• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Premiership Rugby 21/22 - Rd 19

BT sport was literally bringing out the lube today when talking about Sarries. The amount of times they talked about Sarries missing players despite Tigers not fielding 11 regular starters the first what 50 minutes or so.
Let alone the mental gymnastics you are using to justify a hit that the player didn't even try to go lower. It's laughable that you think that Murimurivalu is a red and not the head hit.

Mind I don't expect much different from a club that has to use the jerry springer book of showbiz to try generate crowd noise. (A bit uncalled for but Loz commentating Tigers winds me up so damn much)
 
Last edited:
Highlights suggest Gloucester and Northampton mostly played a super rugby game. Defending optional and you're allowed to pass forward so long as it looks cool
 
Highlights suggest Gloucester and Northampton mostly played a super rugby game. Defending optional and you're allowed to pass forward so long as it looks cool

Tbh Northampton were the better team until Rees-Zammit scored but once that happened we woke up.
 
Anyone else seen the DVDM red card? Ruled as a forearm smash to the face but seemed to me like a slightly botched fend with a low degree of danger. A 'rugby incident' if you will. Seemed unbelievably harsh to me and spoiled my fantasy team's weekend!
 
Anyone else seen the DVDM red card? Ruled as a forearm smash to the face but seemed to me like a slightly botched fend with a low degree of danger. A 'rugby incident' if you will. Seemed unbelievably harsh to me and spoiled my fantasy team's weekend!

It's a botched fend, that ends up as a punch to the face. Not sure how any "punch to the face" can be defended as "not a red"; even if it's not a closed fist.
 
I don't see it that way at all. Yellow at worst IMO.

If that's call a punch, you can fight me any time :p
I'm a SH - my job is inspire, and take punches, (and then hide behind my locks) not give them
 
Seriously though, I can't stand DVDM but I was really surprised it was a red. Yes there's contact with the head but not a high degree of danger. Not sure how mitigation is applied in this kind of situation, but I guess you could argue Rowe was coming in to make a very upright tackle? He only goes lower after the fend.
 
The fact that the tackler was upright gives even less justification for stiff-arming him in the face. Like, if the tackle was coming in low, would van der Merwe have fended off the air above his head?

The guy is 6'5 and has been playing pro rugby for 6 years, so he's presumably learned to aim any hand-offs mostly downwards by now.

I'm usually pretty meh on card decisions and this is no exception but it's one of the easier red cards that people find controversial imo, since he could have just, not done that. I've more sympathy for the head-on-head ones where the defender obviously had no intention of the resulting collision but gets a red anyway.
 
The fact that the tackler was upright gives even less justification for stiff-arming him in the face. Like, if the tackle was coming in low, would van der Merwe have fended of the air above his head?

The guy is 6'5 and has been playing pro rugby for 6 years, so he's presumably learned to aim any hand-offs mostly downwards by now.

I'm usually pretty meh on card decisions and this is no exception but it's one of the easier red cards that people find controversial imo, since he could have just, not done that. I've more sympathy for the head-on-head ones where the defender obviously had no intention of the resulting collision but gets a red anyway.
Watch VDM eyes. He is looking to go high at the defender. It was aimed high and going upwards.
 
As a scotland and edinburgh fan i have actually been a bit conserved about this happening. I have felt VDM always hands off quite high and leads with a forearm, surprised he hasn't been caught before now
 
I can see an agrument that says this is harsh given the low degree of danger, but he does so much wrong here (arm not straight, heel of the hand not plam, ending with forearm to face contact), I don't see that he can complain about the outcome and has brought it on himself.

It would be interesting to hear from the referee (or others) what thought process was used to reach the decision, particularly as it is so poorly defined in the law book. Maybe it's my inner pedant coming out, but I can see an argument that says that as the arm was bent and the contact started with the heel of the hand to the face and ended up with his forearm there, this wasn't a hand off at all and shouldn't be assessed as such. If you accept this, it has to be assessed as "Punching or striking with hand, arm", which is a straight red and a couple of weeks off.
 
The amount of South Africans in the Sale team today is very wrong!
Yet all the foreigners in the chiefs side are fine cause they're from multiple nations instead of one?

Would've thought someone with Scots in their name would appreciate a side stacked with south Africans anyway
 
Yet all the foreigners in the chiefs side are fine cause they're from multiple nations instead of one?

Would've thought someone with Scots in their name would appreciate a side stacked with south Africans anyway
By my count only 7 non EQP in the Chiefs side against 12 in Sale's? 30% vs 52% is quite a difference.
 
Meh, what do you want me to do about it? I'm not in charge of recruitment
Just boring seeing people moaning about South Africans as if their side will only sign from the academy and they didn't spend all the pre-match talking about the importance of Kirsten and Vermuelen
 

Latest posts

Top