rugbyunion
Latest News:
Untitled Document
 

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3
 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooker 72 (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 11:13
Put it this way, if smith had hit Wray directly with the force of that hit, Wray would have been knocked out and smith wouldn’t be playing for a very long time.....there’s your basic man physics

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
TimothyQ (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 11:23
Personally, I think we’ve pinched one against the head here. But the man is available, it’s tbe result we all wanted, how about we just move on?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 12:34
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 12:39
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 12:40
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

But the ball was nowhere near his chin.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 13:05
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole inconsistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

But the ball was nowhere near his chin.

Ball didn't hit his chin: just provided a fulcrum.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 13:25
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole in consistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

But the ball was nowhere near his chin.

Ball didn't hit his chin: just provided a fulcrum.

In which case the head would have gone forward relative to the balll. Basic physics. Where’s the force coming from that forces the head back?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 13:28
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole in consistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.

What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

But the ball was nowhere near his chin.

Ball didn't hit his chin: just provided a fulcrum.

In which case the head would have gone forward relative to the balll. Basic physics. Where’s the force coming from that forces the head back?

His head goes forward when Smith hits him. The ball is the secondary point of impact, which forces the head back.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Standardprocedure (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 13:51
Isn't it like one of those Newton's Cradle desktop toys? The first ball (Smith) hits the middle ball (the ball) which then hits the end ball (Wray's head) and sends Wray's head backward?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 14:00
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
hooker 72
With such an impact hits the ball in wrays arms, it’s basic physics that the impact waves move up the body and cause a whiplash effect. People see things differently and we re all just giving out opinions. The right result has happened in the end, but there was enough doubt that a red shouldn’t have been given and as has been said a red for Skelton missed, so on the whole in consistent and shabby officiating.....just my opinion.

Basic physics means that if the chin was not hit, the whiplash effect would move the head forward relative to the body not back.

I think the point that Smith made at the hearing was that the ball played the crucial part in the misunderstanding of where Wray'd been hit. I see it that there're actually two points of impact: 1: Smith hit's Wray and the ball. 2: ball hits Wray (effectively) and that's what made his head go back. If it'd just been Smith hits Wray, no ball involved, I'd be agreeing with you right now.


What does the ball do that made his head go back?

Hits him (effectively: basically a secondary impact), but after the initial point of contact with Smith. Just all in milliseconds, which is why it looks like Smith hits him in the chin, which causes his head to go backwards.

But the ball was nowhere near his chin.

Ball didn't hit his chin: just provided a fulcrum.

In which case the head would have gone forward relative to the balll. Basic physics. Where’s the force coming from that forces the head back?

His head goes forward when Smith hits him. The ball is the secondary point of impact, which forces the head back.

Footage here: Linky. I don't see his head going forward. That aside, you're not explaining how the ball forces the head back?

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 14:05
Quote:
Standardprocedure
Isn't it like one of those Newton's Cradle desktop toys? The first ball (Smith) hits the middle ball (the ball) which then hits the end ball (Wray's head) and sends Wray's head backward?
Not when your trying to explain it away in conjunction with saying nothing hit the head (or it was just a glancing blow). The ball was not in contact with the chin. The reason they gave was a whiplash effect. I don't get how that fits.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 14:13
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
Standardprocedure
Isn't it like one of those Newton's Cradle desktop toys? The first ball (Smith) hits the middle ball (the ball) which then hits the end ball (Wray's head) and sends Wray's head backward?
Not when your trying to explain it away in conjunction with saying nothing hit the head (or it was just a glancing blow). The ball was not in contact with the chin. The reason they gave was a whiplash effect. I don't get how that fits.

Standardprocedure has it right, apart from the hitting-the-head thing.

A - Wray's head
B - Position of ball
C - Position of Smith's initial point of contact
Smith hits at point c, first (by a few milliseconds). This makes Wray's head go back.
In the process of that hit, he makes contact with the ball, slightly higher up Wray's body.
Wray's body, in coming forward from the initial impact, is knocked backwards by the second aspect of the whole overall collision.

And it all happens very quickly. You can see his head begin to come forward, and then get knocked backwards. I think that's all due to the above.
And that's probably really badly explained, but that's how I see it.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooker 72 (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 14:24
Robtheh, really good explanation in better words that I could manage, hopefully this now can be put to bed

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Pub Singer (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 18:12
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
Standardprocedure
Isn't it like one of those Newton's Cradle desktop toys? The first ball (Smith) hits the middle ball (the ball) which then hits the end ball (Wray's head) and sends Wray's head backward?
Not when your trying to explain it away in conjunction with saying nothing hit the head (or it was just a glancing blow). The ball was not in contact with the chin. The reason they gave was a whiplash effect. I don't get how that fits.

Standardprocedure has it right, apart from the hitting-the-head thing.

A - Wray's head
B - Position of ball
C - Position of Smith's initial point of contact
Smith hits at point c, first (by a few milliseconds). This makes Wray's head go back.
In the process of that hit, he makes contact with the ball, slightly higher up Wray's body.
Wray's body, in coming forward from the initial impact, is knocked backwards by the second aspect of the whole overall collision.

And it all happens very quickly. You can see his head begin to come forward, and then get knocked backwards. I think that's all due to the above.
And that's probably really badly explained, but that's how I see it.
No, that doesn't explain why his head goes backwards faster than his body. If C = A or Smith hits A at some point, then that would explain it.

Reason that I'm pressing the point is that there seems to be a lot of negative comments and even vitriol pointed at the officials on the day. To me that is really unfair based on the video evidence available. Most refs would have given a red IMO. The more I see it the more I'm convinced I would have done the same thing.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
happyH (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 18:33
My main problem is nothing to do with its George Smith issue.

How ref/tmo/citing cam miss Will Skelton forearm to the face with no repercussions. He should have been off and since he wasn't action should have been taken since.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 19:01
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
robtheh
Quote:
Pub Singer
Quote:
Standardprocedure
Isn't it like one of those Newton's Cradle desktop toys? The first ball (Smith) hits the middle ball (the ball) which then hits the end ball (Wray's head) and sends Wray's head backward?
Not when your trying to explain it away in conjunction with saying nothing hit the head (or it was just a glancing blow). The ball was not in contact with the chin. The reason they gave was a whiplash effect. I don't get how that fits.

Standardprocedure has it right, apart from the hitting-the-head thing.

A - Wray's head
B - Position of ball
C - Position of Smith's initial point of contact
Smith hits at point c, first (by a few milliseconds). This makes Wray's head go back.
In the process of that hit, he makes contact with the ball, slightly higher up Wray's body.
Wray's body, in coming forward from the initial impact, is knocked backwards by the second aspect of the whole overall collision.

And it all happens very quickly. You can see his head begin to come forward, and then get knocked backwards. I think that's all due to the above.
And that's probably really badly explained, but that's how I see it.
No, that doesn't explain why his head goes backwards faster than his body. If C = A or Smith hits A at some point, then that would explain it.

Reason that I'm pressing the point is that there seems to be a lot of negative comments and even vitriol pointed at the officials on the day. To me that is really unfair based on the video evidence available. Most refs would have given a red IMO. The more I see it the more I'm convinced I would have done the same thing.

We’ll have agree to disagree on that one.
I guess it’s frustrating that the panel saw the same clips as the ref and came to the diametrically opposite decision as he did.
But that’s sport, to my mind there’s not a lot of point or dignity in slagging the ref...even though I have been guilty of it in the past.

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
hooter (IP Logged)
13 September, 2018 22:38
As somebody pointed out earlier it might be down to the fact that the ref was using a very large screen compared to the judges at the hearing using hd screens

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
inatthebreakdown (IP Logged)
14 September, 2018 09:27
Interesting article. Looks like some serious thought went into this!

[www.espn.co.uk]

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
robtheh (IP Logged)
14 September, 2018 10:05
Quote:
inatthebreakdown
Interesting article. Looks like some serious thought went into this!
[www.espn.co.uk]

Really good article, thanks for posting!

 
Re: George Smith - Charge dismissed
Hercules Spoons (IP Logged)
14 September, 2018 10:59
It is a good article, even if they cannot spell inanimate.

It does indicate how difficult it is for referees especially when they are, unfairly, encouraged to highlight specific new areas of interest by the authorities.

Goto Page: Previous123
Current Page: 3 of 3

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?