R3 - Reds vs. Crusaders - Suncorp

[Up the Guts]

Jezus WOB do you ever stop. Mate, you've got to find a better hobby than this. If you can't work out yourself why Aus rugby fans can be frustrated by Kiwi teams, I don't know how to pull that together for you.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure my views do not change in reverse. Though this does not stop a great frustration with Kiwi thoughts on Australian rugby. As you know.

You? What do you think about things in reverse, yourself? Completely vanilla? Really?

Exactly, the outrage comes from the emotional attachment to the team. I’m never going to be outraged over a controversial decision in a Sharks vs Stormers game but I can still point out it was the wrong decision.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Jezus WOB do you ever stop. Mate, you've got to find a better hobby than this. If you can't work out yourself why Aus rugby fans can be frustrated by Kiwi teams, I don't know how to pull that together for you.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure my views do not change in reverse. Though this does not stop a great frustration with Kiwi thoughts on Australian rugby. As you know.

You? What do you think about things in reverse, yourself? Completely vanilla? Really?

"Sanzaar has today confirmed that sideline match officials made an incorrect ruling towards the end of the Reds versus Crusaders match on Saturday 2nd March in Brisbane,"

"Hunt was then replaced by Mo'unga, despite Crusaders having used all their substitutions, as allowed by the same HIA (Head Injury Assessment) protocols. Unfortunately a sideline official determined that as no HIA had been carried out Hunt was simply injured and therefore not allowed to be replaced. This led to Mo'unga incorrectly being taken from the field at the 74 minute mark.

"Sanzaar is disappointed that the HIA protocols, introduced into the game as player welfare measure, were wrongly interpreted and is taking steps to ensure such incidents do not occur moving forward."

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ed-to-follow-hia-protocols-in-crusaders-match

FWIW I always try (but don't always succeed) applying the "what if that happened in reverse?" view & also try (but don't always succeed) to be objective rather than emotional about these things.

It was a terrible mis-application of what should be a fairly well-understood protocol with the suggestion that Reds staff may have played a part. I don't think its unreasonable to point out the probable reaction had the Reds been denied a legitimate replacement at a NZ venue under similar circumstances.

 

[dru]

WoB it was getting tautological.

Good to see SANZAAR have cleared it up.

 

[Dan54]

Actually is a very interesting point that WOB brings up, because I had a number of Reds supporters say to me , Crusaders should be penalised for having too many players on field and they may have scored if they had the right number etc, the young ref who made the call is a local prem ref, and obviously made a genuine mistake, he did seem to be getting it in the neck from the 2 women (I believe on was the Dr) in Reds shirts. And is supposedly said the Dr said he doesn't need a HIA as I can see he clearly concussed (which is in itself surely a HIA). But anyway like the seemingly convenient breakdown of replay to check their try, people tend to jump to conclusions!

 

[gel]

Just so I am clear...

NOW you are complaining about the decision?

 

[Dan54]

Thee’s no need to assume. Watch the scrums. Tupou was straight throughout, the Kiwi not.

OK, OK, you set the tone I will take it up. Correction, the dirty cheating Kiwi - not. ;-)

Just out of interest dru watch any scrum properly and tell me how many LHs are actually straight, none or almost none, it almost impossible for LH to stay absolutely straight, the Reds LHs both of them were pointing in. I really think Tupou's problem is what I pointed out in here last year, he moves his shoulders and body so when pressure hits him real hard he will tend to fold.

 

[gel]

Just out of interest dru watch any scrum properly and tell me how many LHs are actually straight, none or almost none, it almost impossible for LH to stay absolutely straight, the Reds LHs both of them were pointing in. I really think Tupou's problem is what I pointed out in here last year, he moves his shoulders and body so when pressure hits him real hard he will tend to fold.

Except in that first scrum. He didn't fold - the crusaders guy lost his footing and ate grass.

 

[Dan54]

Just so I am clear.

NOW you are complaining about the decision?

What decision? That the young ref got it wrong? No not complaining at all, just a young fella being put under pressure and as I said he will learn. I mean we all know it was wrong call. I only concerned about the safety aspect. And pointing out how we look at things depending on how it affects our own team.

 

[dru]

Just out of interest dru watch any scrum properly and tell me how many LHs are actually straight, none or almost none, it almost impossible for LH to stay absolutely straight, the Reds LHs both of them were pointing in. I really think Tupou's problem is what I pointed out in here last year, he moves his shoulders and body so when pressure hits him real hard he will tend to fold.

I don't recall Tupou face planting once. Maybe I missed it? The Cru #1 face planted plenty.

I see Fat Prop's comments and take it seriously, I still don't think it is as simple as stated. And no I don't agree that a boring-in loose head should be considered acceptable.

We'll have to leave it there Dan as I don't think either of us is adding anything.

 

[Up the Guts]

Actually is a very interesting point that WOB brings up, because I had a number of Reds supporters say to me , Crusaders should be penalised for having too many players on field and they may have scored if they had the right number etc, the young ref who made the call is a local prem ref, and obviously made a genuine mistake, he did seem to be getting it in the neck from the 2 women (I believe on was the Dr) in Reds shirts. And is supposedly said the Dr said he doesn't need a HIA as I can see he clearly concussed (which is in itself surely a HIA). But anyway like the seemingly convenient breakdown of replay to check their try, people tend to jump to conclusions!

I'm not sure you can say the Reds supporters were jumping to conclusions if they were basing their complaints on the actual decision that was made at the time.

This isn't the first time this has happened, Ben O'Keefe incorrectly denied the Brumbies a substitute last year after Cusack had gone off for an HIA.

 

[swingpass]

so do we all know for sure that the rule for an HIA (which allows a player to be subbed) is actually the same as a straight replacement if a player is knocked out cold; clearly concussed or in david Pocock's case, has had his head ripped off ? i assume it is, but does anyone know how the law is actually written, it's possible the ref got it right .

 

[Purce]

Hanigan plays ferociously also, but unfortunately, physiology is not on their side. Hockings is 206 cm, closer to Arnold then to Simmons. Hockings is just too . lanky. Watch him around the field, he is fit and industrious but is slow, slow feet, weak drive, weak impact.

Mate he is 20 years old playing in the tight 5 ffs. Give him some time to grow into his body, blokes like Horwill, Jones and plenty others didnt grow into their body and have the impact you're requiring of him till they were 22/23/24. He is extremely skillful, surprisingly agile, quick for his size and has a big engine. Watch him track players in defense, he certainly isn't slow. He has got fantastic hands and skills. He just needs to play some footy at this level and put on weight when it comes a bit more naturally. I would suspect the next 2 off seasons you will see a fair change in his density.

I don't think he should be starting but I certainly think this is a good year to get some game time into him because he will be around for a long time.

 

[Adam84]

Fickle bunch, if you're not playng like a superstar by 21 years old then you're a lost cause...

 

[Strewthcobber]

so do we all know for sure that the rule for an HIA (which allows a player to be subbed) is actually the same as a straight replacement if a player is knocked out cold; clearly concussed or in david Pocock's case, has had his head ripped off ? i assume it is, but does anyone know how the law is actually written, it's possible the ref got it right .

Search for world rugby HIA protocol if you want more info, or law 3.27

Basically, yes, getting knocked out on the field gets you on the HIA protocol and you can be substituted.

 

[Dan54]

I'm not sure you can say the Reds supporters were jumping to conclusions if they were basing their complaints on the actual decision that was made at the time.

This isn't the first time this has happened, Ben O'Keefe incorrectly denied the Brumbies a substitute last year after Cusack had gone off for an HIA.

No UTG, I wasn't getting at Reds supporters by any means, it was a little light hearted comment that the mates mainly who are Reds supporters wondered if the Reds should get points because maybe the Reds could of scored if the Crusaders had an extra player , then didn't see the opposite when we all knew it was actually the other way round and Reds scored when Crusaders were down one. It was not meant to be taken as a criticism of Reds supporters or match officials, just kind of backing up what WOB had mentioned in a post about how we were responding depending on which side of fence we sat.

 

[Dan54]

so do we all know for sure that the rule for an HIA (which allows a player to be subbed) is actually the same as a straight replacement if a player is knocked out cold; clearly concussed or in david Pocock's case, has had his head ripped off ? i assume it is, but does anyone know how the law is actually written, it's possible the ref got it right .

Yep it pretty simple Swing. And I think the young sideline ref got it wrong, but it not something to get nickers in a twist about, looked like he was getting pressure from Reds support staff and maybe wasn't real clear on law, same as when player or anyone makes a mistake, he will know from now on.

 

[upthereds#!]

Mate he is 20 years old playing in the tight 5 ffs. Give him some time to grow into his body, blokes like Horwill, Jones and plenty others didnt grow into their body and have the impact you're requiring of him till they were 22/23/24. He is extremely skillful, surprisingly agile, quick for his size and has a big engine. Watch him track players in defense, he certainly isn't slow. He has got fantastic hands and skills. He just needs to play some footy at this level and put on weight when it comes a bit more naturally. I would suspect the next 2 off seasons you will see a fair change in his density.

I don't think he should be starting but I certainly think this is a good year to get some game time into him because he will be around for a long time.

I completely agree and you seem to agree with me also.......my comment was a response to my original comment that he should not have started, because his physiology isn't there yet. YET. 2 seasons would be about right.

Except tracking, which is more correlated towards awareness and positioning then speed for a tight 5.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I am stjill wondering what happens if a player is otherwise injured and leaves for a HIA, is replaced, but doesn't return to the field after passing the HIA due the other injury. Will the replacement than be required to leave the field? Not necessarily a hypothetical, as there would be temptation for a head injury to be claimed for HIA purposes just to get a replacement when the real issue is some sort of other injury that does not have automatic replacement protocol.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ fairly sure that if he passes the HIA but doesn't return for other reasons the sub stays on UNLESS his team have used all their subs in which case he has to come off.

 

[swingpass]

^^^^^^^ Strewth, Dan; thankyou