Super Rugby News
-
@Stargazer so you think they 'deserve' more benefit than 10 minutes of 15 v 14 because of 1 players stupidity?
The team with the idiot gets punished and the fans who pay to watch the game get punished by him getting a red card.
I like my team to win, but winning because of someone in the other team getting a red card is a bit hollow.
I am happy for that player to go off and not come back, but allowing the other team back to 15 is a better way to do it, so that it is still a decent game of rugby.
Jamie HEaslip ruined a test against us by starting a trend of kneeing McCaw.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer so you think they 'deserve' more benefit than 10 minutes of 15 v 14 because of 1 players stupidity?
The team with the idiot gets punished and the fans who pay to watch the game get punished by him getting a red card.
I like my team to win, but winning because of someone in the other team getting a red card is a bit hollow.
I am happy for that player to go off and not come back, but allowing the other team back to 15 is a better way to do it, so that it is still a decent game of rugby.
Jamie HEaslip ruined a test against us by starting a trend of kneeing McCaw.
Yes, because otherwise there's no substantial difference between a yellow and a red; I find the deterrence aspect of this very important, too, btw, esp at the end of the season when suspensions are useless. What @Frye suggests, making the time in the bin longer combined with a compulsory replacement might be a good alternative, although I'd prefer that - if the tackled player would have to go off injured as a result of the offending tackle - the offender should not be allowed to be replaced.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer so you think they 'deserve' more benefit than 10 minutes of 15 v 14 because of 1 players stupidity?
The team with the idiot gets punished and the fans who pay to watch the game get punished by him getting a red card.
I like my team to win, but winning because of someone in the other team getting a red card is a bit hollow.
I am happy for that player to go off and not come back, but allowing the other team back to 15 is a better way to do it, so that it is still a decent game of rugby.
Jamie HEaslip ruined a test against us by starting a trend of kneeing McCaw.
Yes, because otherwise there's no substantial difference between a yellow and a red; I find the deterrence aspect of this very important, too, btw, esp at the end of the season when suspensions are useless. What @Frye suggests, making the time in the bin longer combined with a compulsory replacement might be a good alternative, although I'd prefer that - if the tackled player would have to go off injured as a result of the offending tackle - the offender should not be allowed to be replaced.
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
-
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
How many lifting tackles do we see these days? One or two a year? Seems like they're working to me.
-
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
@taniwharugby I'm not sure they're more often accidental than reckless. Luatua's was in that category.
Accidental ones will not (or should not) result in a red card. World Rugby's recommendation is a penalty or a yellow (maximum). So they are kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
Reckless ones are what I would call the stupid shit. And yes, sometimes a team gets punished for the actions of one of their players. That's an extra reason for teams to get through to their players to stop reckless behaviour and the consequence can be that teams no longer select a player in the starting line-up or in the match day 23 if the player doesn't improve in that respect.
I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion about yellow/red cards in case of high/dangerous tackles whether fans are affected or not. That's entirely between the franchise and it's supporters. This is about player welfare. Don't like your team going down to 14 players because of ill-discipline? Stop going to their games and they'll see the consequences in their revenue.
-
@taniwharugby I'm not sure they're more often accidental than reckless. Luatua's was in that category.
Accidental ones will not (or should not) result in a red card. World Rugby's recommendation is a penalty or a yellow (maximum). So they are kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
Reckless ones are what I would call the stupid shit. And yes, sometimes a team gets punished for the actions of one of their players. That's an extra reason for teams to get through to their players to stop reckless behaviour and the consequence can be that teams no longer select a player in the starting line-up or in the match day 23 if the player doesn't improve in that respect.
I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion about yellow/red cards in case of high/dangerous tackles whether fans are affected or not. That's entirely between the franchise and it's supporters. This is about player welfare. Don't like your team going down to 14 players because of ill-discipline? Stop going to their games and they'll see the consequences in their revenue.
-
@Stargazer reckless can still be accidental.
-
@taniwharugby No. Legally, they're entirely different.
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
-
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
Someone's been watching too much Suits on Netflix
-
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
-
@taniwharugby In simple terms: if you make an accidental high tackle, you are penalised because you are responsible.
If you make a reckless high tackle, you are penalised because you are culpable. You should have taken more care.@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
Someone's been watching too much Suits on Netflix
-
@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
LA Law? Boston Legal? Ally McBeal?
Nothing further your honour
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
LA Law? Boston Legal? Ally McBeal?
Nothing further your honour
@MN5 nope...I had a job that I learnt from.
-
@Stargazer technically you are correct but in rugby the line between accidental and reckless is blurred. Rugby is one of the most physical games on the planet, guys are constantly making split second decisions with the intent of smashing the opposing player. They accidentally take someone higher then intended and it looks reckless as fuck, especially in slow motion, because of their intent to physically dominate.
I can understand the player welfare side of things but you've basically got a ref out in the middle having to play judge, jury and executioner in a very small space of time with the potential outcome of ending the contest, which I don't think is fair on anyone.
The solution? I like the idea of a 15 or 20 minute card and then the player can be replaced by someone on the bench. Punishes the team without ending the contest entirely.
-
As a red card automatically goes to the Foul Play Review Committee, expect a citing of Bulls' player Renaldo Bothma for this:
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
As a red card automatically goes to the Foul Play Review Committee, expect a citing of Bulls' player Renaldo Bothma for this:
Four weeks suspension for Renaldo Bothma (Bulls) for foul play.
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee has accepted a guilty plea from Bothma for contravening Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an opponent, after he was red carded during the match. Bothma has been suspended up to and including Saturday 15 April 2017. He made contact with Sunwolves player Ed Quirk during the match which the Bulls won 34-21 at Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria on Friday. The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee of Nigel Hampton (chairman), Stefan Terblanche and Stephen Hardy assessed the case. In his finding, Hampton ruled the following: “Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the Player and submissions from his legal representative, Adrian Montzinger, the Foul Play Review Committee upheld the red-carding of the Player under Law 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an opponent.” “With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid range entry point of 6 weeks. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player’s early admission of guilt and his remorse for his actions, the Foul Play Review Committee reduced the suspension by 2 weeks.” “The player is therefore suspended for four weeks, up to and including Saturday 15 April 2017.” -
Quade Cooper suspended for 3 weeks
“With respect to sanction the Judicial Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a mid range entry point of six weeks. “However, taking into account mitigating factors including the Player’s admission of guilt, his remorse and the fact that the Player had a good disciplinary record having not come under notice since 2012, the Judicial Committee reduced the suspension to three weeks.” “The Player is therefore suspended for three weeks, up to and including Saturday, April 8, 2017.”Mid-range entry point of six weeks, like Luatua, but one more week reduction.
I expected a low-range entry point, because I think his tackle was more like Leitch's in severity, but the lottery came up with quite a harsh punishment. Cooper will miss the games v Jaguares, Hurricanes and Brumbies.http://www.planetrugby.com/news/three-week-ban-for-cooper-after-red-card/
-
The judiciary has convened to work out this weeks suspensions
