Lions v Hurricanes (SF)
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I can see the Lions running over the top of us now. Bloody tough with the travel and then playing at altitude. We needed to make more of our chances in the first 40.
Keep the faith. Keep the faith.
Yeah. No way this one is over. Lions known for the odd brain explosion themselves.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I can see the Lions running over the top of us now. Bloody tough with the travel and then playing at altitude. We needed to make more of our chances in the first 40.
Keep the faith. Keep the faith.
Yeah. No way this one is over. Lions known for the odd brain explosion themselves.
It is true. Most Saffer sides are.
-
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
-
The Canes defense is terrible. I think I'd like to see a Saders / Lions final.
Jordie now trying to blow it.
Yes
-
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
-
Fuck that is dodgy. That is fucking not on
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
-
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
He just shat the bed by not binning Riccitelli. Bizarrely inconsistent refereeing.
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
-
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
-
Well, I think the Lions have shown that they're at least one of the best two teams in the comp.
I'm off to bed, we'll see them next week.
Riccitelli yellow should get yellow for that. Terrible.
@gt12 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Well, I think the Lions have shown that they're at least one of the best two teams in the comp.
I'm off to bed, we'll see them next week.
Riccitelli yellow should get yellow for that. Terrible.
I think it shows they're one of the top 4 teams in the comp. Credit to them, but if they start like that in a match in NZ they're behind by 50 by now, so not convinced by top 2.
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
Yep - fair enough - apologies, hungover and drunk and didn't think through what you were suggesting.
Definitely - penalty, because... intent is irrelevant. YC - bullshit, and yes - that's where intent, or recklessness-re-player-safety is relevant. -
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Nonsense. The laws and relevant guidelines permit a simple penalty for a head high tackle.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
He just shat the bed by not binning Riccitelli. Bizarrely inconsistent refereeing.
Agreed. That's a clear YC. Riccitelli never on side to play at that ball.
-
Rubbish tactics and coaching. Lost kicking batttle and Boyd waaaaay too late with the subs.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
