RugbyRebels

I'm not sure how many times I'll say this in my life...but...Puja, I agree with you

Puja wrote:

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:See, for me, I'm really not seeing the contact between Vunipola's shoulder and Barrett's head. To me, that video clearly shows Vunipola making contact with Barrett's chest with his forearm and that force is what makes the head go back. Vunipola's forearm then slides up to get into Barrett's face, which is where the clear yellow comes from.

Also while the swinging arm on Naholo was clearly a problem that needed to be dealt with, so was the late shoulder charge on Farrell that Garces also had no interest in. There was crap refereeing in both directions.

Puja

The video quality is not optimal, but the first point of contact for Vunipola's forearm is Barrett's head.



Edit: found a better one. Hope it's not geolocked. Screenshot is from 13 seconds in.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/r ... en-barrett

Again, I'm really not seeing what you're seeing. To me, that video (and the still) clearly shows initial contact is to the breastbone - Barrett's head goes forward first from the force to his upper torso and only goes backwards when his entire body moves - and then when both of them hit the floor, Mako's arm slides up into Barrett's face.

I would offer three other things of note - 1) as OBR notes, the medic deals solely with his ribs, not his head, 2) there is no suggestion of an HIA - Mako is a big bloke and if the flying leap of his entiee bodyweight had hit Barrett's face, then I'd be amazed if he came back on, let alone stayed on without any assessment at sll, 3) the rugby authorities clearly agree with me, as SOB has been cited for "an action equivalent to a red card" and Mako has not.

Puja

Agreed. MV was trying to clear a ruck. In another time, he might have gotten away with a penalty there but the ref probably decided that he needed to calm it down a bit and gave him a yellow.

SBW wasn't doing anything legal in his challenge. It was just dangerous and stupid. There is a clear difference in the actions to justify why one was red and one was yellow.

The SOB incident isn't clear cut either. Is he trying to asssist Daly in keeping the ball carrier offf the floor or is it a cheap shot? The one camera angle I e seen could be viewed both ways.

Sandydragon wrote:The SOB incident isn't clear cut either. Is he trying to asssist Daly in keeping the ball carrier offf the floor or is it a cheap shot? The one camera angle I e seen could be viewed both ways.

This may beg to differ Sandy, didn't Naholo leave the field after this "incident"?


British & Irish Lions back row Sean O’Brien has been cited for dangerous play during the second Test at Westpac Stadium, Wellington last night.

The Leinster player was in sensational form for the Lions on Saturday and would be a huge loss for the tourists.

Citing Commissioner Scott Nowland has cited O’Brien for allegedly striking All Blacks winger Waisake Naholo with a swinging arm. The Citing Commissioner said the incident, in the 19th minute of the second half, is deemed to have met the threshold for a red card.

A judicial panel consisting of Adam Casselden (AUS), David Croft (AUS), and John Langford (AUS), will hear the case tonight at 8:00pm, at the New Zealand Rugby offices in Wellington.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The SOB incident isn't clear cut either. Is he trying to asssist Daly in keeping the ball carrier offf the floor or is it a cheap shot? The one camera angle I e seen could be viewed both ways.

This may beg to differ Sandy, didn't Naholo leave the field after this "incident"?


British & Irish Lions back row Sean O’Brien has been cited for dangerous play during the second Test at Westpac Stadium, Wellington last night.

The Leinster player was in sensational form for the Lions on Saturday and would be a huge loss for the tourists.

Citing Commissioner Scott Nowland has cited O’Brien for allegedly striking All Blacks winger Waisake Naholo with a swinging arm. The Citing Commissioner said the incident, in the 19th minute of the second half, is deemed to have met the threshold for a red card.

A judicial panel consisting of Adam Casselden (AUS), David Croft (AUS), and John Langford (AUS), will hear the case tonight at 8:00pm, at the New Zealand Rugby offices in Wellington.

Was it reckless - perhaps and thats what the citing commissioner will need to determine. Its still arguable that he was going to keep the player off the ground, which may just be a mitigation on sentence if he were deemed to be reckless.

Suggesting that its in the same category as SBW's challenge is pushing the bounds f credulity just a bit though.

Moving the topic slightly, what's happened to the Lions fan's singing? It used to be a selection of all 4 home nations, but now we seem to have reverted to football chants.

Bit of a shame that.

cashead wrote: Except there is contact with Barrett's head. It's not immediately clear in the original angle in the clip, but in the second, you can see Vunipola's forearm hitting him around the jaw area. In fact, the initial point of contact for Vunipola's forearm is well above the area you're describing.

At the point where Vunipola comes charging in, Barrett is no longer bound to the ruck. Until he gets back onside (or back on to his feet if he's the tackler), he's not a factor. It's clear that Barrett's in the process of rolling out at which point Vunipola comes flying in with a forearm/shoulder aimed at his head/neck area - and there has been literature published by World Rugby clearly stating that reckless attacks to that part of the body runs the risk of a send-off.

You might also want to have another look at the start of the clip where you could hear the guy talking about the "clear-out by no. 1 red," as the medic is not tending to his ribs, but rather, talking to Barrett, probably doing an on-field concussion test - questions related to what's going on, whom they're playing, where they are, etc.

"Charging in" and "flying in" are a bit too emotive don't you think? At the start of the clip Garces says"..... penalty against number 1 red" and George Ayoub (the Aussie TMO) says "Wait Jerome, wait please". Can't see or hear the medic in the clip and only saw when game had stopped and he was treating Barretts ribs with Barrett having his hands above his head (as when winded). I think if Vunipola had hit his jaw area, as you say, I'm sure Barrett would have needed the HIA/concussion test!

As I said, we're both a bit partisan, you will interpret it one way and I another. We've both put evidence for our opinions and it looks like neither of us will move (although I have conceded under the present ruling and after the warning for the earlier contact - which I still think Barrett milked - that yellow was understandable).

I'll leave it there.

cashead wrote:
Both would fall under 10.4e, with a memorandum being issued last November that would indicate O'Brien's hit on Naholo is in the red card threshold. There was definite contact with the jaw, and it was severe enough to make him fail a HIA. It probably won't earn him the 4 weeks that SBW just got, which pretty much ends his Super Rugby involvement for this year, but that's probably his tour done.

I'm not going to, I really am not going to ......

Cashead he surely makes contact with the back of Noholo's head?

cashead wrote:

J Dory wrote:Haven't seen the game but things in here have perked up in here nicely.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I wouldn't be surprised if some around here try to do what happened after the 2007 quarterfinals debacle, when they tried to bully and browbeat those criticising Barnes into silence and then throw a tantrum when those people refuse to comply. I forget whom, but one of the wannabe-bullies threatened a flounce when the critics refused to back down, which was hilarious.

Do you not think though that people may be a bit more sympathetic if certain sections of the AB support didn't go from these "come to jesus" moments of outrage about offsides and forward passes and a casual attitude to hitting people in the head after losses but almost revert to calling anyone bringing them up whingers who just can't handle the majesty of the ABs, look at our world cups, after games like the 2011 final and this year's Dublin game?

Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

I'm clearly swimming against the tide here but I thought Vunipola coulda/woulda/shoulda got a red and I cant really see anything much wrong at all with SOBs "swinging arm to the back of the head"

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

I can see what you are saying but as a backrow, I'd be looking at where Dalys hands are and coming in from behind him, if we're trying to hold the man and ball up I'd be reaching through to get my hands on the ball/shoulder. I can't see any intent there (its not a fist for example) and its more SOB's wrist which makes contact. But with the emphasis as it is I can see an undeserved ban.

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

I for one am looking forward to the stream of penalties we'll get next week if that sort of clear out is now illegal. I don't think you'd need to look too hard on a rewatch to pick out ABs forward launching themselves into guys on the ground.

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

I can see what you are saying but as a backrow, I'd be looking at where Dalys hands are and coming in from behind him, if we're trying to hold the man and ball up I'd be reaching through to get my hands on the ball/shoulder. I can't see any intent there (its not a fist for example) and its more SOB's wrist which makes contact. But with the emphasis as it is I can see an undeserved ban.

It's a pretty normal action for a backrower, but given the outcome he's in trouble.

I'd go back to applying the laws and having players bind before being allowed to ruck, which should reduce the swinging arms and Makoesque clearouts anyway. But that would seem unlikely to happen.

Digby wrote:
It's a pretty normal action for a backrower, but given the outcome he's in trouble.

I'd go back to applying the laws and having players bind before being allowed to ruck, which should reduce the swinging arms and Makoesque clearouts anyway. But that would seem unlikely to happen.

Law 10.4 (k) Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

oldbackrow wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's a pretty normal action for a backrower, but given the outcome he's in trouble.

I'd go back to applying the laws and having players bind before being allowed to ruck, which should reduce the swinging arms and Makoesque clearouts anyway. But that would seem unlikely to happen.

Law 10.4 (k) Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Not a law that bothers any player or referee in the professional game, it's less assiduously applied than straight scrum feeds

Got to say my first reaction to now seeing the Mako thing is red. I'd find it easier to accept as accidental if Barrett was actually in the ruck, or even in line with it, but Mako is flinging himself at a player in a way that can't possibly contribute to winning the ball or affecting the play.

Either he smashes Barrett in the head or he is very lucky to have not done so, can't really see from that angle. It may be that from another angle it looks legit, but it looks as bad as SBW's to me. Obrien looks clumsy but I can see what he was going for. Don't see much in it.

I must say I am enjoying some of the Kiwi meltdowns, but in the battle Buggs vs Cashead for who is being the biggest child (and I've certainly read some slightly hysterical stuff from Cash before) there is only one winner I'm afraid.

So SBW has been banned 4 weeks. If Cashead's complaints are correct then I assume MV has been cited and will likely receive a similar ban?

No?

I also heard the 4th official on the mike after the referee had decided with the Mako first incident. But there is a strong push to let the referees decide and I totally support that. Sometimes incidents happen and the referee must make their decision...acceptance of that is the key to how you can have a total contact sport and survive.

As to SOB trying to loosen the ball in the tackle by swinging your arms is dumb in today's monitored matches...high risk low success ..he could have hit his own player as well...but I still think it was an honest attempt . It is still a common thing to try to free the ball in that manner but should eventually vanish as the risk of head injury is too high.

SOB will get banned as the panel will say its wrong, but there was no malice to hit or cause injury to the player.

What we do not need next week is a slug fest...by either side... I personally didn't like the Mako incidents. .. incredibly stupid and clumsy at best. He should and could have made more effort particularly the first one.
He may lose his starting shirt because of it .

As to binding on to another player ..I agree that it needs to be better policed..this rutting technique is another area that will eventually be dropped for high risk low reward once it is .

Lastly the final penalty. .it was a penalty. .he didn't jump into the tackle he jumped to receive a really poor pass it was actually good skill and remember the guy played centre for years so he probably had to do it often. As with Mako ..Charlie was clumsy but no intent..If the ball was catchable without jumping ...it should have been reversed.

Thought I would share this cut from the BBC website..

Discipline will 'kill' Lions

Lions assistant coach Graham Rowntree warned players are at risk of losing their places in the side because of ill discipline.

The Lions conceded 13 penalties in Wellington - 10 of which were kickable - and it was only Beauden Barrett's profligacy from the tee that kept the tourists alive.

"We have got to sort it out because it is going to kill us," Rowntree added.

"We have to sit them down and show them every day. We can't be doing this. We have to keep reiterating that point to the players.

"We can't lose a Test series on the back of some stupid penalties. That would be unacceptable. How do you live with that for the rest of your life?"

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

Agree with all of this.

BB reminded me of Clerc in 2011. Recovered like Lazarus once the decision was made. On both occasions. The telling point was no HIA.

MV will likely be dropped whatever happens imo.

So who will replace SOB? I think we can rule out Haskell on the grounds of he is not very good but all the others must be in the running. I wonder if they will consider getting Lawes into the back row. Doubtful but i imagine it will come up in discussions.

Lord Llandaff wrote:

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

Agree with all of this.

BB reminded me of Clerc in 2011. Recovered like Lazarus once the decision was made. On both occasions. The telling point was no HIA.

MV will likely be dropped whatever happens imo.

Not that keen to wade in here, but this is not the most sensible approach to preventing injury via officiating objectives I have ever seen.

SOB's hearing is into its 4th hour now. It doesn't seem to warrant that, but it would suggest it can't be nothing

morepork wrote:

Lord Llandaff wrote:

Digby wrote:Hard to see how SOB dodges a ban, he swings the arm, and it clearly cause a problem for Naholo. He can say he didn't mean it, but at best he'll be judged reckless.

The Vunipola one I'm just not seeing, tbh I'd be keener to see action against BB for behaving like a footballer. If Mako were banned that might actually help the Lions, starting 3 big tests in 3 weeks is a massive physical ask, and they might do better with McGrath starting and Marler on the bench.

Agree with all of this.

BB reminded me of Clerc in 2011. Recovered like Lazarus once the decision was made. On both occasions. The telling point was no HIA.

MV will likely be dropped whatever happens imo.

Not that keen to wade in here, but this is not the most sensible approach to preventing injury via officiating objectives I have ever seen.

I think you missed my point. It was the telling point that he was feigning injury like a footballer. Unlike Watson who was genuinely staggering and was assessed as a result. Imo, no decision should be made on the basis of injury sustained either way, but the French have always liked to try to influence decisions in this way and it would appear BB did the same.