Super Rugby News
-
@Tim seems fair, luckily for the chiefs, its 'only' the rebels next week.
-
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
-
@Kirwan Luatua tackled a player without the ball so there is clearly a difference. The angle of the arm and contact area also differs.
-
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
@Kirwan Luatua tackled a player without the ball so there is clearly a difference. The angle of the arm and contact area also differs.
Yes, Luatua used his arm while Leitch used his shoulder!
-
@Kirwan Leitch was stupid but at least playing the man with the ball, Luatuas wasnt.
Not comparable.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Kirwan Leitch was stupid but at least playing the man with the ball, Luatuas wasnt.
Not comparable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is a shoulder to the head is worse than an arm. Whether they have the ball or not doesn't protect the head much.
-
Player: Nicolas Sanchez
Team: Jaguares
Position: Fly Half
Date of Incident: 11 March 2017
Nature of Offence: Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent
Elapsed time in match when incident occurred: 38:28Nicolas Sanchez of the Jaguares has been cited for alleged foul play during a Super Rugby match at the weekend.
Sanchez is alleged to have contravened Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent during the match between the Jaguares and Lions at Velez Sarsfield in Buenos Aires on 11 March 2017.
The referee for the match, Nick Briant, awarded a penalty for the incident which occurred in the 38th minute.
Upon further review of the match footage, the Citing Commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the red card threshold for foul play.
The Case is to be considered in the first instance by the SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee which will take place on Monday 13 March via video-conference.
All SANZAAR disciplinary matters are in the first instance referred to the Foul Play Review Committee to provide the option of expediting the judicial process.
For a matter to be dispensed with at this hearing, the person appearing must plead guilty and accept the penalty offered by the Foul Play Review Committee.
Check: 38:28 into the game (43:12 in video)
-
@Stargazer The replay from the other angle makes it abundantly clear how bad that was. He should sit out at least four weeks.
-
Complete bottle job not carding him for an obvious and dangerous foul
-
Complete bottle job not carding him for an obvious and dangerous foul
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:
Complete bottle job not carding him for an obvious and dangerous foul
Yeah the "he just mistimed his jump" was bullshit... he timed his jump exactly right for what he was trying to do.
Decisions like that support the theory that "if you jump, you're all good" -
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
@Kirwan said in Super Rugby News:
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
WTF does that matter? There was what, 2 minutes left in the game? Yellow, red, blue or ginger card, it wouldn't have made a difference.
I don't think it was anywhere near as bad as Luatua's (it was an actual tackle for one, a poor tackle but a tackle nonetheless, not a swinging arm to a supporting player) but I was still expecting 2-3 weeks for it. Seems a bit soft. I don't think the Chiefs would've been hurt either way, not when they have the luxury of bringing Seu off the bench, resting Messam in a big game and still have Sanders sitting in the stands.
And yeah, that Jaguares clip is ugly. You can't claim he was jumping for the ball when his eyes weren't even on it.
-
-
@Kirwan said in Super Rugby News:
@Bovidae said in Super Rugby News:
That tackle was at the opposite end of the spectrum to Luatua's. No complaints from a Chiefs fan.
No shit a Chiefs fan is happy with that, no red card and three weeks less than Luatua's. What a joke.
WTF does that matter? There was what, 2 minutes left in the game? Yellow, red, blue or ginger card, it wouldn't have made a difference.
I don't think it was anywhere near as bad as Luatua's (it was an actual tackle for one, a poor tackle but a tackle nonetheless, not a swinging arm to a supporting player) but I was still expecting 2-3 weeks for it. Seems a bit soft. I don't think the Chiefs would've been hurt either way, not when they have the luxury of bringing Seu off the bench, resting Messam in a big game and still have Sanders sitting in the stands.
And yeah, that Jaguares clip is ugly. You can't claim he was jumping for the ball when his eyes weren't even on it.
-
@Unco Actually, using a shoulder instead of your arms does not constitute an actual tackle.
@antipodean wait, did you watch it? It was definitely a tackle, the arms definitely wrapped. It's just his targeting was really high, and as a result Leich's shoulder hit him in the head. Definite yellow, possible red, definite ban, of which a week is really lenient. Really lenient. And makes Luatua's 4-weeker appear even harsher.
When you look at the reason for the re-interpretation, it's hard to see how the coathanger than is less likely to result in a concussion than a shoulder to the temple is viewed as 4-times worse, ball carrier or not.
-
@antipodean wait, did you watch it? It was definitely a tackle, the arms definitely wrapped. It's just his targeting was really high, and as a result Leich's shoulder hit him in the head. Definite yellow, possible red, definite ban, of which a week is really lenient. Really lenient. And makes Luatua's 4-weeker appear even harsher.
When you look at the reason for the re-interpretation, it's hard to see how the coathanger than is less likely to result in a concussion than a shoulder to the temple is viewed as 4-times worse, ball carrier or not.
@mariner4life problem is, the judiciary are so inconsistent do we really know what is a fair suspension?
I personally felt Leitch's was about right, maybe a week light, where Luatuas a shade harsh, maybe a week, but then the new normal since these changes will see a lot of this over the next few weeks I expect as referees and players come to terms with the changes and refs and judiciary looking to stamp their mark.
As I said, I think Luatua's gets viewed as worse as it was off the ball, rightly or wrongly.
-
@antipodean wait, did you watch it? It was definitely a tackle, the arms definitely wrapped. It's just his targeting was really high, and as a result Leich's shoulder hit him in the head. Definite yellow, possible red, definite ban, of which a week is really lenient. Really lenient. And makes Luatua's 4-weeker appear even harsher.
When you look at the reason for the re-interpretation, it's hard to see how the coathanger than is less likely to result in a concussion than a shoulder to the temple is viewed as 4-times worse, ball carrier or not.
@mariner4life Yes I watched it and your defence of Leitch is easily transferable to Luatua - he used his arms as well, just the targeting was really high.
