Blues v Crusaders
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
-
@chris I suspect this apparent inconsistency is the consequence of the immediate application of the new Head Contact Process. I don't think that new process has made it clearer for cases where there's no direct contact with the head (as is apparently the case here), but where a player's action is still dangerous. There now seems to be an even bigger disconnect between the law and its application. I would have expected him to have been found guilty of striking with the arm and been punished with a low entry point of 2 weeks.
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris I suspect this apparent inconsistency is the consequence of the immediate application of the new Head Contact Process. I don't think that new process has made it clearer for cases where there's no direct contact with the head (as is apparently the case here), but where a player's action is still dangerous. There now seems to be an even bigger disconnect between the law and its application. I would have expected him to have been found guilty of striking with the arm and been punished with a low entry point of 2 weeks.
Yep totally agree
-
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
-
"It's spur of the moment," Ioane said. "I like to express myself through my game, that's why we train so hard all year round. When it comes to that 80-minute window that's the fun time of the week so I like to have a bit of fun with it.So you train so hard because you want to express yourself, not to win?
I've been looking at rugby the wrong way, send me a beret and an easel toot de sweet. -
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
-
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris said in Blues v Crusaders:
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
“The judicial committee found that it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the red card threshold had been met,” said chairman Nigel Hampton QC via release. “Nor was the committee satisfied that the match referee was wrong in his issuing a yellow card."
It is understood the Blues presented detailed video evidence showing Tu’ungafasi hd entered through the correct channel, had lowered his body, was never off his feet and his first contact had been arm on shoulder.There goes the inconsistency in the Sanzaar Judicial committee for everyone to see once again.Thats a bit of a Joke getting off Scott free.
Looks like they concluded there was no head contact, and therefore not a red card in the framework ('play on')
If it's not red card threshold, it's no suspension.
For me it looked like contact with the Head so I differ with their Findings.
To my eyes, it appeared to be simultaneous contact to the shoulder and head, still fits the criteria for red under the current guidelines. Should've really been 2-3 week ban if they are aiming to be consistent.
Yep I agree totally
-
@stargazer said in Blues v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yeah, I'd love to read the decision, too, but they usually only publish the summaries (news releases), not the full decisions.
that's annoying. Still I got on the SANZAAR Super website... the most recent decisions were from 2016. FML.
-
-
-
Ofa cost the game against the Aussies a few months ago. His bad habits are a problem, but the ABs have only two THPs of international calibre so he should keep on be selected again and again. Lomax is not yet ready, Angus T and Fidow cannot scrum while Jager is irish and Moli always injured (and seen as a LHP). It's urgent to give Newell and T. Williams some game time.
-
@broughie said in Blues v Crusaders:
@chris In fairness to Ofa his technique was pretty good. It wasn’t a Scott Barret straight on leading with the shoulder. In my opinion incidental contact with head shouldn’t be a red.
Ofa hardly even dipped, technique was awful. He's a prop so is used to getting low and bent over. He would have fucking creamed that guy if he'd dropped and put his shoulder through the midriff.
-
@cgrant said in Blues v Crusaders:
Ofa cost the game against the Aussies a few months ago. His bad habits are a problem, but the ABs have only two THPs of international calibre so he should keep on be selected again and again. Lomax is not yet ready, Angus T and Fidow cannot scrum while Jager is irish and Moli always injured (and seen as a LHP). It's urgent to give Newell and T. Williams some game time.
Careful, that is going to upset Canes4Life.
Judiciary
