Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | ... | 638

Networkn
32141 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331067 5-Oct-2019 16:51

@tealeaf:

I thought you might find this interesting reading:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12273845

The guy is an absolute machine/workhorse. You may not personally like him (he isn't my cup of tea), but I have the utmost respect for the mans work ethic, and I think he has become a better captain in the past 18 months as well.

I suspect once Chieka is gone, he will be a little less whiney too.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29675 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331180 5-Oct-2019 21:29

Farrell was ducking the tackle in a video angle not shown on replay to the referee.

Not a red card.

Handle9

11118 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331182 5-Oct-2019 21:43

Handle9:

If anyone is interested in a nuanced conversation about high tackles and concussion I'd really recommend watching the House of Rugby episode this week. Skip through to around 33 minutes until 41 minutes. It's quite a considered position from a players perspective and well worth a watch.

The RFU did a trial late last year where they lowered the high tackle mark to the armpit. It significantly increased the risk of concussion. The point that Mike Tindall made on the house of rugby was that most concussions happen on the tackler when they tackle low and get a hip or a knee to the head.

I'm increasingly convinced that the reason this new interpretation has come in is to avoid litigation rather than being driven by player safety.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/rfu-tackle-height-trial-armpit-nipple-line-ended-scrapped-concussion-risk-increase-a8745776.html

TeaLeaf

6248 posts

Uber Geek

#2331187 5-Oct-2019 22:05

Batman: Farrell was ducking the tackle in a video angle not shown on replay to the referee.

Not a red card.

Im still in shock, are we going to ban tackles in rugby next? The guy tackled with an arm on a falling player who fell marginally on his shoulder. Thats a Red card? Id have been surprised if a yellow. Was just a penalty for an accident. Blame the Pom for falling into the tackle.

Man Union is soft as a wet paper towel, no wonder people struggle to take it seriously as a full contact sport.

TeaLeaf

6248 posts

Uber Geek

#2331188 5-Oct-2019 22:10

networkn:

@tealeaf:

The guy is an absolute machine/workhorse. You may not personally like him (he isn't my cup of tea), but I have the utmost respect for the mans work ethic, and I think he has become a better captain in the past 18 months as well.

No argument. My point is hes a soft .... He may have great fitness and good luck with no injuries. But he is a whinger. Same as White. I find both of them are like Munster in the NRL for the Storm. Just gets up every play making out hes hard done by. stays down when hes hit by a tackle just in case the third ref finds something.

No argument hes had great stamina. I just wish he wouldnt whinge to the ref so much. Also hes the size of a half back, hes pretty small for his position, so I dont find he adds value in that regard. But they simply dont have anyone better

TeaLeaf

6248 posts

Uber Geek

#2331189 5-Oct-2019 22:21

Eng carrying on like they 4-0 tries over the ABs, Arg did so well for a long time with only 14. But I can see Eng putting on some points via the edges now, but the way they are finishing the tries its like they think they have created a fair overlap.

Handle9

11118 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331555 6-Oct-2019 20:25

Generally I think Hansen will be happy with today. Namibia were really excellent and game us a nice tune up in the first half. It stops the squad from getting too far ahead of itself and believing the media nonsense. They clearly got an earful at half time and responded. Namibia was really physical which was great, it's just what our pack needed.

I think Tuungafasi will be fine but Laulala will have a very nervous 36 hours and will probably be cited. Under the framework there is clear mitigation for both tackles but given its the All Blacks they will probably be very cautious and cite at least Laulala.

The Tuungafasi card is so stupid - with the player falling if he pulls the arm back he gets a yellow for a shoulder charge, if he leaves the arm there he gets a yellow for contact with the head. The law is an ass but the interpretation was correct under the law.

JarrodM

969 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2331563 6-Oct-2019 21:10

I’ve posted this on another site but it sums up my feelings re the cards:

Following the high tackle decision making framework, there are 3 incidents it looks at: shoulder charge, high tackle with contact by tacklers head/shoulder, high tackle with contact by tacklers arm.
If we look at this one it is a high tackle with contact made by the tacklers arm. You then ask if there was head/neck contact -> yes. What I think is missed in the ref’s decision is the next question which asks degree of danger - high = red, low = yellow.
From the decision of both yellows all I hear is the ref saying neck/head contact and the mitigation of the ball carrier being low so just a yellow. He may have in fact decided high degree of danger but just not verbalised it? But I think if the we are following the framework the refs should definitely explain each step on the defined framework, because not all neck/head contact is high danger, if you have a ball carrier low of the ruck at low speed I wouldn’t say there is high danger there vs a high speed winger hit by a high swinging arm.

I’m not disagreeing with the decisions as they are subjective and you could justify all three outcomes if you wanted to, this is just reinforcing there is a framework, and that maybe the refs aren’t following it correctly?

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331565 6-Oct-2019 21:16

Handle9: Generally I think Hansen will be happy with today. Namibia were really excellent and game us a nice tune up in the first half. It stops the squad from getting too far ahead of itself and believing the media nonsense. They clearly got an earful at half time and responded. Namibia was really physical which was great, it's just what our pack needed.

I think Tuungafasi will be fine but Laulala will have a very nervous 36 hours and will probably be cited. Under the framework there is clear mitigation for both tackles but given its the All Blacks they will probably be very cautious and cite at least Laulala.

The Tuungafasi card is so stupid - with the player falling if he pulls the arm back he gets a yellow for a shoulder charge, if he leaves the arm there he gets a yellow for contact with the head. The law is an ass but the interpretation was correct under the law.

There is no excuse for the undisputed rugby side to be embarrassed by a no name side in the first half, and first quarter. NAB did very well, credit to them, we are useless. What if this was the final, a lack lustre first quarter and first half , but this time its against ENG, RSA, WAL, IRE. The game would be over the half.

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331567 6-Oct-2019 21:21

Yes, I know this is an AB thread so dont diss them. But if you fans cant see that. We are good we are not great. In fact rugby is good and its not great, so the top tier sides are not anything to write home about. Anyone can win this as they are all solid and no more.

networkn

Networkn
32141 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331579 6-Oct-2019 21:59

I don't think I've ever seen Steve Hansen show as much positive emotion as when TJP scored that try! I still can't really understand how they didn't rule that pass behind the back as forward, it came out of the hands forward as far as I can see. Now it's been awarded, it's going to go down as the try of the tournament, certainly to date.

Considering we played with 3 half backs, a winger/fullback at 10 in his first time in a test and had players out of position, I think Steve Hansen won't be unhappy with that end result. NAM had nothing to lose and threw everything they had at us, and we didn't leak a single try. It took 35 minutes to break them down, longer than Canada, who really weren't in the game from the first whistle. Discipline would be the big issue I think. I am inclined to agree with Stephen Donald about how are they supposed to tackle players going to ground. They must tackle them, or they get up off the ground and go again.

Does anyone know what the final penalty count was? 12 sound right?

JarrodM

969 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2331587 6-Oct-2019 22:25

8-7 penalties conceded in Namibia’s favour

networkn

Networkn
32141 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331588 6-Oct-2019 22:27

JarrodM: 8-7 penalties conceded in Namibia’s favour

That is still an improvement over what has been occuring prior to the RWC. I do have a list of penalties somewhere, but by memory we were averaging around 9 or 10 a game

Handle9

11118 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331590 6-Oct-2019 22:59

tdgeek:

Yes, I know this is an AB thread so dont diss them. But if you fans cant see that. We are good we are not great. In fact rugby is good and its not great, so the top tier sides are not anything to write home about. Anyone can win this as they are all solid and no more.

Okey dokey

Handle9

11118 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2331592 6-Oct-2019 23:03

networkn:

JarrodM: 8-7 penalties conceded in Namibia’s favour

That is still an improvement over what has been occuring prior to the RWC. I do have a list of penalties somewhere, but by memory we were averaging around 9 or 10 a game

It felt like 5 of those were in the first half.

1 | ... | 312 | 313 | 314 | 315 | 316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | ... | 638