dru
David Wilson (68)
Derp, it is surely “bringing the game into disrepute”. Something should be applicable, surely,
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Derp, it is surely “bringing the game into disrepute”. Something should be applicable, surely,
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
The other option is to concede there is doubt, mitigate to a yellow and allow it to be put on report and dealt with later when they have time to consider it more.
The reality is when you are standing on a field, looking at big screen (of varying quality) from a distance, you are time poor, it might not be the most optimal way to view of replays to make decisions. You are reliant on many factors and without information such as available angles etc.
IMHO, they need an on field decision (or clear call that the referees did not see it so can't make any decision) then it goes to a bunker / TMO who make the ultimate decision and if there is doubt it get referred to a judiciary post game.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
https://resources.world.rugby/world...b9f40f9/HRM000.1.996-Decision-M-Koroibete.pdf
Written report from Koroibete's disciplinary hearing
Written report from Koroibete's disciplinary hearing
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
When you read through it is clear that the mitigation is not due to the drop in the French Player but rather the fact the first contact was shoulder to shoulder. So he didn't get off because of change in height and I would suspect that if Koroibete had hit the head first it would have been upheld.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
If MK hit head first this wouldn't have been an issue.
The body contact prior to the head/neck is where the mitigation is.
People need to realise that this isn't a sudden drop in body height. It is a fairly regulation bracing for a tackle.
The high tackle framework talks about a sudden drop in body height being the following: from an earlier tackle, ball carrier trips or falls, ball carrier dives to score.
If you line someone up to hit them at their ball carrying in open field height you are always going to be too high because everyone gets lower for contact.
People need to realise that this isn't a sudden drop in body height. It is a fairly regulation bracing for a tackle.
The high tackle framework talks about a sudden drop in body height being the following: from an earlier tackle, ball carrier trips or falls, ball carrier dives to score.
If you line someone up to hit them at their ball carrying in open field height you are always going to be too high because everyone gets lower for contact.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
The commentators need to get this. As soon as a player drops their height they are calling for mitigation
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
same ref that gave Koroibete a red card for an identical tackle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/ovh5pm/high_shot_from_mako/
Just doesn't like Aussies?
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/ovh5pm/high_shot_from_mako/
Just doesn't like Aussies?
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
Reckon the successful appeal got in his head?
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
The 22m call after the missed Lolesio penalty. Isn't that a goal
line dropout?
line dropout?
Silverado
Dick Tooth (41)
I'm pretty sure a 22m restart is the correct call. (Mind you the rules change so often I'm not putting money on it)
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Interesting call by Stan commentators about the penalty near 1/2 time that the ABs turned into a try.
Aussie in front of the kicker moved forward from an offside position; refs usually manage the game with a warning call for incidents like that. He didn't. Touchie called it (no warning) and back we trudge for an AB penalty.
I'm with the commentary team. It had no impact on the game and the ref should have played on.
To penalise that action means every single infringement must be penalised from now on and no more managing the game with shouted warnings from the ref.
Aussie in front of the kicker moved forward from an offside position; refs usually manage the game with a warning call for incidents like that. He didn't. Touchie called it (no warning) and back we trudge for an AB penalty.
I'm with the commentary team. It had no impact on the game and the ref should have played on.
To penalise that action means every single infringement must be penalised from now on and no more managing the game with shouted warnings from the ref.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Sorry but that ship has sailed - particuarly in Super Rugby NZ the refs were doing it regardless of material effect.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
There were many times when the ABs in offside positions interfered with our players and nothing was called e.g. very clear footage of Aaron Smith running into one of our players preparing to make a clear out. Think we’re just going to have to accept that the NZ refs are incompetent/biased.
Silverado
Dick Tooth (41)
Yep. It was policed in Australia Super Rugby too
eastman
John Solomon (38)
Yep Smith took out BPA from memory in a subtle but no so subtle fashion so he couldn't clean out effectively which the AR definitely would have seen. I don't know if it's bias or more a fear of being called out by the New Zealand rugby machination following the game.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I understand the news laws, or interpretations, at the ruck were to be enforced tonight. In a breakdown near the Aussie tryline only one or two rucks before the ABs scored a try a Wallaby forward (McReight perhaps?) over the ball had one leg lifted in the air and was smashed out of the ruck area. Should this have been penalised? and should the officials have had a hard look at the video to see if foul play had occurred?
EDIT : Think it might have been in a ruck or two before the no try. Wallaby in place to win a turnover but taken out by one leg lifted in the air.
EDIT : Think it might have been in a ruck or two before the no try. Wallaby in place to win a turnover but taken out by one leg lifted in the air.