nah, not worried about all that. Saders had it more so earlier but didnt go on about that either, plus it doesnt seem to have eventuated. Weird for a team like the Saders to win every game and not make a final, so its those obscure extra, no result changing points when the Blues were out by 30, pushing them to 40 and 50, combined with less close matches that kept the Saders from probably winning another as I doubt we'd beaten them in the final. Saders are geared last 20 years to beat ALL comers, and even here they achieved that. Blues arent. We'll take the win but the return to normality and REAL rugby an success is still yet to happen. Very promising though. Still need that top notch AB 10 that every other side seems to have had in he last 15 years.
Paulo, “ Should have been red. As per the normal rulings in these instances”.
You are probably correct because it may have only been ‘shoulder to shoulder running’ in the lead up.
So, I will reluctantly agree with you.
But, there’s a culture of chase spoiling here that s- - ts me to tears .. who was the player running back? Not going for the ball, not jumping, just making the chasers job less easy, and ultimately less safe.
If we are going to get real serious about these contacts, and we should, this sort of spoiling distraction should be part of the discussion.
Blues managed the breakdown safely and efficiently, with a good game continuity ratio after contact. It does not surprise me that the play that guaranteed him the final victory in the 76.1 minute of play was caused by a counter ruck. There is no better efficiency than that which comes from concentrating on the game plan. Referees are part of the game and their interpretations as well.
Well, know when you finally have a winning team again, buckle up for the lots of accusations of being lucky and get the rub of the green from the ref. No different how other fans treat the ABs really; " yeah they are good, but..."
Congrats on the win, mate.
Heem was reckless. He initiated contact into Nareki when it was unnecessary and then went off balance taking Hunt's legs out rom under him. Hunt could of had a broken neck from that reckless act. Paulo you are spot on and it was ALB who pushed Fall.
No, if he is pushed, it’s a mitigating factor.
See the RC against Fall in the France/NZ game in 2018. On field was a RC because he ran into the Barrett’s space. Same as here. It was effectively overruled by the judiciary because they ruled he had been pushed by ALB (from memory)
The application of the law looks at the level of control a player had. Being pushed, tackled, or cleaned out into contact would mean the player did not have control of his actions. In this instance he did have control, the opposition player was next to him and did not force him into contact, so, he is culpable for his actions.
Seems a very legalistic reading though. You are saying that if he was trying to change his line specifically so as to avoid the jumping player, and was pushed back into it by his opposition, he is still responsible. By the same logic if a player is cleaned out at the breakdown and impacts the head of another player as he falls, it's the bin for him?
Didn’t look like he was pushed, it was shoulder to shoulder running, he fell into collision zone and has been the directives, if you enter the zone you need to be responsible. You can’t run into a contestable zone from a kick without jumping. The lander looked like he landed on his head. Should have been red. As per the normal rulings in these instances.
taylorman
Roar Guru
nah, not worried about all that. Saders had it more so earlier but didnt go on about that either, plus it doesnt seem to have eventuated. Weird for a team like the Saders to win every game and not make a final, so its those obscure extra, no result changing points when the Blues were out by 30, pushing them to 40 and 50, combined with less close matches that kept the Saders from probably winning another as I doubt we'd beaten them in the final. Saders are geared last 20 years to beat ALL comers, and even here they achieved that. Blues arent. We'll take the win but the return to normality and REAL rugby an success is still yet to happen. Very promising though. Still need that top notch AB 10 that every other side seems to have had in he last 15 years.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
Paulo, “ Should have been red. As per the normal rulings in these instances”. You are probably correct because it may have only been ‘shoulder to shoulder running’ in the lead up. So, I will reluctantly agree with you. But, there’s a culture of chase spoiling here that s- - ts me to tears .. who was the player running back? Not going for the ball, not jumping, just making the chasers job less easy, and ultimately less safe. If we are going to get real serious about these contacts, and we should, this sort of spoiling distraction should be part of the discussion.
Francisco Roldan
Roar Rookie
Blues managed the breakdown safely and efficiently, with a good game continuity ratio after contact. It does not surprise me that the play that guaranteed him the final victory in the 76.1 minute of play was caused by a counter ruck. There is no better efficiency than that which comes from concentrating on the game plan. Referees are part of the game and their interpretations as well.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Well, know when you finally have a winning team again, buckle up for the lots of accusations of being lucky and get the rub of the green from the ref. No different how other fans treat the ABs really; " yeah they are good, but..." Congrats on the win, mate.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Heem was reckless. He initiated contact into Nareki when it was unnecessary and then went off balance taking Hunt's legs out rom under him. Hunt could of had a broken neck from that reckless act. Paulo you are spot on and it was ALB who pushed Fall.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
No, if he is pushed, it’s a mitigating factor. See the RC against Fall in the France/NZ game in 2018. On field was a RC because he ran into the Barrett’s space. Same as here. It was effectively overruled by the judiciary because they ruled he had been pushed by ALB (from memory) The application of the law looks at the level of control a player had. Being pushed, tackled, or cleaned out into contact would mean the player did not have control of his actions. In this instance he did have control, the opposition player was next to him and did not force him into contact, so, he is culpable for his actions.
AndyS
Guest
Seems a very legalistic reading though. You are saying that if he was trying to change his line specifically so as to avoid the jumping player, and was pushed back into it by his opposition, he is still responsible. By the same logic if a player is cleaned out at the breakdown and impacts the head of another player as he falls, it's the bin for him?
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Didn’t look like he was pushed, it was shoulder to shoulder running, he fell into collision zone and has been the directives, if you enter the zone you need to be responsible. You can’t run into a contestable zone from a kick without jumping. The lander looked like he landed on his head. Should have been red. As per the normal rulings in these instances.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Geez if there’s one word to sum up the Blues the last two decades… it certainly ain’t ‘luck’????