Hurricanes v Reds

[Grant NZ]

Firstly, he's not 'being tackled', at best it's incidental contact that really had little impact. I'm not actually sure Daugunu actually held him even. But regardless of what's happened there have been too many instances of players going to make tackles who have 'knocked the ball down' that it's clear we largely ignore contact between teams. The rules are very clear, I think they are stupid, but they are clear. Except in New Zealand where apparently we don't give out cards or downgrade cards. or even just elbow people in the throat to score a try.
My biggest issue with it is that last week O'Keeffe had probably the worst game I've seen from a referee in a while, then has a shocker again this week, and you can bet your house he'll have a big game next week.

1 - I was just expanding on Braveheart's logic. I don't think he really tackled him, he went as if he was going to, but didn't really hold him.
2 - He didn't knock the ball down, he knocked it up and marginally forward. The big weakness of the intentional knock on law is that it often ends up being the outcome rather than the intention that determines penalty or no penalty. If he does the exact same thing but gets a bigger piece of the ball, it's a yellow card no question. But there's been plenty of examples of very similar where there's been no penalty so in this case - despite it not being a good look to refer after TJP's question - it's basically the right call.

 

[Zero_Cool]

He didn't knock the ball down, he knocked it up and marginally forward. The big weakness of the intentional knock on law is that it often ends up being the outcome rather than the intention that determines penalty or no penalty. If he does the exact same thing but gets a bigger piece of the ball, it's a yellow card no question. But there's been plenty of examples of very similar where there's been no penalty so in this case - despite it not being a good look to refer after TJP's question - it's basically the right call.

I agree 100% that this is now how the laws should be, but it is how they are. By the laws (as we have seen week in week out) that should be a yellow card, and is everywhere except New Zealand for some reason. The only thing worse than making a shitty decision (like a YC would have been) is being inconsistent.

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely if he's fair game to be tackled he's close enough to catching the ball for it not to be a penalty?

It was an intentional knock on that prevented a line break. Knocking the pass with one hand is always a low percentage chance at an intercept.

I think it should have been a yellow card. The fact he got reasonably close to catching it on the second attempt is irrelevant in my view. He didn't.

I have no problem with the law. It cracks down on negative play and is intended to provide enough of a disincentive of attempting unlikely intercepts that stop attacking play so players stop doing it. If referees were more consistent in handing out penalties and yellow cards we would see it less.

No one seems to have a problem with batting the ball dead in goal or into touch being a yellow card or a player "getting their timing wrong" at a ruck when their team is under huge pressure getting yellow carded but somehow plenty think it is crazy that deliberate knock ons can be yellow cards.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Grant NZ]

I agree 100% that this is now how the laws should be, but it is how they are. By the laws (as we have seen week in week out) that should be a yellow card, and is everywhere except New Zealand for some reason. The only thing worse than making a shitty decision (like a YC would have been) is being inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent at all though - all over the world if the guy who intentionally knocks on catches the ball or gets close to catching it, they let him off.

 

[Up the Guts]

It was an intentional knock on that prevented a line break. Knocking the pass with one hand is always a low percentage chance at an intercept.

I think it should have been a yellow card. The fact he got reasonably close to catching it on the second attempt is irrelevant in my view. He didn't.

I have no problem with the law. It cracks down on negative play and is intended to provide enough of a disincentive of attempting unlikely intercepts that stop attacking play so players stop doing it. If referees were more consistent in handing out penalties and yellow cards we would see it less.

No one seems to have a problem with batting the ball dead in goal or into touch being a yellow card or a player "getting their timing wrong" at a ruck when their team is under huge pressure getting yellow carded but somehow plenty think it is crazy that deliberate knock ons can be yellow cards.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The worst part for me is O'Keefe is one of the referees who has had no issue with going straight to the yellow card throughout the whole season but he bucked that trend last night. In comparison a referee like Gardner weighs up the situation a bit more before he decides whether or not it's a card. Perhaps in the same situation Gardner would not have handed out a card but at least that would have been consistent with the way he's refereed games this season thus far.

 

[Silverado]

It was an intentional knock on that prevented a line break. Knocking the pass with one hand is always a low percentage chance at an intercept.

I think it should have been a yellow card. The fact he got reasonably close to catching it on the second attempt is irrelevant in my view. He didn't.

I have no problem with the law. It cracks down on negative play and is intended to provide enough of a disincentive of attempting unlikely intercepts that stop attacking play so players stop doing it. If referees were more consistent in handing out penalties and yellow cards we would see it less.

No one seems to have a problem with batting the ball dead in goal or into touch being a yellow card or a player "getting their timing wrong" at a ruck when their team is under huge pressure getting yellow carded but somehow plenty think it is crazy that deliberate knock ons can be yellow cards.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It's a stupid rule. Naiyaravoro got carded last week when obviously trying for the interception but failed to regathering Should be knock on in that case, and penalty if knock down. It's just frustrating the lack of consistency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zero_Cool]

It's a stupid rule. Naiyaravoro got carded last week when obviously trying for the interception but failed to regathering Should be knock on in that case, and penalty if knock down. It's just frustrating the lack of consistency


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My issue is more it's almost never called in New Zealand. Yes it's a shit rule, but it's still a rule. Yet we have rules like straight scrum feeds that are ignored that are actually good rules.

 

[Grant NZ]

My issue is more it's almost never called in New Zealand.

My issue is that you're making that up.

 

[Dan54]

Once he touched it he was fair game to be tackled. You can't avoid a tackler by juggling the ball.

I think it should have been a penalty and yellow card. It stopped a Reds break.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I agree he was fair game for a tackle, but he would of possibly of caught it without being tackled, but he didn't knock ball down,(watch the replay he knocks it up) but tried an intercept.
But to be fair I think too many attempted intercepts are called knock downs which pisses me off.
This just proves a point to me even when a ref gets it right he still is wrong for some people. He made a mistake I thought last week in the Moody case (as did the TMOs etc , and the Tahs for not appealing), but that doesn't then make all decisions wrong.

 

[Grant NZ]

I agree he was fair game for a tackle, but he would of possibly of caught it without being tackled, but he didn't knock ball down, but tried an intercept.

Yeah, I know people do get away with tackling people in that situation but I think he was too far away from the ball to be tackled to be honest (and I don't think he was tackled in this case).

Here's a clip of Jerry Collins being carded for a late hit (also prob a shoulder charge, but it's not entirely clear if that plays a part in the card) where the ball is no further away than it was last night.

 

[Strewthcobber]

My issue is more it's almost never called in New Zealand. Yes it's a shit rule, but it's still a rule. Yet we have rules like straight scrum feeds that are ignored that are actually good rules.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

Yeah, I know people do get away with tackling people in that situation but I think he was too far away from the ball to be tackled to be honest (and I don't think he was tackled in this case).

Here's a clip of Jerry Collins being carded for a late hit (also prob a shoulder charge, but it's not entirely clear if that plays a part in the card) where the ball is no further away than it was last night.

To be fair Grant I thought once Tumaga-Jensen touched the ball he can be tackled as he tries to control it. So I agree with final result

 

[wamberal]

My issue is more it's almost never called in New Zealand. Yes it's a shit rule, but it's still a rule. Yet we have rules like straight scrum feeds that are ignored that are actually good rules.

The feeding the scrum rule has changed, I think? "Straight", but put in closer to the scrum half's own hooker.

 

[Grant NZ]

To be fair Grant I thought once Tumaga-Jensen touched the ball he can be tackled as he tries to control it. So I agree with final result

Refs definitely do allow a bit of leeway with people being able to be tackled while juggling the ball, but I think that's more from a standpoint of saying they were basically committed. If a guy began the tackle when it was clear the player didn't actually have possession (like in the Collins clip or last night), I dunno if refs would allow it.

In this case I don't think it matters as the Reds player just put a hand on him and made no effort to grab him.

 

[Shiggins]

I don't know what happens in the second half yet but the amount of off the ball stuff from the hurricanes that prevent the reds from cleaning out is a joke. And to see the reds penalised when tackling past the ruck once. Which wasn't even that bad get penalised is even worse. Are the refs blind to it from kiwi sides or something ?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

Kane goes strait through the ruck. Doesn't take the half back out. Canes knock on. Penalty hurricanes for offside? Hahaha wtf.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

Probably 3 knock ons by the canes that were called against the reds as well. Mind boggling

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

The knock on was a yellow card all day. It's not a penalty against the reds because once he plays the ball he can be tackled. The fact tj can run his mouth and end up almost having a penalty against the reds is absolutely ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Shiggins]

The reds were the better team. Once again all the calls went the canes way. Knock ons by the canes called red knock ons. Off the ball stuff in the first half went un penalised. Would be nice to see the whistle go Aussie way just once.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The law as applied is that if you touch the ball you can be tackled.