Printable View
Reds looked much better, though I would have said they got a few lucky decisions in their 28 - 26 win, that was, until Karmichael Hunt got a yellow card for probably one of the worst 'high tackles' I've seen.
When I used to spar in tournaments (in another sport, a long time ago), not protecting your head was also a foul - I don't know why we don't consider it in rugby.
That was tough on Hunt. But that's how it is now - minimum sanction is a yellow. No discretion. That is the worst part. I think the ref was uncomfortable because it was obvious the player ducked so he emphasised that it was a swinging arm. That's bullshit too. Wouldn't have been if he didn't duck into the tackle. I'd need a replay to confirm it, but I reckon the Shorks player laid down. Expect more of the same
I disagree that it was reckless (see http://www.worldrugby.org/news/213339?lang=en ) and hence the minimum sanction is a penalty, and I think would have been more reasonable. I was also a bit soured by the obvious bits where someone was trying to rip a Reds player's head off and no sanction occurred. (Until next week - I can live with it then.)
So do I, but the ref said the swinging arm was.Quote:
Originally Posted by maelkann
I think Mvovo ducked but not much, and hunt could easily adjust his arms to a lower height with less force and hence is reckless. So to me it is a yellow card. You need to remember the reason that they are much stricter is to try reduce head injuries and concussions.
I think most people accept that. Don't agree Hunt could have adjusted. You don't play Rugby at slo-mo replay pace.
While I think it was pretty unlucky for hunt, I agree with the result in light of the new interpretation. I was, however, disappointed at the amount of head contact that WAs ignored at the ruck
Thought they did play better, but were still dismal. Think the Sharks lost the game rather than the Reds win, and the Reds got away with loads of forward passing, especially in one try. Looking forward to next week for sure!