Hurricanes v Reds
-
@bones said in Hurricanes v Reds:
Ok haven't read the thread as only just watching the second half, but I'm 65 minutes in and absolutely fuck Justin Marshall. I'm sick of his shit, commentators shouldn't be going out if their way to constantly bemoan refereeing decisions, especially when that commentator is blatantly wrong.
What can we do about this? Letter to the editor?
Where's @Disgusted-of-TW when I need him.
Justin Marshall is a fucking disgrace. Can't think of another co-commentator in world sport who is so full of shit.
-
@anonymous said in Hurricanes v Reds:
Guy obviously knocks the ball dead.
Justin Marshall: "I don't think he intentionally knocked it dead"
Trying to remember a worse bit of commentary, ever. Sorry I can't.
-
@sparky honestly with the state of his commentary lately I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a substance abuse problem!
He just always tries to find a way to disagree with the ref, especially if the ref's call benefits a kiwi team, completely ignoring the picture in front of him.
Shittest advertisement for rugby you could find.
-
-
-
@bones said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@sparky honestly with the state of his commentary lately I wouldn't be surprised if he's got a substance abuse problem!
Leave Sir Rod Stewart's and John Lydon's forgotten bogan love child alone!
-
@gt12 said in Hurricanes v Reds:
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.
Based on your logic: neither would Laumape. At the point where Hegarty contacts the ball, Laumape has one hand on the ground and one in the air.
At that point, is the try still "probable"?
-
@nta said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@gt12 said in Hurricanes v Reds:
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.
Based on your logic: neither would Laumape. At the point where Hegarty contacts the ball, Laumape has one hand on the ground and one in the air.
At that point, is the try still "probable"?
I think it's marginal about whether Laumape would have had a good crack at controlling that if Hegarty doesn't bat the ball away. It's a marginal call - but once you bat the ball, the refs seem to want to err on the side of the attacking team.
I think the foul play law is stupid as it is applied in terms of taking a player away completely... and a YC+PT is a super harsh penalty. Still, in theory it's dissuading people from foul play right?
Hegarty was struggling to get there, made a big play for the ball and got it wrong. I can see why they PT+YC, but there's a strong argument for just a YC.
grainy image without arrows below. If you go back, you'll see Jordie get tackled with no arms too ... which was arguably worse in the modern game
-
@derpus said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@nta You'll understand if you read the rules harder.
No doubt.
The issue with the penalty try law application in this case is that removal of a player's action is viewed as a complete removal of the player. And sometimes to grant opposition players the ability to defy physics
The "probable" bit assumes the ball stops in goal and Laumape - prone and one-handed - was in a position to score.
If Laumape was on his feet at the time, I would have no issue with the penalty try.
@nzzp said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think it's marginal about whether Laumape would have had a good crack at controlling that if Hegarty doesn't bat the ball away. It's a marginal call - but once you bat the ball, the refs seem to want to err on the side of the attacking team.
The replays look very bad for Hegarty. In park footy with a snap second to make the decision, that would have been a different story.
I think the foul play law is stupid as it is applied in terms of taking a player away completely... and a YC+PT is a super harsh penalty. Still, in theory it's dissuading people from foul play right?
And that is ultimately what we want to do, BUT at the same time
Hegarty was struggling to get there, made a big play for the ball and got it wrong. I can see why they PT+YC, but there's a strong argument for just a YC.
But if you do that in-goal, the only logical progression is (unfortunately) PT. Just like awarding a PT needs a YC
grainy image without arrows below. If you go back, you'll see Jordie get tackled with no arms too ... which was arguably worse in the modern game
TBH the amouht of times Jordie pulls a player back or niggles after the ball is gone, it is about 2% moving toward even stevens
-
@nta said in Hurricanes v Reds:
grainy image without arrows below. If you go back, you'll see Jordie get tackled with no arms too ... which was arguably worse in the modern game
TBH the amouht of times Jordie pulls a player back or niggles after the ball is gone, it is about 2% moving toward even stevens
hey ease off, we'll fix him when he comes North
He's playing really well at the moment. Would make a good 12.
-
@nzzp said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@nta said in Hurricanes v Reds:
grainy image without arrows below. If you go back, you'll see Jordie get tackled with no arms too ... which was arguably worse in the modern game
TBH the amouht of times Jordie pulls a player back or niggles after the ball is gone, it is about 2% moving toward even stevens
hey ease off, we'll fix him when he comes North
He's playing really well at the moment. Would make a good 12.
I think he sort of does anyway with the bonus of being a good fullback - chimes in when the territory equation is favourable and takes the pressure off Love.
-
@nzzp said in Hurricanes v Reds:
I think it's marginal about whether Laumape would have had a good crack at controlling that if Hegarty doesn't bat the ball away. It's a marginal call - but once you bat the ball, the refs seem to want to err on the side of the attacking team.
I think the foul play law is stupid as it is applied in terms of taking a player away completely... and a YC+PT is a super harsh penalty. Still, in theory it's dissuading people from foul play right?Agreed. It's not would Laumape have been able to ground it as he is, it's would Laumape have been able to ground it if Hegarty was removed from the equation and hence didn't have to be in the position he is to compete for the ball. That's what people are missing here.
-
@nta said in Hurricanes v Reds:
@gt12 said in Hurricanes v Reds:
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.
Based on your logic: neither would Laumape. At the point where Hegarty contacts the ball, Laumapeone hand on the ground and one in the air.
At that point, is the try still "probable"?
I didn’t comment on the penalty try, I commented on whether he should be given a YC.
-
@nta Personally, I have zero issues with it always being a penalty try if a player intentionally knocks it dead to deny an attacking player the opportunity to score a try.
If the defender thinks it's probable enough to need to knock it dead, then it's probable enough to be a penalty try.
