RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Fekitoa and Cane cited.

How did Fekitoa end up bleeding from near the eyes after the first try?

is this a PR exercise for the lions tour next year?
Feels like i am reading football articles from the UK/IR media.

What I noticed was a lot of off the ball/wrong side of the ruck niggle from the Irish that could have been penalised but probably just required a few words from the ref early on - clearing players out a metre or two more than necessary, holding onto players' boots or shorts while on the ground etc. Just the kind of thing that wouldn't normally be punished in general play but could rule a try out if reviewed in super slow-mo.

That said, Read should have brought it to the refs' attention. The All Blacks should also have learned much faster and adapted to the offside and holding a tackled player rulings.

There's now only a split second window between holding on too long, and giving a tackled player the ability to crawl along claiming he wasn't held. (This is bullshit, by the way. If even one knee hits the ground in a tackle, you are tackled and need to immediately place, pass or release the ball. The laws do not require a player to be physically immobilised before being considered to be tackled.)

I've got no issue Fekitoa copping a ban, if the IRB want to stamp out foul play then I'm happy for them to go after poor tackles like that. But Cane's is ludicrous, it was barely a penalty and if not for the head clash and the injury would have been a complete non-issue. I would put the Sexton roll around the neck as miles worse than what Cane did (or didn't really do); still not deserving a ban of course but if you cite the former then the latter getting off the hook is baffling.

Lizard wrote:What I noticed was a lot of off the ball/wrong side of the ruck niggle from the Irish that could have been penalised but probably just required a few words from the ref early on - clearing players out a metre or two more than necessary, holding onto players' boots or shorts while on the ground etc. Just the kind of thing that wouldn't normally be punished in general play but could rule a try out if reviewed in super slow-mo.

That said, Read should have brought it to the refs' attention. The All Blacks should also have learned much faster and adapted to the offside and holding a tackled player rulings.

There's now only a split second window between holding on too long, and giving a tackled player the ability to crawl along claiming he wasn't held. (This is bullshit, by the way. If even one knee hits the ground in a tackle, you are tackled and need to immediately place, pass or release the ball. The laws do not require a player to be physically immobilised before being considered to be tackled.)

The ref was consistent in being sh*te, for both sides. There were periods where I felt like the ABs threw it forward or knocked it on 10 times in a phase and he basically ignored it, I saw players flying off their feet un-punished the entire game, I thought a couple of the knock downs looked deliberate that weren't called, there was loads of pulling and taking players out around the fringes and holding on so they couldn't rejoin play. But despite all that leniency all it did was make the Smith sinbinning feel completely out of kilter and the double standards on the Sexton neck roll, especially with hindsight of the sightings, grate.

Lizard wrote:
There's now only a split second window between holding on too long, and giving a tackled player the ability to crawl along claiming he wasn't held. (This is bullshit, by the way. If even one knee hits the ground in a tackle, you are tackled and need to immediately place, pass or release the ball. The laws do not require a player to be physically immobilised before being considered to be tackled.)

Agree.

jared_7 wrote:I've got no issue Fekitoa copping a ban, if the IRB want to stamp out foul play then I'm happy for them to go after poor tackles like that.

OK, so why not Sexton as well? That's where the issue with a lack of consistency comes from. If Fekitoa is cited, Sexton should too.

my take on the 3 high tackles

cane on henshaw... contact was between cane's shoulder and henshaw's head. definitely not head to head. loads of stills out there if you want to search. under new directive it's a red... which is harsh. no malice, just mistimed.
sexton on barrett... high tackle, penalty try, yellow card. very much doubt barrett got the ball down but was definitely stopped illegally from doing so
fekitoa on zebo... high tackle, yellow card. arm was a little swingy, so risking red but it would have been harsh.

HV, you are right about the word of the law, but Henshaw's heed was unexpectedly "promoted" after he bounced off Read who in one of several ineffective attempts made by the bearded one on the day.

Just to be a bitch, Sexton's was a much better effort:

Fekitoas citing, fairynuff, not a hell of a lot in it, but only himself to blame and a short stint on the sidelines might be in order to help knock that out of his game.

Cane, I found it hard to see anything in it, it wasn't even like he bounced off the side of the shoulder, as you would in a deliberate shoulder charge, he kind of bounced off of his chest/front of the shoulder as he was falling towards the ground. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Sexton, a miss by the ref I guess, it happens. He wasn't going to give the try either, insisted that the TMO say he had "seen clear evidence of a grounding" or something to that effect, which I don't think there was even though I do think Barrett grounded the ball in all probability. Increasingly seeing this scenario where refs and TMOs are at odds. There needs to be some clarity around the role of the TMO IMO, what the ref can ask, and once he does, what right he has to overrule the TMOs decision.

J Dory wrote:Fekitoas citing, fairynuff, not a hell of a lot in it, but only himself to blame and a short stint on the sidelines might be in order to help knock that out of his game.

Cane, I found it hard to see anything in it, it wasn't even like he bounced off the side of the shoulder, as you would in a deliberate shoulder charge, he kind of bounced off of his chest/front of the shoulder as he was falling towards the ground. Hopefully common sense will prevail.

Sexton, a miss by the ref I guess, it happens. He wasn't going to give the try either, insisted that the TMO say he had "seen clear evidence of a grounding" or something to that effect, which I don't think there was even though I do think Barrett grounded the ball in all probability. Increasingly seeing this scenario where refs and TMOs are at odds. There needs to be some clarity around the role of the TMO IMO, what the ref can ask, and once he does, what right he has to overrule the TMOs decision.

Anyone know who controls which images the tmo sees? For that matter, does the crowd see exactly the same footage as the tmo? Seems pretty easy for the host broadcaster to be selective in what the put on the big screen, you would hope that is not the direction we are heading in.

My take on the Cane tackle : he did lead with the shoulder but happened to catch Henshaw unexpectedly at very the instant he spun out of a tackle by Read. He did try to wrap the arms but was a tad late in doing so. I'm sure there was no harm intended, but leading with the shoulder is illegal and Henshaw was out of the game. Unfortunate for all concerned.
I am against refereeing by outcome, but do not see much difference between a case like this and one where a player gets carded after a challenge in the air, depending on how his opponent lands, which is a matter of sheer chance. I would like to see those kinds of decisions scrapped and refs making a call on the offence per se, not the outcome, which is usually beyond anyone's control.

morepork wrote:HV, you are right about the word of the law, but Henshaw's heed was unexpectedly "promoted" after he bounced off Read who in one of several ineffective attempts made by the bearded one on the day.

Just to be a bitch, Sexton's was a much better effort:

yeah, there was definitely no intent from Cane. I think the yellow is enough for recklessness.

probably better not to use a pic of two guys on the ground when illustrating a high tackle.... though if you went back 5 seconds, you'd definitely see sexton guilty of that offence.

Maybe I like pics of two guys on the ground.

morepork wrote:Maybe I like pics of two guys on the ground.

who doesn't....

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
Hansen should have twatted the bitch.

Wow.

I R Geech wrote:

Vengeful Glutton wrote:
Hansen should have twatted the bitch.

Wow.

non-PC is the new PC. But it's still messed up, obviously.

He's a misogynist prick with an added heaping of unwarranted pretentiousness. I just tune out his bullshit.

I'm pretty sure it's our old "friend" Doctor Faustus, can't remember the various other names he's used on these boards. Sooner or later he let's slip with something that shows his loathing of women, gays, anyone not from his little corner of the planet.

i have a spooky feeling the two citees are going to have the book thrown at them.

hellovating wrote:i have a spooky feeling the two citees are going to have the book thrown at them.

Are the Irish commentators on the citing panel?

Anyone know when the results of the citing process will be out?

any news on why Sexton was not cited?

Next time we play the Irish we should give them tag belts.

Apparently Fekitoa get's a week, seems about right. No word on Cane yet.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all- ... igh-tackle

Fekitoa is probably negotiating a T14 contract in Paris.