Reds v Force Rd 8 2014

[Braveheart81]

Law 10.4 refers to a tackle. It wasn't a tackle as regardless of the outcome or how well he did it, he was contesting the ball.

It's Rugby not AFL.

And it's not a penalty because he did not break the laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He didn't make it to the contest for the ball though. He arrived there after it was well and truly over.

If you want to take a dim view of his actions you can say that he both took the player out in the air and had no arms in his tackle.

I wouldn't take that view because I think his actions were careless rather than anything more sinister however it was certainly a penalty offence.

 

[RedsHappy]

I know why Chook left the Reds and it wasn't because of the above. And as Matt Hodgson said on our podcast the other day his only involvement with the force is by correspondence. He's barely involved.

Reg, as you were once employed by the QRU (still are?), you occassionally pop in here or hereabouts and hint at knowledge of the innermost workings of the Reds. No bad thing necessarily, why not.

My source re what I noted re Fowler's 2012 departure from the Reds was very credible. But you seemingly know more, as you assert. Can you thus tell us all the facts, or will you just assert 'best knowledge' and leave me/us still in the dark?

It may be useful to recall Bret Harris' 2012-dated account of Fowler's departure:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...r-brilliant-mind/story-e6frg7o6-1226339236910

Even if Fowler just 'corresponds' with the Force, that does not in and of itself confirm his inputs to them - or to M Foley in particular - are not of high value to the Force. Saying 'he's barely involved' may not tell the whole story, in fact I doubt it does.

Btw: In this context, do you think the current Reds coaching team is of the same calibre as was 2010's and 2011's?

But what is not speculative is the fact that the Force in on Saturday night played excellent rugby (their disciplined and lengthy phase play pre their tries was quite outstanding) as they have for the last 4 games.

 

[bloodred]

View attachment 4590

Just found this portrait of Shiggins. Seems right

One of the best. Soooo true

 

[I like to watch]

Reg, as you were once employed by the QRU (still are?), you occassionally pop in here or hereabouts and hint at knowledge of the innermost workings of the Reds. No bad thing necessarily, why not.

My source re what I noted re Fowler's 2012 departure from the Reds was very credible. But you seemingly know more, as you assert. Can you thus tell us all the facts, or will you just assert 'best knowledge' and leave me/us still in the dark?

It may be useful to recall Bret Harris' 2012-dated account of Fowler's departure:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...r-brilliant-mind/story-e6frg7o6-1226339236910

Even if Fowler just 'corresponds' with the Force, that does not in and of itself confirm his inputs to them - or to M Foley in particular - are not of high value to the Force. Saying 'he's barely involved' may not tell the whole story, in fact I doubt it does.

Btw: In this context, do you think the current Reds coaching team is of the same calibre as was 2010's and 2011's?

But what is not speculative is the fact that the Force in on Saturday night played excellent rugby (their disciplined and lengthy phase play pre their tries was quite outstanding) as they have for the last 4 games.

Wow how was that for cold?
....not on the coaching staff,was only a contractor.
..had a 30 day clause & we exercised it.
No thanks for your efforts,no ,you will be missed,not even a best of luck in the future.

 

[RugbyReg]

Reg, as you were once employed by the QRU (still are?), you occassionally pop in here or hereabouts and hint at knowledge of the innermost workings of the Reds. No bad thing necessarily, why not.

Hey mate, nup, don't work there anymore and won't elaborate on Chook's departure.

He was an amazing person to spend time with, but like many 'geniuses' he was rather 'eccentric' and definitely polarised people.

Link has always worked closely with him so it will be interesting to see if he ends up in Wallaby land.

 

[Nipper]

It's one thing to say he was going for the ball, but apart from having his eyes on the ball, he didn't get up and challenge in the air.

In that case, he's playing him in the air and Placid caused Hayward to land as awkward as he did. It was careless no doubt, but it's still a penalty.

View attachment 4604

View attachment 4606

10.4 (i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

Sanction: Penalty kick

In the referee decisions thread, a similar scenario was brought up, which occurred in the Ulster v Saracens game and a player was red carded. Certainly I'm not saying Placid deserves a red but a penalty is not unreasonable.

Agreed. He was looking up at the ball, fair enough. That's why it wasn't a yellow. But "going for the ball" would be a stretch - unless of course, he has the shortest vertical leap of any player in Super Rugby. Looking up at the ball does not constitute going for the ball. It was clumsy, but not with malice. Penalty was the right call, despite what the Fox idiots dribbled on about.

 

[Nipper]

& because you appear to be new to the game.. the Reds had a few years of mediocrity before the Championship year & have been there abouts since. But look at the history mate... plenty of good years through the preceding decades.

So, because I have an US Eagles avatar, you assume that I'm new to the game? Nice.

I'm quite aware of the Reds history, thanks. And I stand by what I said.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

So, because I have an US Eagles avatar, you assume that I'm new to the game? Nice.

Is that a race card you just played?

 

[Penguin]

So, because I have an US Eagles avatar, you assume that I'm new to the game? Nice.

I'm quite aware of the Reds history, thanks. And I stand by what I said.

Never even noticed your avatar & you can stand by whatever you want, doesn't make you right, Qld Rugby can hardly be described as being mediocre for more than a small part of it's long history.
Would also be nice to acknowledge that you entirely missed the context of what I originally said that you misinterpreted.
But whatever....... moving right along

 

[Moono75]

Just for the record has there been a GAGR super rugby match thread make it to 33 pages before (and still going). It's HUGE!

 

[tranquility]

So, because I have an US Eagles avatar, you assume that I'm new to the game? Nice.

I'm quite aware of the Reds history, thanks. And I stand by what I said.

 

[Scoey]

He didn't make it to the contest for the ball though. He arrived there after it was well and truly over.

If you want to take a dim view of his actions you can say that he both took the player out in the air and had no arms in his tackle.

I wouldn't take that view because I think his actions were careless rather than anything more sinister however it was certainly a penalty offence.

The contest was not well and truly over. Hayward had only just taken the ball when Placid and he collided.
As for your second point, again, it wasn't a tackle so there is no grounds for a no arms tackle sanction. If you wanted to take a dim view you could also say that Hayward was reckless and charged into a contact situation leading with his knees at chest/head height.
There is no rule that says a player must jump to contest a ball so the fact that placid didn't is not evidence that he wasn't trying to contest the ball.
You (and others) say that it was certainly a penalty but apart from 10.4 can't say what law he broke.
If you can show me any other person in the history of the game that has attempted a tackle without looking at their target and then attempting to bring that player down by driving their ribcage into the oppo's knees I'll concede. Otherwise is it just the vibe of the thing?
He didn't break any laws and the penalty was crap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

I completely agree that Placid didn't intentionally take Hayward out in the air, but that is what happened when he got to the contest well after Hayward had caught the ball cleanly.

Placid broke law 10.4 (i) by taking a player out in the air in general play.
You could argue that he broke law 10.4 (e) for tackling a player whose feet were off the ground.

The moment Hayward caught that ball cleanly he receives the benefit of the laws which protect a player in the air. Placid needed to be there earlier to have a realistic chance of competing for that ball. All he achieved was to take out the legs of a player with the ball in the air (and injure himself in the process).

 

[dabiged]

I completely agree that Placid didn't intentionally take Hayward out in the air, but that is what happened when he got to the contest well after Hayward had caught the ball cleanly.

Placid broke law 10.4 (i) by taking a player out in the air in general play.
You could argue that he broke law 10.4 (e) for tackling a player whose feet were off the ground.

The moment Hayward caught that ball cleanly he receives the benefit of the laws which protect a player in the air. Placid needed to be there earlier to have a realistic chance of competing for that ball. All he achieved was to take out the legs of a player with the ball in the air (and injure himself in the process).

I concur with this interpretation of the events. Looking at the replay again it does seem that placid was late enough to the ball that he did not jump which does indicate a breach of 10.4 (i).

Any news on Placid? I hope he didn't injure himself too badly.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Storm in a teacup - just take the bugger out the back, 10 lashs with the Cat 'O Nine Tails and then Draw and Quarter him

 

[Forcefield]

Hayward had only just taken the ball when Placid and he collided. As for your second point, again, it wasn't a tackle so there is no grounds for a no arms tackle sanction.

If colliding aimlessly and meaninglessly into the opposition and then writhing around on the floor in pain for a few minutes isn't considered a tackle, why do so many missed tackles get attributed to Quade Cooper?

Yeah. I know it's stirring, but I couldn't help it.

 

[Scoey]

Placid broke law 10.4 (i) by taking a player out in the air in general play.
You could argue that he broke law 10.4 (e) for tackling a player whose feet were off the ground.

(i) relates to a tackle. It does not use the words 'take out'. It says tackle.
(e) he did not tackle Hayward and this section of law is very clear that it must be a tackle or attempted tackle. What Placid did was neither.

What happened was a contest for the ball that went wrong. Neither player was culpable and no penalty was warranted.

I understand that you think he arrived to late to contest the ball but that doesn't change what he was attempting to do. Further, simply because he didn't physically contest the ball due to his late arrival, the default position then doesn't become a tackle to which the tackle laws apply. That's absurd! A tackle is where a player holds the ball carrier and brings them to ground. I'd be quite certain that Placid didn't even know where Hayward was otherwise I reckon he would've tried to avoid a flying knee to the chest.

I know what you're trying to say but the laws simply don't support your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dabiged]

(i) relates to a tackle. It does not use the words 'take out'. It says tackle.

Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.
A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Taken from: http://www.irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=63

10.4 (i) says a player must not push the feet of a opponent jumping in open play. Not sure how you can see how Placid did anything other than this.

(sorry for the large font)

 

[Bairdy]

(i) relates to a tackle. It does not use the words 'take out'. It says tackle.
(e) he did not tackle Hayward and this section of law is very clear that it must be a tackle or attempted tackle. What Placid did was neither.

What happened was a contest for the ball that went wrong. Neither player was culpable and no penalty was warranted.

I understand that you think he arrived to late to contest the ball but that doesn't change what he was attempting to do. Further, simply because he didn't physically contest the ball due to his late arrival, the default position then doesn't become a tackle to which the tackle laws apply. That's absurd! A tackle is where a player holds the ball carrier and brings them to ground. I'd be quite certain that Placid didn't even know where Hayward was otherwise I reckon he would've tried to avoid a flying knee to the chest.

I know what you're trying to say but the laws simply don't support your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a feeling you hold this position because of Marto's commentary on the weekend, but I'll just comment on the incident one last time.

(i) does not only relate to a tackle; it mentions additional forms of contact, i.e. "A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play."

(e) He did not tackle Haywood in the defined way as you say, but Placid made contact with his legs in the clash, and thus the law was applied and Garratt Williamson was correct.

Edit: Is that not a tackle in the air? Arms wrapped around Hayward and all.

 

[Scoey]

Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.
A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Taken from: http://www.irbplayerwelfare.com/?documentid=63

10.4 (i) says a player must not push the feet of a opponent jumping in open play. Not sure how you can see how Placid did anything other than this.

(sorry for the large font)

No worries for the font. I'm on my phone so it all comes across the same size anyway. ;-)

(i) as the title suggests refers to a tackle situation. I agree he collided with a players legs who was in the air but I don't think this section applies as it's clear to me that it's meant to be applies in a tackle or attempted tackle.

10.4 (a) says a player must not strike another player with their (amongst other things) knees. Hayward clearly did this with sufficent force that that player could take no further part in the game but that law wasn't applied in this instance. Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk