ABs v Scotland
-
@rapido said in ABs v Scotland:
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Yes, every tackle in the air is a cardable offence AFAIK. If not it should be, to remove any doubt, of which there seems to be plenty in officiating the game currently.
Not sure what the letter of the law is, but my understanding is the guy who catches the ball in the air has all the rights, not the first time Naholo has done similar, he and all others need to err on the side of caution when going for a high ball.
@infidel
the letter of the law.10 Foul Play.
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick10.5 Sanctions
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.So in summary.
Penalty, with the option to either admonish him or yellow card him. -
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
I've already said I think it was refereed perfectly. ('Mist of war' cause by the obstruction plus the fact he was t tipped over).
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Should Faumuina have been carded for his tackle on Sinkler in Lions Test 3?
Hogg was making an incredible horizontal distance with his leap. Which made his bump look fairly spectacular.
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
-
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
-
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
@infidel Quite the opposite; if he could see Hogg he could have taken action to avoid it.
As it was, Hogg was barely above the ground and got laid out like a great tackle.
If he landed on his upper back/ neck I'd be singing a different tune.
-
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
Just to add, I think if Naholo hadn't been aided by the apparent obstruction by the Scottish defender, he would have hit Hogg much earlier in mid air, so more reason for the yellow card.
The fact that Naholo had to avoid the Scottish defender, and still managed to get by said defender and tackle Hogg before he landed, in mid-air, doesn't help Naholo in his defence, your honour.
Reading the laws above Rapido, I am not sure how they decide between a penalty or a yellow card or worse?
I know I'm being anal. But it wasn't mid air. it was 4/5ths air.
Hogg was about 4 m through a 5m horizontal leap.Naholo was running, and trying to weave around an obstructing defender and ends up in his path as he is landing. No one got hurt, it wasn't dangerous, he was barely off the ground when he got hit (but he was travelling at quite some speed).
No one got tipped so doesn't reach the yellow card threshold, I would have thought.
-
@infidel Quite the opposite; if he could see Hogg he could have taken action to avoid it.
As it was, Hogg was barely above the ground and got laid out like a great tackle.
If he landed on his upper back/ neck I'd be singing a different tune.
It's his job to see what Hogg is doing. Hogg has the rights.
Naholo has to err on the side of caution for me, let's stick to the facts, Naholo tackled Hogg in mid-air.
That can't possibly be in dispute.
4/5ths air for Rapido. The 1/5th is neither here nor there. Hogg was 0% on the ground mind you
-
It's his job to see what Hogg is doing. Hogg has the rights.
Naholo has to err on the side of caution for me, let's stick to the facts, Naholo tackled Hogg in mid-air.
That can't possibly be in dispute.
4/5ths air for Rapido. The 1/5th is neither here nor there. Hogg was 0% on the ground mind you
@infidel tough to see what Hogg is doing when there is a Scot running interference
I thought the call was fair in this instance, but this is an area of concern in his game.
-
It's his job to see what Hogg is doing. Hogg has the rights.
Naholo has to err on the side of caution for me, let's stick to the facts, Naholo tackled Hogg in mid-air.
That can't possibly be in dispute.
4/5ths air for Rapido. The 1/5th is neither here nor there. Hogg was 0% on the ground mind you
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
It's his job to see what Hogg is doing. Hogg has the rights.
Naholo has to err on the side of caution for me, let's stick to the facts, Naholo tackled Hogg in mid-air.
That can't possibly be in dispute.It's not in dispute. But we're discussing why is was rightfully just a penalty.
-
@infidel tough to see what Hogg is doing when there is a Scot running interference
I thought the call was fair in this instance, but this is an area of concern in his game.
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@infidel tough to see what Hogg is doing when there is a Scot running interference
I thought the call was fair in this instance, but this is an area of concern in his game.
10 Foul Play.
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.I can't give the benefit of the doubt to Naholo, as he has already managed to get past the interfering player, so Naholo managed to bypass what the Scot running interference was doing, and still managed to tackle Hogg in the air.
As far as I can tell, it's Naholo's reponsibility to ensure he doesn't tackle a jumper in the air.
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@infidel tough to see what Hogg is doing when there is a Scot running interference
I thought the call was fair in this instance, but this is an area of concern in his game.
10 Foul Play.
10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(i) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.I can't give the benefit of the doubt to Naholo, as he has already managed to get past the interfering player, so Naholo managed to bypass what the Scot running interference was doing, and still managed to tackle Hogg in the air.
As far as I can tell, it's Naholo's reponsibility to ensure he doesn't tackle a jumper in the air.
@infidel and he got penalized didn't he?
-
On the Naholo tackle in the air.
I've already said I think it was refereed perfectly. ('Mist of war' cause by the obstruction plus the fact he was t tipped over).
Those who think he was lucky, do you think every tackle in air is a cardable offence? Even if just slightly mis-timed and the tacklee is almost landing and lands safely on his feet?
Should Faumuina have been carded for his tackle on Sinkler in Lions Test 3?
Hogg was making an incredible horizontal distance with his leap. Which made his bump look fairly spectacular.
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
@rapido said in ABs v Scotland:
I know we've had the lawmakers turn the World upside down the last few years. Probably need to separate those who think lucky not carded because the laws get interpreted badly recently, from this who think he's lucky as they genuinely think all tackles in the air should be an automatic card.
I'm in the former camp. I think it was a common sense decision, but is absolutely not how the law has been interpreted the past couple of years. Players have been binned for far less. When it happened I was 100% certain he was gone, and was amazed when he wasn't.
-
@infidel What you're wanting basically removes any chance of a contest in the air because any contact ensures a yellow card for the guy who doesn't catch the ball. That's idiotic. Not every collision is a tackle in the air.
Lets say a guy is set under the ball, times his leap, but as he does the attacker leaps forward and gets to the ball first (Ben Smith is particularly good at this), there's a mid air collision and the attacker goes down. Then it's a yellow card to the guy who vertically leapt but didn't get to the ball.
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in ABs v Scotland:
Rolled gold rubbish, talisker, you are making it up.
The term is as old as "Pom" and maybe older, it has been around as long as "Kiwi" and "Mick" (for Catholics) and "Frog".
Do keep updating your records, though, on raaaacist, hurty terminology. It must be a fascinating obsession to be sure, it will keep you indoors and at a good distance from normal society.I've been wondering whether or not to bother replying, but it was niggling at me, so I'll give it a go.
The antiquity of an epithet doesn't make it valid, there are some very old words that are now illegal and using them in a place of work would get you sacked. So I refute that point completely.
Second, it's not about being over sensitive or being a "snowflake", it's about being a grown man in the 21st century and acting like it.
Words carry all sorts of baggage with them, it's not for those punching down to "mansplain" to someone that they shouldn't take offence at a lazy slur.I don't know if you are aware of a newspaper called the Daily Mail, but it's basically a daily newsletter for the Anglo-centric, borderline racist, homophobic culturally stunted wingnuts who hark back to some mythical time from the 1950s where everything was better (I won't go too far into this, but it's a myth, that time never existed).
Anyway, that paper is often found waling about political correctness and why can't I be an ignorant fuckwit any more?
Any defence of stereotypes and slurs can be found in places like the Daily Mail, it's 70 years out of date.I'll conclude by saying that we in Scotland have our own problems regarding bigotry between two sections of the community, but we don't have an epithet for English people (don't let anyone tell you Sassenach is an insult, no one has used that for decades and it means Saxon, there are variants of the same word in Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Breton).
The dismissive one-word put down works one way, that's why I and most Scots reject it. There might have been one or some, but I don't know of any Scot who would refer to "us Jocks", that alone should be enough to act like an adult and accept it as a thing of the past.@talisker said in ABs v Scotland:
Any defence of stereotypes and slurs can be found in places like the Daily Mail, it's 70 years out of date.
70 years out of date and completely dominating online web traffic of any UK newspaper.
Anyway, that paper is often found waling about political correctness and why can't I be an ignorant fuckwit any more?
Maybe that's a reason why it's dominating online web traffic in the 21st century? On account of it being all seventy years out of date 'n all?
-
@chimoaus said in ABs v Scotland:
Anyone know the laws in AFL?, those guys practically wrestle in the air.
fucking play on
-
-
Some random thoughts, was at Murrayfield for the first time.
We were in corporate hosting, Doddie Weir was our MC, he was absolutely hilarious. Very moving when he went onto the field before kickoff. Justin Marshall also present, dull by comparison.
Battling win, probably deserved, with about 7 minutes to go the ABs were up by 12. I think Hansen emptied the bench too early. He was basically saying with 10 minutes to go it was all over.
Thought the ref was very good, he seemed to rule absolutely everything, probably better than the other way and allowing a free for all. Did think he got the Naholo situation wrong, yellow card all day for me, massive benefit of doubt there.
Taylor was very good and a credible replacement for Coles as starter which is a good thing. Should have dummied Russell when try butchered!
Romano from the replay poor, needs to get lower on the carry, but was on his own once at least surrounded by four Scots, need your teammates there to help you out sometimes.
Read must be running on empty, thought he had a very, very quiet game, apart from lineout.
Fifita got through a lot of work, mostly good.
Big fan of Liam Squire, massive potential. Should have passed when he made the big break but I guess he thought Sopoaga would get tackled. He did pick the ball off that scrum in preference to Kieran Reid.
Echo what others have said about Edinburgh, great city to go for a test match.
Pakman seems you went to the Hilton buffet so you could rub shoulders with Kane Hames and Crockett, love your work.
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
Some random thoughts, was at Murrayfield for the first time.
We were in corporate hosting, Doddie Weir was our MC, he was absolutely hilarious. Very moving when he went onto the field before kickoff. Justin Marshall also present, dull by comparison.
Battling win, probably deserved, with about 7 minutes to go the ABs were up by 12. I think Hansen emptied the bench too early. He was basically saying with 10 minutes to go it was all over.
Thought the ref was very good, he seemed to rule absolutely everything, probably better than the other way and allowing a free for all. Did think he got the Naholo situation wrong, yellow card all day for me, massive benefit of doubt there.
Taylor was very good and a credible replacement for Coles as starter which is a good thing. Should have dummied Russell when try butchered!
Romano from the replay poor, needs to get lower on the carry, but was on his own once at least surrounded by four Scots, need your teammates there to help you out sometimes.
Read must be running on empty, thought he had a very, very quiet game, apart from lineout.
Fifita got through a lot of work, mostly good.
Big fan of Liam Squire, massive potential. Should have passed when he made the big break but I guess he thought Sopoaga would get tackled. He did pick the ball off that scrum in preference to Kieran Reid.
Echo what others have said about Edinburgh, great city to go for a test match.
Pakman seems you went to the Hilton buffet so you could rub shoulders with Kane Hames and Crockett, love your work.
Did he have one of those obnoxious tartan suits on? It takes a real character to pull those off. He is a real funny bugger judging by some YouTube footage I've seen.
-
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
Some random thoughts, was at Murrayfield for the first time.
We were in corporate hosting, Doddie Weir was our MC, he was absolutely hilarious. Very moving when he went onto the field before kickoff. Justin Marshall also present, dull by comparison.
Battling win, probably deserved, with about 7 minutes to go the ABs were up by 12. I think Hansen emptied the bench too early. He was basically saying with 10 minutes to go it was all over.
Thought the ref was very good, he seemed to rule absolutely everything, probably better than the other way and allowing a free for all. Did think he got the Naholo situation wrong, yellow card all day for me, massive benefit of doubt there.
Taylor was very good and a credible replacement for Coles as starter which is a good thing. Should have dummied Russell when try butchered!
Romano from the replay poor, needs to get lower on the carry, but was on his own once at least surrounded by four Scots, need your teammates there to help you out sometimes.
Read must be running on empty, thought he had a very, very quiet game, apart from lineout.
Fifita got through a lot of work, mostly good.
Big fan of Liam Squire, massive potential. Should have passed when he made the big break but I guess he thought Sopoaga would get tackled. He did pick the ball off that scrum in preference to Kieran Reid.
Echo what others have said about Edinburgh, great city to go for a test match.
Pakman seems you went to the Hilton buffet so you could rub shoulders with Kane Hames and Crockett, love your work.
Did he have one of those obnoxious tartan suits on? It takes a real character to pull those off. He is a real funny bugger judging by some YouTube footage I've seen.
-
@mn5 The Scots are funny buggers though. Anyone who calls themselves"Doddie Weir" or "Dusty Hare" can't take themselves too seriously..
