are the IRB nuts ?

[cyclopath]

As long as there is a complete lack of consistency in the judicial process (which seems stuck in 1984), we will have these threads.
Unfortunately.
I'm not sure (an admittedly bad) incident from 8 years ago has much to do with a bad tackle now, other than to say the process was flawed then, and seems to remain so.
This is not a defence of Kuridrani (dopey tackle), but many other incidents that are as inherently dangerous, or potentially harmful get lesser or no sanction, so it just seems daft when one attracts the full force of the law, and others are seemingly plea-bargained to a thrashing with a wet lettuce leaf.

 

[Sidbarret]

The issue in this thread is whether the punishment handed to Kuridrani fits within the avowed aim of preventing tip tackles. I say that it does and I applaud it. No clue what a poor decision 8 years ago by a citing official - not even a judicial decision - has to do with this thread, especially since it was made before the current edict was put in place.

But congratulations, you managed to get a response with your piss poor trolling.

I don't think this sort of punishment does anything to deter players any more than 2-3 week suspension would.

The danger of being overly harsh is that it changes people's focus away from Kuridrani's action onto the inconsistency of the citing procedure. The second problem is that when worse example comes up the judiciary leaves itself with little room for harsher penalties.

 

[Sidbarret]

The inconsistency is quite staggering tbh. In practical terms there was very little between To'omua and Kurindrani did during the same tackle.

The one has gone completely unpunished while the other is out for five weeks.

 

[Bairdy]

I dont have footage of the incident, but if I recall, To'omua had just about completed the tackle when Kuridrani lifted Peter O'Mahony's (?) other leg carelessly above the horizontal.

I don't begrudge the red card handed out by Pollock; it was harsh but fair considering they want to eradicate spear tackling from the game.

What I take issue with is the fact that Kuridrani got hit with a 9 week, minus 4 weeks, ban. The severity of the punishment, in my view, would not even be justified if he wasn't red carded on the field, let alone the fact he was red carded.

I would go as far as to say the Dublin-based IRB wanted to exact some revenge for the Aussie win on the weekend, because there have been plenty more incidents worse than Kuridrani's transgression (Nonu shoulder charging every second game, Alesana Tuilagi's clothesline tackle on De Villiers).

 

[Ash]

I would've thought the commissioner might have ruled that the offense comes in at the lower end of the tip tackle scale, but a ban of a few weeks was always inevitable for that tackle. Whether it was from the low to medium scale is the question.

Kuridrani is a strong tackler, but he has a slight tendency (weakness?) of lifting the legs of the ball carrier too far off the ground. Ioane does the same, and he has now copped a few bans. It's something Kuridrani will have to address otherwise this will happen again.

Let's move on from the Umaga / BOD incident. That's the incident that made the IRB sit up and take notice of the problem with tip (spear) tackles, until the whole kerfuffle with BOD the sad thing is there was no explicit protocol on handling tip tackles. If that happened now it's fair to say the punishment would at least start in the medium range, but more likely fall into the higher range.

I'm still no fan of the citing / banning process by the IRB. It still leaves too much room for subjective interpretation. The examiners commonly add and subtract seemingly random number of weeks almost randomly (e.g. +1 week because we are targeting this offence, +1 week because we want to make an example, +x weeks for prior similar offence over 5 years ago, -y weeks for contrition, -z weeks for prior good behaviour, etc - yes, these are all things I have read in the examiner's notes). The whole thing just looks and feels too random.

 

[BarneySF]

This guy should have got life I would have thought?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

WARNING: UNPOPULAR OPINION

I think it's a pretty just & fair punishment.

He lifts the opponents leg ABOVE his own head. SO dangerous. SO stupid. So careless!

On what planet would this end well.

"We're a pair of Queensland coppers/ They call us fair & just/ Cos I'm a fair f$&@ing arseh01e/ And I'm just a f$&@ing c$&@" - Rodney Rude, I think.

 

[Dan54]

I glad you pointed out the difference of situation with the BOD to IS , Old Boy, I was going to point out the change in laws myself, but was relieved to see it was another Levin boy who remembered the facts. Anyway these days you can't tip players in tackle, just as you can't work players over in bottom of ruck. 5 weeks is bugger all, he'll miss last 2 tests in Europe and a few preseason games next year where he'll probably be wanting a rest. Like I say don't really think Kuridrani was being anything but bloody clumsy, but unfortunately clumsiness is not an excuse.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I glad you pointed out the difference of situation with the BOD to IS , Old Boy, I was going to point out the change in laws myself, but was relieved to see it was another Levin boy who remembered the facts. Anyway these days you can't tip players in tackle, just as you can't work players over in bottom of ruck. 5 weeks is bugger all, he'll miss last 2 tests in Europe and a few preseason games next year where he'll probably be wanting a rest. Like I say don't really think Kuridrani was being anything but bloody clumsy, but unfortunately clumsiness is not an excuse.

You seem to overlook that the BOD situation wasnt even a tackle.
Law 10.4
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[Braveheart81]

I think there is a major problem with consistency from the IRB both in citing similar tackles and then the suspensions but I think the message is pretty clear that they're cracking down very hard on tackles that go beyond the horizontal and players should be careful.

Kuridrani had one arm between the player's legs which instantly increases the chance that the tackle is going to be dangerous. I imagine that didn't work in his favour.

At this stage it would appear that the IRB are going to rely heavily on the referees at the match making a decision on whether something warrants citing or not based on how they react to it at the time.

This is probably the area that most people would want changed; that a citing commissioner reviews every game and decides whether more actions require citing.

The other part is that teams can make complaints about an incident in the 24 hours after a game and request that an incident is looked at. It would seem that outside of biting and eye gouging teams are very unlikely to do this.

 

[Bullrush]

You seem to overlook that the BOD situation wasnt even a tackle.
Law 10.4
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Hahahaha.....every single ruck and maul is therefore 'dangerous play' and should be sanctioned with a penalty kick!

 

[scaraby]

You seem to overlook that the BOD situation wasnt even a tackle.
Law 10.4
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

can't help but see the similarities between this, (as we all agree,) brain snap from Kuridrani and the practise of throwing players legs over their bodies when they are in the process of pilfering.
This is very common at all levels of the game from u11s up where usually a no.7 or .6 gets turned upside down because he is trying to steal the ball after a tackle. Whats the rule here?
Hooper gets sat on his head regularly at the break down and usually when the top half of his body is wedged...surely this is an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Tip]

"We're a pair of Queensland coppers/ They call us fair & just/ Cos I'm a fair f$&@ing arseh01e/ And I'm just a f$&@ing c$&@" - Rodney Rude, I think.

Except QLD coppers have never been fair & just, just like the IRB sanctioning committee will never be consistent!

 

[Dan54]

You seem to overlook that the BOD situation wasnt even a tackle.
Law 10.4
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Thanks IS, you just pointed out how daft it was for you to bring it up in this thread with your comparison, as you yourself say it wasn't even a tackle, so why are you trying to compare different things!!!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Thanks IS, you just pointed out how daft it was for you to bring it up in this thread with your comparison, as you yourself say it wasn't even a tackle, so why are you trying to compare different things!!!

Because there are marked similarities in the techniques used and a substantial difference in the outcome.

 

[Ignoto]

I'm confused with the consistency, 5 weeks from a possible 9 weeks for what Kuridrani did, but Martino Nemani only got 3 (from a possible 6) for something similar last year. Is Martino's tackle essentially half as bad as Tivitas?

 

[BPC]

Say something original or at least mildly clever.

What's the internal temperature of a tauntaun?

Luke-warm.

 

[BPC]

Say something original or at least mildly clever.

A man walked into a bar. The owner said "I should really put up a warning sign".

 

[Dan54]

Because there are marked similarities in the techniques used and a substantial difference in the outcome.

Funnily enough I agree with you on that point IS, neither incident would of happened if they did if another player (in this case To'omua) hadn't also joined in (unaware of what was happening I know), but as you say they were different cases, and if we keep saying but this happened in 2003 or 1952 or whatever no case will ever go before judiciary.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

You seem to overlook that the BOD situation wasnt even a tackle.
Law 10.4
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Except the Law you cite is there partly as a result of the BOD clean out. I say again, the ref had no problem with it, the TJ who made it worse than it should have been didn't put his flag out, the citing commissioner ruled there was no case to answer... & the lawmakers belatedly re-wrote the Laws to make it the offence you now cite. Circular argument much?