RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:

Danno wrote:

Banquo wrote:But yet POM can dive headlong at Gopperth well beyond the ball. Bizarre

Of course. It's POM.

Turns out he should have been off the pitch before Shields:



Pretty much exactly what he called Lavanini a scumbag for.

The laws are a bit of an ass when a completely accidental and not even remotely reckless act gets a red, and the lunacy of the horizontal clearout goes on week in, week out. POM does get away with a lot- he's the embodiment of a player you want on your team but hate (to play against)....but even his team mates must be kinda embarassed by that sort of play.

Apparently the AR called it out, but Poite shouts it was a fair contest.

Raggs wrote:Apparently the AR called it out, but Poite shouts it was a fair contest.

That happened a few times for incidents during the game- generally I don't mind that tbh, because the slow mos are both tedious and often lack context. But when serious foul play is ignored, its not good...

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Apparently the AR called it out, but Poite shouts it was a fair contest.

That happened a few times for incidents during the game- generally I don't mind that tbh, because the slow mos are both tedious and often lack context. But when serious foul play is ignored, its not good...

TMO tried to get him to look at the Gopperth cleanout by POM just before a Munster try too, but Poite waved him off.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Apparently the AR called it out, but Poite shouts it was a fair contest.

That happened a few times for incidents during the game- generally I don't mind that tbh, because the slow mos are both tedious and often lack context. But when serious foul play is ignored, its not good...

TMO tried to get him to look at the Gopperth cleanout by POM just before a Munster try too, but Poite waved him off.

That's even worse than AR flagging.

The gopperth one looked worse on watching without slow mo only saw c4 highlights - 2 reds

paddy no 11 wrote:The gopperth one looked worse on watching without slow mo only saw c4 highlights - 2 reds

The Gopperth one was probably penalty only to be honest, I think POM just misses the head/neck through blind luck. But it would have been a penalty, and overturned the try.

There again, POM shouldn't have been on the pitch at that point regardless, so who knows!

Raggs wrote:

Danno wrote:

Banquo wrote:But yet POM can dive headlong at Gopperth well beyond the ball. Bizarre

Of course. It's POM.

Turns out he should have been off the pitch before Shields:



Pretty much exactly what he called Lavanini a scumbag for.

POM tucks the arm there, if the shoulder makes contact with head then it's a red all day.

Lavanini is apparently just a bit lacking up top. I've heard an interview with Dan Cole where he says Lavanini was exactly the same in training. He just seems to have a lack of control. So much power if he knew how to use it constructively he'd be the best lock in the world.

4 week ban for Shields. No citing for POM

Peej wrote:4 week ban for Shields. No citing for POM

Utterly comedic.

Puja

Peej wrote:4 week ban for Shields. No citing for POM

The category marked Shocking but not surprising continues to get new additions.

Wasps are going to appeal.

There's definitely been some rumblings about cutting down on tmo for a while now.

Most worrying is the continued rolling back on the consistent application of the head contact rules.

16th man wrote:There's definitely been some rumblings about cutting down on tmo for a while now.

Most worrying is the continued rolling back on the consistent application of the head contact rules.

Poite asked for it to be reviewed, it wasn't TMO or AR intervention. Poite ignored the AR and TMO interventions...

16th man wrote:There's definitely been some rumblings about cutting down on tmo for a while now.

Most worrying is the continued rolling back on the consistent application of the head contact rules.

Consistent is the word, as they are still being applied, but very oddly imo

Bit of a crazy game with two very depleted teams going at it hammer and tongs and some pretty unstructured rugby. Enjoyed seeing some new talent replacing the same old faces. Alfie Barbeary looks ready to step into the England 8 shirt with his multifaceted game ranging from raw brute force to soft hands and tidy footwork and rugby smarts. His Munster opposite number, Okeke, at 19, looks a real find. A proper athlete with power, endurance and speed (200/400m sprinter) - most defenders beaten in the game.

Raggs wrote:

16th man wrote:There's definitely been some rumblings about cutting down on tmo for a while now.

Most worrying is the continued rolling back on the consistent application of the head contact rules.

Poite asked for it to be reviewed, it wasn't TMO or AR intervention. Poite ignored the AR and TMO interventions...

Poite has to be my least favourite ref right now and his constant waving off the TMO is a big part of that. "Non is fine" right after POM does a Lavanini into a ruck

Raggs wrote:Wasps are going to appeal.

Waste of time and effort

Peej wrote:

Raggs wrote:Wasps are going to appeal.

Waste of time and effort

Think it's a desperation move, we're screwed without him anyway, so may as well give it a shot.

Raggs wrote:

Peej wrote:

Raggs wrote:Wasps are going to appeal.

Waste of time and effort

Think it's a desperation move, we're screwed without him anyway, so may as well give it a shot.

Can a ban not be increased on appeal?

It can. But they aren't going to change any minds, so they may as well put the effort into something more useful and productive.

This aged well

Does anybody watch much top French club rugby? Are there similar interpretations and inconsistencies? Or, is it just Poite?

Wasps have been successful in their appeal of the four-week ban handed to Brad Shields

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport ... r-22489886

Seems a common sense approach..

Everyone's time being wasted by a harsh red card to start with and a disciplinary process that failed to properly assess the evidence first time around.

I mean in terms of justice and overall danger, it's probably the right result, however I have to question the idea that Kilcoyne changed height. He is being tackled by Young at the same time, but he's not being dragged down at the point Shields hits and Shield has not made an attempt to lower his height and avoid an upright challenge.

Probably right result, but strange way of getting there.

Puja