NPR

My favorite team after the Springboks.
Great result.

Yep, they did themselves proud.

Could never ever have imagined that it would be Portugal who'd totally reignite my love for rugby.

That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

inactionman wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:03 pm That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

The mitigation was the last second change of direction

ASMO wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:06 pm

inactionman wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:03 pm That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

The mitigation was the last second change of direction

I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

Well done

Awesome

I would love to see them play more.

Let's hope the Boks can add them as a fixture for their EOYT.

inactionman wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:11 pm I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

Mahoney wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2023 10:36 am

inactionman wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:11 pm I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

Surely we're expecting the ball carrier to be trying to avoid being tackled? I've seen a few reds where the tackler has been caught out by the ballcarier not doing what they expected, although to be fair the most egregious - Steward vs Ireland - was overturned. I'm just a bit confused as to how these are being interpreted.

Anyway, my confusion on interpretations of red cards notwithstanding, I'm glad it didn't detract from a very, very enjoyable match.

Mahoney wrote: Mon Oct 09, 2023 10:36 am

inactionman wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:11 pm I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

That's still risky in 2023. Just go lower.