Waratahs v Crusaders, round 15, Saturday 23 May @ Homebush

[Sully]

Hmm from the Mayo clinic


Some symptoms of concussions may be immediate or delayed in onset by hours or days after injury,

 

[fatprop]

Hmm from the Mayo clinic


Some symptoms of concussions may be immediate or delayed in onset by hours or days after injury,

Yep, so it could have been from training Thursday

 

[A mutterer]

Hmm from the Mayo clinic


Some symptoms of concussions may be immediate or delayed in onset by hours or days after injury,

well, i thought that less inflammatory than posting that this was just a continuation of the gamesmanship we saw on the park.

at times i thought the saders were trying their hand at playing soccer ...

/popcorn

 

[Quick Hands]

Here's what makes no sense -

Commissioner says Latu's role much worse than Skelton's, yet he gets 2 weeks the same as Skelton, mitigated as being young and unblemished as Skelton is as well. The only reason he ends up with 4 is with the auto 2 week addition.

Surely that initial 2 week suspension should be different between the two?

Your first mistake is to try to apply logic to any SANZAR judicial matter. It's a shambolic lottery at best from week to week.

 

[Pfitzy]

Your first mistake is to try to apply logic to any SANZAR judicial matter. It's a shambolic lottery at best from week to week.

Shambolic lottery organisers are preparing letters of complaint as we speak...

 

[USARugger]

Hypotheticals, i agree we shouldn't be punishing the injuries but the use of super slow mo and Vinny Munro's rocking can give some inconstancies and make things look worse, in that case a lack of injury expected from a significant could be used to lower a "sentence"

Don't think it should go either way. As Cyclo already mentioned, the punishment should be for the act - not the outcome.

 

[Bullrush]

well, i thought that less inflammatory than posting that this was just a continuation of the gamesmanship we saw on the park.

at times i thought the saders were trying their hand at playing soccer .

/popcorn

Yep, so it could have been from training Thursday

Yeah - I'm sure it was far more likely to have come from a training run than a late tip tackle during the game

I wonder if either of you two would have been quick to bounce back to your feet had you just been tipped up and slammed into the ground by a couple of 120kg+ men?

I guarantee if that happened to you two by most of the guys I played rugby with at lowly club level, you would have stayed down for a few mins as well.

But I'd definitely be grabbing some of that popcorn and getting the best seat in the house to watch that.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

FFS guys, it could have been from the tip tackle or maybe not. We can't prove it either way, let it go eh?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

First Rugby World Cup, the NZ Rugby Team changed their captain. IIRC the Coach (was it Lochore, or Grizz Wylie and John Hart?) selected Australian* David Kirk to be the Captain after Old Man Andy Dalton got injured. His replacement - young buck and future NZRT legend Sean Fitzpatrick.

Will we see history repeat itself, with the GOAT in the squad as Captain but not making the 23?

* Future Australian Citizen.

Rather different circumstances. Dalton was injured pre-comp but they chose not to replace him in the expectation he'd be OK by the KO stage. By the time it became obvious he wouldn't be OK it was too late to ask for a replacement, IRB would've classed it as taking an injured player into the comp therefore no replacement.

Kirk was only ever a stand-in captain, everyone knew Buck would succeed Dalton in the long-term but with Dalton injured it made sense to leave Buck as pack leader for Dalton's expected return.

Head coach was Lochore, Grizz & Hart his assistants. Some D'Aucklanders believe to this day that when BJ stepped down they gave the reins to the wrong bloke ...............

In terms of McCaw, if he's not good enough for the 23 then he's not good enough for the 31, you can't be taking passengers to a RWC. Having said that he's still our 2nd-best 7 IMO, I'd just rather they'd done things a little differently circa 2012-13.

 

[fatprop]

Yeah - I'm sure it was far more likely to have come from a training run than a late tip tackle during the game

I wonder if either of you two would have been quick to bounce back to your feet had you just been tipped up and slammed into the ground by a couple of 120kg+ men?

I guarantee if that happened to you two by most of the guys I played rugby with at lowly club level, you would have stayed down for a few mins as well.

But I'd definitely be grabbing some of that popcorn and getting the best seat in the house to watch that.

mate it was a facetious* comment to highlight the reality that some times we don't really know what was the trigger


* facetious
adjective
treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour; flippant.

 

[A mutterer]

I guarantee if that happened to you two by most of the guys I played rugby with at lowly club level, you would have stayed down for a few mins as well.

But I'd definitely be grabbing some of that popcorn and getting the best seat in the house to watch that.

mate, i've taken harder hits behind the ear from my mum.

 

[Slim 293]

Don't think it should go either way. As Cyclo already mentioned, the punishment should be for the act - not the outcome.

Outcome should be taken into account through, particular if a player suffers serious injury due to the illegal act..........

 

[qwerty51]

Outcome should be taken into account through, particular if a player suffers serious injury due to the illegal act....

So do we ban Higginbotham for life for robbing Mitchell of his career?

 

[Highlander35]

Was it illegal play that Mitchell was injured in?

In an otherwise legal action, injuries, even career ending ones, should not have any consequences rendered against them.

In illegal play, especially but not limited to striking, the tip tackle, tackling in the air and high contact, injuries should play some part in potential suspension of the player.

 

[qwerty51]

Yes Higginbotham shoved him during a chase for the ball.

Factoring in injuries is a huge slippery slope.

 

[Slim 293]

That's a huge stretch though..............

He wasn't injured in the act of a citable offence.......... it wasn't even worthy of a yellow card.

 

[Braveheart81]

In illegal play, especially but not limited to striking, the tip tackle, tackling in the air and high contact, injuries should play some part in potential suspension of the player.

But by the same token does it then become a defence or a mitigating circumstance that because your illegal actions of foul play didn't cause injury they were therefore less dangerous?

I think it's a tricky one and generally the injury or otherwise should be considered only as a very minor issue when it comes to punishing foul play.

The act of foul play is what is illegal. The result of it is a by-product that is far more random. Sometimes ostensibly less dangerous acts of foul play will cause far more serious injuries than very dangerous acts.

 

[qwerty51]

Yeah when Steyn dumped Cruden on his head, he got up literally straight away with no injury at all. It was one of the worst dump tackles I've seen and looked the most dangerous but caused no damage, sometimes those things happen. Would hate for Steyn's argument to be but it didn't injure him.

 

[Slim 293]

Well no, the lack of injury to Cruden doesn't change Steyn's guilt in the offence...........

However, if Cruden had've suffered a serious head/neck injury from that tackle then the possibility of a harsher sentence should definitely be taken into consideration.

 

[qwerty51]

Well no, the lack of injury to Cruden doesn't change Steyn's guilt in the offence.....

However, if Cruden had've suffered a serious head/neck injury from that tackle then the possibility of a harsher sentence should definitely be taken into consideration.

Why? What did Steyn do differently to deserve a different sentence?