DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64612--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: Quinston Churchill
Date: April 25, 2021, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Comet link ---
>
> I am feeling worried about it to be honest. I think his ban
was 4 or 5 weeks last time. This incident was way less severe
and was possibly unintentional. However, the bottom line is that
it is a second incident of elbow to face in a season.
>
> I hope they recognise that it wasn't severe (3 weeks) but then
only add on a week for 'repeated' offence. I also hope they
include the European weekends which means he only misses two
games.
>
> I am doing a lot of hoping!!!!
>
> It is really frustrating because he is a great player and he
doesn't need to get involved in this nonsense. He will be
missed. I am gutted that we rose to their wind-up tactics.
Carley's attitude does not help the general mood of a match
either, I am afraid to say. I think all of the other refs do a
great job and are an important part of making each game
enjoyable. Less so with him, I am afraid.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yep. I feel exactly the same.
Lasike looked in good nick in the reserve game, but Esterhuizen
is so much more than big carries and we’ll really miss him at a
critical point of the season.
#Post#: 64613--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: FatQuin
Date: April 25, 2021, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not really the point I was making JG. What I don’t understand
is why, given Carley thought it was such a wallop did they not
then check the player? He’s just been hit in the head and
enough to warrant a red but let’s not let the physio check him
over and play on. Maybe the physio did and I missed it.
#Post#: 64615--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: DOK
Date: April 25, 2021, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Carley recognised it wasn't that big a deal as regards a
"strike to the head". But they have this protocol they have to
go through in these circumstances, and it doesn't allow for
mitigation if the head is involved unless the player hit is
ducking into it. By the letter of the law it was a red card,
which doesn't mean the other guy needs an HIA.
#Post#: 64616--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: poorfour
Date: April 25, 2021, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FatQuin link ---
>
> Not really the point I was making JG. What I don’t understand
is why, given Carley thought it was such a wallop did they not
then check the player? He’s just been hit in the head and
enough to warrant a red but let’s not let the physio check him
over and play on. Maybe the physio did and I missed it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Carley was just following the guidance. It was straight contact
to the head, and he didn’t consider there to be any mitigation.
At the disciplinary panel, I imagine the lack of force, the
amount of provocation and the fact that he was already gripping
the shirt and arguably just trying to push Rona away will be set
against the deliberate nature of the contact and his previous
history.
It’s hard to call what ban he’ll cop, but my best guess is that
it’s low end with some mitigation. He might get away with 3
weeks... though whether they will fiddle it with a euro round
coming up that Quins aren’t in I don’t know.
#Post#: 64619--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: BedfordshireBoy
Date: April 25, 2021, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> Because it doesn't matter how much damage you do. Don't
deliberately hit people in the face!
>
--- End Quote ---
Personally, pretty sure that was not the case.
#Post#: 64621--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: quinalan
Date: April 25, 2021, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Origami paper puff gets red card shocker.
#Post#: 64622--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: April 25, 2021, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FatQuin link ---
>
> Not really the point I was making JG. What I don’t understand
is why, given Carley thought it was such a wallop did they not
then check the player? He’s just been hit in the head and
enough to warrant a red but let’s not let the physio check him
over and play on. Maybe the physio did and I missed it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because no-one thought it was "such a wallop" - you don't need
it to be for a deliberate strike to the face to be a red card.
#Post#: 64627--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: J Scott
Date: April 26, 2021, 1:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that makes it red is the protocols and correctly
so, however I’m sure a normal tackle from AE would be more
powerful and damaging. Long ban coming his way I fear.
It was just a tussle and even pre RWC it would have just been a
stern word and yellow at worst. We have options to bring in to
play 12 they’re not quite AE but we have to be able to win
without him.
#Post#: 64628--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: FatQuin
Date: April 26, 2021, 1:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know you don’t “need” it to be a big but my reading of the
laws makes me wonder why, if there is room to move, did that
become an obvious red to many people. From what I can see on
the World Rugby site, you are able to take into account
proximity to the head and force and outcome. So I accept if you
only look at the first but, it’s a red but if you consider the
other elements, it really wasn’t (IMHO). However Carley seems
to think it was more than just where it landed and so if he
thought it was both forceful enough and/or the outcome was
worrying enough for a red, why no check on Rona? It really is
just me wondering out loud, that’s all.
#Post#: 64630--------------------------------------------------
Re: André Esterhuizen
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: April 26, 2021, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Which bit of the laws are you reading for that, FatQuin?
9:12
--- Quote ---
> A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone.
Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting,
punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any
part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or
knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.
--- End Quote ---
I don't think the laws regarding a deliberate strike to the
opponent care at all about proximity to the head, force, or
outcome. Those are things that the tackle laws care about, sure,
because those are things that can happen during a (failed)
attempt to make a legal tackle.
Smacking someone in the face has risked a red card for years. It
doesn't need to be hard enough to cause a concussion. There's no
check on Rona because there's nothing to suggest he needed one.
In the 'A' game Botta get yellow carded for a punch that missed.
It doesn't seem unfair that a strike that connects with the jaw
is a red, even if it's not hard enough to cause damage.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 11
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page