• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

RWC: NZL v ARG (Wembley Stadium) Pool C

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan54

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
On the game,I am surprised more people aren't giving Sam Whitelock big raps, I thought he played bloody well!
 
the plastic paddy

the plastic paddy

John Solomon (38)
Strewthcobber said:
I thought he should have been cited but Murry Whyte was the citing commissioner and he's from Ireland, so not all of your countrymen agree.
Click to expand...
Not even the slightest surprise there. But still surprised that, apart from yourself, no one saw anything wrong with a fellas boot making contact with a man's face like that. Nothing on here about Worldrugby looking to bring in changes to the tackle to reduce the incidence of head injury either. The difference in attitude between the hemispheres is fairly huge.
 
teach

teach

Trevor Allan (34)
the plastic paddy said:
You don't understand the citing procedures, it doesn't have to be deliberate. If it happen in the Pro 12 it would have been cited. The NH is a long way ahead of the SH on head injuries, player welfare and concussion protocols because of the injuries to North and Brown. The complete lack of comment on this forum serves to highlight the discrepancy. I have been shocked to see players taking head knocks in SH rugby and playing on without going into the concussion bin.
Click to expand...


Clearly I don't. I was under the impression that only foul or careless play could be cited. So what happens if a player has an accidental head clash in making a tackle/joining a maul/whatever? Do you expect the other player to be cited for an accident? Which is what I feel you are expecting to happen in this case.

Not even sure why I am carrying this on. It seems you are really keen to see an AB/Carter cited for what is really a pretty dubious reason. It was accidental contact, plain and simple. Nothing worth being taken any further. The deafening silence of the UK media only serves to confirm it was a non event.
 
ACT Crusader

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
the plastic paddy said:
Not even the slightest surprise there. But still surprised that, apart from yourself, no one saw anything wrong with a fellas boot making contact with a man's face like that. Nothing on here about Worldrugby looking to bring in changes to the tackle to reduce the incidence of head injury either. The difference in attitude between the hemispheres is fairly huge.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you're surprised that no one else is seeing it the way you are. Looking at the sequence of events including the awkward way that he fell and how Dan reached down before contact is made with leg/boot, then this would appear to have been sensibly dealt with.
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I can't see any reason at all that would be cited, in either hemisphere...........

As for McCaw incident - possibly lucky boy to see a red card considering the multiple offences in one go.............
 
the plastic paddy

the plastic paddy

John Solomon (38)
teach said:
Clearly I don't. I was under the impression that only foul or careless play could be cited. So what happens if a player has an accidental head clash in making a tackle/joining a maul/whatever? Do you expect the other player to be cited for an accident? Which is what I feel you are expecting to happen in this case.

Not even sure why I am carrying this on. It seems you are really keen to see an AB/Carter cited for what is really a pretty dubious reason. It was accidental contact, plain and simple. Nothing worth being taken any further. The deafening silence of the UK media only serves to confirm it was a non event.
Click to expand...
It was Carter's boot making contact with a man's face. Of course no holier than though New Zealander could ever do anything reckless or illegal. Mealamu couldn't possibly have head butted anyone because he is a Christian was one of the finer lines of mitigation employed in the past. I think Carter should have been cited and warned rather than banned because what he did was reckless. I am just as entitled to my opinion as you are and I am not of that opinion because I have an agenda unlike yourself.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Surely Carter was just rushing to try and get in place in the defensive line.

I think it would be entirely different if he'd kicked out with one leg to try and make contact with the ball. That would be reckless and dangerous and warranting a citing. That didn't happen though.

I agree with the concept that it doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous or warranting of a citing. I don't think what Carter did was either of those things though. He was just running to the place where he would be standing in a legal position as a defender on the goal line.
 
the plastic paddy

the plastic paddy

John Solomon (38)
Braveheart81 said:
Surely Carter was just rushing to try and get in place in the defensive line.

I think it would be entirely different if he'd kicked out with one leg to try and make contact with the ball. That would be reckless and dangerous and warranting a citing. That didn't happen though.

I agree with the concept that it doesn't have to be intentional to be dangerous or warranting of a citing. I don't think what Carter did was either of those things though. He was just running to the place where he would be standing in a legal position as a defender on the goal line.
Click to expand...
But he was behind the goal line by quite some distance. He has gone in to half heartedly dislodge the ball and in the process his foot/ shin have made contact with the try scorers face. Your man had already touched the ball down, held in the bread basket, for the try. If he had made contact on the goal line Petti would still have been in mid air.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
the plastic paddy said:
But he was behind the goal line by quite some distance. He has gone in to half heartedly dislodge the ball and in the process his foot/ shin have made contact with the try scorers face. Your man had already touched the ball down, held in the bread basket, for the try. If he had made contact on the goal line Petti would still have been in mid air.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Carter is running towards that spot at the same time the player is diving towards the try line.

Carter's right foot is planted on the goal line prior to the try being scored and the contact being made.

I completely get what you're saying but I disagree that it is either reckless or dangerous from Carter. He was trying to get in position, not kick at the ball or slide in with his legs.
 
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
It was clear that there was nothing in that - he risked injury to his lower leg, no way he did that on purpose.

It was as innocent as Bismarck's tackle on the self-same Carter in 2013. ;)
 
mxyzptlk

mxyzptlk

Colin Windon (37)
the plastic paddy said:
I will keep saying this, IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE!!!! I have no axe to grind as far as Carter is concerned and don't think his citing would have ended up in a ban given the circumstances, but he was reckless to allow his boot to be anywhere near Petti's face.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be deliberate, and apparently it doesn't even have to be a kick to the head for some people to call it a kick to the head ad nauseum. Because all you have to do is not look at the images in order to argue he's recklessly or deliberately putting his boot near the Argentinian's face.

And if you want a citing commission to come into play every time a lower limb gets somewhere north of a shoulder, every ruck will have to be reviewed multiple times. Might as well watch league.

Time to let this one go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top