Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2016 Super Rugby] Kings vs. Jaguares (Round 14) 27/05/2016
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 799908" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>Looks quite clear to me. Sec 58 of the video in the link. He entered the ruck with his shoulder hitting the neck/head of jaguares' player. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Not sure why you bring this up again. We agree on this. The problem is not that they are being punished for foul play. The problem is that there is quite enough evidence to suggest that other people are not. </p><p></p><p></p><p>You are missing the point. The rules have been implemented quite clearly for things like this in the past. </p><p></p><p>Intention is not relevant and neither is touching the eye itself ("eye area" is enough). WR has sanctioned reckless though unintended actions near the eye area (doesn't have to be the eye) in the past. </p><p>Both Etzebeth and de Jager's actions are reckless and against laws of the game. </p><p></p><p>What they did violates rule 10.4 f and 10.4 m, both foul play. The "eye area" part's relevant part comes from <a href="http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p></p><p>So when you you claim that the refs have been harsh against foul play, i see some evidence to the contrary. And i'm not speculating. I try to eliminate my bias by providing facts and the evidence to support them. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I do not believe for a second there is a conspiracy. I do believe we've been unlucky and that is precisely why i understand some people's frustration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 799908, member: 55747"] Looks quite clear to me. Sec 58 of the video in the link. He entered the ruck with his shoulder hitting the neck/head of jaguares' player. Not sure why you bring this up again. We agree on this. The problem is not that they are being punished for foul play. The problem is that there is quite enough evidence to suggest that other people are not. You are missing the point. The rules have been implemented quite clearly for things like this in the past. Intention is not relevant and neither is touching the eye itself ("eye area" is enough). WR has sanctioned reckless though unintended actions near the eye area (doesn't have to be the eye) in the past. Both Etzebeth and de Jager's actions are reckless and against laws of the game. What they did violates rule 10.4 f and 10.4 m, both foul play. The "eye area" part's relevant part comes from [url=http://www.worldrugby.org/wr-resources/World_Rugby_Handbook/EN/pubData/source/files/Regulation17_1.pdf]here[/url]. So when you you claim that the refs have been harsh against foul play, i see some evidence to the contrary. And i'm not speculating. I try to eliminate my bias by providing facts and the evidence to support them. I do not believe for a second there is a conspiracy. I do believe we've been unlucky and that is precisely why i understand some people's frustration. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
[2016 Super Rugby] Kings vs. Jaguares (Round 14) 27/05/2016
Top