Queensland Reds 2025

[JRugby2]

Being already on a yellow card certainly complicates things.

If he was treated like Tom Banks and got a warning from the judiciary instead of the full red card he would still cop the 2xYC suspension anyway. So there was a fair element of risk to any defence.

Having said that, I wonder if this was Queenslander understatement, or if it accurately reflected the ref's view. No exactly backing him in with full force

Usually a double yellow wouldn't see you cop more then a week, maybe 2 anyway - so maybe the outcome is the same. But his record will now stand against him in the future.

If they believe this is serious enough to warrant 6 weeks and the purpose of suspensions is to both punish the act and deter future acts - then there shouldn't be anything that mitigates the suspension and he should get 6 weeks.

Players and teams shouldn't feel threatened by the system that is supposed to be delivering fair outcomes, and so stand by my point - the judiciary process shouldn't be applied in this way, and I doubt this will do anything to majorly influence the number of incidents we see if players/ teams are motivated by reducing suspensions rather than just not committing dangerous acts.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't really understand Kiss's point about the time issue. Defending yourself in the hearing doesn't (neccessarily) impact the length of suspension.

Ethan De Groot pled not-guilty and defended himself in the World Cup, and still got 6 weeks reduced by 50% to three with another for the coaching intervention.

Has that changed since the WC?

Independent disciplinary committee decision: Ethan de Groot (New Zealand) | World Rugby

New Zealand’s Ethan de Groot attended an independent Disciplinary Committee hearing for an offence contrary to contrary to Law 9.16 (“a player must not charge … an opponent without grasping the player”) as a result of a review by the Foul Play Review Official in New Zealand’s Rugby World Cup...

www.world.rugby

The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play, but maintained that the red card threshold had not been met and therefore challenged the Foul Play Review Official’s decision that the tackle was “always illegal”.

On that basis and in considering the sanction, the independent Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in head contact (six matches). Taking all considerations into account, including acceptance of an element of foul play and an excellent disciplinary record, the independent Committee determined a maximum mitigation of 50 per cent,

 

[Braveheart81]

Usually a double yellow wouldn't see you cop more then a week, maybe 2 anyway - so maybe the outcome is the same. But his record will now stand against him in the future.

If they believe this is serious enough to warrant 6 weeks and the purpose of suspensions is to both punish the act and deter future acts - then there shouldn't be anything that mitigates the suspension and he should get 6 weeks.

Players and teams shouldn't feel threatened by the system that is supposed to be delivering fair outcomes, and so stand by my point - the judiciary process shouldn't be applied in this way, and I doubt this will do anything to majorly influence the number of incidents we see if players/ teams are motivated by reducing suspensions rather than just not committing dangerous acts.

This is how the judiciary system works and I firmly believe it is working as intended.

They want most players to get 2-3 weeks for this sort of incident (depending on whether they can do tackle school). They want the ability not to reduce the suspension as much if the player doesn't have a clean record. Sure they could flip it around and make the standard suspension for this three weeks with the ability to add onto it for a bad record but that would just mean re-writing the regulations to achieve the same outcome.

Like most sporting judiciaries they want the bulk of incidents to avoid a hearing which is time consuming and costly because the player pleads guilty to the offence.

I think we are seeing a reduction in the amount of dangerous high contact because incidents that years ago would have never seen a suspension and potentially not a penalty are now resulting in suspensions.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't really understand Kiss's point about the time issue.

I assume he meant in relation for preparing for the next game.

 

[Adam84]

If the focus is really on protecting the head, then at some point they need to address the actions of a ball carrier as well.

Creating situations which can’t be defended against without a high probability of a card, is hard to market to the fans.

 

[LeCheese]

Didn’t someone on here mention giving Drake some Super merch the other week?
Edit: already covered in the broadcast thread and seems it was @PhilClinton

 

[TSR]

If the focus is really on protecting the head, then at some point they need to address the actions of a ball carrier as well.

Creating situations which can’t be defended against without a high probability of a card, is hard to market to the fans.

This is largely the point I was trying to make Adam. IMO Hunter did everything he was required to do to protect player safety but still fell foul because the attacker has no duty of care.

Having said that I’m not sure how you would effectively make a rule that wouldn’t have all sorts of negative side effects. I’ve heard suggestions that the attackers head needs to stay above the level of their hips - but I don’t think that would remove this risk. If you try to enforce them staying more upright than I think you open them up to a whole bunch of other injuries and endless collapsed mauls.

I note that ball carriers often now go into contact almost doubled offer to negate the defensive team chop tackling. Based on this precedent does that mean if a tackler attempts the chop tackle and there is a head clash then the tackler is still responsible?

 

[Major Tom]

This is how the judiciary system works and I firmly believe it is working as intended.

They want most players to get 2-3 weeks for this sort of incident (depending on whether they can do tackle school). They want the ability not to reduce the suspension as much if the player doesn't have a clean record. Sure they could flip it around and make the standard suspension for this three weeks with the ability to add onto it for a bad record but that would just mean re-writing the regulations to achieve the same outcome.

Like most sporting judiciaries they want the bulk of incidents to avoid a hearing which is time consuming and costly because the player pleads guilty to the offence.

I think we are seeing a reduction in the amount of dangerous high contact because incidents that years ago would have never seen a suspension and potentially not a penalty are now resulting in suspensions.

Were they bogged down with cases this week mate. They sound lazy not efficient. Unfortunately, we don’t really know what they took issue with in this tackle because hunter pled guilty. So not a transparent process. Maybe he got told something privately.

 

[JRugby2]

This is how the judiciary system works and I firmly believe it is working as intended.

They want most players to get 2-3 weeks for this sort of incident (depending on whether they can do tackle school). They want the ability not to reduce the suspension as much if the player doesn't have a clean record. Sure they could flip it around and make the standard suspension for this three weeks with the ability to add onto it for a bad record but that would just mean re-writing the regulations to achieve the same outcome.

Like most sporting judiciaries they want the bulk of incidents to avoid a hearing which is time consuming and costly because the player pleads guilty to the offence.

I think we are seeing a reduction in the amount of dangerous high contact because incidents that years ago would have never seen a suspension and potentially not a penalty are now resulting in suspensions.

I understand the point of trying to be efficient, but I don’t believe efficiency should be the key metric.

This logic works when it’s more clear cut - but in this instance we have a referee group and citing officer clearly misaligned. One of them is wrong, but the process designed to encourage people to plead guilty means we never know who is, and we have someone potentially sitting out games when they shouldn’t be.

 

[TSR]

The Reds As has a run against Wests on the weekend, didn’t they? Did Pakeho play 12?

 

[Cole]

The Reds As has a run against Wests on the weekend, didn’t they? Did Pakeho play 12?

Yeah he did, Frankie 13. Dre played well without starring, only played 1st half. Frankie played few more minutes, probably had slightly better game

 

[Tomikin]

Didn’t someone on here mention giving Drake some Super merch the other week?
Edit: already covered in the broadcast thread and seems it was @PhilClinton
View attachment 21137

You're fucked now

The Drake Curse

 

[LeCheese]

You're fucked now

The Drake Curse

He wore a Wallabies jersey in 2015 and they went alright that year

 

[Tomikin]

He wore a Wallabies jersey in 2015 and they went alright that year

Was it just before the final.. was it Git's number

 

[Ignoto]

You're fucked now

The Drake Curse

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/did-drakes-tribute-to-the-wallabies-take-the-underdog-thing-too-far/

“He rocked the Wallabies kit because he thought it would appeal to the underdogs. He doesn’t realise how shit Australian rugby actually is. I know he meant well but jeez…”

“He may as well have been out there in a f**kin’ Cronulla Sharks singlet. Or Sydney Thunder. He needs better PR people. I loved his show but I was very fucking offended by his attire”

Many commentators have suggested this blunder is not Drakes fault at all. But more of a blunder by promoters.

 

[PhilClinton]

Well, less than 24hrs after the Reds picture, Drake cancels the rest of his AU/NZ shows due to 'scheduling conflicts' which many are alleging relates to some rather unsavory allegations he has against him at the moment which has caused many of his fans to boycott his shows.

Essentially, the Reds may be the last sports team Drake officially spruiked before things go downhill quickly for him. Don't you love rugby!

 

[Derpus]

Well, less than 24hrs after the Reds picture, Drake cancels the rest of his AU/NZ shows due to 'scheduling conflicts' which many are alleging relates to some rather unsavory allegations he has against him at the moment which has caused many of his fans to boycott his shows.

Essentially, the Reds may be the last sports team Drake officially spruiked before things go downhill quickly for him. Don't you love rugby!

Rugby - so unlucky it reverses the effects of longstanding curses.

 

[Wilson]

Rugby - so unlucky it reverses the effects of longstanding curses.

So you're saying we're uncursable?

 

[Rhino_rugby]

Well, less than 24hrs after the Reds picture, Drake cancels the rest of his AU/NZ shows due to 'scheduling conflicts' which many are alleging relates to some rather unsavory allegations he has against him at the moment which has caused many of his fans to boycott his shows.

Essentially, the Reds may be the last sports team Drake officially spruiked before things go downhill quickly for him. Don't you love rugby!

The Reds might go down as the last team Drake officially backed before things took a turn.
Rugby always finds a way to be part of the story

 

[Adam84]

JTA (Jeffery Toomaga-Allen) potentially due back next week versus Crusaders, he does a decent video blog on YouTube if you’re interested