Hurricanes v Reds
-
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind. Could just as easily have been a futile attempt to ground the ball.
Still can’t see how it was probable that Laumape would have scored. Possible yes. Not probable.
A guess in both aspects in my opinion -
-
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold. The SBW example was a straight out deliberate knock dead and I can’t remember many others since.How would it make any sense for the threshold to be different? Don't both use the term "deliberate"? It's clearly a deliberate knock dead, in the same way most deliberate knock ons the player is still trying to catch the ball. He just isn't in a realistic position to catch it.
It shouldn't be a PT though because I think it is 50/50 that Laumape gets there.
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean How can you say he 'probably would have got to the ball' though? He'd already missed it by the time Hegarty took a swipe.
Because you have to remove Hegarty from the occasion. Given Hegarty only just beat him to the ball and it was still well inside the in goal area, it's reasonable to deduce Laumape would've got to the ball still in the in goal area.
That's how it works.
-
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind.Holy fuck, then you'd never apply the law. What else do you have other than his actions which clearly propelled the ball dead?
-
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind. Could just as easily have been a futile attempt to ground the ball.
Still can’t see how it was probable that Laumape would have scored. Possible yes. Not probable.
A guess in both aspects in my opinionFor the probable try, isn't it based on the player committing foul play completely taken out of the equation?
If the player knocking it dead wasn't there at all, would Laumape have probably grounded it? I'd say yes.
-
@antipodean No you don't. You just have to remove the part where he taps the ball back.
Does the ref create an alternate reality where the 'offending' player just doesn't exist to determine if he would have got the ball? must have missed those instructions in the rule book.
He missed the ball, then Hegarty got to it. If Hegarty is deemed to have tapped it back rather than attempting to ground it then it's a five metre scrum.
Laumape was 'probably going to score'? not for shit.
Anyway, this was not even the worst decision of the night. On what planet is a shoulder charge to the head not a red? Aren't we supposed to be protecting players.
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean No you don't. You just have to remove the part where he taps the ball back.
Does the ref create an alternate reality where the 'offending' player just doesn't exist to determine if he would have got the ball? must have missed those instructions in the rule book.
You'd have to have read it first. Take solace that you're not the only person taking the motto of the site and applying it to the fullest possible extent.
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean No you don't. You just have to remove the part where he taps the ball back.
Does the ref create an alternate reality where the 'offending' player just doesn't exist to determine if he would have got the ball? must have missed those instructions in the rule book.
yep, that's pretty well what they do. It's nuts, but it's how they ref things these days. Similar to high tackles on the line - the fact that the offending player could have stopped the player legally gets ignored. And, of course, it's not in the laws, just in the refs 'accepted' interpretations.
So yeah, welcome to the matrix?
-
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind.Holy fuck, then you'd never apply the law. What else do you have other than his actions which clearly propelled the ball dead?
Do you concede that it is possible to send the ball dead while trying to legally play it?
That’s all I am saying. IMO the ref could have gone for benefit of the doubt in the circumstances or could have made the decision he did.
It certainly wasn’t obvious like the SBW example.
It’s interesting in that we don’t see it called very often and certainly not when a judgement call. I can’t remember that call being made other than in very obvious situations.
However, call made, the PT part was also not clear and probable so IMO a bit of a double whammy. -
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@crucial said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@damo said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think that is really harsh. The ball was way up in the air. Very hard to successfully force it. I didn't think he intentionally knocked that dead.
Then don't try to. He didn't attempt to catch it and that's not a genuine attempt to ground a ball when it's that high off the ground. Good decision.
What law are you applying there?
Unfair play
A player must not:
Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
If judging the same way deliberate knock ins are you are probably right but these dead ball area ones are usually judged with a different threshold.
He propelled the ball out, not downwards. Guessing intent from anything other than the clear evidence is for ignorant morons on Facebook.
Remove that and Laumape probably would've got to the ball.
Good application of the laws of the game.
I’m confused. You (and the ref) are guessing the intent.
It may have been intentional but I have no clue what was in his mind.Holy fuck, then you'd never apply the law. What else do you have other than his actions which clearly propelled the ball dead?
Do you concede that it is possible to send the ball dead while trying to legally play it?
Yes, not that it's relevant in this case.
That’s all I am saying.
It reads like you're arguing the ref applied the law incorrectly.
IMO the ref could have gone for benefit of the doubt in the circumstances or could have made the decision he did.
Hegarty propelled the ball out, not downwards. Ergo no doubt.
-
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
It's a pretty easy job, when you just read the law, and apply it.
Edit: Oh, and add on the "interpretations" of the law which have become case law.
Such as... YES - the law is that if foul play is committed, you have to "imagine" what would have happened if the player committing that foul play didn't exist, and had never been there.
Harsh, and debatable as to whether the laws should exist that way... not even going into that whole bullshit about how "should intent be a factor" especially in these cases, but... it's the fucking law. -
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@antipodean You'd make a great lawyer.
Is that you Prof Weisbrot?
-
I missed that at the time (don't have kids!) but I can't see how that can't be ruled as the player deliberately knocking the ball dead.
He had an option to try to catch it which he didn't do, and from that distance there is no way that he would have been able to control it all the way to the ground with one hand and that action.
