Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | ... | 677

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326505 28-Sep-2019 21:35

Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

floydbloke

3649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4557

ID Verified

#2326552 29-Sep-2019 09:37

Dear Spark Sport

You seem to have sorted out your technology issues, well done.

Now let's work on showing what your paying customers want to see straight after the final whistle of a fascinating contest resulting in an almighty upset. Poxy ads or the emotion and reaction of the players and fans? What do you reckon?

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326618 29-Sep-2019 11:18

Handle9:

Under the laws it's a card but IMO the high tackle law is a joke.

Francis came in to make a legitimate tackle and missed. No swinging arm, no shoulder charge, no intent to injure, he got his timing marginally wrong, especially as the US player dropped marginally lower as he took the ball. He's barely got him above the shoulders.

It's a penalty, fine, but It's not foul play, it's a mistake in technique. It used to be that cards were for deliberate acts, not mistakes.

Given the very fine line between high and legitimate do you really expect it to have any real effect other than make games a lottery?

He came in pretty high, and the higher you tackle the lower the margin for error and the more likely things outside of your control will occur. Japan stopped Ireland dead in their tracks with much lower tackles. I understand they are trying to stop the offload and push people back behind the gain line, but I feel there are ways to do this without that. Both teams are measured by the same set of rules, so from that perspective, it's fair. For me it's yellow not Red, there were mitigating circumstances and no intent. Having said that, if you hurt someone by accident, you still hurt them.

So, with that in mind, how would you structure it?

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326621 29-Sep-2019 11:20

I see there is talk of Jordie Barrett at 10 this week or next against Canada or Namibia. That makes me very nervous. If he ends up under pressure.. I guess they could start him and the select the team around him, so that if he isn't coping, they can move him back to Fullback and move say Crotty or TJP into 10?

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2326649 29-Sep-2019 12:00

networkn:

Handle9:

Under the laws it's a card but IMO the high tackle law is a joke.

Francis came in to make a legitimate tackle and missed. No swinging arm, no shoulder charge, no intent to injure, he got his timing marginally wrong, especially as the US player dropped marginally lower as he took the ball. He's barely got him above the shoulders.

It's a penalty, fine, but It's not foul play, it's a mistake in technique. It used to be that cards were for deliberate acts, not mistakes.

Given the very fine line between high and legitimate do you really expect it to have any real effect other than make games a lottery?

He came in pretty high, and the higher you tackle the lower the margin for error and the more likely things outside of your control will occur. Japan stopped Ireland dead in their tracks with much lower tackles. I understand they are trying to stop the offload and push people back behind the gain line, but I feel there are ways to do this without that. Both teams are measured by the same set of rules, so from that perspective, it's fair. For me it's yellow not Red, there were mitigating circumstances and no intent. Having said that, if you hurt someone by accident, you still hurt them.

So, with that in mind, how would you structure it?

Yellow for sure. No intent, but still careless and dangerous play. Either way, no sanction being dished out on the field is wrong.

Also we have seen another game with a no-arms tackle cleared by the TMO - this is supposedly 'attempting to wrap':

https://twitter.com/EnglandRugbyPod/status/1177821465405726720

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326654 29-Sep-2019 12:13

networkn: Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

all i saw was a biased ref who seemed to have two sets of rules. without that ref advantage who knows what might have happened.

Samsung

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

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2326656 29-Sep-2019 12:15

Batman:

networkn: Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

all i saw was a really biased ref who had two sets of rules

Maybe it's karma for that test where Ireland rode massively one-sided officiating to a 'historic win' a few years ago.

networkn

Networkn
32884 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15483

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326673 29-Sep-2019 12:28

Batman:
networkn: Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

all i saw was a biased ref who seemed to have two sets of rules. without that ref advantage who knows what might have happened.

You always say that ;)

Batman

Mad Scientist
30018 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6218

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326674 29-Sep-2019 12:31

networkn:
Batman:

networkn: Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

all i saw was a biased ref who seemed to have two sets of rules. without that ref advantage who knows what might have happened.

You always say that ;)

But it's true, every time I say it

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#2326697 29-Sep-2019 13:26

networkn: Japan - Giant killers. What an outstanding effort. They played so well. The last 20 as Handle mentioned Japan could sense it and raised a level. Just so impressed.

Great result for Japan, shows how pretty one dimensional Ireland are and how they have not evolved over the last 2 years.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#2326698 29-Sep-2019 13:29

networkn:

I see there is talk of Jordie Barrett at 10 this week or next against Canada or Namibia. That makes me very nervous. If he ends up under pressure.. I guess they could start him and the select the team around him, so that if he isn't coping, they can move him back to Fullback and move say Crotty or TJP into 10?

I doubt either team is good enough put enough pressure on him to make a difference. I'm sure he'll make a few mistakes, but after the first 20min or so, he'll have oodles of space and time.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326733 29-Sep-2019 14:52

networkn:
Handle9:

Under the laws it's a card but IMO the high tackle law is a joke.

Francis came in to make a legitimate tackle and missed. No swinging arm, no shoulder charge, no intent to injure, he got his timing marginally wrong, especially as the US player dropped marginally lower as he took the ball. He's barely got him above the shoulders.

It's a penalty, fine, but It's not foul play, it's a mistake in technique. It used to be that cards were for deliberate acts, not mistakes.

Given the very fine line between high and legitimate do you really expect it to have any real effect other than make games a lottery?

He came in pretty high, and the higher you tackle the lower the margin for error and the more likely things outside of your control will occur. Japan stopped Ireland dead in their tracks with much lower tackles. I understand they are trying to stop the offload and push people back behind the gain line, but I feel there are ways to do this without that. Both teams are measured by the same set of rules, so from that perspective, it's fair. For me it's yellow not Red, there were mitigating circumstances and no intent. Having said that, if you hurt someone by accident, you still hurt them.

So, with that in mind, how would you structure it?

We need to start from a place where we acknowledge that a full contact sport like rugby can never be fully safe. There is absolutely no way to eliminate concussions from rugby unless you eliminate the breakdown and tackling. Accidents will happen.

I fail to see why the interpretation of the laws changed. Was there a spate of concussions that caused the changes?

The penalty for high tackles has almost vanished as any contact with force results in a card. That's not realistic or in line with the way the game is played.

The IRB is all to happy to show big hits as they are a great spectacle. You missed by 4 inches, you're suspended for 3-6 weeks. It doesn't make sense to me.

Previously a tackle like Francis would be penalised, a warning given and we all move on with the game. It seems a more just result to me.

Dingbatt

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#2326745 29-Sep-2019 15:34

I think it's called taking all reasonable measures to avoid player injury.................and being sued.

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

GV27

5979 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2326746 29-Sep-2019 15:38

We penalise playing line-out players in the air. Everyone accepts that, even if it is accidental, it's still a penalty. It's dangerous play. Why we should suddenly show more leeway in the contact area when it involves the head is a mystery.

Handle9

11937 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9699

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2326747 29-Sep-2019 15:40

GV27:
We penalise playing line-out players in the air. Everyone accepts that, even if it is accidental, it's still a penalty. It's dangerous play. Why we should suddenly show more leeway in the contact area when it involves the head is a mystery.

We penalise players, we don't make almost every offence a yellow or red card. I'm not arguing we shouldn't penalise high tackles, I am arguing that the level for red and yellow cards doesn't fit the offended.

1 | ... | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | 311 | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | ... | 677