theVersatile wrote: » Of course if the laws surrounding shoulders not dipping below hips were employed more strictly, situations like this would happen less often.
theVersatile wrote: » Obviously, but the point is that cleaners nowadays are taught to win the height battle, get square and wrap. The cleaner here is about six inches from the ground. Obviously it's still atleast a yellow due to the nature of the contact, but it is exactly what coaches are looking for.
Dog Botherer wrote: » apart from Mr Summers above, i have yet to see a single person, other than the referee of course, who thought that was a good clear out.
randomname2005 wrote: » And the pundits
OneLungDavy wrote: » So Quinlan, BOD and Hartley think it's not a red? Maybe they, the ref and TMO are correct. I thought it was a red myself, but I'm here sitting in an arm chair.
Kraftwerk wrote: » Well Quinlan says its technically a red according to the laws. He disagrees with the law from what I gather. Hartley never had a good understanding of what constitutes a red given he's got the worst disciplinary record in the game. The TMO decided not to answer when he was asked if he agreed with the ref. BOD usually backs the ref regardless. He's as bland and inoffensive a pundit as you can get in rugby. So we're left with the ref who's quite clearly French and can't be trusted.
OneLungDavy wrote: » And that leaves the expert opinion of Kraftwerk :pac::pac:
irishbucsfan wrote: » The coaches are not looking for their player to be sitting down off the field for 10 minutes while they’re down to 14 men. Technique is irrelevant here. It’s done now anyway. Ref will have to defend it later on to the assessors. Wouldn’t have affected outcome so probably not worth losing too much sleep over.
OneLungDavy wrote: » And the TMO. Pretty much every expert I've heard from so far other than Reddan, maybe we are wrong.
lawrencesummers wrote: » There is certainly a bias. VDF was fine, played on, wasn’t cut. If the contact with in fact with the head then it probably shouldn’t happen, but it’s rugby and these things happen in collisions. The drama and over reaction by some people is just another example of the softness of today’s society on many levels. Man up a small bit.
Kraftwerk wrote: » BOD usually backs the ref regardless. He's as bland and inoffensive a pundit as you can get in rugby.
lawrencesummers wrote: » A hollow threat of violence has no place on a civilized forum.
Strumms wrote: » He’s considering ‘brand’ O’Driscoll whenever he opens his mouth... Post playing he’s if you are to believe some media sources , made over a million euros from both media/punditry and appearing in various advertisement campaigns...o2, Gillette, a newspaper was it The Times ? He’s about as far removed from a Dunphy type as you can get... he on that basis, very marketable, but a not a very good pundit.
Deusexmachina wrote: » Get up the yard. O Driscoll is a very knowledgable pundit who actually offers insightful and considered feedback when discussing rugby. Similar to ROG in that respect. You resent him making money from his profession?
Tim Robbins wrote: » On the VDF head incident, it's a minimum Yellow. Only reason why it is not a Red is that you could say it is mitigated by * an attempt to wrap * VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others. So I think if you were to ask Ref's they would go Yellow or Red. I thought it was really bizarre. With so much focus now on the risk to the head, it is not good to see this type of incident with video replays not been sanctioned.
Burkie1203 wrote: » VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault. An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?
