Wouldn't all caterpillar/box kick setups be offside in the same manner (not that I'd be opposed to anything that stops them) or is it about the back foot of the 9?
Bath v Racing92
Moderator: Puja
-
- Posts: 12354
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
9 rolls it back with their foot to the caterpillar back foot then lifts ?Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:01 pmWouldn't all caterpillar/box kick setups be offside in the same manner (not that I'd be opposed to anything that stops them) or is it about the back foot of the 9?
-
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
To be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:09 pm Really poor from Barbeary. 2 red card offences in the same game must be some kind of record. He's got to get a multi week ban you would have thought. Pity as he did play a big part in the Bath comeback.
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
can the first now be upgraded- as it should.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:15 pmTo be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:09 pm Really poor from Barbeary. 2 red card offences in the same game must be some kind of record. He's got to get a multi week ban you would have thought. Pity as he did play a big part in the Bath comeback.
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
-
- Posts: 12354
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Yeah. Clearly I was struggling to understand the word "handling" there for some reason. It's all so boring either way though.Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:10 pm9 rolls it back with their foot to the caterpillar back foot then lifts ?Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:01 pmWouldn't all caterpillar/box kick setups be offside in the same manner (not that I'd be opposed to anything that stops them) or is it about the back foot of the 9?
Interesting point on Barbeary if that's deemed a straight red before receiving the second yellow.
-
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Why should it?Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:27 pmcan the first now be upgraded- as it should.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:15 pmTo be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:09 pm Really poor from Barbeary. 2 red card offences in the same game must be some kind of record. He's got to get a multi week ban you would have thought. Pity as he did play a big part in the Bath comeback.
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 16084
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Bath v Racing92
Not the question. Do the laws allow it?Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:55 pmWhy should it?Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:27 pmcan the first now be upgraded- as it should.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:15 pm
To be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2022 4:11 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Yellows can be upgraded post game.
So yes. It's a possibility
So yes. It's a possibility
- Puja
- Posts: 18181
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
On the second one, he needs to train himself out of leading with a forearm. He was unlucky in that the dynamics changed on him (and it's definitely just a yellow), but he shouldn't be doing handoffs with a forearm bar and clenched fist anyway.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:15 pmTo be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,fivepointer wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 3:09 pm Really poor from Barbeary. 2 red card offences in the same game must be some kind of record. He's got to get a multi week ban you would have thought. Pity as he did play a big part in the Bath comeback.
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
The first one was a straight red that wasn't given for some reason. Very lucky to escape on the pitch and he'll have to be lucky to escape in the disciplinary court as well.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Leading with the forearm like that is just poor technique. The closed fist element just means you've got no hope of ever arguing it's any sort of hand off. He's a young guy and a rough diamond the Bath coaches need to keep polishing.
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Because imo a straight red, by the laws.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:55 pmWhy should it?Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:27 pmcan the first now be upgraded- as it should.Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:15 pm
To be fair the second one is a fraction of a second reaction time to fend. It is yellow, but saying it is really poor is wrong. After multi views all officials deemed both yellows.,
And why would you get a multi week ban for two yellows? Straight red yeah, but it is simply two yellows. That’s punishment done on the pitch!
Last edited by Banquo on Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
In fairness I asked one question and the opined but I was interested in the former more
Last edited by Banquo on Sun Jan 14, 2024 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Shouldn’t be a rough diamond now, frankly. Pathways and top class experience abound ish
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
36 Prem games at 23. He's not got that much experience yet. Bags of potential.
Jasper Weise was polished in to an international 8 until, what, 26? Not everyone will be the finished article in their early twenties.
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
But tons of dev through pathways and he’s 23. Shouldn’t be a ‘rough diamond’ with the investment. Mind that’s your phrase.FKAS wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2024 6:07 pm36 Prem games at 23. He's not got that much experience yet. Bags of potential.
Jasper Weise was polished in to an international 8 until, what, 26? Not everyone will be the finished article in their early twenties.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9359
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Bath v Racing92
I'll survive.
Mind, I haven't watched the game yet.
-
- Posts: 2498
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am
Re: Bath v Racing92
Barbeary does not have a poor disciplinary record overall, so we shouldn’t overstate things. Outside of the two flashpoint incidents I thought he was fantastic. The rip & turnover against Woki a particular favourite.
-
- Posts: 20890
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Agreed on that- made a positive impact against top notch oppos. The contact issues may simply have been down to having a fraction less reaction time at this level
-
- Posts: 3564
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:19 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
If there was an issue he'd be making head shots every week. Or at least a bit more regularly than one tackle and a clumsy fend in one game.
- Puja
- Posts: 18181
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Bath v Racing92
Welp, he's just been cited for both yellows individually, so that's not great for his England chances.
Puja
Puja
Backist Monk
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9359
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Bath v Racing92
Is there a "ball carrier's school" like the tackle school, we could send him to?
I don't think either alone would keep him out of the 6N.
The first looks like 6 weeks (clumsy not malicious), reduced to 3 because player welfare is just a couple of words, and then reduced to 2 because we can send full-time professionals back to school. Post-RWC I've no faith that he won't be let off this one entirely as the catcher was lowering their height - because that's what the laws of gravity dictate. Maybe we'll get an Aussie panel, and the SH will be admonished for being a short-arse.
The second also looks pure clumsiness, he didn't expect a tackler to be there so soon. Which of course, is no excuse. But tends to mean low ban, probably 2. Reducing it to 1 for a good record would really take the piss on the same day as handing him another ban for dangerous play - so I fully expect that it would get the maximum reduction.
2 weeks would mean missing Bath's matches against Toulouse and Bristol, and a nice rest before the 6N if he's the favoured 8 of the 4 options (What's up with Willis? not seen him on a teamsheet for 6-7 weeks now; so I assume he's not an option).
Is there any precedent for these things between concurrent / consecutive bans? I don't have enough faith in rugby's disciplinary procedures to think they'd be consecutive by default (which, of course, they ought to be).
ETA: Looks like precedent is that the bans would be concurrent - which is... well, rugby, I guess.
I don't think either alone would keep him out of the 6N.
The first looks like 6 weeks (clumsy not malicious), reduced to 3 because player welfare is just a couple of words, and then reduced to 2 because we can send full-time professionals back to school. Post-RWC I've no faith that he won't be let off this one entirely as the catcher was lowering their height - because that's what the laws of gravity dictate. Maybe we'll get an Aussie panel, and the SH will be admonished for being a short-arse.
The second also looks pure clumsiness, he didn't expect a tackler to be there so soon. Which of course, is no excuse. But tends to mean low ban, probably 2. Reducing it to 1 for a good record would really take the piss on the same day as handing him another ban for dangerous play - so I fully expect that it would get the maximum reduction.
2 weeks would mean missing Bath's matches against Toulouse and Bristol, and a nice rest before the 6N if he's the favoured 8 of the 4 options (What's up with Willis? not seen him on a teamsheet for 6-7 weeks now; so I assume he's not an option).
Is there any precedent for these things between concurrent / consecutive bans? I don't have enough faith in rugby's disciplinary procedures to think they'd be consecutive by default (which, of course, they ought to be).
ETA: Looks like precedent is that the bans would be concurrent - which is... well, rugby, I guess.
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm