Stormers v Brumbies Qualifier

[Dan54]

Cyclo, if you think it a kiwi thing me thinking Frueans wasn't a tip tackle, what do you make of the point I didn't think Skelton's was?? Or is that because I live in Aus?? I can see why you have your opinion on the aforementioned tackles, my only concern is we are going past the point and anyone that is hit hard above waist, chances are his legs will end up going higher than his body. I am in no way saying you can grab someone around legs and turn them upside down, or throw them over your hip, but I know I cannot grab anyone around chest and turn them upside down , which I thought (maybe wrongly) is more or less what you have to do to complete tip tackle. That was understanding I got from seeing a video of Wayne Barnes explaining what a tip tackle is in ref's opinion!! I will see if I can find link, then you can tell us Barnes is now a kiwi

 

[Dan54]

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/video-wayne-barnes-speaks-about-the-tackle-that-still-has-irish-rugby-fans-seething/27158&ei=BlaMVdLIKIbdmAWOvYOYDg&usg=AFQjCNENgPA3gp7ix7b2a5DXmeMjMWF9Og&sig2=r8VZ592SvDLAdlUlRq88ew
Found it, Wayne Barnes appears to be saying that you need to tip player by grabbing legs!! Mind you although he sounds like a pom, he probably really a secret kiwi Cyclo!
There is also another by a ref I have said explaining about momentum etc, just can't remember who it is.

 

[Brumby Runner]

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/video-wayne-barnes-speaks-about-the-tackle-that-still-has-irish-rugby-fans-seething/27158&ei=BlaMVdLIKIbdmAWOvYOYDg&usg=AFQjCNENgPA3gp7ix7b2a5DXmeMjMWF9Og&sig2=r8VZ592SvDLAdlUlRq88ew
Found it, Wayne Barnes appears to be saying that you need to tip player by grabbing legs!! Mind you although he sounds like a pom, he probably really a secret kiwi Cyclo!
There is also another by a ref I have said explaining about momentum etc, just can't remember who it is.

Then I assume you have no difficulty with Speight's tackle as well. He did not grab de Jong's legs which you seem to think is essential. Actually, neither tackle involved legs being grabbed, but Fruen's was late and off the ball as well and potentially more dangerous than Henry's as he drove Milner-Skudder into the ground with his shoulder. It doesn't cut the mustard either to say that de Jong was tackled off the ball, because he was being cleaned out very near to the breakdown, something we see repeatedly in every game of rugby unfortunately.

If Henry deserved 4 matches (which I don't believe he did - one or two would have been more appropriate) then Fruen should have got somewhere in the vicinity of double.

 

[Pfitzy]

Speight's was off the ball in retaliation. Fruean didn't drive him with the shoulder, he dropped him in an unsafe manner, onto the shoulder first.

Both should have got 4-6 weeks

 

[cyclopath]

It's the end point ( player on head / shoulder) not the specifics of where the player contacts that should be the focus. And sorry, but it has been a chorus of Kiwis in Fruean's case arguing it's just a good hard tackle gone wrong, poor Robbie didn't mean it, when the video shows he did, in part, mechanically contribute to NMS ending up as he did. Not sure what Wayne Barnes has to do with anything. This was a potentially dangerous tackle, and should have been sanctioned like others, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Braveheart81]

Looking at Fruean's tackle as evidence that someone else shouldn't be charged seems ridiculous. That is the outlier here, not the players who have been suspended.

It seems to me that anyone looking to apply the lifting tackle law in a purely literal way (Wayne Barnes included) is falling out of step with how the powers that be are adjudicating on dangerous play. If the player ends up on their head/neck/shoulder you're going to be in trouble.

I really don't think this is going to end up with Fruean's tackle being considered legal in the longer term. World Rugby are not going to provide an avenue for legally dumping someone on their head if you manage to get your timing and physics right with an upper body tackle like the one on Milner-Skudder.

 

[boyo]

Wayne Barnes a secret kiwi?

Then why do the kiwis hate him?

 

[Dan54]

Ok,Ok fellas, I will; go along with you and say Fruean should be suspended, what does bloody Barnes know anyway, he not on this forum!! I agree what Barnes has got to say has bugger all to do with it, he wouldn't have half the knowledge of the laws as us Anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem with Fruean being sanctioned, just as case with Skelton, my opinion was it wasn't a tip, but if the people that actually know the laws (ie not so called experts on the net) deduce he had a case to answer , they know more than me.

 

[Bullrush]

The problem with sanctioning Fruean's tackle is that every other day of the week it's a good hit. Technique-wise he really doesn't do anything wrong. Contact isn't high, he doesn't lift NMS or take him past the horizontal. The problem is that he hits him while he's in the air which you can't start ruling against players cos they tackle the opposition in mid-stride or they take a little bunny-hop.

I don't think Fruean's hasn't really acted dangerously.

 

[cyclopath]

Ok,Ok fellas, I will; go along with you and say Fruean should be suspended, what does bloody Barnes know anyway, he not on this forum!! I agree what Barnes has got to say has bugger all to do with it, he wouldn't have half the knowledge of the laws as us Anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem with Fruean being sanctioned, just as case with Skelton, my opinion was it wasn't a tip, but if the people that actually know the laws (ie not so called experts on the net) deduce he had a case to answer , they know more than me.

I'll try to really dumb it down then , as you are wilfully missing my point. I'm not debating the definition of a tip-tackle!!!! I'm saying that a tackle that ends up with the tackled player going headfirst / shoulder first into the ground is dangerous, and that should be the end-point. And that it should not be ruled on "intent", as that is impossible for a third party to know. And that Fruean DID have some inout into the tackle ending as it did, from watching how he proceeded from point of impact. Yes, it was unlucky that it ended as it did, as was Speight acting on the fly, as was Skelton when Latu got involved on Whitlock's legs, but it did.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The problem with sanctioning Fruean's tackle is that every other day of the week it's a good hit. Technique-wise he really doesn't do anything wrong. Contact isn't high, he doesn't lift NMS or take him past the horizontal. The problem is that he hits him while he's in the air which you can't start ruling against players cos they tackle the opposition in mid-stride or they take a little bunny-hop.

I don't think Fruean's hasn't really acted dangerously.

I thought tackling a bloke in the air was already illegal?

EDIT: I've just looked at it again, he wasn't really in the air so no dice there. He was still lucky to get away with it. I'm not sure how (upon review again) it isn't taking him past the horizontal, especially considering NMS has ended up head first into the dirt.

 

[Pfitzy]

Good hit should never be punished.

Anything where player ends up on their noggin IS NOT A GOOD HIT

 

[Benaud]

The idea behind a deterrent is that it convinces others against committing the offence due to the harshness of the penalty. It's a stupid concept in criminal justice just as it is with the rugby judiciary. It assumes that the dangerous action is done after considering the consequences which is clearly not the case.

The five weeks have been worked out based on facts. He's been suspended for four matches which are the Super rugby semi-final, final and the first two Rugby Championship matches. It just happens there is a week in between with no rugby so the four match suspension lasts five weeks.

Just a note to this, 2 of the 4 matches were included as a deterrent:

“An aggravating factor is the ongoing need for a deterrent for dangerous play such as this which carries with it the real risk of serious injury. As a result, two weeks were added to the sanction."

That's a 100% GST on top of the initial 2 matches.

 

[Moono75]

shouldn't this be on a separate forum by now. Keep seeing this thread up the top of the list and wonder WTF are they talking about the Brumbies v Stormers game for. Brumbies v Canes tomorrow live in the now

 

[Bullrush]

Good hit should never be punished.

Anything where player ends up on their noggin IS NOT A GOOD HIT

I'm just wondering exactly what Fruean's did that isn't , in any other circumstance, considered a good tackle.

Wasn't high.
Didn't lift him.
Didn't tip him.

Especially when viewed at full speed....

 

[Dan54]

Anyway, I think it been done to death, lets just say I tend to think that usually the judiciary gets it right, and although some of us on forums seem to think we know more, I have yet to actually read anyone's opinion that actually gives this indication, so I will stick with judiciary are correct in Skelton case ( and I wrong) , and also they must also be correct in the Fruean and Speight case!
Anyway it's game day, so I get to look forward to tonights games ( and club rugby), so no need to try and fill in time with past events.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

"An appeal by the ACT Brumbies over the severity of a suspension handed out to Henry Speight has been dismissed by the Sanzar judiciary appeals committee.

"The wing was banned after being found guilty of a dangerous lifting tackle on Stormers captain Juan de Jongh in the Super Rugby qualifying final win in Cape Town earlier this month.

"The penalty meant he missed the Brumbies' losing semifinal effort against the Hurricanes in Wellington and would not be eligible for selection for the first two tests of the Rugby Championship, against South Africa and Argentina.

"The committee dismissed the appeal because it found that the tackle involved both lifting and driving, saying the penalty imposed wasn't excessive."

AAP article posted on stuff.co.nz

 

[Gnostic]

Just with regard to the Speight ruling and the debate in the previous posts. I disagree with the verdict on Skelton and a few others this year. I am concerned as well that ALL matter before SANZAR have resulted in guilty verdicts and no appeal has been upheld. Anytime that a judiciary brings in a 1005 conviction rate has me worried in any forum.

Now all that said all I want is consistency. so in that vein why wasn't the Highlander's player from this shot identified and suspended for 4 to 6 weeks, - 2 weeks for clean record + 2 weeks for deterrence.

Clearly lifting the legs and driving the player into the ground head first. Head clearly making contact with the ground first.

 

[Grant NZ]

I thought tackling a bloke in the air was already illegal?

EDIT: I've just looked at it again, he wasn't really in the air so no dice there. He was still lucky to get away with it. I'm not sure how (upon review again) it isn't taking him past the horizontal, especially considering NMS has ended up head first into the dirt.

Tackling someone in the air is only illegal when they're jumping for the ball (doesn't specify it has to be from a kick - could be a pass or a loose ball). Otherwise players could simply jump with the ball at the defensive line and wouldn't be able to be tackled.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Tackling someone in the air is only illegal when they're jumping for the ball (doesn't specify it has to be from a kick - could be a pass or a loose ball). Otherwise players could simply jump with the ball at the defensive line and wouldn't be able to be tackled.

Is that why so many half backs fire out their bullet passes so high over the five eighth's head that they have to jump to get the ball?

I just thought that they were just inaccurate when they were spraying those balls around. The yappy cheating runt halfbacks really do it deliberately to counter the shooter off the back of the lineout, or out of the defensive line at the breakdown. Myself, I'd sooner that the runt #9s throw the pass chest high just in front of the target, for them to run on to.