Wales v NZ

damo

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#21
At the risk of sounding obvious, 78 minutes is a slightly longer period of time than 10 minutes.
Did you see the game though? Wales were on about the same level as Scotland for most of it. They came good for a few phases towards the end once the replacements were on and the game was over, but basically its pretty hard to see them ever getting close even if they had an extra man.

Their handling, tackling, kicking and tactics were appalling. It is a bit disappointing because this was billed as supposedly the tough game of the tour.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#22
The Rugby Union judicial system entirely lacks this precedent system,
I recently read through the paperwork for disciplinary proceedings affecting two local clubs. It included the full disciplinary report on three similar cases. The RFU publishes its disciplinary reports, and this was not the only time I have seen references to other cases.
 

Chogan

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/ireland.p
#23
Here we go again! Citing for black 2?
AGAIN! That was disgusting.
1st minute incident. I can't see any other reason than getting rid of an on field threat.

If you keep giving "the media" excuses, you can't go moaning when they act upon them.
 

chief

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#24
Clear Red card if I've ever seen one. Swinging arm punch from behind is as cowardly as they come.

Ian do you need a ladder to get off that high horse of yours? I mean for every one offence you can find there are others which NZ have gotten away with. I'm thinking spear tackles by Ma'a Nonu versus Ireland in 2005 (I think). Or who could forget the Umaga's and Mealamu's disgusting tackle on Brian O'Driscoll? I mean seriously, I don't claim Australia is saint-like in its play but implicit in your posts is that NZ is so hard done by. Quite simply no it is not.

The IRB judiciary is a lottery. To have Simmons banned for 8 weeks and other spear tackles get two or three weeks shows what a joke the system is. Simmons tackle deserved a lengthy ban but so do the other tackles. The sad thing is despite the numerous inconsistencies the IRB continue to use the same inept referees and inept selectors and inept judiciary officers. Hopefully the new IRB CEO will listen and chances are he will listen as he is an excellent choice for the role.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#25
At the risk of sounding obvious, 78 minutes is a slightly longer period of time than 10 minutes.

Playing a man short does not automatically mean you are going to lose.

Be realistic, the only time Wales were in that game was at the kick-off.


NZ have never lost a match in which they have had a player sent off.
 
Last edited:

Toby Warren

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#26
Should have got a yellow card, but red card is a stretch of the imagination outside its limits

And as for it being the "the act of a cowardly thug." who remembers this fine bit of fair play?

[video=youtube;XT2LnhR6mhY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT2LnhR6mhY[/video]

No penalty.
No red card.
No citing.
No twitters from the iRB CEO saying it will be reviewed.
No British Media baying for Powell's blood.

This is what have come to expect as par for the course when touring the NH
Are you serious? Clout a bloke from behind knock him out so he has to go off and your calling for a yellow? Wow that's incredable.
 

Dixie

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#27
Should have got a yellow card, but red card is a stretch of the imagination outside its limits
I suspect you are the only person on here of any nationality who doesn't believe this was a citable offence. For a normally thoughtful and valuable contributor, this blind spot of yours does you no credit and devalues all your other contributions.

And we will have confirmation of that as soon as the citing goes in.
 

damo

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#30
AGAIN! That was disgusting.
1st minute incident. I can't see any other reason than getting rid of an on field threat.
That is a ridiculous thing to say. About on a level as my fellow countryman's take on it.


Can I suggest you stock up on tin-foil? :horse:
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#31
OK so I've had a second look. It might be red, but it certanly far from as nailed on as some are making it out.

I've seen a lot worse get nothing, or a only a PK or only yellow or not even been cited.
 

Na Madrai

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#32
Sorry, Ian. I am as neutral towards this match as it is possible to be and this is a red card and a very lengthy ban. This was nothing short of thuggery - how would you deal with this if it was a colts' match? Red card every time.

NM
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#33
well if a punch to the head from behind is not a red every single time then i see no way forward for the game.

diids
 

damo

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#35
OK so I've had a second look. It might be red, but it certanly far from as nailed on as some are making it out.

I've seen a lot worse get nothing, or a only a PK or only yellow or not even been cited.
Good for you my friend. I think your position was starting to become untenable.

It will be interesting to see the punishment he gets. I don't see that this could be regarded as any worse than Greylings one that only got the 1 game, but then I was pretty angry about that so it shouldn't be viewed as a good precedent.

Probably the only fair thing would be to give Hore what I thought Greyling should have gotten, which is 6 weeks.

According to the guidelines for "Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist" it is LE – 2 weeks; MR – 5 weeks; TE - 8+ weeks. Dunno where this one would rank, probably near the TE I guess (although again, if we go by the Greyling one it is LE) so I imagine after mitigation is taken out, 6 weeks will end up being the result.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#36
well if a punch to the head from behind is not a red every single time then i see no way forward for the game.

diids
I 100% agree

Of course, it has to actually be a punch or a strike to the head in the first place

The only view that clearly shows both Black 2's right hand/arm and the right side of Red 4's head is from the leading sideline camera.

It shows a different story completely.




Now, if I was defending him at the judiciary hearing, I would be taking this in as part of his evidence.

I would be claiming that my client was attempting to pull the obstructing player out of his way and that he made no contact with his head, and the fact it remained square on his shoulders and was not pushed to the left (as it would have been had a swinging arm made contact with it) is clear evidence of that.

I would further claim that the opposing player's injury occurred when my client's right thigh struck his head when they both went to ground, not by any supposed contact my client's hand or arm made with his head.

***

Now that may not be what happened at all, and there could very well have been contact with the head, but it is far from being as conclusive as some of you are making out.

EDIT: Interestingly, the next replay (the one that is shown immediately after the one I captured the stills from) is from a sideline camera slightly further behind the two players. It definitely shows Hore's thigh striking Red 4's head as the go to ground.

I would not be surprised it he wasn't cited, but equally, I would not be surprised if he was. I would also not object to either outcome.
 
Last edited:

Davet

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#37
Your pictures show what is effectively a high tackle, round the neck, from behind on a player who does not have the ball, pulling the player to the ground.

And you really see that as a defence?
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#38
Your pictures show what is effectively a high tackle, round the neck, from behind on a player who does not have the ball, pulling the player to the ground.

And you really see that as a defence?

Yes, I see it as a defence against a striking charge!

A high-tackle would not normally get a red card whereas striking could get a red card (and therefore a suspension)

Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, I'm saying that is how I would be defending it.

(Putting it this way allows me to have an opinion without being continually misrepresented. The additional bold emphasis to assist those who habitually skim posts without reading them fully)
 
Last edited:

menace

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#39
Yes, I see it as a defence against a striking charge!

A high-tackle would not normally get a red card whereas striking could get a red card (and therefore a suspension)

Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, I'm saying that is how I would be defending it.

(Putting it this way allows me to have an opinion without being continually misrepresented. The additional bold emphasis to assist those who habitually skim posts without reading them fully)
I didn't want to chime in...but as the prosecutor I would be saying the "clenched fist" in frame 2 is the first point of rebuttal against your claim that it wasn't a 'strike'. QED! The prosecution rests. Guilty as charged.
 

Simon Thomas

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#40
Trying to remove my nationality to get an objective pov, I have come to the following conclusions, having seen it live, in slo mo and Ian's pics.

It is a citing offence and passes the red card criteria for me, even if it started as an effort to get to the ruck and Hore was frustrated.

High tackle - yes
Tackling player without ball - yes
Dangerous play - yes
Strike - yes - the fist is clenched, and no effort was made to grasp.
There is thigh to head contact as they fall.

I see some merit with Ian's defence and suspect that will be the main line at the hearing.