Auckland vs Otago
-
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
-
@anonymous I expect it would depend what the first offence was...
-
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
-
-
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
-
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
And so are any deliberate knock ons to bring penalty advantage play to an end.
-
-
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
And so are any deliberate knock ons to bring penalty advantage play to an end.
By the defending team, yeah. But by the attacking team not really.
But a ref who lets them intentionally knock it forward then take a quick tap is stupid.
-
@dice Our defence has been very passive so far. Gonna be a good 2nd half.
-
@african-monkey defense needs to get back up to standard next week because Wellington have made by far the most tackle busts and linebreaks in the comp.
-
@kiwimurph no argument from me on Collins,I can see why Joe Ravouvou has not cracked the Auckland top side,the guy is seriously thick..he tried an offload to a player who was never in a position to receive the pass..he ran over the sideline when should he should have stayed away from the touchline,first instinct is to try and offload..stick to sevens joe..!
Really like the look of Jacob Umaga,seems to have great game sence,displayed several brilliant touches in the first half..Akira please wake up ..!, -
damn and I went and increased my margin pick for Auckland in this....pull finger lads!
Ted, give them the look!
-
@kiwimurph might have been before Auckland’s chances if he stayed on..!
