RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks
-
@Catogrande the refs being told they have to try and determine the "force" of a head shot is actually a massive problem. You'd need a medical degree and to run some tests to see which head knock is worse - they are just judging it on what it looked like, not how serious it actually was. As you allude to that's going to lead to massive inconsistencies as it is largely subjective at the time.
@No-Quarter said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Catogrande the refs being told they have to try and determine the "force" of a head shot is actually a massive problem. You'd need a medical degree and to run some tests to see which head knock is worse - they are just judging it on what it looked like, not how serious it actually was. As you allude to that's going to lead to massive inconsistencies as it is largely subjective at the time.
The idea that Kolisi running 10 metres to hit Ardie in the face with his head had less force than Kriel stepping into a near stationary Cane is fucking laughable.
As ludicrous as Barnes' idiotic call of an absorbing tackle on Retallick. The only thing absorbing the force of that tackle was Brodie's broken cheekbone.
-
@No-Quarter said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
If we compare it to the law - when the ref hands out a red card to a player on the pitch he is saying he is guilty until proven innocent. That's back to front.
Yes but if guilty that does not punish the offending team in the game it happened in and does not recompense the team that was on the wrong end of the offence. It just makes it potentially easier for the teams that follow in the ensuing weeks, whilst also allowing the offending team to factor it all in at a later date.
No easy answers.
@Catogrande said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@No-Quarter said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
If we compare it to the law - when the ref hands out a red card to a player on the pitch he is saying he is guilty until proven innocent. That's back to front.
Yes but if guilty that does not punish the offending team in the game it happened in and does not recompense the team that was on the wrong end of the offence. It just makes it potentially easier for the teams that follow in the ensuing weeks, whilst also allowing the offending team to factor it all in at a later date.
No easy answers.
There are easy answers. You conduct a review with more time for incidents that may include headshots to determine the impact and dispassionately arrive at a suitable punishment of the player.
That way the paying public and the game doesn't suffer immediately. This was the flagship of the game and it was made to look incomprehensible. "Growing the game" my arse.
-
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough but to have it reported makes it sound like we are making excuses for the loss. Wish Paul had not reported the story.
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough but to have it reported makes it sound like we are making excuses for the loss. Wish Paul had not reported the story.
I disagree. Plenty of other teams esp Tier 1 teams, would’ve complained about this.
-
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough but to have it reported makes it sound like we are making excuses for the loss. Wish Paul had not reported the story.
I disagree. Plenty of other teams esp Tier 1 teams, would’ve complained about this.
@scribe said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough but to have it reported makes it sound like we are making excuses for the loss. Wish Paul had not reported the story.
I disagree. Plenty of other teams esp Tier 1 teams, would’ve complained about this.
My bad. Didn't read the article properly. I thought this was on the even of the final, and not the French game.
-
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough but to have it reported makes it sound like we are making excuses for the loss. Wish Paul had not reported the story.
-
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough
We didn't book it. The Frogs did it for us.
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough
We didn't book it. The Frogs did it for us.
Yeah, I didn't read the full article. Thought he was referring to the eve of the final and not the French game, and thought we had booked it. My mistake.
-
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough
We didn't book it. The Frogs did it for us.
Yeah, I didn't read the full article. Thought he was referring to the eve of the final and not the French game, and thought we had booked it. My mistake.
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
This is so embarrassing, the world will be laugh at us now. Booking a substandard hotel is bad enough
We didn't book it. The Frogs did it for us.
Yeah, I didn't read the full article. Thought he was referring to the eve of the final and not the French game, and thought we had booked it. My mistake.
The hotels are all sorted by the host nation. But ABs should scout them out beforehand and make sure everything is up to scratch, but they obviously didn't do their due diligence in this case
-
@Unite said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
Based on what? It's clearly written in the protocol how many phases for general play and that no phase restriction exists for foul play. If it was to be a guideline, it would state such, or they'd use an adjective such as few.
@antipodean said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Unite said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
Based on what? It's clearly written in the protocol how many phases for general play and that no phase restriction exists for foul play. If it was to be a guideline, it would state such, or they'd use an adjective such as few.
This is just what was mentioned on podcast. I’ve read the protocol now and maybe the first section titled ‘Guiding Principles’ is where this misunderstanding came from? But the 2 phase thing is clearly not a guideline as they mentioned.
-
@Unite said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
Based on what? It's clearly written in the protocol how many phases for general play and that no phase restriction exists for foul play. If it was to be a guideline, it would state such, or they'd use an adjective such as few.
@antipodean said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@Unite said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@canefan said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
@booboo said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
I'm afraid I agree with @MiketheSnow.
After my initial indignation I've taken it to mean he didn't see the replay and explained what he (thought he) saw.
Not that he apologised because he got it wrong and had subsequently seen the error of his ways.
i.e., "Sorry, didn't see the replay." Full stop.
"I thought you stayed on him, I didn't see you come off enough"HOWEVER the decision was still wrong and I don't see why the TMO can't intervene on that scoring play but can (not that he could really) on a knock on.
The TMO can't rule on more than 2 phases before a try is scored, but that didn't stop him. What a farce rugby is right now
This was mentioned on the Aotearoa Rugby Pod that it is a guideline, not a rule, the 2 phase thing
Based on what? It's clearly written in the protocol how many phases for general play and that no phase restriction exists for foul play. If it was to be a guideline, it would state such, or they'd use an adjective such as few.
If you want to promote consistency of performance you institute protocols and hard rules. Not guidelines. Amateurish conduct by WR as usual
-
Looking at the Frizzel "incident" again, Steven Kitsoff smashes him in the side of the head with his arm. Of course, the TMO completely missed this and YCed Frizzel for falling over. What a farken joke.
-
Looking at the Frizzel "incident" again, Steven Kitsoff smashes him in the side of the head with his arm. Of course, the TMO completely missed this and YCed Frizzel for falling over. What a farken joke.
@Joans-Town-Jones said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Looking at the Frizzel "incident" again, Steven Kitsoff smashes him in the side of the head with his arm. Of course, the TMO completely missed this and YCed Frizzel for falling over. What a farken joke.
I felt that it could have easily been ruled a rugby contact incident. No penalties, play on
-
@sparky said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Squidgy has done a video on the final.
41 minutes long?! Yeah nah. Guy needs to do 5 minute videos.
-
The first thing WR has done well.
-
Did the sanctimonious piston wristed gibbon have a go at Frizell again like he does in every video featuring the ABs?
@akan004 said in RWC Final: All Blacks v Springboks:
Did the sanctimonious piston wristed gibbon have a go at Frizell again like he does in every video featuring the ABs?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sanctimonious+meaning&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari
A bit like publicly stating “we have a no dickheads rule” and then picking a convicted domestic abuser.
