C'mon Geekzoners = Give us your views on Rugby World Cup 2011!

Forums › Sports › C'mon Geekzoners = Give us your views on Rugby World Cup 2011!

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#533905 16-Oct-2011 09:15

CYaBro: It does say in the rules though that a penalty or yellow card should be given, not a red card.

Quote 10.4k, IRB Rugby Union Laws
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The rule was amended in 2010 by the IRB, taking a zero tolerance stand on spear tackles, which makes the red card the only option.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533912 16-Oct-2011 09:30

throbb:
CYaBro: It does say in the rules though that a penalty or yellow card should be given, not a red card.

Quote 10.4k, IRB Rugby Union Laws
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The rule was amended in 2010 by the IRB, taking a zero tolerance stand on spear tackles, which makes the red card the only option.

In which case there should have been a number of other red-cardings during pool play, but there weren't - only yellow cards were issued. Do you have a link to the amendment you speak of?

The quote from CYaBro is directly from the IRB website's 2011 lawbook, and can be viewed here: Law 10(j) is on page 65 of the full .pdf.

PS. I know the header for the link provided says IRBLaws.com, but if you go to the main IRB website, click on the "Laws and Regulations" tab and follow the links from there, you'll end up at the same place.

EDIT: Added the word "yellow" :-)

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533916 16-Oct-2011 09:50

He had him very high and dropped him, I think the height was key and I know a lot of people don't agree but they ARE the rules. The card was valid, I hope he gets cited as well and a 20 game ban. I felt the same way with Tana at the time, and every other one. He could easily have paralyzed that guy. They are professionals who who know better.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#533917 16-Oct-2011 09:51

Dratsab:
throbb:
CYaBro: It does say in the rules though that a penalty or yellow card should be given, not a red card.

Quote 10.4k, IRB Rugby Union Laws
(j) Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The rule was amended in 2010 by the IRB, taking a zero tolerance stand on spear tackles, which makes the red card the only option.

In which case there should have been a number of other red-cardings during pool play, but there weren't - only yellow cards were issued. Do you have a link to the amendment you speak of?

The quote from CYaBro is directly from the IRB website's 2011 lawbook, and can be viewed here: Law 10(j) is on page 65 of the full .pdf.

PS. I know the header for the link provided says IRBLaws.com, but if you go to the main IRB website, click on the "Laws and Regulations" tab and follow the links from there, you'll end up at the same place.

EDIT: Added the word "yellow" :-)

http://ht.ly/6Yd0Y

CYaBro

4708 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1182

ID Verified

Trusted

#533927 16-Oct-2011 10:53

And that's one of the major problems with the rules of rugby, open to too much interpretation by the ref.
If that had been any other game I bet it would have only been a yellow card.

It doesn't really matter anyway as Wales still could have won the game if they got their kicks at goal.

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#533939 16-Oct-2011 12:02

CYaBro: And that's one of the major problems with the rules of rugby, open to too much interpretation by the ref.
If that had been any other game I bet it would have only been a yellow card.

It doesn't really matter anyway as Wales still could have won the game if they got their kicks at goal.

Thats the thing tho, this rule is not open to interpretation. Since that memo came out, it could be nothing but a red card.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#533958 16-Oct-2011 14:43

Basically the problem is that the red card decision basically decided the game inside the first quarter. If I had paid the hundreds to watch that game, I would feel pretty ripped off. The game was very poor, and france basically played defensive through the entire game. That is the problem with the world cup in the closing games which are knockout, you often get very poor rugby games.
In other games players performed the same sort of tackles and were only yellow carded, so there is a lack of consistency.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533979 16-Oct-2011 16:42

mattwnz: That might be one of the more bizarre things I have read in a while. Your complaint is that a red card is ok in the last 20, but in the first 20 a dangerous play should be ignored for entertainment value? If you want to complain about the value of a game due to a red card, you should do so to the WRU as it was their player who could have severely injured or even killed another player. I didn't have a problem with the game after the red card, I found it exciting to the last second, I thought it mixed it up. Finals in world cups in every sport are played a lot more tightly.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#533986 16-Oct-2011 16:56

mattwnz: Basically the problem is that the red card decision basically decided the game inside the first quarter. If I had paid the hundreds to watch that game, I would feel pretty ripped off.

Thats a bizarre call mattwnz. Are you suggesting that where people pay high ticket prices referees (or officials) should 'adjust' the rules to ensure the punters get their monies worth?? Perhaps including changes to stop boring/defensive play??

Despite the card I would have thought a game whose outcome could easily have changed in the last few minutes represented good value for money.

Or are you suggesting that games where there are vastly different scoreboards, and therefore poorly matched teams, represent better value. I know which ones I'd rather go to.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#533987 16-Oct-2011 16:56

I thought the red card was a fair decision. It was a dangerous tackle and I can't recall any other tackle of the tournament that got that amount of height.
In spite of having 14 players Wales had the opportunity to win the game, albeit by mostly denying the French field position, but they kept making the same mistakes. Yes lineouts, I'm looking at you!
And the try that was scored. He surely could've gotten infield a few more metres rather deciding to celebrate early. I may have yelled at the tv once or twice around then :D

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#534104 16-Oct-2011 22:54

20-6.
thank goodness, I can breathe again. What a great way for the game to finish with Cooper being driven into touch 10m from his own line...

Edit: Well he did start the game (by kicking off into touch).

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

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

heavenlywild

5091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 901

Trusted

#534106 16-Oct-2011 23:02

4 more years Australia!

Bring on the French!!!!

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#534120 16-Oct-2011 23:55

oxnsox:
mattwnz: Basically the problem is that the red card decision basically decided the game inside the first quarter. If I had paid the hundreds to watch that game, I would feel pretty ripped off.

Thats a bizarre call mattwnz. Are you suggesting that where people pay high ticket prices?referees?(or officials) should 'adjust' the rules to ensure the punters get their monies worth?? Perhaps including changes to stop boring/defensive play??

Despite the card I would have thought a game?whose?outcome could easily have changed in the last few minutes represented good value for money.?

Or are you suggesting that games where there are vastly different scoreboards, and therefore poorly?matched teams,?represent better value. I know which ones I'd rather go to.

No, but there have been many tackles of a very similar type were the player was only given a yellow card and 10 minutes. The commentators also all mentioned this, and that tackle wasn't the worst they had seen this tournament. I saw a NZ player in another game, that actually performed a far worse tackle where the player was lifted up and toppled over on his shoulder/head area, and he only got a yellow card. The Wales coach also said that the result of the game was basically decided from that call, and it meant that any future tackles like that would now have to be red carded, so I am not the only one who thought that. I am not saying it was a bad decision, but it did ruin the game and the way it ended up being played. 15 players against 14 , is huge advantage, and teams only playing with 14 players can't play to their plans. Anyone paying $500 or whatever it was for that particualr game, would want to see the game of their lives, like the All blacks/Oz game, which would have actually made a great final.

Also the cheap games were decided on a variety of factors, such as potential demand for tickets due to the teams involved. They had nothing to do with scorelines. It was just that Wales played so well that the wales france game was so close. .

I just wonder which French team will turn up next week, and whether it will be a great final. Something will have to go very wrong for NZ now to lose, and NZ have never lost to France in a world cup final. History will repeat, as it has so far.

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534121 16-Oct-2011 23:59

Wow Wow WOW! What an OUTSTANDING performance by our boys in black tonight! Would rank that as one of, if not THE best game we have played in 8 years :)

I feel 85% confident we will take the cup now.

Quade Cooper, what a shocker!

BTW I believe my family dressing my 2 year old in AB's nappies plays a part, we haven't lost a game, when he has been wearing them :)

Tonight he wanted to sleep with a Rugby ball, quite cute him lying in his cot 2/3 consumed by the ball :)

networkn

Networkn
32864 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15455

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534122 17-Oct-2011 00:12

mattwnz: I have spoken to most of the 20 people I know at the match, not one of them mentioned not having got value, and 8/9 scoreline is exciting.

The point remains the red card was the legally right thing to do, if you are in fact correct (and I have watched every game so far, and some more than once), and I don't actually agree, it was a failure on the referee's part in those earlier games. The correct decision was made in this game.

I don't think all this fuss would have been made if Wales had still won, but in reality, they could still have done so, they scored with 1 less player on the field, they chose not to play the same type of rugby that got them that try, and it cost them a final.

What happens out of interest if Aussie lose to Wales next week? How would that affect the IRB Rankings? (presumably) it would go 1) AB 2) France 3) Wales 4) Australia and then SA, scotland, england and ireland?

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 23