Controversial red card overshadows Waratahs win; NZ Herald

They threatened to throw it away in a see-sawing last half hour, but the NSW Waratahs have secured a 32-30 win over the Stormers at Newlands, in Cape Town this morning.

After the Stormers led 14-12 at halftime, the two sides traded penalties to open the second half, before winger Leolin Zas was sensationally sent off in the 56th minute after an awkward high ball challenge resulted in Waratahs flyhalf Bernard Foley coming down heavily on his neck and shoulder.

Stormers fans believed the red card was harsh, claiming that Zas merely slipped and that the collision was unintentional.

Probably unintentional but still very dangerous. Refs are clamping down on this so players are well warned. I think it was the beginning of last season when it seemed you could hardly approach a player who was taking a high ball and not be penalized, we are heading in this direction again. It is better to only contest for the ball when you have the dominant position otherwise you risk yellow or red card.
Shame it had an impact on the game, although the wee stormers had plenty of chances to win this  one the red card didn't make their job easier. IMO the stormers let this one get away from them, they still could have won it.

This was an accident since at the last moment the player slipped - but nobody should actually lament about the red card.  Zas is very inexperienced and will learn from the incident.  I do not think he would receive a ban after the red card since there were mitigating circ umstances.    

 Ras certainly a red. His only defense is that he slipped when he tried to jump. That's the one factor that separates it from last week's incident and which probably mean he doesn't see.further punishment.

 it was exactly last weekend's (Emery's) same case,....... the ref explained it perfectly welll,......... the chaser arrived late, had no chance of disputing the ball and hit the jumping player in the air provoking a very dangerous fall on his neck,....... a red without any doubt with the current laws,........ as the ref also explained very well,  intentionality is not a factor to be consider (in both incidents there was no intentionality from the chaser but this doesn't matter at all),...... hence the slip is not a fctor either,........ Zas should be banned the same way Emery was banned

The Stormers didn't lose because of that card,....... they lost because of their soft scrum,........ their scrum was completely destroyed in front of the posts,........ if a team concede a tighthead in the last minute in front of the posts, the red card is just an excuse to hide it

 There a big difference between accidental and unintentional. 

 There is no similarity between the case of Emery and Zas.  Emery had no intention to jump for the ball and was standing up when Le Roux caught the ball.  Zas was basically on the ground after slipping when he hit Foley.    he was not going in to tackle the man in the air like Emery did - so it is likely that if he gets a ban it would be for a week or no ban at all.   I agree with the verdict of Draad - there is a huge difference between accidental and unintentional.    

  really?

what's the difference?

I explained the difference already.   So what else is required?  

 http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/accidental

synony ms of accidental:

• unintended,
• inadvertent

antonyms of accidental:   intended

   apart from accidental and unintentional being synonyms (according to Collins, synonym is "a word that means the same or nearly the same as another word" ),....... as I explained it before, for the rugby laws (tackling the jumper in the air) in particular the intention is not a factor at all,....... forget about the intention when dealing with an action involving tackling a player in the air,.......

 They were totally different.  Zas was intent on catching the ball. His eyes were on the ball all the time. Emery had no intention of catching the ball, he never looked for it once, his was a tackle he mistimed.
So I think the Zas incident sets a new bar. He had a perfectly good shot at the ball, even after slipping....Foley got there first running and jumping forward. So it now appears the first player has more rights to the ball.....it's no longer an equal contest.

That's fine with me, but this ruling exposed another grey area in the laws....the old mantra was all's well as long as both players are competing for the ball.

 @mozart,

"They were totally different.  Zas was intent on catching the ball."

intention is not a factor,.... besides, Emery was as intent on catching the ball as Zas was, but intention has nothing to do in these cases,...... NOTHING,........ how do I have to explain it?

the law says:

Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

can anybody see the word "intention"?
NO. There's nothing about intention, intentionality or anything similar

when a player makes such an action (tackling the jumper in the air) and provokes a very dangerous fall of the jumper, it's a red card. Period.



"Emery had no intention of catching the ball, he never looked for it once"

wrong, very wrong,...... Emery was looking for the ball untill tenths of second before he hit WLR,....... and I can provide footage to prove it if you want

 Provide the footage. As for Zas  he neither tapped, pushed, tackled or pulled Foley. He simply jumped for the ball and clashed with another player who had jumped a micro second earlier. The intention is only of interest in that it provides colour on his jump for the ball, it was not made to foul Foley, it was made to compete for the ball....two players competing for the ball has always been ok. Although Hendricks was was carded to wide criticism against Wales for a similar incident.

The language and intent of the lawmakers need  to be clarified.

"he neither tapped, pushed, tackled or pulled Foley. He simply jumped for the ball"

man, what are you smoking?
he slipped and pushed the foot or feet of an opponent,....... he never jumped,..... he always and in all moment has a foot on the ground,...... ALWAYS,......  WTF are you talking about?  ......please watch the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BJwRGSs4vM


OK, I will provide it ,.... but it will take a time

Two players jumping for the ball ...Foley's lead leg which is foward contacts Zas and rotates him over...both players going for the ball. No push, no shove, no pull. The only time Zas touches him with a hand is on the way down in what looks like an attempt to prevent Foley falling on him.
Next...

 really,..... WTF are you smoking? ......or are you using needles?

"No push, no shove, no pull. The only time Zas touches him with a hand..."

just for you knowledge,...... you can push or shove without using your hands,...... which is precisely what happened,..... Zas very clearly pushed "the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball" (as the law says) with his hip,....... Zas never jumped,...... don't say again that there were "Two players jumping for the ball",..... because it never happened,...... Foley was the only one jump ing

 Here's the footage for Emery foul on Le Roux
Emery clip

ABF, Mozart has a habit of expressing an opinion & when someone disagrees he tries to get them to do his research, once the evidence is produced he then says "see I told you" regardless of the fact that the evidence proves him wrong. He has CleverMike, Rooi & doing his bidding normally. He's a crafty one
Anyway, I posted the clip on Emery's foul so the two can be compared. As you said the law is what is relevant. Trying to debate intent is a pointless exercise. Emery's foul was far more dangerous than that of Zas so we may see a lesser sentence, we will see.

 Okay just as I said, at least three strides out Emery ceases to focus on the ball and focuses on the tackle which he makes with Willie at full elevation.
Zas is turned looking at the ball all the time and in the act of jumping makes contact with Foley who has got up earlier.

There is no comparison between the two incidents.

If the Law is to be correct for the Zas red card it should read something like this:
'The attacking player has to avoid making heavy physical contact with the defensive player in the air, even if attempting to catch the ball'
Or alternatively
'The first player in the air has a right to the air space and the second player can only make contact with the ball and  not cause the first player to fall awkwardly.'
I would be okay with either alternative law, because clearly both incidents were dangerous. The point is that is not how the law reads today. The way it reads today Zas was not infringing....period.

JW,

"Mozart has a habit of expressing an opinion & when someone disagrees he tries to get them to do his research, once the evidence is produced he then says "see I told you" regardless of the fact that the evidence proves him wrong"

you are very wrong, JW,........ he doesn't say "see I told you", he says "Okay just as I said,"  

 @mozart,

the 3 strides that you mentioned are less than 20 frames in the footage,...... considering 24 frames/sec., it means that Emery saw WLR less than a second before he hit him,...... at the speed he was (the maximum possible) a second is nothing,......... in less than a second he had no time to do anything,...... it's completely impossible to do anything

it's exactly the same case

 here we have what mozart considers "Two players jumping for the ball"




how is it possible to jump with a foot on the ground?

ask mozart

If you can't stop yourself in 3 strides....you are a Neanderthal. Emery was attempting to tackle.
 Zas was clearly attempting to jump for the ball, foiled by a slip and the fact that Foley was above him.

One going for ball. One trying to make a tackle. Case closed.

" Law 10.4 - Dangerous Play and Misconduct

Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.

Sanction: Penalty kick12"

What is interesting is that the sanction is a penalty kick, so for a yellow or red card to be given another law must come into play.

Another law has to come into play, perhaps this one:

10.2 Unfair play(a)Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

So intention is a factor but there must be some other law at play but I can't be bothered to work it out. I leave it to others.

 I make no pretense of being a 'mouse of the scrolls'. Who knows what arcane sub law might be involved. The fact is we have seen this dozens of times with the excusing comment that they were 'both going for the ball'. Now apparently that intent has no currency. 
There are so many laws that need to be clarified by written word. What apparently happens is before the WC the ref association gets together and makes new law by application. That custom then continues into subsequent matches. But nobody bothers to rewrite the rules.

 This article is interesting because Marshall agrees that red cards are justified if a players safety is at stake so the reds in our discussion are fine with him.
However, he thinks that the refs have gone overboard in giving out yellows for foul play that does not rise to the level of a yellow card.
NZ Herald - Justin Marshall's opinion

 @mozart,

"If you can't stop yourself in 3 strides....you are a Neanderthal. Emery was attempting to tackle.
 Zas was clearly attempting to jump for the ball, foiled by a slip and the fact that Foley was above him."

so now you know what was exactly thinking Emery and what was exactly thinking Zas? the first was "attempting to tackle" and the second "attempting to jump for the ball",...... you should have said it before,...... if I knew that you have such supernatural power I wouldn't be arguing with you


by the way, you are here the only Neanderthal,........ nobody can react in less than a second at that high speed,...... it's impossible,...... unless you have another supernatural power,.....

Three strides ....0.3 of a second.  Seem tough? Read this:

Ever wonder how a major league baseball player hits a 90-mph fastball? Ask some researchers at UC Berkeley, who have identified an area of the brain that makes it possible.

Look at the numbers alone and hitting a home run seems next to impossible. A fastball takes .4 seconds to reach home plate after it leaves a pitcher’s hand, but a hitter needs a only  .25 seconds to see the ball and react.

And that assumes he had no knowledge at all before the last three seconds...obviously not the case. 

Look you were a smart ass Basque...now humiliated. Stay down....stay down.

 JW,

all the different acts considered "Dangerous Play and Misconduct" according to law 10.4:

(a) Punching or striking.

A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) Stamping or trampling.

A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) Kicking.

A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) Tripping.

A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f) Playing an opponent without the ball.

Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(g) Dangerous charging.

A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(i) Tackling the jumper in the air.

A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

etc., etc., untill the (s)

all of them have the same sanction: Penalty Kick

the yellow and reds are reflected in Law 10.6 which doesn't specify too much but any of the "Dangerous Play and Misconduct" acts in Law 10.4 can be shown a red card

 @mozart,

nothing to do,....... man, learn to choose better your examples,........ that has nothing to do with what we are talking about,......

when someone is running at his highest speed (not like a baseball player who stands waiting only for the ball and with all his senses in it) in less than a second you cannot react, you cannot do nothing,....... it's impossible to counteract your inertia

 Ever wonder why you see players running past the guy catching the ball in the air. Obviously because they know they can't stop short of him without making contact...it takes one step to avoid the man in the air which takes...uhm....0.01 of a second. Down you go again Basque....this is a horrible rout, throw in the white flag.

 If you have your eye on the ball, leap in the air to catch it two things happen, i.e. you don't see the other bloke going for the ball & you can't change your angle as you are airborne. This means you will collide with the other bloke. You only run passed the other bloke if you see him & if you are not airborne.
What will happen now is players won't challenge for the ball on one of their teams kicks . It's too risky.

 "it takes one step to avoid the man in the air which takes...uhm....0.01 of a second"

please, don't continue embarrassing yourself,........ 0.01 of a second,........ so it takes 0.01 sec to take a step,........ yeah, sure man,......

the blink of an eye takes btwin 0.1 and 0.4 sec,....... 0.01 is nothing, man



and enough is enough, you take the arguing to absurd points,......... both incidents were unintentional,....... and both deserve the same punishment apart from the red card,...... coz the intention counts nothing,....... NOTHING,....... so I don't give a f*cking sh¡t about your arg uing points and I'm not going to waste more of my time with those absurd stupidities

 The guy who gets all red faced is the fool who lost the argument. They were not the same incidents as the video clearly shows. They may have deserved the same punishment, if that's what the law intends...but it's not in the letter of the law, only possibly in a new way of interpreting the law.
As for response times it should read 0.1 second....the time it takes to make a stride or a side step. He had 0.3 seconds, case closed.

 do you think that if you write "case closed" you are tha one who's right or what?
that's the reasoning of a 10 years old boy,........ grow up, man

 Even Fleck thinks the refs call was probably right:
FLECK NOT BLAMING RED CARD FOR DEFEAT

REACTION: STORMERS HEAD COACH ROBBIE FLECK SAYS THE RED CARD HANDED TO WING LEOLIN ZAS WAS NOT THE DEFINING FACTOR IN HIS TEAM'S 30-32 LOSS TO THE WARATAHS AT NEWLANDS ON SATURDAY.

Zas was given his marching orders in the 56th after minute after he took out Waratahs' flyhalf Bernard Foley in their air.

Despite going down to 14 men, the Stormers were on course for victory after a Pieter-Steph du Toit score before Waratahs' captain Michael Hooper scored a try in the 78th minute after turning the ball over at a Stormers' scrum to take the game away from the Cape side.

"It [red card] did not cost us the game," said Fleck after the game.

"It was clear that we were in it to win at the end we and probably deserved to.

"Credit to the Waratahs, who kept fighting and got that try at the end. Our boys did extremely well to play with 14 men and to get back in the lead.

"Safety is first in the game. He [Foley] landed in an awkward position and technically it was probably the right call."

In a similar incident last week, Jason Emery of the Highlanders made contact with Willie le Roux's (Sharks) legs, which caused him to land in a dangerous fashion. After consultation with the TMO, the referee awarded a red card.

Emery was subsequently suspended for four weeks after a Judicial Hearing.

However, Fleck is hoping that Zas gets a lighter suspension.

"I think they will take into account that he [Zas] did slip and they might call it reckless, but there was no intent. The law is the law and it is just the way he landed," Fleck added.

Despite the loss, the Stormers played some of their best rugby this season against the Waratahs and Fleck feels that it was mistakes in defence that ultimately cost them in the end.

"Two soft moments on defence [in the first half] let them back in, which obviously got their tails up. 

"It was a dominant performance in that first half and I would like to think we played well enough in that second half to win it.

"The team rallied together and played some very good rugby and we would have liked to have a few more points in that first half, but it was not to be and they are a good side and they showed their quality when they came back with that two tries.

"I'm just really proud with the way the guys fought for that 20 minutes and still be in a position with three minute to go to win it. I am proud of the character of the team. I am proud of the way we are playing rugby at the moment," Fleck added.

The Waratahs' match-winning try stemmed from a Stormers' scrum five metres out from the host's tryline and Fleck feels that his team lost the ball because they did not deal with the pressure that was applied by the visitors at the set piece.

"We knew that the pressure was going to come on and certainly the scrums... I guess the lesson learnt there was that we should have just cleared it immediately," said Fleck.

By Warren Fortune
@FortuneWarren
@rugby365com

So in summary, in my opinion the call on Emory and the call on Zas were correct in that they were foul play that warranted a card. Emory's case is worse because on Le Roux and the refs wanted to and did send a clear signal that players should avoid jumping for a ball if there is a chance the player trying to catch the ball will be at risk. Basically, when you jump for a high ball kicked to the opposition you have to look to see what the other bloke is doing because it's not worth the risk of serious injury. You as the attacking player has some responsibility to not put the defending player at risk.

The coach of the stormers agrees that the refs call was probabl y right & he also agrees the stormers should have won  but let the game get away from them. That's my opinion also.

"End of story"? 

 Rugby Stuff
The opinion is the two calls were correct.

 So Basque, according to Collins, my wife nearly died in a motor vehicle unintentional the other day. You seem to try putting lipstick on a baboon. It never works. 

@Moz Yeah Basque is clearly of special grade smartness. He considers the dropping of a shoulder that knocks a player out of the air to be the same thing as a guy loosing his footing when he tries to jump. This what revs me about some guys on here. Total bias. Had the Stormers incident been the same as the Willie incident every last Saffa on here would admit it firstly and condemn it secondly. So how seriously are we to take Basque? We'll all very happily admit that Bakkies was a filthy player and should have served much longer bans than he ever did. We'll all shit on SA players who use roids and we'll only forgive them once they deserve forgiveness. But fking hell, some kiwi fans on here will only ever commit to the most ambiguous terms when it comes to their own. Since being on this board I have accused more SA refs and SA players of cheating than I have Oz or Kiwi players. Every time I point out SA irregularities the kiwis will agree...unless it caused their team to get a result. Every time I point it out and it caused another team to get a result over them or over a neutral team...they jump on that bandwagon like whore's on cash in day. Been back in SA for 3 years now and slowly I am getting my respect for my brothers here back. At the same time I am starting lose a lot of respect for some kiwis on this board. When I got here I could not understand Beeno's ranting. Though I still don't necessarily agree with him, I start to see where he is coming from. If SA guys in here were as biased as some Kiwis, I don't think conversation would be possible.

 @DbD,

using your wife's accident (not accidental or unintentional, ACCIDENT) as an argument in a rugby site is completely out of place,....... if you are not able to measure this kind of things you have a problem,......


"a motor vehicle unintentional"????????
............. you should learn the difference btwin nouns (accident) and adjectives (accidental or unintentional),.......

pointing out that "accidental" and "unintentional" are synonyms has nothing to do with baboons and lipsticks,....... is a fact,........ and your sentence:

"There a big difference between accidental and unintentional."

supported by mike ("I agree with the verdict of Draad - there is a huge difference between accidental and unintentional.") an utterly nonsense,...... there's no difference at all btwin accidental and unintentional, they are synonyms. FACT.