Yeah but I made it obvious ;-)
Printable View
Yeah but I made it obvious ;-)
Yes they do a video review of the match and Vickery is likely to recieve a ciatation or fine for his tackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
By far the worst action during the game was the spear tackle on Olly Barkley, and I'm not just saying that because it was against an England player but because I saw a former team member of mine suffer a broken neck from something very similar. I was stunned that the USA player wasn't red carded for it.
England as a team played poorly, too many line-outs lost to such a sub-standard oponent. The try that USA scored just about summed it all up, if my local club side had let in one that soft they'd have extra training for a week.
I'm not looking forward to Friday :\
watched a rugby match, while waiting for the IndyCar race, for the first time in my life, Ireland vs Namibia.
quite a good sport :D hell better than American Handball :up:
You should have watched the South Africa v Samoa match. One of the best games I've seen for ages. Brian Habana was simply electric :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jso1985
I am! :cheese:Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMetro
Couldn't agree more. That was an ugly tackle if ever there was one I just thought Vickery's tackle was worse because due to the fact that the US players are semi-Pro whereas Vickery is a pro and should have known that. Rugby is always going to have injuries but there's no need to do either of those things. Samoa v SA was physical and the Samoans had a few tackles that were below board as well and the Boks had a few that weren't the best either. I still think Union is a very clean game though. Strange that you get football hooligans when the game is so non-violent whereas Union is inherently violent with all the bodies colliding and such and but I've never heard of Union violence :mark: Who's your pick for the World Cup? I'm biased towards South Africa but I think it's 50:50 between them and NZ at the moment. I'm hoping for a historic re-enactment of the '95 final though :D
Vickery's tackle was stupid and he deserved a yellow card. No arguement about it.
The spear tackle should have been a straight Red as this sort of tackle is out of order.
Overall, it was a game that offered little for England. If they beat them by 70 points, people would say they should have done. If they beat them by 20 points, it's a moral "loss" in the eyes of the media.
USA played out of their socks off and tackled their hearts out. England just didn't spark but perhaps they will learn from this and be able to step up to the mark on Friday.
I would like to see a bit more consistency in the Reffing though. Something as fundemental as advantage after a knock on should be consistant. The ball should not go through half a dozen pairs of hands, from one side of the field to the other, and then be brought back for the Knock on.
Anyway, onto Friday and lets hope the Boks play a clean game for once.
I think the yellow card was appropriate for the spear tackle. It was an isolated (although serious) incident and not a general indicator of how Emmery (the one who was tripped) played the game. A yellow card would have been appropriate for Vickery but if the ref or touch judge doesn't see it then you can't complain. If he doesn't get rubbed out for a game I think he should be warned and the next offence is a game ban.
I'd like to ask why you're worrying about the Boks being dirty when an English player has just been cited by the video ref? :mark: The boks played cleanly this weekend and they came up against harder opposition than the English gave the US ;)
Must say I was impressed by the US and how they played other than the spear tackle of course. As you said they played with heart and you can't help but like that. I'm certain there were a lot of English people who cheered their try :D That's what I love with Rugby. Everyone's happy as long as it's a good fair game and we even boo our own team if they play dirty :)
A really good opening few days for the rugby world cup, great to see some of the small sides, giving it a real go in this tournament :up: I honestly thought Canada were gonna beat Wales :p :
Vickery wiped out for 2 matches! Even I don't think that's fair.
Possibly, but you can't go round tripping players up with your feet, it's not cricket. If it had been a non English player I would've been shouting at the TV, for a few games ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Anyway, anybody but the Small Blacks to win the Cup, they have far too much influence in the running of the game, with the allowance of forward passes, blocking tacklers. And the next RWC in New Zealand, a perfect opportunity to spread the game, by taking it to Japan, so what happens, oh what a surprise, NZ get it. Please...!!!
Yes but even as an anti England rugby team person I think a game would have been more than enough. 2 is just excessive
He shouldn't be there in the first place anyway. He's got some cooking to do. ;) http://www.vickery.tv/
2 Games is harsh but fair I think. I don't know how much of the trip was instinctive and how much was deliberate to stop a man that could have gone on to score a possible try.
If it had been seen by the ref it would have been a yellow but that doesn't excuse it. I just hope that the decisions of the IRB are consistant.
What worries me more is the fragility we seem to have at Fly.
5 weeks for Burger. This is ridiculous............... The Samoans were much more physical and Lima went out of his way to hurt one of the South Africans and gets away with it :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Emerick out for 5 weeks as well. I think that's a bit more fair but still a little harsh. To an American that could be his whole world cup career :mark:
The IRB needs to be more sensible in regards to what they cite and in regards to what the penalty is........ if they keep on like this for the rest of the world cup we're going to see squads with extremely reduced strength just for incidents that should normally go unpunished or get lesser punishments.
In my humble opinion.
Burger shouldn't have been banned.
Vickery should have got a warning or 1 match at the most.
Emerick should have had 2 or 3 matches.
I agree :up: What happened to the days when rugby was played by real men and officiated by "manne" as we say over here :( I'm not condoning foul play but if people are worried about getting hurt, play a safe game like chess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Sometimes there is no mud ;) :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
To quote MJ, " you are not alone, I...." :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Bokke vs All Blacks Final. Go Bokke!!!!!!!
Yup. All of the players supposedly got let of "lightly" because of previous good conduct :mark: I came out and said strong words about Vickery when I saw what he did but for gods sake it could very well have just been a reflex reaction. Surely if he's been good in the past then a warning that the next infringement will incur a more significant punishment would suffice. I think every person in this thread dislikes foul play as much as the next person and would hate to see anyone injured through illegal play, but there has to be a distinction between a one off incident which could just be an oversight and a situation where a player is constantly playing like this with complete disregard for the rules and safety of other.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
How about Habana though! :D Like my sig? ;)
The game has changed from the lumbering grind it used to be into what could be the most brutal professional team contact sport out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Players are stronger, faster and impacting like never before. Things like that spear tackle have no place in the professional game and at the time, it was sickening if you watched how the player landed. I agree with the IRB over this.
The trip was cynical and he deserved the ban. I have no problem with cutting that rubbish out of the sport as I support the hard line the IRB will take with players who back chat the ref. This is Rugby, not Football.
Yes, it's a hard game but lets keep it to rugby and get the cynical tackles and professional fouls out of it so we can see Rugby.
I'm quite happy to see the levels of punishment handed out by the IRB, so long as they stay consistent, something which has been a problem for them in recent years.
I haven't seen the Burger incident but I believe it was for a high tackle? Both that and the spear performed by Emmerick have potential life threatening consequences so the punishment should always be severe.
What I am disappointed with is that the referees deemed them only to be bad enough to issue yellow cards when straight reds should have been issued in both cases.
Here's a photo of the Burger tackle. I don't think it was that bad tbh. Hopefully I can find a video of it when I get home. The team said he was going for the ball and I do honestly think he was going for the ball :mark: It wasn't nice but I don't think it was in the same league as the spear tackle.
http://img.skysports.com/07/09/218x2...kle_568910.jpg
Have you ever actually played Rugby :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I'd say there's a lot more underhand tactics going on rather than these isolated incidents which get singled out. I've been to a Samoa game and they're a bunch of dirty barstewards. Getting lots of punches and other assaults in during scrums and so on, which don't get noticed by the officials. :mark:
Yes but not as much as I'd like to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I also feel that he was going for the ball. Rugby is a full contact sport. People will always get hurt. If it is thought that the contact was deliberate then of course a ban should be enforced. But the general consensus is that the contact was purely as a result of going for the ball and not malicious as Lima's (nicknamed the chiropractor) tackle on Pretorius.......
I understand now why you come up for so much scrutiny on this. Rather than arguing the point you merely try to make the person feel stupid..........
I merely posted the only picture I could find as Carl stated he'd not seen the tackle. It's common sense in this situation to find a bit of video so that Carl can make up his mind based upon something less prone to bias as one persons opinion is more prone to bias than a video clip......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Daniel
If you can figure how to extract this then you may be able to post the video. http://www.superrugby.co.za/default....gby/springboks
Here is another clip.
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...276763239.html
It was a very tough game. Burger himself took a late tackle but that doesn't excuse him trying to take his head off. It was airbourne and dangerous with no obvious intention to take the ball, unless he mistook his head for it.
The entry point for a mid serious tackle which this was classed as is 6 matches so he should be grateful with 4.
As for me making you look stupid, I do nothing of the such. If you look stupid it's nothing to do with me. ;) :D
Perhaps you linked to the wrong pages put neither of those pages seem to have videos on them..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Taking his head off is your opinion of it but the guy next to me at work who is a dyed in the wool England supporter feels that there was no case to answer at all and he plays Union semi-professionally so not everyone agrees with you even though you pass your opinion off as fact for some strange reason.
On the first one, the video is on the right of the page but will not allow me to view. Dont know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The second clip is not a clip but a picture. Slip of the pen you may say.
Taking his head off is a term and also my opinion. I never stated it as fact but the lovely people at the RWC decided that it was illegal and penalised him. That's a fact.
Yes but the lovely people at the IRB thought the quaintly named "Chiropractor"/Lima going out of his way to injure Pretorius was good stuff. Just because it's a "fact" doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong in that case, we were discussing Burger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
It looked a bad tackle as he went in airbourne with a swinging arm, tackled the player with his forearm around the head and was nowhere near the ball. After examining all the relevant data, the IRB concluded that it was a mid seriousness tackle which normally would constitute a 6 match ban but let him off with 4. I understand SA are appealing, I wonder at the wisdom of that.
Your friend isn't a hooker or prop is he. They don't ever think anythings wrong ;)
The point is there should be consistency. As Iain pointed out there hasn't been any. South Africa is perfectly entitled to appeal on the basis that Lima got off with no punishment for what is almost universally agreed as a worse tackle. As Carl said as long as there is consistency then it's all good, but why should some people get away with it and not others? :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
There does need to be consistency but I think the fact that Lima damaged himself might have explained why it didn't. Not argueing with you though. It was high and dangerous with no attempt to wrap an arm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
At least his opponent wasn't airbourne.
Now we're getting somewhere :) The thing is two players can go up in the air together and stuff can happen. So you could argue that he was going for the ball and I feel that this is what he was doing. But Lima blatantly went for the man and tried to hurt him and got away with it. So if Lima's tackle is legal then Burger's must be legal too? ;) Whether someone is injured or not is irrelevant.
Contacting an airborne player isn't illegal. But tackling them is and anyone can see this wasn't a tackle :)
I don't see any point argueing over the Burger sanction. You might not like it but he did a dangerous tackle on an airbourne player and got done. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
What should happen to Lima is different and you can claim that he should have been cited too but leave the old boy a bit of dignity, he's practically royalty.
Just joking, I agree that it seems inconsistant but you cant say that just because one player got away with a high tackle means they all can.
This is distracting from the Rugby the same way as the FIA shambles is detracting from F1. Shouldn't we celebrate what's good and leave the negitivity a bit?
anyone watch the fiji-japan game? was very exciting, despite the errors, it was really close and entertaining to watch :)
watched part of the first half.
thank God I don't understand rugby rules, don't need to get into another not-so-light hearted discussion here :p :
Oi! As a former prop, I reject that claim :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Just wanted to mention I couldn't find a video. The one Flat Tyres posted can only be viewed by SA people. Bliddy racism! :p
So lets just agree to disagree.
Or agree that the IRB have the benefit of the information that we dont :laugh: Just messing with you Danny Boy ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I played in the days where if you were on the wrong side of the ruck, you got your head, back and ar$e trampled until you got out the way and released the ball. Used to go home with huge red welts and stripes down my back but I never complained. Modern day rugby is fast becoming a spin off of the joke that is Diving...I mean Soccer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Yebo Gogo :up: He's the quickest man in Rugby at the moment!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Siggy looks good :up: :)