Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 7:15 am

First topic message reminder :

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Irelan10       Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 All_bl10
IRELAND v NEW ZEALAND
19 November 2016
KO: 17:30
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on Sky Sports 2

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Ian Davies (Wales)
Television match official: Jon Mason (Wales)
Assessor: Chris White (England)

A. Head to Head

29 Played 29
1 Won 27
1 Drawn 1
27 Lost 1
310 Points 812

B. Recent Form 

5 November 2016
Soldier Field, Chicago IL
40–29 to Ireland

24 November 2013 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
22 – 24 to New Zealand 

23 June 2012 
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton 
60 – 0 to New Zealand 

16 June 2012 
Rugby League Park, Christchurch 
22 – 19 to New Zealand

9 June 2012 
Eden Park, Auckland 
42 – 10 to New Zealand

20 November 2010 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
18 – 38 to New Zealand 

C. Teams

IRELAND 
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Guinne10
R Kearney; A Trimble, J Payne, R Henshaw, S Zebo; J Sexton, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, T Furlong; D Toner, D Ryan; CJ Stander, S O'Brien, J Heaslip.

Replacements: S Cronin, C Healy, F Bealham, I Henderson, J van der Flier, K Marmion, P Jackson, G Ringrose.

NEW ZEALAND
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Speigh10
B Smith; I Dagg, M Fekitoa, A Lienert-Brown, J Savea; B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, D Coles, O Franks; B Retallick, S Whitelock; L Squire, S Can, K Read (capt).

Replacements: C Taylor, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Perenara, A Cruden, W Naholo.


Last edited by George Carlin on Sat 19 Nov 2016, 12:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
George Carlin
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14709
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down


Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:14 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Both

Then why did he propel himself forward?

Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.

So he did try to make a tackle?

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:15 pm

Munchkin wrote:

So, we're still left with the clear video evidence that you are in denial of. The evidence is clear that Cane intended the hit. The evidence is clear that Cane intended to hit high. There is doubt that Cane intended to strike the head with his shoulder.

Which evidence is this?

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:16 pm

marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:16 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Both

Then why did he propel himself forward?

Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.

His change of direction disproves that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:17 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

You said

'Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.'

That requires a contact/tackle to do so you cant have it both ways

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:18 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

So, we're still left with the clear video evidence that you are in denial of. The evidence is clear that Cane intended the hit. The evidence is clear that Cane intended to hit high. There is doubt that Cane intended to strike the head with his shoulder.

Which evidence is this?

Ha! Ok, ok, you're simply not interested in rational debate. I get it. The evidence is there for all to see, and playing blind wont change that. I will leave you to it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:21 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

You said

'Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.'

That requires a contact/tackle to do so you cant have it both ways

I don't follow at all. He was expecting, in my opinion to have to join 2 upright players at point A which is 2 metres away. Instead an unexpected collision is forced upon him. He was going to try to join those players.

I find it is alot clearer if you watch it in real time. Once you do this, you realize that it is not humanly possible to do the things that are being claimed.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:24 pm

It's still against the rules to run into players without making a tackle so again it would be a penalty.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:26 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

You said

'Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.'

That requires a contact/tackle to do so you cant have it both ways

I don't follow at all. He was expecting, in my opinion to have to join 2 upright players at point A which is 2 metres away.  Instead an unexpected collision is forced upon him. He was going to try to join those players.

I find it is alot clearer if you watch it in real time. Once you do this, you realize that it is not humanly possible to do the things that are being claimed.

You would find it a lot clearer if you watched more than one game of rugby

It doesn't matter what he was expecting, according to you anyway, its still foul play

Fekitoa was expecting to get Zebo below the neck, still foul play

Cane clearly reacted to Henshaws movement and attempted to tackle but you keep making it up as you go along

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:29 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's still against the rules to run into players without making a tackle so again it would be a penalty.

Hypothesising again over something of which we don't know. Although in a way it illustrates a good point - you can't penalise a player for something that might have happenned. You can only penalise a player for what has happenned, so I would guess that the panel have looked at that in real time and thought there is absolutely no way that Cane could have known where Henshaw was going to put his head, so how on earth would Cane know where to put his shoulder in order to make a dangerous tackle, or a tackle at all? He didn't even know Henshaw was there until he collided with him. In real time you can see just how much of a split second it is. No human being can possibly perform a dangerous tackle into another players head in that amount of time.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:33 pm

Yes you can only penalise the player for what happened ie no arm tackle, leading with shoulder and head height. Penalty at the least. For me a yellow.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:34 pm

Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:35 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

You said

'Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.'

That requires a contact/tackle to do so you cant have it both ways

I don't follow at all. He was expecting, in my opinion to have to join 2 upright players at point A which is 2 metres away.  Instead an unexpected collision is forced upon him. He was going to try to join those players.

I find it is alot clearer if you watch it in real time. Once you do this, you realize that it is not humanly possible to do the things that are being claimed.

You would find it a lot clearer if you watched more than one game of rugby

It doesn't matter what he was expecting, according to you anyway, its still foul play

Fekitoa was expecting to get Zebo below the neck, still foul play

Cane clearly reacted to Henshaws movement and attempted to tackle but you keep making it up as you go along

I will try and watch more. I am always up for watching more rugby Ale

I don't believe Cane can possibly react to Henshaw's movement. This is still slowed down a tad and he has no chance.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 AWfte2

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:36 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:37 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So he did try to make a tackle?

No he did not try to make a tackle.

You said

'Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.'

That requires a contact/tackle to do so you cant have it both ways

I don't follow at all. He was expecting, in my opinion to have to join 2 upright players at point A which is 2 metres away.  Instead an unexpected collision is forced upon him. He was going to try to join those players.

I find it is alot clearer if you watch it in real time. Once you do this, you realize that it is not humanly possible to do the things that are being claimed.

You would find it a lot clearer if you watched more than one game of rugby

It doesn't matter what he was expecting, according to you anyway, its still foul play

Fekitoa was expecting to get Zebo below the neck, still foul play

Cane clearly reacted to Henshaws movement and attempted to tackle but you keep making it up as you go along

I will try and watch more. I am always up for watching more rugby Ale

I don't believe Cane can possibly react to Henshaw's movement. This is still slowed down a tad and he has no chance.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 AWfte2

It doesn't even matter if he was reacting, he made a tackle it ended up high

THATS ILLEGAL!!

The panel calling it accidental is based on nothing but them wanting to let him off

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:38 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

How can you say its a correct decision when you have shown you know nothing about the rules and their application?

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:38 pm

marty2086 wrote:
The panel calling it accidental is based on nothing but them wanting to let him off

You are calling the citing panel corrupt and biased?

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:39 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

How can you say its a correct decision when you have shown you know nothing about the rules and their application?

I'm only seeing it as I call it. Henshaw spins into Cane. Accidental contact. Just an unfortunate incident.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:40 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

Ah, foul play in the law book doesn't mean the breaking of a law. That's where you're getting confused, or one of the places.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:40 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
The panel calling it accidental is based on nothing but them wanting to let him off

You are calling the citing panel corrupt and biased?

Im saying it was reported that he would get off BEFORE the hearing , so the decision was made before evidence was heard

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

Ah, foul play in the law book doesn't mean the breaking of a law. That's where you're getting confused, or one of the places.

Accidental. No foul play. Correct decision I believe.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:41 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

How can you say its a correct decision when you have shown you know nothing about the rules and their application?

I'm only seeing it as I call it. Henshaw spins into Cane. Accidental contact. Just an unfortunate incident.

Again, it doesn't matter if its accidental, READ THE FRICKING LAWS!!!

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:42 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

How can you say its a correct decision when you have shown you know nothing about the rules and their application?

I'm only seeing it as I call it. Henshaw spins into Cane. Accidental contact. Just an unfortunate incident.

Again, it doesn't matter if its accidental, READ THE FRICKING LAWS!!!

I've read them all. And I can't see one law that would lead to Sam Cane infringing there.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:42 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

Ah, foul play in the law book doesn't mean the breaking of a law. That's where you're getting confused, or one of the places.

Accidental. No foul play. Correct decision I believe.

Yes, I'm agreeing there, but I've never said otherwise. They stated no foul play and hence not deserving of a red. It was still a penalty. That's where you've getting confused. Stick with rugby though, I know the laws can be confusing to start with!

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:43 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

How can you say its a correct decision when you have shown you know nothing about the rules and their application?

I'm only seeing it as I call it. Henshaw spins into Cane. Accidental contact. Just an unfortunate incident.

Again, it doesn't matter if its accidental, READ THE FRICKING LAWS!!!

I've read them all. And I can't see one law that would lead to Sam Cane infringing there.

Then you're an idiot

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Pete330v2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:46 pm

There's stupid and then there's trying to compare CJ Stander's red carding to Sam Cane's actions.
These guys should really know better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uINQjmxoxok

Pete330v2

Posts : 3780
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:50 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't focus on what the panel said they're only looking at if it should have been a red card, nothing else.

According to the article, they said there was "no foul play" at all. So no penalty. Correct decision.

Ah, foul play in the law book doesn't mean the breaking of a law. That's where you're getting confused, or one of the places.

Accidental. No foul play. Correct decision I believe.

Yes, I'm agreeing there, but I've never said otherwise. They stated no foul play and hence not deserving of a red. It was still a penalty. That's where you've getting confused. Stick with rugby though, I know the laws can be confusing to start with!

How can it be a penalty and be no foul play?

You are right I am still learning!

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:51 pm

Because foul play in this is relating to whether it was a red card or not. They decided it wasn;t.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 2:58 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because foul play in this is relating to whether it was a red card or not. They decided it wasn;t.

I see no inference to that at all. It is the citing commissioner's role to decide whether it is red card worthy or not. If it goes to a hearing then he presumable has decided that it is worthy of a red card.

When the panel dismisses it as "no foul play", there is no automatic assumption that it might still have been a yellow card. If there is "no foul play" then there has not been an offence committed. I would estimate in this case that you are making it up.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:00 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Because foul play in this is relating to whether it was a red card or not. They decided it wasn;t.

I see no inference to that at all. It is the citing commissioner's role to decide whether it is red card worthy or not. If it goes to a hearing then he presumable has decided that it is worthy of a red card.

When the panel dismisses it as "no foul play", there is no automatic assumption that it might still have been a yellow card. If there is "no foul play" then there has not been an offence committed. I would estimate in this case that you are making it up.

No the citing commissioner is merely a referral process not a recommendation one

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:01 pm

It goes to panel if the citing officer thought it should have been red, then the panel decide if it was a red. They aren't there to decide whether it was a penalty. Foul play doesn't mean that a penalty should be awarded ie a law has been broken, but whether it should be red (in this case). Eg you haven't committed foul play if you're offside.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:04 pm

Back to Peyper. Would he/was he asked in by World Rugby referee assessors for a discussion on his performance?

Do refs get a ratings card given to them after each game, highlighting areas they might want to improve on?

SecretFly

Posts : 30915
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:07 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It goes to panel if the citing officer thought it should have been red, then the panel decide if it was a red. They aren't there to decide whether it was a penalty. Foul play doesn't mean that a penalty should be awarded ie a law has been broken, but whether it should be red (in this case). Eg you haven't committed foul play if you're offside.

Exactly. So the fact there was no foul play means Cane was 100% not guilty of the incident he was brought up on charges. He might have been offside. But there was no foul play (dangerous play / misconduct / etc)

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:09 pm

Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:13 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

Yes they did. They decided there was no foul play. He was cited under Law 10.4e which is under "foul play" in the law book.

He was cleared, and the panel felt there was no foul play". So he did not infringe under law 10.4.

This isn't as difficult as your making it.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:15 pm

SecretFly wrote:Back to Peyper.  Would he/was he asked in by World Rugby referee assessors for a discussion on his performance?

Do refs get a ratings card given to them after each game, highlighting areas they might want to improve on?

Not sure about a ratings card, but their performances are scrutinized. Wont make any difference. Nothing has changed since the French game.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:18 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

Yes they did. They decided there was no foul play. He was cited under Law 10.4e which is under "foul play" in the law book.

He was cleared, and the panel felt there was no foul play". So he did not infringe under law 10.4.

This isn't as difficult as your making it.

No, sorry mate you're wrong. It was a no arms high tackle, so clearly breaks the law. Just wasn't a red card, citing panels don't rule on that.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:19 pm

10.4 (g) Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:28 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

Yes they did. They decided there was no foul play. He was cited under Law 10.4e which is under "foul play" in the law book.

He was cleared, and the panel felt there was no foul play". So he did not infringe under law 10.4.

This isn't as difficult as your making it.

No, sorry mate you're wrong. It was a no arms high tackle, so clearly breaks the law. Just wasn't a red card, citing panels don't rule on that.

Yes, sorry but you are incorrect. There was no foul play. So Cane's charge was 100% cleared and should not have even been a penalty.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by wolfball on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:36 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

Yes they did. They decided there was no foul play. He was cited under Law 10.4e which is under "foul play" in the law book.

He was cleared, and the panel felt there was no foul play". So he did not infringe under law 10.4.

This isn't as difficult as your making it.

No, sorry mate you're wrong. It was a no arms high tackle, so clearly breaks the law. Just wasn't a red card, citing panels don't rule on that.

Yes, sorry but you are incorrect. There was no foul play. So Cane's charge was 100% cleared and should not have even been a penalty.

Did you start following rugby last week? This citing panel did not adjudicate that no wrong-doing took place, but rather in their view any wrong doing was suitably punished during the match. This is standard citing panel structure for, I don't know, 5+ years....

wolfball

Posts : 975
Join date : 2011-08-18
Age : 35

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:38 pm

Foul play doesn't mean breaking a law ie you haven't committed foul play if you're caught offside. The citing panel are only there to decide whether the player should have been sent off.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:48 pm

wolfball wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes the panel decided it wasn't a red card offence. They did not decide on whether it was a penalty/yellow.

Yes they did. They decided there was no foul play. He was cited under Law 10.4e which is under "foul play" in the law book.

He was cleared, and the panel felt there was no foul play". So he did not infringe under law 10.4.

This isn't as difficult as your making it.

No, sorry mate you're wrong. It was a no arms high tackle, so clearly breaks the law. Just wasn't a red card, citing panels don't rule on that.

Yes, sorry but you are incorrect. There was no foul play. So Cane's charge was 100% cleared and should not have even been a penalty.

Did you start following rugby last week? This citing panel did not adjudicate that no wrong-doing took place, but rather in their view any wrong doing was suitably punished during the match. This is standard citing panel structure for, I don't know, 5+ years....

Unfortunately you are incorrect on this occasion. The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play". Which means that his actions were not punishable at all.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:49 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Foul play doesn't mean breaking a law ie you haven't committed foul play if you're caught offside. The citing panel are only there to decide whether the player should have been sent off.

He did not commit foul play. Therefrore he was cleared of his charge of foul play. He can't have been penalised or yellowed for foul play if he did not commit any foul play. Correct decision.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:50 pm

Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play? You've been told of your mistake a fair few times by a fair few people. You just wumming as no one can be this slow?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:53 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?

According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.

As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:55 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?

According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.

As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.

Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:56 pm

So which part of foul play is whether he deserved a red card and not broke the law? Do you honestly believe that a playing being offside is foul play? I'm guessing you're wumming for whatever reason people do as your basic English seems a much higher level than your current debating! Fair enough if that's what you do to pass the time, made yourself look a bit silly though!

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:57 pm

Munchkin wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?

According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.

As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.

Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?

Quoting from RugbyFan: 'The panel found that Cane had "not committed an act of foul play".'

I don't read these findings. Too much like an office job Wink But I'd guess RugbyFan is quoting the findings accurately.

SecretFly

Posts : 30915
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 3:58 pm

Munchkin wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you believe if a player is offside they are committing an act of foul play?

According to the laws foul play is law 10.4. Which is what Cane was charged with. The panel found he did not commit an act of foul play. Therefore he should not have even been penalised.

As I said before, it's possible he was offside or wearing a poppy or something but that is not what the citing panel were adjudicating on.

Is there official confirmation that an act of foul play wasn't committed?

The official notes will be interesting if published. I think if the panel stated that Cane's transgression was deserved of a yellow (which they didn't because there was no transgression), then it would be completely facrical because a high tackle to the head should always be a red.

But for now all I can find is this:

Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play . The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play.
The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2016/11/sam-cane-cleared-of-dangerous-tackle-on.html

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 4:00 pm

Guess marty was right 3 pages ago then.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18884
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 19 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum