6741 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3120366 26-Aug-2023 09:07

To try and put a shiny side to it….

The Springboks only scored one try when the sides had an even number of players.

The All Blacks scored a try when they were down a man. Or should I say Roigard did. I had my doubts about why Cam was chosen ahead of Brad Webber, and one game does not a legend make, but he certainly showed his worth in that game.

The ABs showed the rolling maul (ugh) could be defended, although repeatedly pinged for technicalities, which ended in 2 yellows.

I thought S.Barrett had turned the corner from being a ~~penalty~~ card magnet. Maybe not….. In his defence, his first yellow was when he was pushed offside by a Springbok.

The Springboks were obviously targeting the offload, but the ABs persisted. It cost them a 7 pointer, and almost 2 others.

Why did the ABs continue throwing long when their lineouts were getting picked off?

It was also an indication of the way the RWC will be refereed. That game seemed to have a lot of work going on in the background by the TMO in a similar way to the VAR in FIFA games and the bunker in the NRL. A few pretty obvious forward passes (by both sides) were missed though. But on the whole can’t complain about the officials. They had a good game.

I take solice that this will be more valuable preparation for the RWC that if the scores had been reversed. Losing isn’t nice though.

Edit: Oh and for k1w1k1d, they played 50 minutes with 14 players and 8 with 13 (their own doing I might add).

Edit2: Changed what kind of magnet S.Barrett is. Cane is just as big a penalty magnet, but his tend to be rule infringements rather than “foul” play.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#3120367 26-Aug-2023 09:12

Brilliant game. Springboks pummel the All Blacks.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3120601 26-Aug-2023 15:28

That was really painful to watch. I was impressed with the defense of our line in the first 20 minutes, but frustrated by the constant penalties. It was really discouraging seeing us making the same mistakes over and over. Early at the lineout 3 times?!

When we kept defending our line, I thought we had absorbed the pressure and were about to switch the momentum, but our own errors and allowing the Boks to disrupt us killed it whenever we got it.

The whole game seemed out of character for how we had played all the rest of the year. The Boks did well in spotting the offload game and finding ways to nullify it including the intercept that led to the try.

I am certainly no scrum expert, but the Boks were pinged once for going early, but it seemed like they were pretty much doing it the whole match?

Unfortunately, now for the next few weeks we will have to hear about how this is all Fosters fault (again). (Even if, under him we have collected yet another unwanted record.

As Dingbatt alludes to, much better now than in a fortnight, though I think we will be without Lomax, Barrett, Rettalick and Frizzel.

1 | ... | 559 | 560 | 561 | 562 | 563 | 564 | 565 | 566 | 567 | 568 | 569 | ... | 640