Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think its plateaud in NZ -perhaps even trending downwards.
I'm not really convinced it's this boom sport in other countries. It's still niche in every country it's played pretty much.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
I'm not really convinced it's this boom sport in other countries. It's still niche in every country it's played pretty much.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
That's rubbish and you know ut RY, same as people that scream they should of taken points, as soon as one thing changes the whole game is different. We never know what will happen if a ref makes a different dicision.
And I said that to any of my kiwis who said the same about forward pass in 07 WC that may of been wrong, those things only change that part of game!
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
You could be right, but RA have also obviously thought Rassie was of doing it, as they haven't said anything about Rennie up to now.
I not saying he right or wrong, but it's hard to take anyone seriously if they hit out at one , but don't keep their own house sqeaky clean.
Yes you can. Nobody's house is 'squeaky clean'. If you've never had a crack at a ref before then I doubt your capacity to feel emotion at all. You'd be a sociopath, someone not connected to humanity, likely with an ever-growing pile of corpses in your basement.
If only the uncompromised could comment on here then it would be a very lonely place indeed.
I support refs, but I also allow for the occasional demonstration of frustration or emotion. These games matter so much to the players and coaches, and so if the difference between winning and losing is (arguably) a few questionable decisions then it's not shocking that bubbles over in the immediate aftermath of the game.
Once the emotion bubbles down I'd hope Rennie would be a bit sheepish. And that's where Rassie went beyond the pale - at the moment he should have backed down (or at least shut his mouth) he doubled down. And then he doubled down again. If Rennie did that then I'd be leading the charge with pitchfork in hand.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Mate we win with those 7 points. It killed our momentum
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
No, Rassie is not head coach.
His playing waterboy head coach but his not in the title role.
Rennie would be punished quite worse then rassie. I also think that WR (World Rugby) needs to address the SA team and waterboys and physios being on field coaches. That needs to stop.
People need to accept that the high tackle laws are here to stay and that something being accidental is not an excuse.
The defender carries the overwhelming duty of care in a tackle situation and needs to ensure they don't come into contact with the ball carrier's head.
Certain techniques such as the front on, chest to body tackle creates a far greater risk that you will contact the ball carrier's head either with your head or body and runs the risk of getting you sent off.
Alongside this I firmly believe that the 20 minute red card is essential so policing these issues isn't too impactful on matches.
The defender carries the overwhelming duty of care in a tackle situation and needs to ensure they don't come into contact with the ball carrier's head.
Certain techniques such as the front on, chest to body tackle creates a far greater risk that you will contact the ball carrier's head either with your head or body and runs the risk of getting you sent off.
Alongside this I firmly believe that the 20 minute red card is essential so policing these issues isn't too impactful on matches.
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
That's all well and good, but there needs to be consistency in the application. Nigel Owens commented on the weekend the the Welsh replacement prop was luck to get away with a yellow, and questioned how an accidental head knock was a red card, and how the deliberate swinging arm (off the ball) was only a yellow.
I'm not saying I agree entirely with that decision but he's deemed it as not being a high degree of danger presumably because the strike wasn't with a high degree of force.
This to me is another reason for the 20 minute red card so the discrepancy between close decisions is 10 minutes, not potentially an hour.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The issue for me is that the intent is irrelevant. It's entirely outcome dependent. If a player goes flying in with a leading shoulder, his arm tucked in with the intention of literally murdering an opposition player and just clean misses it's basically no sanction, right?
Where-as Valetini gets his technique off a little and is gorn for 6 weeks.
Obviously assessing intent is very difficult and unrealistic in a Rugby context but it's absence is how you end up with absurd outcomes.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
The head high impact and harsh penalties are implemented in the broader context of risk management and behaviour change.
World Rugby cannot have a sport that results in CTE for so many of its players without taking significant actions to prevent them.
If that means punishing poor technique, as well as malicious intent, then so be it.
World Rugby cannot have a sport that results in CTE for so many of its players without taking significant actions to prevent them.
If that means punishing poor technique, as well as malicious intent, then so be it.
With regard to the high tackle issues, like it or not, as said above, they're here to stay. Australian rugby seems to have adapted far less than others to these changes, and we seem to now have a reputation as recalcitrants. Reputations tend to stick.
We can carry on about all sorts of mitigating factors such as ball carriers dropping into contact (when have they not?) and arms and shoulders "slipping up" but until the techniques change we are going to keep getting carded for these things. The coaching for upright smothering tackles where the intent is to keep the player off the ground for a period needs to be adapted as it is always going to create a risk for high contact.
We can carry on about all sorts of mitigating factors such as ball carriers dropping into contact (when have they not?) and arms and shoulders "slipping up" but until the techniques change we are going to keep getting carded for these things. The coaching for upright smothering tackles where the intent is to keep the player off the ground for a period needs to be adapted as it is always going to create a risk for high contact.
It's pretty clear that if you want to protect players from head impacts, it has to be outcome dependent. Making excuses for high tackles because they were accidental is why contact sports are now reckoning with CTE and concussion.
I get what you're saying with your example but if you don't actually do the action then you can't be held responsible for it. An attempted high tackle that doesn't touch the player isn't a tackle at all so it is never going to be illegal.
Intent has been removed because there is no difference in how much damage an accidental vs intentional high tackle can do.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Headgear might help with cauliflower ears, no use in a brain shake
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Fair enough Barbs, we will see if Rennie and RA say something to calm down, I not so much thinking Rennie is all that wrong but RA should say something along lines we don't agree with Dave for saying it or something. Once you put a flag in the sand you have to go kind of stick with it. I not suggesting he has done a Rassie, but from what I see RA by not saying they not comfortable are saying they decide how far coaches go.
All it looks to me is you can't get stuck into our refs, but we will be quiet if our coach wants a crack at others. Apperances maybe wrong , but how it appearing.. And no I haven't has a crack at a ref on a public forum, and I do get frustrated, but decided many years ago while coaching kids you can't get shitty and yell at refs etc, and then say to your charges that you have to do as ref says.
I know old fashioned as buggery, but what I believe.
Why would they do this? It doesn't help Rennie at all and continues drawing attention to an issue that occurred in the post match press conference and nowhere else.
It's entirely up to World Rugby whether they take further action but drawing it out doesn't really benefit the situation at all.
Rennie made brief comments in the press conference that weren't appropriate but in my view pretty calculated and he'll likely get a fine for it. I doubt he regrets his actions and I doubt RA doesn't support him in making that statement.
There were some highly questionable decisions and there is a place for raising that in the press conference even if it is likely to lead to a fine. It has been done many times before.