Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[ruggabee]

I don't think a paused photo of him about to hit the ground proves that. He was rotating, to me he landed simultaneously more on his kneck then his head or shoulder...

Regardless if i'm right or wrong you are literally arguing about milliseconds here, in detail and somethign the Referee would not have access to.

if he hit his head first or second the effect would have been instantaneous and the damage similar. He could have rolled up and across his neck.

I paused and played to that very instant he hit the ground. The frames afterwards were of his side cushioning into the ground followed by his head whipping down, which also happens in an ordinary tackle. At no point does he roll over onto his neck.

edit. He got a week less than the minimum sanction that can be given.

 

[munstermuffin]

I paused and played to that very instant he hit the ground. The frames afterwards were of his side cushioning into the ground followed by his head whipping down, which also happens in an ordinary tackle. At no point does he roll over onto his neck.

edit. He got a week less than the minimum sanction that can be given.

He didn't it was reduced from the minimum because of his disciplinary history.

 

[goodNumber10]

I paused and played to that very instant he hit the ground. The frames afterwards were of his side cushioning into the ground followed by his head whipping down, which also happens in an ordinary tackle. At no point does he roll over onto his neck.

edit. He got a week less than the minimum sanction that can be given.

LOL!!! it's CSI Ravenhill!

"Stop, rewind, zoome in, pause, zoom in again, enhance... erase evidence i don't like!"

 

[Amiga500]

I get the point/issue completely i just think you are looking for a way to justify your anger towards Garcia.

It wasn't, it was followed to the letter of the law...

You either get the issue and are being argumentative for the sake of it, or are being a little thick and not understanding it at all.


The interpretations* of the laws cannot be fundamentally changed from day-to-day without either prior notification, or accepting there will be anger at the first implementation of the re-interpretation.

*or, if the interpretations of the law will remain as they did prior to Saturday, then a referee has went and essentially made the rules, as implemented on the field, up as he went along.

 

[ruggabee]

He didn't it was reduced from the minimum because of his disciplinary history.

Yeap I read that.

LOL!!! it's CSI Ravenhill!

"Stop, rewind, zoome in, pause, zoom in again, enhance... erase evidence i don't like!"

Lol wtf is your problem? It took me a minute to pause it at the instant he hit the ground just so we could both see for ourselves. If you want to disagree then f***ing disagree but don't go mocking the person who's trying to have a level headed discussion with you.

 

[goodNumber10]

Lol wtf is your problem? It took me a minute to pause it at the instant he hit the ground just so we could both see for ourselves. If you want to disagree then f***ing disagree but don't go mocking the person who's trying to have a level headed discussion with you.

Calm down, it was just a light hearted jibe at you going to the extent of taking a screen grab.... I don't agree, but as i said earlier you are arguing about Milliseconds and using a tool the referee had no access to to make your point. It's now 5 days after the incident and we're only just looking at this picture, it's not unreasonable for the ref to believe he landed on his head. (i still agree witht he ref - especially if you take real time decision making into account)

 

[ruggabee]

Calm down, it was just a light hearted jibe at you going to the extent of taking a screen grab.... I don't agree, but as i said earlier you are arguing about Milliseconds and using a tool the referee had no access to to make your point. It's now 5 days after the incident and we're only just looking at this picture, it's not unreasonable for the ref to believe he landed on his head. (i still agree witht he ref - especially if you take real time decision making into account)

He had a big screen with slow motion and different angles that he was analysing for a good few minutes. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[goodNumber10]

You either get the issue and are being argumentative for the sake of it, or are being a little thick and not understanding it at all.

To be honest i was about to level the exact same accusation against you with out the insults...

The interpretations* of the laws cannot be fundamentally changed from day-to-day without either prior notification, or accepting there will be anger at the first implementation of the re-interpretation.

*or, if the interpretations of the law will remain as they did prior to Saturday, then a referee has went and essentially made the rules, as implemented on the field, up as he went along.

do you understand what interpretation means? more explicitly do you get what "open to interpretation" means?

The laws are guidance, they cannot be explicit because they would be literally volumes long. The letter of the law gives the referee an ultimate sanction against an incident and leaves the rest open to his interpretation of the incident - so i repeat he was by the letter of the law right to give a red.

You dont' agree, fine, i do. So does the panel, and a lot of other people, it's done now, you'll just have to win it next year now.

 

[goodNumber10]

He had a big screen with slow motion and different angles that he was analysing for a good few minutes. We'll agree to disagree.

Regardless, it is still Milliseconds and i maintain if you think he does or he doesn't it makes no difference - his head hit the ground and did so because of the fall - wether it was first or second by the smallest of delays possible is irrelevent to this discussion.