Re: Autumn Internationals 2016
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:40 am
CIMAN, I think where you are wrong is this sentence:
And the game ruined as a spectacle shouldn't come into it for a ref or TMO.
I absolutely disagree with you, but of more relevance is that World Rugby will never see it that way. In the last year or two we have seen Sharks, Ireland in SA & England on Saturday, win games when playing significantly more than half a game with 14 men, however that is an absolute rarity.
Like it or not international & top level club rugby is entertainment and more than that, a product. Now I know that doesn't fit well with us veterans, but think back to the 2011 RWC and a semi-final was decided on this exact situation, a tip tackle red card.
WR do not want high profile games ruined as a contest by tackles that are illegal but that do not cause any significant injury & as we know, Furlong just dusted himself off and got on with the game. Some of us at Ulster doubted the bona fides of Sarryscum Goode but Payne, like Daly on Saturday was so utterly negligent that red was appropriate and in both cases there was injury, we were only quibbling about how severe.
As a fan I prefer to see a contest in the game so for me we have to trust in guys like Nigel Owens, who even if somewhat overbearing with Garces, arrived at the correct decision from my viewpoint.
Have a thought on this. You guys seek consistency, but if you had your way, all such tackles would see red. Now if one incident sees a team offended against is diminished in number & another incident doesn't ...............is that consistent? It's not, it's simply a different type of inconsistency.
You get me? I'm not asking you to agree, but do you accept the truth in it, that it simply creates a different inconsistency.
I for one would love to see that wor banned in rugby circles. Inconsistency. What does it mean in real terms? Does anyone genuinely expect all refs to come to the exact same decision in every remarkably similar situation? Bullshite, a different man beside you in the crowd might see a different incident in a maul or ruck than you do, someone on the other side or an end of the ground may have a perfect angle to see crossing were you might miss it & that can be the situation for a ref too.
It's a concept that is just a nonsense in a fast moving game with, hopefully, 30 guys on the pitch for 80 minutes.
So refs must do their best to impose the laws as evenly as possible ................but never forget the product. That is why refs will continue to be told to take cognisance of outcomes.
And the game ruined as a spectacle shouldn't come into it for a ref or TMO.
I absolutely disagree with you, but of more relevance is that World Rugby will never see it that way. In the last year or two we have seen Sharks, Ireland in SA & England on Saturday, win games when playing significantly more than half a game with 14 men, however that is an absolute rarity.
Like it or not international & top level club rugby is entertainment and more than that, a product. Now I know that doesn't fit well with us veterans, but think back to the 2011 RWC and a semi-final was decided on this exact situation, a tip tackle red card.
WR do not want high profile games ruined as a contest by tackles that are illegal but that do not cause any significant injury & as we know, Furlong just dusted himself off and got on with the game. Some of us at Ulster doubted the bona fides of Sarryscum Goode but Payne, like Daly on Saturday was so utterly negligent that red was appropriate and in both cases there was injury, we were only quibbling about how severe.
As a fan I prefer to see a contest in the game so for me we have to trust in guys like Nigel Owens, who even if somewhat overbearing with Garces, arrived at the correct decision from my viewpoint.
Have a thought on this. You guys seek consistency, but if you had your way, all such tackles would see red. Now if one incident sees a team offended against is diminished in number & another incident doesn't ...............is that consistent? It's not, it's simply a different type of inconsistency.
You get me? I'm not asking you to agree, but do you accept the truth in it, that it simply creates a different inconsistency.
I for one would love to see that wor banned in rugby circles. Inconsistency. What does it mean in real terms? Does anyone genuinely expect all refs to come to the exact same decision in every remarkably similar situation? Bullshite, a different man beside you in the crowd might see a different incident in a maul or ruck than you do, someone on the other side or an end of the ground may have a perfect angle to see crossing were you might miss it & that can be the situation for a ref too.
It's a concept that is just a nonsense in a fast moving game with, hopefully, 30 guys on the pitch for 80 minutes.
So refs must do their best to impose the laws as evenly as possible ................but never forget the product. That is why refs will continue to be told to take cognisance of outcomes.