Israel Dagg - lucky to only get a yellow card?

First topic message reminder :

Does anybody think that Dagg was lucky to only get a yellow card for his charge on Kearney late in the game. From my viewing, Dagg seemed to lead with his elbow right into Kearney's head - if Dagg was really trying to block Kearney's kick, wouldn't his arms be up in the air. Whatever, it was a cheap shot and if only Kearney's kick had gone 10m further it would have been within Sexton's range.

Oh and god preserve us from one-eyed pundits. Sean Fitzpatrick saw nothing whatsoever wrong with Dagg's charge. Pathetic, especially from an NZ icon!

It's a penalty anything other than that is debatable. I would have given the card but that's just me.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can't believe Pete wants to make player contact illegal in rugby!!!. Next thing you will be wanting them to join the hands and sing cumbaya at half time.

Wrong again, I think the laws that are diluting the amount of contact can be way over the top and enjoyed playing my rugby in the days when a good set of metal studs was how you cleared out a ruck. However the laws are as they are and by the letter of the law Dagg committed a penalty offence. It has nothing to do with what I think, say or want, it's the laws of rugby and once again I suggest you look them up before ranting this utter tripe.

I fear we will see alot more silly football style playacting infecting the game now if players feel that the ref will flash a red or yellow card for innocuos tackles.

In football there used to be nothing wrong with a bit of contact and a goold old fashioned tackle. Nowadays the slightest touch (sometimes none at all) warrants a theatrical dive and the illusion of agony. Its embarrassing to watch. But more often than not it results in a free kick and a yellow card. One of the many reasons I have lost respect and interest in football.

I fear rugby will follow down this road, especially as the fans seem to want a card flashed for any old reason now. If the amateurs could cope, then Im sure the pros can with their rigorous trips to the gyms and their high protein diets. Get on with the game!

Just before this goes WAAAAAAAY off topic. Are you claiming that Kearney dived?

Gordy wrote:I fear we will see alot more silly football style playacting infecting the game now if players feel that the ref will flash a red or yellow card for innocuos tackles.

In football there used to be nothing wrong with a bit of contact and a goold old fashioned tackle. Nowadays the slightest touch (sometimes none at all) warrants a theatrical dive and the illusion of agony. Its embarrassing to watch. But more often than not it results in a free kick and a yellow card. One of the many reasons I have lost respect and interest in football.

I fear rugby will follow down this road, especially as the fans seem to want a card flashed for any old reason now. If the amateurs could cope, then Im sure the pros can with their rigorous trips to the gyms and their high protein diets. Get on with the game!

See if it were always a balanced argument I might be prepared to listen. But it always goes up and down depending on who gets hit and what the ref's do or don't do about it.

I repeat something I said yesterday - had Kearney done it to Dagg, we'd hear the cheap shot jab from other quarters. If certain players act the eejit, it's because they are not skilled enough to keep up with the pace or the quality and so resort to cheap shots. If certain other players act up it's because they know they're playing in a man's game and have the physical capacity to withstand and inflict physical punishment in a physical game.

Up and down opinions never merit much time - but time is what this thread is getting all the same

I can bet that next week we will see an identical thing not be penalised.

Gordy wrote: If the amateurs could cope, then Im sure the pros can with their rigorous trips to the gyms and their high protein diets. Get on with the game!

I'm not sure what sort of protein supplement or Gym exercise reduces impact from an elbow to the chops but I'll have some of that please!

Really this is non issue, if it hadn't been penalised I wouldn't care, it was and I still don't care. No one was hurt, Ireland lost, the ABs one, Dagg got an early shower and will be back next week. Everyones a winner .... except Ireland of course

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can bet that next week we will see an identical thing not be penalised.

And as there will be a different referee I can assure you that there will be many different interpretations of the laws. Penalties or free kicks that Owens would give without a thought will go begging and visa versa so your arguement, once again holds about as much water as a single-ply tissue.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can bet that next week we will see an identical thing not be penalised.

So you think Dagg will get away with it next week?

It was a yellow he made no attempt to charge the kick down he charges straight at Kearney with no attempt to block the kick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXeOMKpa6CY&feature=related (around 2.30 mark some good angles of it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVuomr8zebg

found this though looking for a clip of Daggs yellow a sore loser but interesting observations

He was committed in the air. My problem with it was that if he had open hands on Kearney it wouldn't have been a problem. Because he went with the shoulder it was made to look worse than it was. Maybe the fact that Kearney was up 20 seconds later and smiling was because he had milked it. As it happened in the 72nd minute, it effectively was a red card. On first sight I thought it wasn't yellow but on the replay I couldn't really disagree. I think Dagg should check his attitude and admit what he did was reckless. Regardless of how innocent it was he should own up to the fact his actions could have cost the ABs the game.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:He was committed in the air. My problem with it was that if he had open hands on Kearney it wouldn't have been a problem. Because he went with the shoulder it was made to look worse than it was. Maybe the fact that Kearney was up 20 seconds later and smiling was because he had milked it. As it happened in the 72nd minute, it effectively was a red card. On first sight I thought it wasn't yellow but on the replay I couldn't really disagree. I think Dagg should check his attitude and admit what he did was reckless. Regardless of how innocent it was he should own up to the fact his actions could have cost the ABs the game.

what was there to milk he got knocked down and got up it wasnt like he rolled around or acted injured, to me Dagg was letting Kearney know he was there and Kearney saw the funny side

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:He was committed in the air. My problem with it was that if he had open hands on Kearney it wouldn't have been a problem. Because he went with the shoulder it was made to look worse than it was. Maybe the fact that Kearney was up 20 seconds later and smiling was because he had milked it. As it happened in the 72nd minute, it effectively was a red card. On first sight I thought it wasn't yellow but on the replay I couldn't really disagree. I think Dagg should check his attitude and admit what he did was reckless. Regardless of how innocent it was he should own up to the fact his actions could have cost the ABs the game.

Kia I don't think a player like Dagg would ever have done anything like that intentionally and it was simply wreckless indeed. I still think, even after viewing the replays that a yellow was harsh. Referees make decisions on the spot without the help of video clips and Owens played it as he saw it. I think everyone's interpretations will always be different and on a different day Owens may not have been so quick with the yellow.

To milk something you have to exaggerate the effects of the hit.

He didn't throw his arms in the air, he didn't take two stumbilng steps backward, he didn't crawl on the ground in pain.

He was hit, he fell, he got up, he smiled.

biltongbek wrote:To milk something you have to exaggerate the effects of the hit.

He didn't throw his arms in the air, he didn't take two stumbilng steps backward, he didn't crawl on the ground in pain.

He was hit, he fell, he got up, he smiled.

The cheating F($&%&^%*"KER!!!

biltongbek wrote:To milk something you have to exaggerate the effects of the hit.

He didn't throw his arms in the air, he didn't take two stumbilng steps backward, he didn't crawl on the ground in pain.

He was hit, he fell, he got up, he smiled.

Mickado wrote:

biltongbek wrote:To milk something you have to exaggerate the effects of the hit.

He didn't throw his arms in the air, he didn't take two stumbilng steps backward, he didn't crawl on the ground in pain.

He was hit, he fell, he got up, he smiled.

The cheating F($&%&^%*"KER!!!

Maybe he shouldn't have smiled, a laugh would have been more approriate?

"Really this is non issue, if it hadn't been penalised I wouldn't care, it was and I still don't care"

I think you said it best Rodders. I wouldn't have cared either way, it's the whinging posters on here benoaming the death of physical rugby over one decision by Nigel Owens and the same posters claiming that Rob Kearney milked it in a soccerball style.

I know I mentioned it earlier, tongue in cheek but if Kearney was going to milk it you’d think he’d have punted the ball a bit further. It's not that hard to change a kick if you can see that the tackler is not going to reach the ball...

I've seen them given and I've seen them not given...that is all I'm saying Pete...Dagg raised his elbows, and caught Kearney so left himself at the referees mercy...it was reckless, nothing more, he got punished, it didn't influence the outcome of the match or series. Can't see what the big fuss is.....

Kearney get up you chino wearing D4 cow milker and get that grin off your face!

Nothing else to see here!

It's hard to jump in the air without raising your elbows. Ever tried it?

It also part of the good jump technique to fielding the ball.

He's not Dublin 4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A wee-county lord of rhythm and reason and taste in the perfect frown for every occasion. He's just a Louth looker...style without thought.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It's hard to jump in the air without raising your elbows. Ever tried it?

It also part of the good jump technique to fielding the ball.

Fielding a ball - as an Irishman I've never heard of it? What does it do?

But he wasn't fielding the ball he was charging down the kick...which isn't easy with your elbows....

I don't think Owens was wrong but if he'd have let it go I'd probably have shouted at the screen for 2 seconds and never thought about again.

Anyways I'm an amiable chap so I don't really care too much..... ....

rodders wrote:I've seen them given and I've seen them not given...that is all I'm saying Pete...Dagg raised his elbows, and caught Kearney so left himself at the referees mercy...it was reckless, nothing more, he got punished, it didn't influence the outcome of the match or series. Can't see what the big fuss is.....

Kearney get up you chino wearing D4 cow milker and get that grin off your face!

Nothing else to see here!

I thought kearney was from louth?

My opinion still that it is wrong. But I like rodders by the attitude so much I try to be more like him and say that if everyone opinion is that it is good decision then I must be wrong.

Thankyou rodders you teach me how to have better personality! Now I feel freed from the angry and annoy!

I think it was a nothing and didn't deserve a penalty.
But who cares

definitely a penalty. yellow? a touch harsh, but acceptable. red? no way

anotherworldofpain wrote:My opinion still that it is wrong. But I like rodders by the attitude so much I try to be more like him and say that if everyone opinion is that it is good decision then I must be wrong.

Thankyou rodders you teach me how to have better personality! Now I feel freed from the angry and annoy!

Rodders you'll be up for moderation soon. Keep it up

No Dagg wasnt lucky to only get a yellow card, for all intents and purposes it was a red card.
Brenomac. just because Sean Fitzpatrick's opinion differs to your on the incident doesnt make his opinion pathetic, or is their more to this criticism that your not telling us?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No Dagg wasnt lucky to only get a yellow card, for all intents and purposes it was a red card.
Brenomac. just because Sean Fitzpatrick's opinion differs to your on the incident doesnt make his opinion pathetic, or is their more to this criticism that your not telling us?

"more to this criticism that you're not telling us." Is short for "you are" and not confusing by "your" which mean belonging to.

Is this correct or is some new version I not knowing about already?

(I am now grammaticar wizard.)

anotherworldofpain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No Dagg wasnt lucky to only get a yellow card, for all intents and purposes it was a red card.
Brenomac. just because Sean Fitzpatrick's opinion differs to your on the incident doesnt make his opinion pathetic, or is their more to this criticism that your not telling us?

"more to this criticism that you're not telling us." Is short for "you are" and not confusing by "your" which mean belonging to.

Is this correct or is some new version I not knowing about already?

(I am now grammaticar wizard.)

You are more of a wizard than many on this site.
What is your first language by the way anotherworldofpain?

I thought there was a cynical element to daggs challenge, he knew long before contact that he he would not get there in time and didnt even raise his hands to attempt to charge the kick down, he simply wanted to prevent kearney chasing his own kick.

Not as cynical as apparent eye gouge!

Pete330v2 wrote:What is your first language by the way anotherworldofpain?

The foreign one I think.

My first language is logic pete.

anotherworldofpain wrote:My first language is logic pete.

I'm not being cynical here, I was just wondering

Pete330v2 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:My first language is logic pete.

I'm not being cynical here, I was just wondering

So is he. That's why he deflected ('side-tracked' or 'avoided' for the non-fluent ) the question. He'll tell you as soon as he unearths a holiday phrasebook....

Come on, let's look after the enigma that lays golden posts.

Another thread gone toooooooooooooooooooootallly off topic.

derailed by Borat or GG or

Pete330v2 wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:My first language is logic pete.

I'm not being cynical here, I was just wondering

Pete - Logically his first language must be English. It is possible to get some nice effects by putting a post through an online translator and then back again.

e.g. the above post through to German and then back again is:

"Pete - logically its first language must be English. It is also possible, some nice effects by a post and then by e"

Don't using the translators I can recommend you will lose not just the grammatic but also semantic.

sem antics are not allowed on this site...be careful, you might get banned

anotherworldofpain wrote:Don't using the translators I can recommend you will lose not just the grammatic but also semantic.

Hmmm... interesting that someone who is learning English and should have a vocabulary of maybe 1000 words max, knows the words grammatic and semantic. These words would more usually be associated with fluent English speakers with vocabularies in excess of 4000 words...

(via russian)
I really need to get some new friends ... it is interesting that those who are English language and should have a dictionary may be 1000 words max, known words grаmmаtiс and semantic. These words will be more than is usually associated with fluent speakers with dictionaries in the amount of more than 4000 words.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No Dagg wasnt lucky to only get a yellow card, for all intents and purposes it was a red card.
Brenomac. just because Sean Fitzpatrick's opinion differs to your on the incident doesnt make his opinion pathetic, or is their more to this criticism that your not telling us?

Laurie, you're one of the first Kiwi posters (or journos) who has agreed that Dagg at least has a case to answer - and all credit. I'm not saying it was a defo red card and Dagg doesn't have a record of foul play, but the way Dagg didn't attempt to charge the kick and instead shifted his body position to the extent that he led with his elbow certainly justified the yellow card. Most of the NZ print media I've read online seem to agree, with a general view that Dagg was incredibly stupid to give away a penalty which if Kearney had kicked his up and under 10 metres longer would have brought Sexton within kicking range, and put Ireland ahead with only a few minutes to go.

As for Sean Fitz, ok using the word pathetic was a bit over the top. But he seems to be the only one (apart from the wonderful worldofpain on this thread) who didn't even see a penalty in the Dagg/Kearney incident. Afraid, having watched him on Sky for a good while now, he's a bit one-eyed in his observations when NZ are playing.

[quote="brennomac...
As for Sean Fitz, ok using the word pathetic was a bit over the top. But he seems to be the only one (apart from the wonderful worldofpain on this thread) who didn't even see a penalty in the Dagg/Kearney incident. Afraid, having watched him on Sky for a good while now, he's a bit one-eyed in his observations when NZ are playing.
[/quote]

Poor guy can't win. Most NZers think he's sold out, and tells a different story depending on which hemisphere he's in.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can't believe Pete wants to make player contact illegal in rugby!!!. Next thing you will be wanting them to join the hands and sing cumbaya at half time.

Just a note here, why is there always a big issue when an offence is "deemed" to be cardable when it comes to the NH?

There is never such a fuss made about it by the Tri Nation guys.

anotherworldofpain wrote:
Keaney could just as well have take a step out his way and be a gentleman. But no! he wants the penalty so he jump to the ground like a football girl and acts like a professional in hollywood!

Now you're getting it. Now you're beginning to see reason. Kearney could have avoided Dagg in your slow-mo replay HD TV screen (he had plenty of time there!) and so too could Dagg have stopped mid-air, said "Begging your pardon, sir whatsyourname (not knowing coz he is an AB and the other player is Irish); beggin' your pardon, sir but do you mind if I use your body as a brake because I don't think I'm going to get to the ball before you kick it?"

That would have been the gentlemanly thing to do in your Hollywood replay epic.

biltongbek wrote:Just a note here, why is there always a big issue when an offence is "deemed" to be cardable when it comes to the NH?

There is never such a fuss made about it by the Tri Nation guys.

The 'fuss', as you know biltong, was initiated by someone of unknown nationality (Foreigncaricatureland is my best guess) who said the cardable offence shouldn't have been a card.
The rest of us were bemoaning a loss or celebrating a 'near' win at the time. You agree? I dislike the way the history of threads and ideas gets twisted by the recent readings of them. The problem with the card didn't come from us, it came from some who said it shouldn't have been one (a tri-nation fan by the looks of it ). That was the beginning, and you're well aware of that, biltong.