Image
Image
Image

Topics Calendar

May 2018

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Who is online

In total there are 16 users online :: 7 registered, 0 hidden and 9 guests

Most users ever online was 454 on Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:04 pm

Registered users: AhrefsBot, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], SemrushBot, YandexBot


Legend :: Administrators, Moderators

Statistics

Total posts 639701
Total topics 18939
Total members 2900
Our newest member magnummax

Autumn Internationals 2016

Stuff from around the world.

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

  • Advertisement

Topic Rating:
  • 7 votes
  

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Snipe Watson » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:18 pm

Dave wrote:https://youtu.be/oLgLuOeZwyc

That was a very harsh red card at a time when they were being ridiculously precious. Common sense has prevailed in the interim.
#NotMyCountry
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 22537
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby WeeWorld » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:27 pm

It's common sense until someone breaks their neck.
For me that's an automatic red card. Court didn't need to do that and wouldn't have, if that was the rule.
If the rule is automatic then then harsh reds for harmless tip tackles will be rare.
It will be coached out.
Yes, that's me in the avatar!
User avatar
WeeWorld
Novice
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:42 am

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby BR » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:34 pm

WeeWorld wrote:
BR wrote:The trouble is that a tip tackle is, in itself, dependent on outcome.


i don't know what you mean, lift legs above waist and don't control landing is a tip tackle whatever the outcome, isn't it?


It is a tackle. Where the tackled player's legs and upper body goes and whether the landing can be controlled is not always a predictable outcome of that tackle.

Not talking spear tackles here; thankfully they seem to have largely disappeared from the 1st class game now. Most of what I'm seeing penalised now as tip tackles, are clumsy at worst.
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16453
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby CIMANFOREVER » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:37 pm

Agreed. It's getting too soft. Just watching some of Julian Whites best digs on Utube :thumleft: >EW :thumleft:
Exterminate all rational thought
User avatar
CIMANFOREVER
Chancellor to the King
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: The Dufferin

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby WeeWorld » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:38 pm

BR wrote:
WeeWorld wrote:
BR wrote:The trouble is that a tip tackle is, in itself, dependent on outcome.


i don't know what you mean, lift legs above waist and don't control landing is a tip tackle whatever the outcome, isn't it?


It is a tackle. Where the tackled player's legs and upper body goes and whether the landing can be controlled is not always a predictable outcome of that tackle.

Not talking spear tackles here; thankfully they seem to have largely disappeared from the 1st class game now. Most of what I'm seeing penalised now as tip tackles, are clumsy at worst.


You're probably right but anyway it's easy to avoid tip tackling someone, you just don't lift in the tackle
Yes, that's me in the avatar!
User avatar
WeeWorld
Novice
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:42 am

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby BR » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:45 pm

WeeWorld wrote:
BR wrote:
WeeWorld wrote:
BR wrote:The trouble is that a tip tackle is, in itself, dependent on outcome.


i don't know what you mean, lift legs above waist and don't control landing is a tip tackle whatever the outcome, isn't it?


It is a tackle. Where the tackled player's legs and upper body goes and whether the landing can be controlled is not always a predictable outcome of that tackle.

Not talking spear tackles here; thankfully they seem to have largely disappeared from the 1st class game now. Most of what I'm seeing penalised now as tip tackles, are clumsy at worst.


You're probably right but anyway it's easy to avoid tip tackling someone, you just don't lift in the tackle


I think we'll have to disagree on that. A text-book tackle can result in a players legs going up (often more to do with the action of the ball carrier than the tackler). Add in a second tackler, tackler-assist or supporting player and it can easily be beyond the control of any one individual.
No more sweet talk from the hypocrites
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 16453
Images: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Snipe Watson » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:51 pm

WeeWorld wrote:It's common sense until someone breaks their neck.
For me that's an automatic red card. Court didn't need to do that and wouldn't have, if that was the rule.
If the rule is automatic then then harsh reds for harmless tip tackles will be rare.
It will be coached out.

I don't think Court would be red carded today.
Any player lifting a leg above horizontal at a ruck is committing an offence. Is it reckless? I think not necessarily.
WR have to strike a balance between player safety and the inherent nature of the game. Mitigation of risk is important, player welfare is important and so is the integrity of the sport. Rugby cannot be a risk free sport.
#NotMyCountry
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 22537
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Dave » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:55 pm

Joe is speaking to world rugby about trying to reduce tackles in and around the hamstring area. Poor Sexto has to take a break.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 15764
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Russ » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:15 am

Dave wrote:Joe is speaking to world rugby about trying to reduce tackles in and around the hamstring area. Poor Sexto has to take a break.

I read online that Swerving Girvan says Janny might not take the kicks for Leinster for a while. Didn't know kicking affected Jannys hamstring. Thought it was his tackle technique
User avatar
Russ
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 27139
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: Looking for George North's defence

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby BaggyTrousers » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:22 am

CIMANFOREVER wrote:
BaggyTrousers wrote:I don't think so CIMAN, not my initial thought at all, but I will take another look. Did you think it was anything but yellow? It's not quite clear though "soft" suggests you think red.


No I think it deserved a penalty and maybe no more. Soft as in it was an easy option to give for a baying crowd. To me they should've looked more closely at their lock with the hands around Furlongs eye area. Might be worth switching focus to that on the playback. I've seen citings and reds for less.
I'm not one for yellows and Reds unless totally necessary. Spear (not tip ) tackles with momentum and intent merit reds aka Mealamau on BOD , ditto the heinous crimes of gouging or head kicking. The rest is rugby, and in the words of the previous Saffer coach, it's not ballet, so no tutu's. Tbf, Furlong dusted him down and didn't make a fuss, like a good forward should... Just line him up for a dig later. >EW Furlong looks the deal IMO.


Right, I've had another look and you could have a point.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/11/26/17/23/ireland-wallabies-match-report

I've watched it a few times at full speed and have tried to go through it frame by frame. What is not in doubt is that Simmonds very clearly made contact with the eye area, no question about that, you can see the fingers well above the bottom of teh nose. I know the Law only requires contact with the eye area , the way I consider it would be differently in the middle of ruck or maul to say Ashton's hands on Luke in an individual tackle.

In the middle of a pile of players I think intent IS crucial & I'm not sure one way or another in this case, too hard to be sure, but no doubt about the contact. :thumleft:

Here is an article from the Aussies which says that Mumm deserved a red card ...............but wait, read on ..........

Actually I think it's very well written and I agree entirely with it right up until the point where I add "bullshit", thereafter I have reservations but it's interesting.

Dean Mumm’s yellow card in the 23rd minute of the Australia-Ireland game illustrated a frustrating disconnect between World Rugby, referees and fans.

Mumm was involved in a ruck cleanout where he lifted the leg of Tadgh Furlong and dropped him leading to Furlong falling on his head and neck. Initially referee Gerome Garces waved play on, but after a consultation with the TMO, he reviewed the incident and decided on issuing a yellow card, despite there seemingly being cause for a red.

Cue yelling into pints of Guinness, throwing shamrocks and kicking over pots of gold.

If the WR protocol for tip tackles is followed correctly here, the only sanction is a red card. The player was lifted beyond 90 degrees and comes down on his head and shoulder. Based on protocol, that is a red card and there have been many other similar situations recently where the outcome has gone that way.

But to the chagrin of Irish fans, one of the most experienced refs in the world, Nigel Owens, steps in.

Owens essentially takes control of the situation and advises that because the Irish player’s head was close to the ground (essentially saying that there was no substantial lift) it wasn’t dangerous enough to warrant a red card. Garces then justifies the decision to Rory Best as being a “static” play rather than a “dynamic” one, although it’s also unclear what that means exactly.

The problem isn’t the decision, it’s the consistency of the sanctioning that has Irish heads exploding. Like the All Blacks-Ireland game the week before, there is a disconnect between the understanding of the laws and the enforcement of them.

But hang on, maybe Owens advice was warranted? If we remove the emotion for a second, Owens, isn’t the best ref in the world for no reason, he is a no nonsense yet pragmatic referee and he has some basis for his decision here.

When refs are trained, they are taught to first and foremost consider safety, but they are also trained to consider things such as materiality, game flow and entertainment value.

I think in this situation, Owens has concluded that if Mumm gets red carded, it ruins the game as a contest and both Australian and Irish fans get cheated out of the money they paid for the spectacle.

Perhaps if Furlong had actually been injured, the result may have been different, but I think Owens has thought, no injury, so let’s keep the game as a contest. I personally have no problem with that interpretation, but it does leave the Irish fans at a loss. They are told the protocol for a red card by WR, they see some games where this protocol is enforced, and then they sit dumbfounded when it isn’t enforced in other games.

So, how did we get to this disconnect between WR and the fans?

Traditionally, red cards have been reserved for intentional dangerous play, but in the search for a safer game, WR has mandated that refs be harsher on both intentional and unintentional dangerous play.

Their research has lead to changes in play like the new ruck laws trialled in New Zealand this year, the directive to police high tackles more strictly and even the suggestion that there should be no tackling above the waist…

Now the “it’s not tiddlywinks” crowd have spat the dummy at some of these suggestions, but the tiddlywink defence isn’t really an argument. It’s the equivalent of saying “cars are made to go fast, so we shouldn’t have speeding laws”.

Yes, rugby is a dangerous game and players should know and understand that, but it doesn’t have to be unnecessarily dangerous. If we weigh up the actions of Dean Mumm (trying to clear out a player to avoid a turnover) versus a lifelong neck injury for Furlong, then I think it’s an easy conclusion to try and make the game safer.

The problem for refs comes when they have to weigh up a multitude of factors including the severity of dangerous play, the intention of the player as well as the responsibility for creating an entertaining game and decide between only two options – a weak 10-minute benching or a red card that ruins the game.

BULLSHIT - though I think Ron'n might enjoy it.

The answer to this problem is very simple; scrap the yellow and red card system and go to a graded card system.

When a player gets cited following a game, the judicial officer takes into account aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the length of the ban, so why can’t that same system work for on-field sanctions?

In Ice Hockey, minor offenscs are sanctioned with a two minute penalty; however, players can accrue multiple penalties at a time which adds to their penalty time. Doing the same in rugby would give far more transparency and accuracy to sin-bins. It would work by assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors in any dangerous situation and giving an accruing sin-bin without having to ruin the game.

In a tip tackle for example, the aggravating factors that can cause injury are:
• The height of the lift i.e. has the player been lifted to a dangerous height?
• The tip i.e. has the player been tipped beyond horizontal?
• The force of the player going into the ground i.e. Is the player being driven into the ground?
• The position of the player’s body going into the ground i.e. is it head or back hitting the ground?

There may also be mitigating factors i.e. did any other factors make the tackle more or less dangerous? Did the tackler try to mitigate his actions in any way?

If we take the Mumm-Furlong case for example, we could grade it along this scale:

Aggravating factors:
• Tip – Mumm tipped the player beyond the horizontal = ten minutes
• Position – Player landed on head and shoulder = ten minutes

Mitigating factors:
• Height – Mumm didn’t lift the player to a dangerous height = no sanction
• Force – Mumm did not drive the player = no sanction
• Tip – Simmons’ neck roll caused the tip to be exaggerated = ten minutes for Simmons

So, the overall sanction would be 30 minutes for Australia, 20 for Mumm and ten for Simmons which is more appropriate for the danger of the situation, but far less harsh than a red card which would have left Australia with 14 men for 57 minutes.

If we look at Malakai Fekitoa’s yellow card for a high tackle last week which many Irish fans along with the citing commissioner thought should have been a red card, the aggravating factors might have been:

• Point of contact – Tackle was around the neck/head area = ten minutes
• Force – Tackler left his feet which aggravated contact = ten minutes
• Wrap – Lack of both arms wrapped = ten minutes

Mitigating Factors:
• Timing – No issue with timing = no sanction

So Fekitoa would have got 30 minutes rather than ten which many fans saw as too lenient. Had the tackle been late, then he might have got 40 minutes which would have been the equivalent of a red at that point of the game.

The point here is that having only two sanctions doesn’t account for the complexity of contact in rugby, nor does it account for the growing need to produce entertaining spectacles.

It is also extremely difficult to gauge the intentionality of any action on the field, so let’s remove the subjective interpretation of dangerous play and judge it based on the decisions that the players actually made.

That is after all how players are judged when they get to the citing commission.


Sorry for the length, some may enjoy it. :D
SUPPORT THE TEAM, FU'CK THE REGIME - UNTIL TERRY SHAME SLOGAN IS GASSED

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 28491
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Dave » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:43 am

Another mitigating factor would be, being a prap. Praps have no necks.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 15764
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby Rooster » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:57 am

Dave wrote:Another mitigating factor would be, being a prap. Praps have no necks.

Slightly longer necks than hookers though, Rory went to the extreme and got his neck shortened even more !
“That made me feel very special and underlined to me that Ulster is more than a team, it is a community and a rugby family"
Rory Best
User avatar
Rooster
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 39255
Images: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Chicken coop 17

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby BaggyTrousers » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:25 pm

And as widely predicted by an expert here, Dean Mumm has correctly been told he has no case to answer. Fools of course will bleat. :roll:
SUPPORT THE TEAM, FU'CK THE REGIME - UNTIL TERRY SHAME SLOGAN IS GASSED

FIRFU - FU'CK YOU ONE AND ALL, CAVING IN TO SPONSORS, SACKING THE INNOCENT FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, SHAMEFUL BASTA'RDS. YOU'VE LOST MY SUPPORT & I HOPE MORE ULSTERMEN & WOMEN
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
 
Posts: 28491
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby CIMANFOREVER » Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:35 pm

[quote="BaggyTrousers"
Right, I've had another look and you could have a point.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/11/26/17/23/ireland-wallabies-match-report

I've watched it a few times at full speed and have tried to go through it frame by frame. What is not in doubt is that Simmonds very clearly made contact with the eye area, no question about that, you can see the fingers well above the bottom of teh nose. I know the Law only requires contact with the eye area , the way I consider it would be differently in the middle of ruck or maul to say Ashton's hands on Luke in an individual tackle.

In the middle of a pile of players I think intent IS crucial & I'm not sure one way or another in this case, too hard to be sure, but no doubt about the contact. :thumleft:

Here is an article from the Aussies which says that Mumm deserved a red card ...............but wait, read on ..........

Actually I think it's very well written and I agree entirely with it right up until the point where I add "bullshit", thereafter I have reservations but it's interesting.

Dean Mumm’s yellow card in the 23rd minute of the Australia-Ireland game illustrated a frustrating disconnect between World Rugby, referees and fans.

Mumm was involved in a ruck cleanout where he lifted the leg of Tadgh Furlong and dropped him leading to Furlong falling on his head and neck. Initially referee Gerome Garces waved play on, but after a consultation with the TMO, he reviewed the incident and decided on issuing a yellow card, despite there seemingly being cause for a red.

Cue yelling into pints of Guinness, throwing shamrocks and kicking over pots of gold.

If the WR protocol for tip tackles is followed correctly here, the only sanction is a red card. The player was lifted beyond 90 degrees and comes down on his head and shoulder. Based on protocol, that is a red card and there have been many other similar situations recently where the outcome has gone that way.

But to the chagrin of Irish fans, one of the most experienced refs in the world, Nigel Owens, steps in.

Owens essentially takes control of the situation and advises that because the Irish player’s head was close to the ground (essentially saying that there was no substantial lift) it wasn’t dangerous enough to warrant a red card. Garces then justifies the decision to Rory Best as being a “static” play rather than a “dynamic” one, although it’s also unclear what that means exactly.

The problem isn’t the decision, it’s the consistency of the sanctioning that has Irish heads exploding. Like the All Blacks-Ireland game the week before, there is a disconnect between the understanding of the laws and the enforcement of them.

But hang on, maybe Owens advice was warranted? If we remove the emotion for a second, Owens, isn’t the best ref in the world for no reason, he is a no nonsense yet pragmatic referee and he has some basis for his decision here.

When refs are trained, they are taught to first and foremost consider safety, but they are also trained to consider things such as materiality, game flow and entertainment value.

I think in this situation, Owens has concluded that if Mumm gets red carded, it ruins the game as a contest and both Australian and Irish fans get cheated out of the money they paid for the spectacle.

Perhaps if Furlong had actually been injured, the result may have been different, but I think Owens has thought, no injury, so let’s keep the game as a contest. I personally have no problem with that interpretation, but it does leave the Irish fans at a loss. They are told the protocol for a red card by WR, they see some games where this protocol is enforced, and then they sit dumbfounded when it isn’t enforced in other games.

So, how did we get to this disconnect between WR and the fans?

Traditionally, red cards have been reserved for intentional dangerous play, but in the search for a safer game, WR has mandated that refs be harsher on both intentional and unintentional dangerous play.

Their research has lead to changes in play like the new ruck laws trialled in New Zealand this year, the directive to police high tackles more strictly and even the suggestion that there should be no tackling above the waist…

Now the “it’s not tiddlywinks” crowd have spat the dummy at some of these suggestions, but the tiddlywink defence isn’t really an argument. It’s the equivalent of saying “cars are made to go fast, so we shouldn’t have speeding laws”.

Yes, rugby is a dangerous game and players should know and understand that, but it doesn’t have to be unnecessarily dangerous. If we weigh up the actions of Dean Mumm (trying to clear out a player to avoid a turnover) versus a lifelong neck injury for Furlong, then I think it’s an easy conclusion to try and make the game safer.

The problem for refs comes when they have to weigh up a multitude of factors including the severity of dangerous play, the intention of the player as well as the responsibility for creating an entertaining game and decide between only two options – a weak 10-minute benching or a red card that ruins the game.

BULLSHIT - though I think Ron'n might enjoy it.

The answer to this problem is very simple; scrap the yellow and red card system and go to a graded card system.

When a player gets cited following a game, the judicial officer takes into account aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the length of the ban, so why can’t that same system work for on-field sanctions?

In Ice Hockey, minor offenscs are sanctioned with a two minute penalty; however, players can accrue multiple penalties at a time which adds to their penalty time. Doing the same in rugby would give far more transparency and accuracy to sin-bins. It would work by assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors in any dangerous situation and giving an accruing sin-bin without having to ruin the game.

In a tip tackle for example, the aggravating factors that can cause injury are:
• The height of the lift i.e. has the player been lifted to a dangerous height?
• The tip i.e. has the player been tipped beyond horizontal?
• The force of the player going into the ground i.e. Is the player being driven into the ground?
• The position of the player’s body going into the ground i.e. is it head or back hitting the ground?

There may also be mitigating factors i.e. did any other factors make the tackle more or less dangerous? Did the tackler try to mitigate his actions in any way?

If we take the Mumm-Furlong case for example, we could grade it along this scale:

Aggravating factors:
• Tip – Mumm tipped the player beyond the horizontal = ten minutes
• Position – Player landed on head and shoulder = ten minutes

Mitigating factors:
• Height – Mumm didn’t lift the player to a dangerous height = no sanction
• Force – Mumm did not drive the player = no sanction
• Tip – Simmons’ neck roll caused the tip to be exaggerated = ten minutes for Simmons

So, the overall sanction would be 30 minutes for Australia, 20 for Mumm and ten for Simmons which is more appropriate for the danger of the situation, but far less harsh than a red card which would have left Australia with 14 men for 57 minutes.

If we look at Malakai Fekitoa’s yellow card for a high tackle last week which many Irish fans along with the citing commissioner thought should have been a red card, the aggravating factors might have been:

• Point of contact – Tackle was around the neck/head area = ten minutes
• Force – Tackler left his feet which aggravated contact = ten minutes
• Wrap – Lack of both arms wrapped = ten minutes

Mitigating Factors:
• Timing – No issue with timing = no sanction

So Fekitoa would have got 30 minutes rather than ten which many fans saw as too lenient. Had the tackle been late, then he might have got 40 minutes which would have been the equivalent of a red at that point of the game.

The point here is that having only two sanctions doesn’t account for the complexity of contact in rugby, nor does it account for the growing need to produce entertaining spectacles.

It is also extremely difficult to gauge the intentionality of any action on the field, so let’s remove the subjective interpretation of dangerous play and judge it based on the decisions that the players actually made.

That is after all how players are judged when they get to the citing commission.


Sorry for the length, some may enjoy it. :D[/quote]

Ex-Forwards don't miss the dirty stuff >EW

Re the above, agree that after your BS insert, it gets too complicated. The obvious question is how feck does a ref. police that law and all the options in the heat of a full on test? I do struggle with the outcome rather than the mechanics of the offence influencing the red card tbh. ie there's a difference if a player is hurt or not. Intent is also hard to interpret unless a blindingly obvious spear tackle. If the law is (rightly) to prevent injury, then the only outcome can be straight red if legs are above the hips and player isn't placed safely back to turf, regardless of intent, injury or whatever. And the game ruined as a spectacle shouldn't come into it for a ref or TMO. Simplify rather than complicate and live with the rule.

But I still don't believe, in old fashioned rugby terms, that Mumm deserved a Yellow nor a red, nor over sanitising the game but the law now sees it differently, and I have to accept that.
Exterminate all rational thought
User avatar
CIMANFOREVER
Chancellor to the King
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: The Dufferin

Re: Autumn Internationals 2016

Postby WeeWorld » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:18 pm

CIMANFOREVER wrote: If the law is (rightly) to prevent injury, then the only outcome can be straight red if legs are above the hips and player isn't placed safely back to turf, regardless of intent, injury or whatever. And the game ruined as a spectacle shouldn't come into it for a ref or TMO. Simplify rather than complicate and live with the rule.


Spot on, wherever they can simplify refereeing they should.
Yes, that's me in the avatar!
User avatar
WeeWorld
Novice
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:42 am

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to International rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Recent Forum Topics

!-- Piwik -->