Mallett on the reffing in the Sharks game

‘From a personal point of view, I don’t think the neck roll by Etienne Oosthuizen – that led to the disallowed try for the Sharks – was a violent cleanout. It cost the Sharks 14 points, because their try was reversed, Oosthuizen was yellow-carded and the Lions scored at the other end. The TMO had a huge impact, almost too much, in a game of this nature. I don’t think Oosthuizen deliberately went high. ‘The Lions wing Madosh Tambwe went in high on a Sharks player in the second half and the referee said no, it was on the shoulder. In the first half he penalised the Sharks lock for a similar offence and it cost them three points. On very small margins do you win and lose games, and honestly there were some harsh calls on the Sharks. ‘I’m not having a go at the referee, it’s just that in a game as close as this, these type of things make a huge difference to the result. There were only five points in it, but there were three points that went one way, but it could easily have gone the way of the Sharks and that would’ve been a six-point difference and leading to a different result.’ ............ Completely agree. When your head is in the ruck who knows what body part you are in contact with.....this video ref was intrusive and literally gave the Lions the game. Worse yet, as Mallett points out the ref was inconsistent. ....... Any rule change that gives the refs an even greater role in the game has to be counter productive. These so called infractions have already occured when called...the penalty doesn't change that. Why not have a post match ref run through the match tape, with the authority to impose a one match ban for dangerous play.

 You also stated that Matfield grabbing the neck of an opponent in the WC semi was no problem.   The rules are there and the safety of players needs protection - but that is not necessary if your distorted views are taken into account.
Your suggestion is legal and contractual BS and you should realize that yourself.   What an idiot to come up with that BS.    

 Mike, laws changed, the Matfield issue is water under the bridge in an era when the new law was not as explicit.
We, the supporters / fans / social-commentators are a fickle bunch to say the least.  Whilst there is a love for the game which clearly emanates from almost every post, the bias is always floating very close to the surface.  I have observed many posters who "like" a decision in one game but will try their utmost to find a reason to justify their "dislike" for a similar decision in a different game.  It's not a negative trait, it's simply a human thing and to a degree we all do it in varying forms.
The referee was not all that consistent as I saw two or three other high-tackles which were never called by the ref or the TMO.  I think Jaco running the lines also contributed to a lot of the "stop and look".  We shout and scream if the TMO does not intervene, yet we do the same when he does.....fickle I'tell ya!
Maybe a TMO should only be allowed two interventions initiated by him per half.  The referee can however still request assistance.  But, no matter what system is implemented we supporters will inevitably find a reason to complain when we think our team was receiving the wrong end of the stick.
Foe what it's worth, I think the Sharks did not get the bounce of the ball - like in almost all matches the scale was tipped to favour  the home side.
Off Topic
Mike, (and some others) just as a side note:
Without being facetious or trying to assassinate your character, it would really help if you try and respond to comments made by Mozard rather than reacting in a manner that is really unbecoming of the person that you should be.  The feud between certain members and some times "packs" is detrimental to the image of the message board and as such does not do much to attract genuine rugby people.
Currently this message board is a bit of a replica of old Archie Bunkers Tavern - the regulars rule the roost and casual observers are mostly ostracised and very soon they are called all kinds of names and accused of strange behavior and/or character.    

Machiavelli
I fully agree with your comments and think that people's comments will always be influenced by prejudice.   I for one would see hard rugby - but neck strangleholds  are as far as I a concerned not part of the game.
I merely referred to the Matfield incident because Mozart was strong in condemning of the turn-around of the penalty by the ref.  
I also disagree about Mozart's approach to dangerous play - the approach is a serious move to allow for such play without punishment.       

 Seems to have a positive effect according to this...

Faced with two players

“With the rules insisting on tackling low, teams are able to offload, which means more line breaks,” he said.

“Also, the shape of how teams play has changed. In the past, they played in pods of four and played around the corner. Now they’ve changed and are leaving guys in the wide channels, which means defences need to have more width.

“That’s why sides struggle – wingers used to be faced with just the wing and the fullback. Now, instead of being faced with two players, it’s probably four, with the hooker and probably a flanker also there. Then there’s still the offload...”

McFarland used the Blues’ third-minute try (by scrum half Augustine Pulu) against the Bulls as an example, when Travis Ismaiel found himself having to choose which of three opposition players to tackle.

McFarland also said the general approach in Super Rugby had changed since he coached at that level.

“Instead of trying to keep the points down and winning through pressure, teams are trying to score more than the opposition,” he said.

 Maxhiavelli
The above is interesting comments - was it from the same article Mozart quoted an extract from? 
I think the above require more mobile players as loosies and also of hookers,   Above all they require a more advanced ability of those players to read games and make proper decisions.  
 

 Indeed Mike, I think we have hit the turning point - from brawn to brain.The link to my quote is embedded in the heading "Faced with two players "

So why did Mozart not quote the whole article?
I have always preferred clever players with the ability to read game and take positive decisions over the brainless brawn players - ie those  with ball sense.  I wrote at one stage that my first choice players are big players with ball sense, followed by small players with ball sense.
If I look at players in our Franchises I think highly of Bosch and Jean-Luc du Plessis as well as the Stormers present center combination - even Meyer remarked that Dan du Plessis seems to be a clever player, while EW Viljoen is also a proven one.  In a way Viljoen reminds me of Milner-Skudder of the AB's
As to clever players I think Marx is a mild case and Jaco Kriel an active case.   Senatla is also a thinking player and so is Kolbe.  I  would also class Pieter-Steph du Toit in the clever grouping.
You may wonder why I criticize players like the Steyns and Alberts regularly - you have the answer now.      
       

So why did Mozart not quote the whole article?
I have always preferred clever players with the ability to read game and take positive decisions over the brainless brawn players - ie those  with ball sense.  I wrote at one stage that my first choice players are big players with ball sense, followed by small players with ball sense.
If I look at players in our Franchises I think highly of Bosch and Jean-Luc du Plessis as well as the Stormers present center combination - even Meyer remarked that Dan du Plessis seems to be a clever player, while EW Viljoen is also a proven one.  In a way Viljoen reminds me of Milner-Skudder of the AB's
As to clever players I think Marx is a mild case and Jaco Kriel an active case.   Senatla is also a thinking player and so is Kolbe.  I  would also class Pieter-Steph du Toit in the clever grouping.
You may wonder why I criticize players like the Steyns and Alberts regularly - you have the answer now.      
       

It's a completely different article .....try to not make a fool of yourself so often, it's tedious.

Mozart I asked whether it was part of the article you quoted and Machiavelli said it was.  I wrote nothing more - but doubt still exist since it has happened in the past that you did quote selectively from newspaper reports only those paragraphs that fitted your malicious ideas about rugby and you therefore cannot be trusted in the relevant regard.    

 No ....once again you couldn't grasp simple English, nowhere did he say it was the same article. You were accusing me of manipulating the article....enjoy your egg plank.

 It would have been nothing new  fraudster,  

Here's an article that states that although 9 yellow cards were issued it was not a dirty game - just interpretation of the high tackle law. As many of us have said this could have a major impact on games and players will have to figure out the refs interpretation.
Alert to Beeno: time to trot out your usual garbage about dirty kiwi players
Nine yellow cards in one game; NZ Herald

Nine yellow cards were issued during a senior club rugby match in North Otago on Saturday, but both coaches insist it was not a dirty game.

New laws around high tackles were an issue in the number of players stood down by referee Blair Malcolm during the game.

At one stage, Valley had 12 players on the field and Excelsior had 13.

Four Valley players were yellow-carded and five from Excelsior.

One Excelsior player was shown two yellow cards, which led to him being ordered off the field for good.

Valley coach Mike Mavor said despite all the cards it was not a dirty game.

''It was just the interpretations around high tackles.

''You couldn't blame the ref. That it what has been decided and he has to follow the law,'' he said.

World Rugby has introduced new laws to clamp down on high tackles this season, with stiffer penalties and less leeway.

Mavor said six of the cards were for high tackles and players needed to brush up on their techniques.

''Players from both teams got on well on the field. It was fine. But guys are just going to have to improve their tackling.''

Excelsior coach Dan Keno said the benchmark for high tackles was set early in the game, and it was not a dirty match.

''As long as this is the benchmark for the rest of the season then that is fine,'' he said.

''Some players have different interpretations of high tackles than what the ref does.''

North Otago Rugby Union chief executive Colin Jackson declined to comment when contacted yesterday, as he knew nothing about the incidents.

The players must have learnt from the yellow cards because after picking up six in the first half, only three were shown by the referee in the second 40 minutes.

For the record, Excelsior won a tight match, 39-32.

Luke see my comments on Faauli elsewhere.    

Luke see my comments on Faauli elsewhere.    

This is a law made by a committee. After all the neck contact in scrums, and the potential forces in a collapsed scrum are far more dangerous. I can't think of a serious neck injury ever in these maul situations which are now being blown up. .... It's a bad solution in search of a problem.

 BS as per normal.  The rabid dog does not realize as so many other things in rugby - that there has been scientific investigations done iro of dangerous practices in rugby and that the worst cases has been identified and dealt with in the new rules, 
As per normal he thinks that he knows better than medical practitioners and therapists so lets accept he is as identified a being  STUPID in capital letters ,