Reds v Chiefs
-
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
-
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I have been banging on for years about hating cards and feeling like they are ruining the game for me. Good to see the rest of you plebs are starting to catch up.
Whilst being at risk of admitting to be a pleb, I've also gone on about it for a while. Thousands of people pay to go and see a match that has the "fair contest" removed from it.
-
The thing is, rugby is a team game. One guy misses a tackle, hurts the whole team. One guy doesn't scramble back on D, can be the difference between saving or conceding a try.
If someone makes a reckless or dangerous tackle, it can and absolutely should impact the team.
The key for me is making sure that we penalise the right things. Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
Mate, I'm miles away from you here. Let's agree to disagree.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
-
Dear God, those Chiefs jerseys!!
Deserved a hiding for that alone!What a stupid decision for colour TV. Looked fucking ridiculous. Constantly, are they faded, covered in coal dust, patched together from different coloured material, been fire damaged, borrowed from the homeless, fucken certainly ain't "white".
Hope the ponytailed marketing queefs lose a truckload on that abomination!😡
-
@hydro11 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Edit: I'd be happy with a 10 minute red. 20 mins still ruins it a bit for me.
-
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
-
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Tom Williams and the fake blood springs to mind. Most thugs and cheats get called out eventually.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Intention is hard to judge, but I think most of us agree that foul play is really what we are after, not trying to penalise an error of judgement.
That I definitely agree with.
What is the intent of a player with a "deliberate" knock on? We saw it yesterday. Do we ban attempts at intercepts? That isn't foul play play but results in a card.
We can all agree I think, that an act of thuggery results in a player being sent off, fined and banned, but a card for an attempted intercept?
How about a team warning for repeated offences? One player cops it, as do the thousands watching. I have no idea what a remedy for that might be, but I don't think that it is right at the moment.
What about increasing the value for a penalty when the team are on a warning?
I remember there was a theory floating around years ago, around the time they increased tries to 5 points. The theory was defending teams give away penalties to not concede tries and their extra points, so if the value of penalty was to increase teams would be more reluctant to concede one.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
Could happen I suppose, but that would be pretty rare nowadays I would think. There is a lot to lose if such tactics were to become public. Coaches and players would cop it from all sides.
Most thugs and cheats get called out eventually.
Exactly. In today's world if a team was to have deliberate tactic to maim an opponent they would be found out eventually and the repercussions would be severe.
-
@crazy-horse said in Reds v Chiefs:
What about increasing the value for a penalty when the team are on a warning?
Interesting idea. Probably some unintended consequences...
-
Not that we want to lose to Aussie teams, but this is a good thing isn't it?
Was it the Brumbies that broke that long streak in 2019, didn't that give others a bit of a boost and they won.a few more.
-
@taniwharugby said in Reds v Chiefs:
Not that we want to lose to Aussie teams, but this is a good thing isn't it?
Was it the Brumbies that broke that long streak in 2019, didn't that give others a bit of a boost and they won.a few more.
They were always going to win a few, and yes, it really is a good thing (although I don't like it).
-
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
-
I'm still furious with the coaching staff about this game.
I know that if Dmac hadn't got red we most likely would have won, but the team only started really playing well once Messam came on and the set piece improved with most of the first choice front row coming on.
If you look at this competition from the Chief's perspective, you'd pick two games as the absolute we must put out the best team possible to get maximum points games: The Brumbies at home and especially the Reds away. Yet, we ran out a B front row and the same failure (Mitch Brown, who isn't a terrible 6 but is a fucking shit lock) at lock which meant that at line out time we were fucked again. Add in Ta'avao and Slater and suddenly or scrum is fucked too, while we leave most of our first choice/better players either at home (Moli, who would have likely been OK for this game since he is playing in the Waikato competition), on the bench (Mafileo), or in the stands (Lord).
All in all, what we saw is IMO, that McMillan has got lucky by riding on the excellent form (and for a while, goal kicking) of Dmac but doesn't seem to actually have any real ability as a selector.
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
-
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
-
On the Chiefs jersey, what happened to that white alternate with the Maori pattern? Those were pretty sweet, would’ve avoided the colour clash and better than the cursed grey
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
He was a shining light of positive and productive play in a Saders jersey.
