Reds v Chiefs
-
@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.
-
@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.
Agreed, it's a good compromise.
The Chiefs should never have conceded as many points as they did during that period they were down to 13.
If they'd have stayed within 2-3 scores in the first half I think they win it in the 2nd half.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
No argument that 20 mins is better.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
This.
Whether you agree with the card decision or not, they could have stayed in the fight if they had sacked up and tried to survive for the 20 minutes. Instead they played like pea-hearted retards until Messam came on and showed a bit of leadership.
Weber in particular clearly has little standing as a leader and shouldn’t be captain.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
No doubt they laid down Sally.
The point was is if cards are the best way to regulate play, when people pay to see an uneven contest. It is not specific to this game or those cards. It just happens to have come up in this match. Well again actually.
