Roar Rookie
Joined May 2024
13.1k
Views
8
Published
122
Comments
Lifelong rugby fan, former player, coach and referee. Having worked in media and marketing for the past few years, I have a keen interest in the commercial side of sport. Smart enough to know that I have some biases, not smart enough to know what they all are. Thoughts are my own.
Published
Comments
It shows the games health is on the improve, and that the Nine Network sees value in the product.
Bailey has quietly overseen the reinvigoration of the Australian Men’s Test squad and set up our team for long term success.
The cricketing world could soon be in store for major upheaval following reports that ICC Chair Jay Shah will meet Cricket Australia Chair Mike…
Joe Schmidt’s tenure as Wallabies coach hasn’t been the smash and grab of Eddie Jones nor injury-plagued reign of Dave Rennie. Instead, we’ve seen…
Amongst all the hubris from the weekend’s thumping of Wales, seemingly the biggest talking point is whether Samu Kerevi’s 42nd-minute high hit on Welsh…
It’s upfronts season in media land. For the uninitiated – this is the time of year where traditionally, TV networks will announce their suite…
As I’ve discovered just recently, the simple mention of an Australia-only domestic rugby competition is a great way to start to conversation among fellow…
The moment the practicalities of an Australia-only professional competition are interrogated, massive holes begin to appear.
Absolutely – that’s the pathway. We seem to rely heavily on the internationals for this rather than SRP. Fortunately Rugby in Australia is uniquely placed to do this, relative to our rival winter codes
More winners than losers from Rugby Australia’s new broadcast deal, even though casual viewers appear to miss out
He’s only put his hand up for the non-test matches (Aus/NZ combined and maybe Pasifika/Indigenous), which don’t fall under WR eligibility as far as I know – so RA could pick him if they wanted to.
Can’t see it happening though.
Israel Folau dragged Australian rugby through the mud. RA can't allow him to face the Lions
Every news organisation that reports on Rugby has picked it up – it’s news, irrespective of your opinion of it’s merit.
Israel Folau dragged Australian rugby through the mud. RA can't allow him to face the Lions
Its not that farfetched though. Folau is still playing top level rugby, and given the massive fallout he had and the seeming willingness to break bread – you can see why it’s a story, even if he’s unlikely to be selected.
FWIW if Tim Horan held a presser putting his hand up I reckon most rugby journos would pick up that story too
Israel Folau dragged Australian rugby through the mud. RA can't allow him to face the Lions
Because he publicly announced his intention to play and like it or not, it’s newsworthy.
Israel Folau dragged Australian rugby through the mud. RA can't allow him to face the Lions
This is specifically for the combined Aus-NZ game (and I suppose the pasifika-indigenous team too) that Folau recently put his hand up for.
Wallabies vs Lions are test matches, and he is ineligible.
RA should pick Israel Folau for Lions match to help heal division: An open letter to Phil Waugh
Since it isn’t a test match, RA can write the eligibility criteria however they like. If they really wanted to select Folau there is nothing stopping them.
RA should pick Israel Folau for Lions match to help heal division: An open letter to Phil Waugh
Great article –
There is no doubt that selecting him would likely bring on as much public condemnation as there would be public support, and so I wonder whether there is enough will inside Australian Rugby to deal with the inevitable firestorm that would come from his selection when RA would much rather be talking about the Lions tour in a positive light.
Pragmatically – This could just be a distraction for them, with minimal upside.
RA should pick Israel Folau for Lions match to help heal division: An open letter to Phil Waugh
It’s a strawman argument because from the outset – my entire point has been none of you (even the author who admits it in his opening lines…) have any conclusive evidence that shows definitive head contact, and to counteract this you and others in the thread constantly change the topic – talking about a shoulder charge, lateness of the hit, the existential threat of head contact injuries. That’s literally what a strawman argument is – and I have no interest debating those points.
“We were provided no other evidence to contradict what our eyes and the involved player provided.” Mate – you have several. The TMO clearing the hit, no post game citing, The Match day doctor (both have access to more angles than you – if it’s as bad as you say, where was the HIA?) It is absolutely possible that all of those independent systems failed here, but in lieu of a another video that shows in detail the point of contact, stacked up against a single 2D camera angle – all of these alone are enough to cast doubt.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Ok so penalise and suspend players for tackles that are legal, but look bad – so we can be seen to be doing something about head contact, got it.
And we can safely assume no ping in the mouthguard as that would trigger a HIA, which didn’t happen. Not a strawman argument, in fact it’s central to my original point.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Unless of course you’re a TMO yourself – then you assume that it’s been reviewed too quickly, but this is not based on any relevant experience.
I don’t know how a lot of things work but I don’t automatically assume they’re done wrong.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Another strawman argument. Question raised by the article rely on head contact occurring.
“The Bigger Picture” of protecting players from head contact injuries is completely irrelevant if there is no head contact at all.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Sure move them offsite – but FWIW they sit in a quiet box with headphones on listening to the referee mic. Not sure how they could be influenced by the crowd when for all intents and purposes they are blissfully unaware of it.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
So this the crux of your argument now
“Seems to quick for me”
How can you come to the conclusion that it was mathematically impossible to review another angle in that time. The incident itself takes about 2 seconds to occur from pass to hit, and they just need to see 1 angle showing a gap between lynaghs head.
Are you trained on the technology TMO use? Do you know what they use? I don’t know how a car engine works – doesn’t mean I think its witchcraft.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Nice, another strawman argument
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Ok so the TMO, the match day doctor, the citing commissioner and probably even the reds team doctor – despite all of them being independent of each other and having more angles to available to them in real time – they all got it wrong;
But Ben and Co got it right because they saw a single grainy clip that’s effectively a 2D image.
Got it
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Re the HIA – if you extend your line of thinking a little further beyond questioning why he didnt get one and stopping there – you might land at maybe those processes didn’t in fact fail – and then conclude maybe he wasn’t hit in the head?
HIAs for high force head contact are mandatory, and the reds have shown caution before. The fact he didn’t get one probably says it wasn’t needed, so why?
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
So you think the TMO, the Match Day Doctor, the Citing Commissioner, his mouthguard were collectively all wrong, all Because you have one clip of the worlds worst camera angle as your smoking gun?
“Yeah, nah – what do they know! I saw it on my phone!”
Cmon Ben – you can’t be so stubborn… Even the author acknowledges in his opening lines that they have no idea themselves, then inexplicably proceeds to write an article defending the position they have no idea about. We have seen before how a different camera angle of the same incident completely changes how its judged. It happens literally every weekend.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
No, Im saying that its unlikely either of them made a mistake. no ping in the mouthguard, and nothing from the match day doctor (who literally sit pitchside watching replays of every single collision in the game).
Probably infers we didnt have head contact, right? Its unlikely that both failed – more likely that the right decision was made.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Ha! If you think you have enough evidence to conclusively determine there is head contact, Im guessing the reason you’re a former whistleblower blower and no longer current wasn’t your call… maybe improve your argument before settling on petty insults.
No idea on the weather in Dunedin – its raining at home in Brisbane
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Thats a strawman argument and not the point of the article. The authors whole argument centers around possible head contact, and making their judgement off a single replay from a poor angle which they agree they are basing their frustration on. If you’re worried about the shoulder charge or late hit write about that then, otherwise stay on topic.
If you believe so strongly that he’s been hit illegally, email Sky Sport NZ and get the other angles that they have – because otherwise, all of the other circumstantial evidence (no HIA, no mouthguard ping, no citing, the TMOs language) suggests there was no head contact
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Agree, lets see them. And until we have more evidence not jump to convict
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
We have a single, horrible camera angle that without doubt looks bad, but cannot be used as the key bit of evidence to determine head contact – especially when its the only thing we’re going off.
TMO and Match Day doctor both have access to a multiscreen monitor where they can replay any angle they want immediately and in slow motion. They can both review these in real time, completely independent of what is put to air in the broadcast suite. Hard to believe that both of the those processes failed for the same incident, and the mouthguard as far as we know didn’t ping either.
It is more likely that rather than being an error by the doctor, the TMO, and the mouthguard technology – that the camera angle shown deceptively looks like head contact, when it wasn’t at all. Whether it was late, no arms etc is a different argument.
Author does make a great point though re replays – why didn’t the host broadcaster show any other angle of the multiple available to them?
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
Its not irrelevant if there wasn’t head contact though. We have one shitty camera angle that no doubt looks bad but isn’t enough to 100% sure they hit his head. TMO and match-day doctor have all possible angles available to them in real time that are completely independent of the broadcast. No mouthguard ping or HIA further promote this theory (unless you believe the processes around the TMO, the mouthguard ping and match day doctor ALL failed).
Author makes a great point though – why are we shown multiple angles of some things and none of others? Makes for an incredibly poor experience when things like this happen and we can’t make a straight determination of the facts.
The latest assault on Tom Lynagh was shocking. Super Rugby is offering him no protection or justice
That’s the way all sport is going. And Super rugby has never not been paywalled in Australia, yet casual viewers still exist.
More winners than losers from Rugby Australia’s new broadcast deal, even though casual viewers appear to miss out