Rugby Championship 2021

[Dan54]

JBar's Red expunged:

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

Not sure I agree with that, it kinda second-guesses the match officials over something that was far from clear-cut.

Yep, that's why I said I would like them to say it was accidental, but still a RC, to support the ref. Mind you I can see their view to, that they have to rule to letter of law.

 

[Derpus]

Inconsistent application of the broader no contact with the head policy.

The only reason to flick your foot out like that is to dissuade a tackler from hitting you the second you put your foot on the ground, which MK would have done. Dangerous play and should be red.

The 'he needed to flick his foot out for balance' thing is just bullshit. He had already gone up, caught the ball and was on his way safely down by the time his leg came out.

 

[zer0]

TIL balance is, apparently, directional.

As a former fullback I can say you most definitely can lose balance on your way down. It's frankly bizarre to try and claim that you can't. Seems pretty clear to me that's what happens here. There's also Barrett's entire backlog of catches where he doesn't lead with an extended leg to deter chasers (which is a terrible technique), even in heavy traffic.

EDIT: I would give screenshots of examples, but the Sky NZ app stupidly doesn't allow screenshots. But by the match clock there's an example at 21:38 where he takes the catch with Kellaway (I think) waiting to make the tackle. It's the only catch he takes, with Jordan taking the other two (and using the same, normal, technique).

 

[Derpus]

TIL balance is, apparently, directional.

As a former fullback I can say you most definitely can lose balance on your way down. It's frankly bizarre to try and claim that you can't. Seems pretty clear to me that's what happens here. There's also Barrett's entire backlog of catches where he doesn't lead with an extended leg to deter chasers (which is a terrible technique), even in heavy traffic.

EDIT: I would give screenshots of examples, but the Sky NZ app stupidly doesn't allow screenshots. But by the match clock there's an example at 21:38 where he takes the catch with Kellaway (I think) waiting to make the tackle. It's the only catch he takes, with Jordan taking the other two (and using the same, normal, technique).

Yes positively otherworldly

 

[Dan54]

Inconsistent application of the broader no contact with the head policy.

The only reason to flick your foot out like that is to dissuade a tackler from hitting you the second you put your foot on the ground, which MK would have done. Dangerous play and should be red.

The 'he needed to flick his foot out for balance' thing is just bullshit. He had already gone up, caught the ball and was on his way safely down by the time his leg came out.

Doesn't really help refs going forward does it Derps? I said and I do I think it was accidental, and the RC was right

Yes positively otherworldly

This is what the board said in their judgement, and I will agree that there is no way he flicked his foot out, knees is still bent when foot makes contact,

(UT researchers provided independent biomechanical analysis of the incident and determined that he had used “a standard technique” for a high ball catch by raising his knee to gain jump height.


Barrett escaped further punishment when his actions were determined to have complied with the laws of motion. Photo / Getty Images
They determined that Barrett did not “kick” his leg out as his knee angle remained close to 90 degrees from the time of takeoff from the ground to the impact on Wallaby Marika’s body during landing.

It was also determined that Barrett’s “hip flexion was necessary to stop the backwards rotation of his body due to his trunk position”. If he had not flexed at the hip he could have landed on his head.

Finally it was deemed that due “to the laws of motion, Barrett’s landing position was predetermined at take-off, and he could not have changed it deliberately”.)

Pretty hard to argue with that I suppose, well for me anyway, I not quite as expert as the Texas Uni fellas.

And they seem to agree with zer0

 

[tragic]

Right decision but inconsistent with other accidental contacts with the head deemed poor technique.
Either all contact with the head, deliberate or accidental. is a red card, or it’s not.
Can’t have it both ways.
Head contact is a bloody lottery at the moment.
Players and supporters, particularly those who have made the effort and paid to watch a game deserve better.

 

[Highlander35]

Hopefully WR (World Rugby) appeals.

 

[dru]

Yes positively otherworldly

It seemed completely about balance to me, Derp. I don't have a problem with the result other than as others have said refs second guessing themselves. I'm glad the bloke got off.

 

[cyclopath]

The ruling is at odds with a number of other cases which were similar mainly in the NH. Bans were upheld mostly. I suspect WR (World Rugby) will look closely at the perceived laxity in application of penalties for head contact in the SH (not so much the cards, the suspensions).
It's a thorny issue, no doubt.

 

[Dan54]

The ruling is at odds with a number of other cases which were similar mainly in the NH. Bans were upheld mostly. I suspect WR (World Rugby) will look closely at the perceived laxity in application of penalties for head contact in the SH (not so much the cards, the suspensions).
It's a thorny issue, no doubt.

Yep but also it seems is same as some cases in NH. One thing we all know Cyclo in law (and basically this is what it is) that no 2 cases will ever get same outcome even whem exactly the same details are used. And I have not found one that is exactly same as this.

 

[Dan54]

Right decision but inconsistent with other accidental contacts with the head deemed poor technique.
Either all contact with the head, deliberate or accidental. is a red card, or it’s not.
Can’t have it both ways.
Head contact is a bloody lottery at the moment.
Players and supporters, particularly those who have made the effort and paid to watch a game deserve better.

I can go up tp that up to a point, but noone in here will be happy if ALL contact to head is red carded whether accidental or not. Do we want player banned for running and a player tackling without good technigue gets a knee in head etc, that happens often.
As I said above , in the matter of law nothing can be absolute consistent no matter how much we like or loath it. If you kill somone ,the law takes into account whether it accidnetal or on purpose etc etc.

The only thing I would say on it (as watching game I said it was RC etc) is if we going to have a 20 minute red, it is perhaps time to introduce an Orange card (do away with red) and so once a orange has been given it up to judiciary to decide if it a red , that way reds aren't expunged so questioning the refs decisions? As I said I thought it a red, until I looked at replays later and saw he had only fexed hip, not kicked out with knee etc, though still thought it a red, but that was enough punishment.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

SamW heading over Saturday for his two weeks quarantine & expects to be "available if selected " for last RC match.

 

[cyclopath]

Yep but also it seems is same as some cases in NH. One thing we all know Cyclo in law (and basically this is what it is) that no 2 cases will ever get same outcome even whem exactly the same details are used. And I have not found one that is exactly same as this.

Actually, from the source I saw on Twitter, there were a couple of cases very similar to this one. Bans upheld. My point is that the SH judicial processes seem to allow a greater amount of mitigation compared to the NH ones. I think WR (World Rugby) will want to tighten this up so an obvious disparity does not develop (further).

 

[Dismal Pillock]

SamW heading over Saturday

He probably "persuaded" wifey to eke the sprog out a bit quicker. "No hurry mate, anytime you're ready, it's just the All Blacks calling....."

 

[Dan54]

Geez fella s I getting old kept going online to see the AB team named for this week, and then finally remembered Sunday game, so team is named friday

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Only changes from Perth should imo be Aumua for Taylor & Jacobson for Savea. Lurch for captain, he seemed to be the guy with the final say after Ardie went off. If anyone needs a rest pre-SA give them next week off, this is a must-win if we're serious about winning TRC.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

The matchday 23 is (Test caps in brackets):

1. Karl Tu’inukuafe (20)
2. Asafo Aumua (2)
3. Nepo Laulala (34)
4. Brodie Retallick – captain (86)
5. Scott Barrett (44)
6. Akira Ioane (7)
7. Dalton Papalii (8)
8. Luke Jacobson (7)
9. TJ Perenara (71)
10. Beauden Barrett (94)
11. George Bridge (13)
12. David Havili (8)
13. Anton Lienert-Brown (52)
14. Sevu Reece (12)
15. Jordie Barrett (28)
16. Samisoni Taukei’aho (4)
17. Joe Moody (50)
18. Tyrel Lomax (8)
19. Tupou Vaa’i (5)
20. Ethan Blackadder (3)
21. Brad Weber (11)
22. Damian McKenzie (33)
23. Rieko Ioane (40)

11. George Bridge (13)
23. Rieko Ioane (40)

 

[Dctarget]

Reckon Dalton will be around for 50+ caps? I'm a huge fan of his and he's only 23.

 

[Bullrush]

Reckon Dalton will be around for 50+ caps? I'm a huge fan of his and he's only 23.

Yep - he's a work horse who still has room to get better.

 

[zer0]

The matchday 23 is (Test caps in brackets):

1. Karl Tu’inukuafe (20)
2. Asafo Aumua (2)
3. Nepo Laulala (34)
4. Brodie Retallick – captain (86)
5. Scott Barrett (44)
6. Akira Ioane (7)
7. Dalton Papalii (8)
8. Luke Jacobson (7)
9. TJ Perenara (71)
10. Beauden Barrett (94)
11. George Bridge (13)
12. David Havili (8)
13. Anton Lienert-Brown (52)
14. Sevu Reece (12)
15. Jordie Barrett (28)
16. Samisoni Taukei’aho (4)
17. Joe Moody (50)
18. Tyrel Lomax (8)
19. Tupou Vaa’i (5)
20. Ethan Blackadder (3)
21. Brad Weber (11)
22. Damian McKenzie (33)
23. Rieko Ioane (40)

The Pitcairn's intelligence agency -- that is, the Pitcairn Island Sneaky Service -- is coming through with the leaks now, it seems...