Both his hands and knees are on the ground Jacko....he is on the ground. And if you think attacking a player in the head is acceptable because he had not rolled away faster enough for you then you need to have a good hard look in the mirror. He can explain all he wants, he got it wrong. You can not make contact with the head of a defenseless player on the ground. Period.
2020-12-01T08:23:31+00:00
Berry explained it....just because you dont like the explanation is of no relevance whatsoever...And PLEASE....he was not lying on the ground he was lying on top of an AB...Something which is illegal and if the ref had been doing his job properly then lomaz would have had no reason or need to attempt any tackle at all...
Yes and he is clearly wrong with his explanation. The mitigating framework is for the tackle zone, not the breakdown as this player was the tackler and on the gorund. The TMO pushed Berry who was not listening by asking him again if he would like to see another angle as he clearly did not agree. Saying a players height is a mitigating factor when he is on the ground even before the offending player arrived at the breakdown is rubbish.
Yes, maybe, but the Argie was clearly infringing first.
Silly play really, if he hadn't gone for the head shot, you'd hope the ref would have penalised the player lying on the ground.
Well, maybe, but the Argentine player should have been penalised first for not rolling.
If the ref won't move him, someone else will, twenty years ago he'd have been cut to pieces for that carry on
2020-11-30T22:36:12+00:00
Berry did explain all this Olly.....He was the one that explained the mitigating circumstances and he is the one who was responsible for making the decision.
Mitigating factors is in the tackle zone, this is a breakdown. Plus the player is on the ground before he arrived...he could not have moved any lower....
Absolute rubbish. Slipper for one, did not contact Cane in the head, nor was it late.
Lomax's act was deliberate force to the head - automatic red.
Whether the Argie forward was impeding possession is immaterial.
So yeah, the article's title is accurate.
Yes red card, reckless & dangerous striking to the head of a player with an arm. I don’t know what mitigating circumstances Berry was looking at. Lomax knew where the Argie’s head was before coming in & it wasn’t moving. It doesn’t matter if the Argie was doing something wrong, Lomax was doing the foul play.
I think it is pretty clear that the forearm impacting the head with significant force is a deliberate part of the clean out. Not really ‘swinging’, but used to help move the player out of the way. Yellow, yes. Red, nah.
I think you'll find he is cleaning out a Los Pumas forward who is impeding possession.
Careless and unnecessary however and a red would not have surpised me.
Slipper did the same thing to Cane... except the ball had gone. And not even a penalty.
Not sure this article's title is accurate... or even an article...
I'm not making this comment in relation to the hit in question, but the whole "swinging arm" that TMO's and referees mention is a load of crap.
Too often they state that the arm is swinging, how else are you supposed to wrap your arms? Problem is the act of wrapping is too often classed as swinging.
Part of the problem is the Tackler had No Intentions of Rolling Away, it doesn't make the hit ok..Bring back Rucking, it is Much Safer, as Heads were rarely Targeted
This is more a Red then the tackles in the Wallabies game. Attacking a defenseless player on the ground striking the head. The ref needs to be sidelined for his call of the height of the player on the ground who was the tackler as a midigating factors. Just shows how rubbish this protecting players talk is when you see this from a ref.
Olly
Roar Rookie
Both his hands and knees are on the ground Jacko....he is on the ground. And if you think attacking a player in the head is acceptable because he had not rolled away faster enough for you then you need to have a good hard look in the mirror. He can explain all he wants, he got it wrong. You can not make contact with the head of a defenseless player on the ground. Period.
Berry explained it....just because you dont like the explanation is of no relevance whatsoever...And PLEASE....he was not lying on the ground he was lying on top of an AB...Something which is illegal and if the ref had been doing his job properly then lomaz would have had no reason or need to attempt any tackle at all...
Olly
Roar Rookie
Yes and he is clearly wrong with his explanation. The mitigating framework is for the tackle zone, not the breakdown as this player was the tackler and on the gorund. The TMO pushed Berry who was not listening by asking him again if he would like to see another angle as he clearly did not agree. Saying a players height is a mitigating factor when he is on the ground even before the offending player arrived at the breakdown is rubbish.
piru
Roar Rookie
Yes, maybe, but the Argie was clearly infringing first. Silly play really, if he hadn't gone for the head shot, you'd hope the ref would have penalised the player lying on the ground.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Maybe, but TODAY it’s a red card offense.
piru
Roar Rookie
Well, maybe, but the Argentine player should have been penalised first for not rolling. If the ref won't move him, someone else will, twenty years ago he'd have been cut to pieces for that carry on
Berry did explain all this Olly.....He was the one that explained the mitigating circumstances and he is the one who was responsible for making the decision.
Olly
Roar Rookie
Mitigating factors is in the tackle zone, this is a breakdown. Plus the player is on the ground before he arrived...he could not have moved any lower....
Olly
Roar Rookie
Yeah rubbish, Slipper in on the shoulder and holding onto the collar of Cane to move him.
Short arm why dont you know the mitigating circumstances? berry did explain it at lenth so just watch the replay some time!
Merlin
Roar Rookie
Should the Argie who deliberately knocked on when the ABs scored their first try have been yellow carded? YES
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
Refreshing to see such balance in perspective. Maybe change your monicker to Subjective.
Objective
Guest
Absolute rubbish. Slipper for one, did not contact Cane in the head, nor was it late. Lomax's act was deliberate force to the head - automatic red. Whether the Argie forward was impeding possession is immaterial. So yeah, the article's title is accurate.
Short Arm
Roar Rookie
Yes red card, reckless & dangerous striking to the head of a player with an arm. I don’t know what mitigating circumstances Berry was looking at. Lomax knew where the Argie’s head was before coming in & it wasn’t moving. It doesn’t matter if the Argie was doing something wrong, Lomax was doing the foul play.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
I think it is pretty clear that the forearm impacting the head with significant force is a deliberate part of the clean out. Not really ‘swinging’, but used to help move the player out of the way. Yellow, yes. Red, nah.
Riccardo
Roar Rookie
I think you'll find he is cleaning out a Los Pumas forward who is impeding possession. Careless and unnecessary however and a red would not have surpised me. Slipper did the same thing to Cane... except the ball had gone. And not even a penalty. Not sure this article's title is accurate... or even an article...
Kane
Roar Guru
I'm not making this comment in relation to the hit in question, but the whole "swinging arm" that TMO's and referees mention is a load of crap. Too often they state that the arm is swinging, how else are you supposed to wrap your arms? Problem is the act of wrapping is too often classed as swinging.
Rumen
Roar Rookie
To me looks intentional so red but the ref maybe more experience in evaluating these situations. We will see if he is call post game ...
TC
Roar Rookie
Part of the problem is the Tackler had No Intentions of Rolling Away, it doesn't make the hit ok..Bring back Rucking, it is Much Safer, as Heads were rarely Targeted
Olly
Roar Rookie
This is more a Red then the tackles in the Wallabies game. Attacking a defenseless player on the ground striking the head. The ref needs to be sidelined for his call of the height of the player on the ground who was the tackler as a midigating factors. Just shows how rubbish this protecting players talk is when you see this from a ref.