Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

[Arabcheif]

OMG, that's a disgraceful ruling. Who, who is not completely inept thinks that getting kicked in the face isn't dangerous!! Accidentally or not. So if (I know it what iffery). Lets say a stud when into the eyeball. Player loses sight in that eye. This argument is that putting you foot up isn't dangerous!! That's an absolute joke! There's plenty of examples on that twitter link that have resulted in bans, justifiably so. Accidental or not it's dangerous to raise your feet in this way.... If he'd been hit in the air and the rotation brought them up then, that's not his fault and I be like fair enough. That's not they case here though.

That's a poor, poor call. I feel sorry for anyone playing elite level rugby who chase kicks now. You've now got Carte Blanche to kick people in the head "accidentally."

Just nuts.

 

[OB..]

OMG, that's a disgraceful ruling. Who, who is not completely inept thinks that getting kicked in the face isn't dangerous!! Accidentally or not. So if (I know it what iffery). Lets say a stud when into the eyeball. Player loses sight in that eye. This argument is that putting you foot up isn't dangerous!! That's an absolute joke! There's plenty of examples on that twitter link that have resulted in bans, justifiably so. Accidental or not it's dangerous to raise your feet in this way.... If he'd been hit in the air and the rotation brought them up then, that's not his fault and I be like fair enough. That's not they case here though.

That's a poor, poor call. I feel sorry for anyone playing elite level rugby who chase kicks now. You've now got Carte Blanche to kick people in the head "accidentally."

Just nuts.

The mere fact if being kicked in the face is not in itself proof of foul play. Surely we have all seen a player get such a kick when trying to tackle an opponent from behind.

The claim is that Jordie was stretching out his legs in order to slow down his spin. That would only have worked if he was doing a somersault. If there had been no contact with Korobeite, it looks to me as if he might have landed on his back - a reverse somersault. That is not a safe way to jump.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I look forward to players arguing that raising a knee into a tacklers head isn't reckless if they are unbalanced at the time.

I find it strange that people defend Barrett by saying that he was in the air and unbalanced etc, but IMO he placed himself in that position in order to gain an advantage over the opposition. He lifted his leading leg and went studs first towards the Wallaby's line and chasers. If the shoe was on the other foot and Koroibete had slipped over at the last minute, the Barrett's boot missed his face and he took Barrett out in the air would the same people say no red card as the Gold player was unbalanced? I doubt it - they would point out that the actions of the gold player put him in a position for the dangerous or reckless contact to occur and therefore its his fault.

I don't find it at all strange. This is bound to happen when, as I said earlier, players are being encouraged by the Laws to jump as high as they can. They are repeatedly told that if they don't jump higher than the other guy, they will automatically be ruled at fault should anything go wrong. When you ask players to do things that are beyond the margins of safety, mistakes and errors of judgement are going to happen. Should we be strongly encouraging players to take that kind of risk, and then punishing them when they get it wrong?

There is absolutely ZERO doubt in my mind that these sorts of incidents have been set-up as a result of the complete lack of vision shown by those who write the Laws, guidelines and protocols of this game. Some of us here (and not just me) have been predicting this since 2015. The rescinding if the Benjamin Fall RC (NZ v France 2018) was the first sign of a crack in WR's plan to eliminate considerations of intent and their obsession with the idea that blame MUST be apportioned to a player.

The mere fact if being kicked in the face is not in itself proof of foul play. Surely we have all seen a player get such a kick when trying to tackle an opponent from behind.

The claim is that Jordie was stretching out his legs in order to slow down his spin. That would only have worked if he was doing a somersault. If there had been no contact with Korobeite, it looks to me as if he might have landed on his back - a reverse somersault. That is not a safe way to jump.

Conservation of angular momentum applies to any rotation in any direction - sticking a leg out slows the rotation in a forward or a backward somersault.

 

[Dickie E]

Missed seeing this earlier

Firstly, I would say that the blue card is completely unnecessary. Why not just signal with a tap on the side of the head like they do at elite level and in countries where they don't use the blue card.

Secondly, Black card was just a suggestion. You could show both the yellow and the red together, or not card at all. If a player commits such an egregious, intentional act of Foul Play play such as a clear and obvious punch or eye-gouge or head stomp, just take the advice of English former international referee Fred Howard... "When you find yourself pointing to the sideline, you know its a sending off"

Ian, colour of cards not so important. This bit is:

More importantly, the 20 mins is designed to help prevent a game turning into a 1-sided affair, which is a good thing. Heinous foul play will appropriately be dealt with by the judiciary.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, colour of cards not so important. This bit is:

Oh, I agree with that. Sending the player off permanently, and being allowed to replace him after a set period such as 20 minutes or more is a good thing IMO. IIRC crossref suggested something very similar in an earlier discussion a couple of years back. If we are going to RC players for accidents, then it seems wholly inequitable to punish the whole team by putting them down to 14 for the rest of the game.

However, I would like to know whether you support sending a player off with no replacement if they commit an obviously intentional act of violence such as as stomping on a player's head, or biting an opponent's ear, or eye-gouging - you know, stuff like the following...

Richard Loe on Paul Carozza (elbow to the face after the latter scored a try)
Michael Brial on Frank Bunce (a flurry of 9 punches)
David Attoub on Steve Ferris (a vicious eye gouge that got him a 70-week suspension)
Johan Le Roux on Sean Fitzpatrick (Biting his ear, 26 weeks)

.. or would you rather it stay at a 20 min red card, and let the judiciary deal with keeping other players safe from them.

 

[Dickie E]

.. or would you rather it stay at a 20 min red card, and let the judiciary deal with keeping other players safe from them.

this ^^^.

The egregious offender is out of the game for it's duration so no different to the black card.

But the 20 minute rule helps to ensure the game isn't turned into a 1 sided farce which is important.

 

[crossref]

that's my view

if an egregious act of violence creates a one sided game, then I have no sympathy : don't commit egregious acts of violence.

but when what is basically an accident (insufficient care / bad technique >> reckless) and a player had no intention of committing foul play, and we RC him anyway (to encourage more care and better technique) ... then fair enough, but it's silly to turn that particular game into a one-sided farce .

 

[BikingBud]

this ^^^.

The egregious offender is out of the game for it's duration so no different to the black card.

But the 20 minute rule helps to ensure the game isn't turned into a 1 sided farce which is important.

There is no place in the game for foul play. If it turns into a farce then that is of the team's making, too often we see games where the offence committed by repeat perpetrators, they are selected by coaches and DORs that know their temperament and history. At some point the responsibility of the club has to come to the fore and they decide not to select liability players.

But how often does it end in farce?

How often do we see foul play that isn't red carded with the culprit having a significant influence, try or try saving tackle, on the outcome? Isn't that more farcical as it's not only reinforcing foul play but penalising the victims where their player has been removed form the field of play.

Interesting comment from Austin Healey on the Sale Wasps Clip:

"You can do what you want when you're jumping for the ball"

If we want to play rollerball or such like then you will be leaving quite a few fans behind.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is no place in the game for foul play. If it turns into a farce then that is of the team's making, too often we see games where the offence committed by repeat perpetrators, they are selected by coaches and DORs that know their temperament and history. At some point the responsibility of the club has to come to the fore and they decide not to select liability players.

But how often does it end in farce?

How often do we see foul play that isn't red carded with the culprit having a significant influence, try or try saving tackle, on the outcome? Isn't that more farcical as it's not only reinforcing foul play but penalising the victims where their player has been removed form the field of play.

Interesting comment from Austin Healey on the Sale Wasps Clip:

"You can do what you want when you're jumping for the ball"

If we want to play rollerball or such like then you will be leaving quite a few fans behind.

Perhaps we can look at it this way. With a 20 minute red card and that player does not return, the referees might be more willing to go the red card way, knowing that even if they have got it wrong, it is less likely to impact the game itself. I'm not saying that they should, of course, but human nature is what it is.

The way to make players safe from the repeat, violent offender is not to just to remove them from the game in which they commit the offence, but remove them for longer periods. For example, Dylan Hartley with a record of thuggery that includes biting, punching, elbowing, verbally abusing a referee, eye-gouging (actually two counts of gouging in the same game), and head-butting, has spent something like 52 weeks suspended in his career... and probably should have spent longer. Punching should get you sidelined for a couple of months, biting should get you four to five months out of the game, bag-snatching and eye-gouging are attempt to intentionally inflict serious, perhaps permanent injury on the opponent. They should end your playing days permanently.

 

[OB..]

Conservation of angular momentum applies to any rotation in any direction - sticking a leg out slows the rotation in a forward or a backward somersault.

In what direction was he rotating - forwards or backwards?
Why was he rotating?

 

[Arabcheif]

In what direction was he rotating - forwards or backwards?
Why was he rotating?

To be honest, I don't think he was rotating. He'd jumped and leaned slightly back to catch the ball. His left foot was still directly under him, as was his right foot, until he brought it up. Had his foot not made contact with the Aussie lad, he'd have landed just fine. Ian makes it sound like he was on his way to do a back flip of something. This is simply not the case. Also if he hadn't brought his foot up, he'd have landed on both feet, perhaps slightly off balance, but still, would've landed on both feet.

 

[Phil E]

I just don't get Ian's argument.
If I am on a swing and I kick my legs forward then my legs go up and my body goes back.
The opposite of what Ian's suggesting.

 

[Flish]

The cynic in me suggests they're coached to raise the leg to deter anyone from getting too close, although I have no evidence on that one

 

[crossref]

I just don't get Ian's argument.
If I am on a swing and I kick my legs forward then my legs go up and my body goes back.
The opposite of what Ian's suggesting.

don't forget water swirls the other way down the plughole in the southern hemisphere :wink:

 

[OB..]

don't forget water swirls the other way down the plughole in the southern hemisphere :wink:

Despite what you may hear or read, even in some scientific text books, it turns out that the Coriolis force has absolutely no effect on the direction that the water drains from an everyday sink, toilet, shower or bath. It does affect the spin of ocean currents and weather systems such as hurricanes, but on the small scale of a domestic sink the Coriolis force is tiny, and is simply dwarfed by other factors such as the sink shape, differences in temperature or, most likely, residual currents lingering from when the sink was filled with water.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/nov/13/research.science

Some scientists have managed to create a sink where no other factors apply, but that is far from normal conditions.

One check is to use your hand to swirl the outflow round the other way and see if it changes back again.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I just don't get Ian's argument.
If I am on a swing and I kick my legs forward then my legs go up and my body goes back.
The opposite of what Ian's suggesting.

Watch this girl trampolinist at the Rio Olympics from about 3:00 in the video, and I'll come to your swing example after that

See how she rotates faster when her legs and/or arms are tucked in and slower when extended out. This doesn't happen because she throws her legs and arms "forwards", it happens because she is extending her limbs "outwards", away from her centre of rotation to slow down and inwards, closer to her centre of rotation to rotate faster.

What is happening is that she is repositioning some of her mass. That mass has a certain momentum (called "angular momentum" because it is not in a straight line). It maintains that momentum when you move it closer or further away from the centre of rotation. When you move it closer it still has the same momentum, but now it is covering the same distance on a much smaller circle than it was previously - the momentum cannot increase, so the rotation rate increases to conserve the momentum - when the mass is moved outwards, again, the momentum cannot decrease, so the mass has to travel a larger circle, and the rotation rate slows. This called conservation of angular momentum

I can only have one video per post, so I'll answer the swing question in the next post...

 

[Ian_Cook]

I just don't get Ian's argument.
If I am on a swing and I kick my legs forward then my legs go up and my body goes back.
The opposite of what Ian's suggesting.

To answer your question, a swing is essentially a pendulum, the rotation is anchored to the point about which you are revolving (NOT rotating), and the principle is similar but not identical. Yes, throwing your legs forward is what you do on a swing, but that is not what causes the swing arc to increase; its the result. Using your arms to pull the chain into a triangle to shorten the distance to the centre of rotation at or near the bottom of the swing arc, and moving your centre of mass away from the centre of rotation when the swing is stopped, is what causes the increase in swing speed.

I'll let Professor Roger Bowley (University of Nottingham) demonstrate.
NOTE: That demonstration he does in the classroom before going out and using a playground swing is damn near the exact same one we did in High School physics class, right down to the metal weights and aluminium stand)

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/nov/13/research.science

Some scientists have managed to create a sink where no other factors apply, but that is far from normal conditions.

One check is to use your hand to swirl the outflow round the other way and see if it changes back again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWc9SfwnSxM

 

[Dickie E]

that's my view

if an egregious act of violence creates a one sided game, then I have no sympathy : don't commit egregious acts of violence.

but when what is basically an accident (insufficient care / bad technique >> reckless) and a player had no intention of committing foul play, and we RC him anyway (to encourage more care and better technique) ... then fair enough, but it's silly to turn that particular game into a one-sided farce .

so are you in favour of a 3 card system?

 

[SimonSmith]

this ^^^.

The egregious offender is out of the game for it's duration so no different to the black card.

But the 20 minute rule helps to ensure the game isn't turned into a 1 sided farce which is important.

To quote Craig Joubert to Drew Mitchell: "I am not responsible for what this does to the game"