Reds vs Waratahs - the war before the war

[Schadenfreude]

After the whistle isn't really fair, he was committed to the tackle. As you say cleaning out someone who is still in the ruck is fine. He should be braced for it if he's in the ruck, especially if he's on the wrong side and illegally got there. It's nothing like Woodcock's charge on Fainga'a in the Bledisloe 2 years ago. Reckon Deann wouldn't have gotten anything if Fainga'a got up straight away.

Bullshit...

 

[tranquility]

After the whistle isn't really fair, he was committed to the tackle. As you say cleaning out someone who is still in the ruck is fine. He should be braced for it if he's in the ruck, especially if he's on the wrong side and illegally got there. It's nothing like Woodcock's charge on Fainga'a in the Bledisloe 2 years ago. Reckon Deann wouldn't have gotten anything if Fainga'a got up straight away.

Absolute filth.

 

[qwerty51]

Absolute filth.

Saia's hair? Agreed.

 

[suckerforred]

After the whistle isn't really fair, he was committed to the tackle. As you say cleaning out someone who is still in the ruck is fine. He should be braced for it if he's in the ruck, especially if he's on the wrong side and illegally got there. It's nothing like Woodcock's charge on Fainga'a in the Bledisloe 2 years ago. Reckon Deann wouldn't have gotten anything if Fainga'a got up straight away.

From my viewing I would say the Fainga'a had already reacted to the whistle, and therfore had relaxed as he was not expecting a hit. As for him getting up quicker - watch his head. It is called Coup Contrecoup. (To the medical farternity please excuse my poor spelling). Basicly you brain rattles around the inside of your head bashing itself on the skull.

Now, despite the above - yes I agree that perhaps the suspension was a bit harsh as on the face of it does seem that he did not hear the whistle. And also I don't know how much foxing that Saia was partaking in.

 

[Godfrey]

Yeah, I don't think that anyone really thinks that Dean Mumm intended to do it after the whistle. But dangerous, reckless play gets punished - end of story.

 

[suckerforred]

How many games did he get?

 

[qwerty51]

Yeah, I don't think that anyone really thinks that Dean Mumm intended to do it after the whistle. But dangerous, reckless play gets punished - end of story.

It was barely dangerous and reckless, Fainga'a is at fault for putting his body there where it can get whacked.

He got 2 weeks which was bullshit because I remember Bekker doing a similar cleanout to us in the next game and it was only a penalty.

 

[Sully]

I remember the incident and thought 2 weeks seemed right. Becker should have gone too. Just because Becker got off doesn't mean Mumm should have as well.


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[Godfrey]

So are you saying that Mumm should have got off because some time in the future SANZAR were going to be (gasp) inconsistent? The whistle had blown - every other player stopped and looked up except for Mumm who charged into an unprepared player with his back turned. Not only that, but it was a shoulder charge.

Barely dangerous and reckless is a ridiculous thing to say. 110kgs slamming into someone's back when they aren't expecting it (for good reason) is dangerous in anyone's language.

 

[qwerty51]

Bekker didn't deserve weeks because Mumm didn't, I want consistency but anyway why did Mumm deserve 2 weeks?

You probably agree that Bakkies deserved 2 weeks here as well am I right...

 

[Braveheart81]

It's amazing how much you guys are still hurting from Dean Mumm's hit two years later!

Must have been a hell of a shoulder charge.

 

[suckerforred]

Bekker didn't deserve weeks because Mumm didn't, I want consistency but anyway why did Mumm deserve 2 weeks?

You probably agree that Bakkies deserved 2 weeks here as well am I right...

Actually no. Because the whistle hadn't gone, he came through the gate and he was legitimately trying to clear someone from the ruck. He did go off his feet however so should have attracted a penality for that. The fact that someone was injured has little effect on whether a play is dangerous or not. Sometimes Shite just happens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It's amazing how much you guys are still hurting from Dean Mumm's hit two years later!

Must have been a hell of a shoulder charge.

Actually seems to be the Tah's supporter that have the problem.

 

[Swat]

It's amazing how much you guys are still hurting from Dean Mumm's hit two years later!

Must have been a hell of a shoulder charge.

And that is why they tell you not to hit kids if you're a mumm, it emotionally scars people for life

 

[Scoey]

Because i hear you all cheer for richie when he does it against the wallabies...

Cheating is still cheating, caught or not

No I think cheating is only cheating if you happen to lose.

 

[suckerforred]

And that is why they tell you not to hit kids if you're a mumm, it emotionally scars people for life

That is really sad Swat...... (Closest to throwing up I can get)

 

[qwerty51]

Actually no. Because the whistle hadn't gone, he came through the gate and he was legitimately trying to clear someone from the ruck. He did go off his feet however so should have attracted a penality for that. The fact that someone was injured has little effect on whether a play is dangerous or not. Sometimes Shite just happens. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Mumm was committed to the cleanout and was marginally after the whistle, that doesn't deserve a suspension. He went through the gate and legitimately cleaned someone out. I hear they were trying to crack down on players that don't bind and go off their feet but that's bs because it happens a thousands times during every game yet goes unnoticed. That's exactly my point that fact that Saia was injured should have little impact on Mumm's suspension but it clearly did.

And then there's that Woodcock charge on Fainga'a in the Bledisloe the same year, not even a card despite being far worse, off the ball, intention to hurt...

 

[Sully]

Seems your in the minority.

 

[suckerforred]

Mumm was committed to the cleanout and was marginally after the whistle, that doesn't deserve a suspension. He went through the gate and legitimately cleaned someone out. I hear they were trying to crack down on players that don't bind and go off their feet but that's bs because it happens a thousands times during every game yet goes unnoticed. That's exactly my point that fact that Saia was injured should have little impact on Mumm's suspension but it clearly did.

And then there's that Woodcock charge on Fainga'a in the Bledisloe the same year, not even a card despite being far worse, off the ball, intention to hurt...

Ahhh. So your issue is not with the particular Mumm incident, it is with the inconsistance of the judicary. If that is the case all we can do is wait and see if the changes made by SANZAR this year have an effect.

One would always hope that refs and officials are consistant. But from my experience of human nature that is rarely the case.

 

[qwerty51]

I've always got a problem with the consistency of the judicary.

I have an issue with suspensions being impacted on the players' injuries. I'm certain that if Fainga'a got up it would've only been a penalty. After all I think the Reds are the ones that have to do the citing, thankfully that's changed. It appeared to be the case with Bakkies on Adam Jones as well. Although I'm sure Bakkies reputation played a part unfairly as well.

 

[Godfrey]

Right, so if someone head-highs Barnes after the whistle (as long as they were "committed" to the tackle) you'll be showering them with praise?