• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Stormers v Brumbies Qualifier

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
I've always been of the opinion Jaco's a ref who goes looking for penalties and ends up far too involved in the match, a "quasi-player" so to speak. Some of his running commentary was over the top, give me a quiet ref any day.

Actually, I was pleased to hear his commentary and explanation for his observations about the mauls. Seemed to be letting both side know how he saw things that were going right as well as being very quick to call the first time the maul stopped.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I thought Jaco did a fine job, but re: mauls - didn't exactly officiate in accordance to the new directives.............. in fact he allowed the Stormers at one point to join a maul at the very front and from the side.
 

mudskipper

Colin Windon (37)
read an article today saying Mowen believed Speight rolled and didn't lift him... Interesting idea, looking again its true there is no lift...
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
I think the Ref summed it well when he gave the red card. Something like "As unlucky as it was it was still dangerous."

Certainly didn't mean to throw him head first into the ground but that's the way he fell, I'm expecting 2 weeks minimum probably 4 weeks. Not sure they will regard throwing any different to lifting. - Maybe intent is different but the danger is still the same.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The hearing has been going for about 25 minutes so we should find out the result in another 4 hours or something :)
 

Brumby Jack

Steve Williams (59)
The hearing has finished but maybe nothing til late tonight or tomorrow.

I think the judicial guy is based in Cape Town so hopefully he's not a Stormers season ticket holder.
 

Brumby Jack

Steve Williams (59)
So nothing on Speight tonight....except:

He has been found guilty of the 10.4 (j) charge but the judicial officer needs more time to come to a decision.
 

Tordah

Dave Cowper (27)
it was a stupid move to appeal the decision in the first place. Yes, he didn't lift him, but he dumped him, cartwheeling-style on his head. Trying to get off on a technicality like that is just poor form and deserves to be punished.
 

Merrow

Arch Winning (36)
it was a stupid move to appeal the decision in the first place. Yes, he didn't lift him, but he dumped him, cartwheeling-style on his head. Trying to get off on a technicality like that is just poor form and deserves to be punished.
Rubbish, of course you'd appeal at this end of the season. How can you deserve to be punished for trying to get off on a technicality?
 

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
it was a stupid move to appeal the decision in the first place. Yes, he didn't lift him, but he dumped him, cartwheeling-style on his head. Trying to get off on a technicality like that is just poor form and deserves to be punished.
Where is the technicality? I believe part of the defence was he didn't lift him.

More interestingly is how this decision may be interpreted in future. IMHO its going to cloud the whole lifting debate especially when you add in the Fruen tackle.

This could start the argument that particular motions or actions in a tackle equate to lifting, even though its perpetual motion, with a significant factor being what the other player contributed when tackled; their motion or efforts in the tackle.

In reality, the majority of tackles are on an upward trajectory so the element inherently exists in the majority of tackles. so it will all be down to how the other player decides to move in the tackle.

With this tackle its fair to ask did De Jong make a decision to "tuck and roll" or could he have flatted out like superman depending on his perception of the danger? This question alone may influence how he tried to land and indicates that Henry's actions in isolation may not determine the outcome of the tackle, but it hinges on the actions of the other player.
 

FrankLind

Colin Windon (37)
I think the Brumbies rolled the dice here.
Their reasoning was either he'd get off or miss both the semis and the final (not just one week).
They probably also thought the ban won't be heavy enough that affects the Wallabies (presuming Larkham cares)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top