Peej wrote:The one on Atkinson was far worse as Faz had lined him up from around 30m away
30m?!?! Atkinson needs to have a word with himself. Faz at full speed over 30m would give him a good 20mins to get out of the way etc etc
Haha, I know what you mean in jest, but watch it again and see how Farrell - after a poor kick - essentially blindsides him. He's charged in planning to "smash 'im, bro" and just committed gross thuggery.
Watching it back, I still find it amazing the Wasps players didn't absolutely fill him in. I think they were probably all worried about Atkinson given that he was only 18. You can almost see the indecision on Gopperth's face as to whether he should check Atkinson is ok, or get stuck into Farrell.
Peej wrote:Hard to tell, but is that Doncaster player springing back to his feet to check where the kick has gone or protest the clear head shot? Either way, he is hardly milking it.
No he's checking where the kicks gone. I didn't make the point that well. The Donny player is very honest and springs back to his feet. Had he stayed down then what's the betting the ref take more notice and Farrell is in trouble? It there's a TMO there even more reason.
Andy, who posted the Farrell clip, was one of the early real milkers in the game (and not just because of the breasts he sports)
Far from stamping it out early rugby has minorly encouraged milking behaviour, 'cause Goode was doing it over a decade ago, so unless inside 10-20 years counts as early it's already here
Peej wrote:Ah right, with you. I think you're right on the wider issue of milking it though - it needs to be stamped out early.
Tough to stamp out though. Unless you start forcing people to leave the field for HIAs, then you start risking players trying to avoid treatment. If that Donny player had decided to milk it and stay down, who would have blamed him? Such a tough balancing act. Puts a lot of pressure on officials to be consistent and vigilant.
They can act against wild appealers, the likes of Bigger and Sexton, and indeed Farrell. They can act more against people who talk back to and/or shout at the ref. They're choosing not to
Digby wrote:They can act against wild appealers, the likes of Bigger and Sexton, and indeed Farrell. They can act more against people who talk back to and/or shout at the ref. They're choosing not to
It's interesting to watch some of what you mention with a child. "Why does the ref not tell him off?", takes a bit of answering, I find.
Digby wrote:They can act against wild appealers, the likes of Bigger and Sexton, and indeed Farrell. They can act more against people who talk back to and/or shout at the ref. They're choosing not to
It's interesting to watch some of what you mention with a child. "Why does the ref not tell him off?", takes a bit of answering, I find.
Yes to both. Refs need to penalise dissent, and I believe have the laws to back them up. One of the most amusing sights in rugby was watching a ref march players ten yards/metres back for every hint of dissent after a penalty. I saw a 50 yarder in a game I was playing in- I think there was a cap put on that eventually.
Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
The most recent example of that was the "ban" on face-to-face celebrations. Dire penalties were promised if rugby players couldn't contain themselves and hugged after scoring, and for a while teams were diligent about it (Bristol having a hands-palm-out celebration was very amusing). Now, no-one gives a shit anymore because they started hugging and no-one was punished, so it clearly doesn't matter.
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
The most recent example of that was the "ban" on face-to-face celebrations. Dire penalties were promised if rugby players couldn't contain themselves and hugged after scoring, and for a while teams were diligent about it (Bristol having a hands-palm-out celebration was very amusing). Now, no-one gives a shit anymore because they started hugging and no-one was punished, so it clearly doesn't matter.
Puja
There is possibly now simply more data on risks whilst being outside, and it's also weird to allow scrums but not a high five as a for instance. But yep
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
I just don't get why in this case though. Where's the downside/overhead?
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
I just don't get why in this case though. Where's the downside/overhead?
Players and coaches don't want it. And the refs don't believe if they act in concert against such behaviour the authorities will have their backs over the players and coaches.
It's quite explicitly not what I'd do, but they're actively choosing to have these issues.
It's not actually that bad at pro level even if it's already gone too far for mine, most issues come much lower down in the game where even kids teams routinely give abuse now (along with parents on the sidelines)
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
I just don't get why in this case though. Where's the downside/overhead?
Players and coaches don't want it. And the refs don't believe if they act in concert against such behaviour the authorities will have their backs over the players and coaches.
It's quite explicitly not what I'd do, but they're actively choosing to have these issues.
It's not actually that bad at pro level even if it's already gone too far for mine, most issues come much lower down in the game where even kids teams routinely give abuse now (along with parents on the sidelines)
Banquo wrote:
I just don't get why in this case though. Where's the downside/overhead?
Players and coaches don't want it. And the refs don't believe if they act in concert against such behaviour the authorities will have their backs over the players and coaches.
It's quite explicitly not what I'd do, but they're actively choosing to have these issues.
It's not actually that bad at pro level even if it's already gone too far for mine, most issues come much lower down in the game where even kids teams routinely give abuse now (along with parents on the sidelines)
Well yes, but.........Fck em!
I agree, but clearly that's not the way it is. And the authorities are okay with what they think an acceptable balance, one that many of us see more as a slow downward trend
Digby wrote:Public utterances from the game's authorities stand in stark contrast to actions taken. Never more clearly than when they promised straight scrum feeds. Their prattle about respecting the refs is mostly just prattle
The most recent example of that was the "ban" on face-to-face celebrations. Dire penalties were promised if rugby players couldn't contain themselves and hugged after scoring, and for a while teams were diligent about it (Bristol having a hands-palm-out celebration was very amusing). Now, no-one gives a shit anymore because they started hugging and no-one was punished, so it clearly doesn't matter.
Puja
Wait for attempts to keep the Tokyo 'Lympics safe. Should be a riot.
Digby wrote:
Players and coaches don't want it. And the refs don't believe if they act in concert against such behaviour the authorities will have their backs over the players and coaches.
It's quite explicitly not what I'd do, but they're actively choosing to have these issues.
It's not actually that bad at pro level even if it's already gone too far for mine, most issues come much lower down in the game where even kids teams routinely give abuse now (along with parents on the sidelines)
Well yes, but.........Fck em!
I agree, but clearly that's not the way it is. And the authorities are okay with what they think an acceptable balance, one that many of us see more as a slow downward trend
Regard the whining in the press NZ when they reffed the breakdowns zealously about "referees killing the game and whistling for everything." Refs broke before the players, media, and coaches did and we went back to the status quo.
Maybe unlikely to push the first team with so many great backrow options but gutted for Will Evans. Out for the season, as suspected. He’s been fantastic.
Peej wrote:Obano banned for 5 weeks. Seems a little harsh.
Due to the injury it was deemed a high sanction offence so minimum ban was 10 weeks halved down to 5. I thought it was harsh as well but that's the reasoning apparently.
Peej wrote:Obano banned for 5 weeks. Seems a little harsh.
Due to the injury it was deemed a high sanction offence so minimum ban was 10 weeks halved down to 5. I thought it was harsh as well but that's the reasoning apparently.
Upright head to head tackles are 6x more dangerous than the next most dangerous tackle type. Given it's the most dangerous, makes sense for it to have the highest sanction starting point, especially if they want it out of the game. To start with it's twice as much concussion risk.
Peej wrote:Obano banned for 5 weeks. Seems a little harsh.
Due to the injury it was deemed a high sanction offence so minimum ban was 10 weeks halved down to 5. I thought it was harsh as well but that's the reasoning apparently.
Upright head to head tackles are 6x more dangerous than the next most dangerous tackle type. Given it's the most dangerous, makes sense for it to have the highest sanction starting point, especially if they want it out of the game. To start with it's twice as much concussion risk.
Fair. I was merely thinking of some of the other red cards this season that looked more dangerous or reckless.
Obano has no one to blame but himself. You go upright into a tackle now then you are taking a risk. Any head contact and you are off. Personally I thought coaches would be spending a lot of time working to change the players muscle memory with the new rules.
