All Blacks v France Test #2
-
Probably the most egregious outcome over the last two weeks is that Ofa's tackle is now recorded as being
a greaterthe example of foul play out of the two. -
@broughie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@hooroo Ok. I guess it is over. Time to go to bed.
I have missed something here but I don't get the context of this post?
-
@hooroo it was 1am in California and I had things that day and once it was down to 14 it was history. Why watch a game that was ruined by a red card?
@broughie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@hooroo it was 1am in California and I had things that day and once it was down to 14 it was history. Why watch a game that was ruined by a red card?
I'm a simple, simple man, @broughie I still have no idea what you're on about. Did I say something about we shouldn't watch games with red cards or something?
-
@broughie said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@hooroo it was 1am in California and I had things that day and once it was down to 14 it was history. Why watch a game that was ruined by a red card?
I'm a simple, simple man, @broughie I still have no idea what you're on about. Did I say something about we shouldn't watch games with red cards or something?
-
@hooroo It was directed at you as you may have started the initial thread. Maybe I need to learn how to post on a thread without referencing someone. I am slow in this regard.
-
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
That's the precedent isn't it. High tackle, I was bumped 2 meters away and it messed up my body angle. Not my fault.
-
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
That's the precedent isn't it. High tackle, I was bumped 2 meters away and it messed up my body angle. Not my fault.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
That's the precedent isn't it. High tackle, I was bumped 2 meters away and it messed up my body angle. Not my fault.
That's this weeks argument.
People spend more time talking about judiciaries than they do the rugby this series.
-
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
That's the precedent isn't it. High tackle, I was bumped 2 meters away and it messed up my body angle. Not my fault.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Look on the bright side. Now the law's been clarified, Beaudy, Rieko and Jordie can engineer something, keeping their eyes on the ball and take out Mike Brown at Twickenham in November......
I don't think anything has been clarified, I still expect a red next time someone does that. Unless, maybe, you brush another player within a 5m radius of the catcher?
That's the precedent isn't it. High tackle, I was bumped 2 meters away and it messed up my body angle. Not my fault.
TBF, that is the ruling the ABs got at Murrayfield last year. I thought it was a YC for all money but the 'obstruction' on the way to the contest was deemed enough of a mitigating factor.
To the credit of the locals in the crowd it was accepted pretty well. -
@tim be good if Reffing boss came out and said that too.
The reffing committee or whatever need to be more proactive with their game reviews and the like, and this instance, they should be backing Angus up who got it 100% right as per the WR directives, IMO it was the judiciary who have made shit up and thrown Angus under the bus.
erm...wtf, how is that relevant?
Unlike the referee, we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident".
-
The worst part of this whole reffing debacle is that it absolutely sends the wrong (and contradictory) message about protecting players against head/neck injuries, and that the interpretation of the law has become even more confusing than it already was. It's wrong and inconvenient at test level, but even worse at club level.
World Rugby has issued "Interpretation of the laws" statements before - including videos and graphics etc - and should do this asap with regard to, particularly, contesting for the ball in the air.
-
Statement of clarification: challenges in the air
World Rugby would like to reconfirm the guidelines employed by match officials and the judicial process relating to challenges in the air, following public and media commentary during the June tests.
The guidelines, which have been operational since 2016, deal with when two players are challenging for a ball in the air and are designed to give clarity and alignment regarding the red card threshold. These guidelines are:
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is contact and their opponent lands on their back or side – Yellow card
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is reckless or deliberate foul play and the player lands in a dangerous position – Red card
A player having eyes on the ball is not by itself a mitigating factor when the match officials are determining whether potential foul play has been committed. The primary considerations is whether both players were in a realistic position to regather the ball.
In respect of the red card issued to Benjamin Fall during the New Zealand versus France match on June 16, the match official team followed the guideline correctly and made a decision based on the available camera angles.
Only during the subsequent review by an independent judicial panel, when additional camera angles were made available, was it determined that Benjamin Fall was knocked off balance immediately prior to the challenge and therefore the red card was dismissed.
-
Statement of clarification: challenges in the air
World Rugby would like to reconfirm the guidelines employed by match officials and the judicial process relating to challenges in the air, following public and media commentary during the June tests.
The guidelines, which have been operational since 2016, deal with when two players are challenging for a ball in the air and are designed to give clarity and alignment regarding the red card threshold. These guidelines are:
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is contact and their opponent lands on their back or side – Yellow card
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is reckless or deliberate foul play and the player lands in a dangerous position – Red card
A player having eyes on the ball is not by itself a mitigating factor when the match officials are determining whether potential foul play has been committed. The primary considerations is whether both players were in a realistic position to regather the ball.
In respect of the red card issued to Benjamin Fall during the New Zealand versus France match on June 16, the match official team followed the guideline correctly and made a decision based on the available camera angles.
Only during the subsequent review by an independent judicial panel, when additional camera angles were made available, was it determined that Benjamin Fall was knocked off balance immediately prior to the challenge and therefore the red card was dismissed.
@tim be cool to see the entire game from these additional camera angles, wonder if it made it any better?
-
Statement of clarification: challenges in the air
World Rugby would like to reconfirm the guidelines employed by match officials and the judicial process relating to challenges in the air, following public and media commentary during the June tests.
The guidelines, which have been operational since 2016, deal with when two players are challenging for a ball in the air and are designed to give clarity and alignment regarding the red card threshold. These guidelines are:
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is contact and their opponent lands on their back or side – Yellow card
If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is reckless or deliberate foul play and the player lands in a dangerous position – Red card
A player having eyes on the ball is not by itself a mitigating factor when the match officials are determining whether potential foul play has been committed. The primary considerations is whether both players were in a realistic position to regather the ball.
In respect of the red card issued to Benjamin Fall during the New Zealand versus France match on June 16, the match official team followed the guideline correctly and made a decision based on the available camera angles.
Only during the subsequent review by an independent judicial panel, when additional camera angles were made available, was it determined that Benjamin Fall was knocked off balance immediately prior to the challenge and therefore the red card was dismissed.
-
@tim Good to know that basically nothing has changed since last weekend. Hope the media (esp those of the NH), which generally either lacks intelligence or pretends it lacks intelligence, understands it, too.
@stargazer except the judiciary has access to angles the TMO doesnt.
Maybe similar to hawkeye technology, where they run through and if ALB isnt on the field, Fall catches the ball, runs 60m and scores under the posts?
-
@stargazer except the judiciary has access to angles the TMO doesnt.
Maybe similar to hawkeye technology, where they run through and if ALB isnt on the field, Fall catches the ball, runs 60m and scores under the posts?
@taniwharugby The judiciairy doesn't do its work during the game. What I meant is that the same situation will still have the same result in future games: a red card being given (using the same process/tick list correctly used by Gardner and Ayoub) if it's not obvious from the camera angles available to the TMO that something happened that could mitigate the decision. In last weekend's game, that would also have happened if Ayoub had been able to conclude from the available footage that there was a mitigating factor.
(I still have doubts that that footage exists btw. I simply do not believe that the brief contact with ALB made Fall lose sufficient balance to influence his run and jump for the ball.)
Btw, that kind of technology (if it existed/was available) could never predict how high Fall would have jumped and whether he would have caught the ball if ALB hadn't been on the field. After all, his dynamic/interaction with BB could have been different. It could maybe predict where he would have been without the interference and angles/body positions that would have been possible before his jump.
-
Great explanation. Some magical camera angle us peasants don't have access to shows it was all just an accident, nothing to see here, move along. Incompetent idiots.
-
@tim Good to know that basically nothing has changed since last weekend. Hope the media (esp those of the NH), which generally either lacks intelligence or pretends it lacks intelligence, understands it, too.
@stargazer said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@tim Good to know that basically nothing has changed since last weekend. Hope the media (esp those of the NH), which generally either lacks intelligence or pretends it lacks intelligence, understands it, too.
[tin foil hat]
Don't be so naive. The NH media has really ramped things up, and you want to know why? Because Gosper, Pichot and co, LISTEN TO THEM. They write unbelievably one-eyed biased bullshit, and will continuously attack attack attack at points which are not really relevant to the context of what happened in the game, to divert away from anything which could be written as positive. And, "co-incidentally" enough, it's always NZ, or if not NZ, at least the SH, which is in the bad.
It's fucking bullshit and frankly, for all that is written about NZ, rule leniency etc being a "blight in the game", it's the cancerous journo's who really are the blight on the game. Here's a short list I've compiled:
Luke Pearce, the English ref. Apparently in test one, he was "let down by his TMO peers", or "leaned by the pro AB crowd", or "succumbed to the world rugby sponsored view that the AB's play to different rules".
Paul Williams, the NZ ref for Ireland - Aus "a disgrace to the game" - this was tweeted DIRECTLY at Gosper. Wanna know why? Because he didn't give Ireland a yellow card for continual Aussie transgressions. Maybe a point, but a DISGRACE? Especially after a week of continual media hum drum about the "unfair yellow" (where the poor young outstanding english ref was let down by everybody around who wasn't english) ruining the game in NZ.
Gardner - "should have certainly taken ALB's run into account", "a red card for ALB shouldn't have been out of the question given his part in it" ... this isn't from rabid one eyed fans, this is from JOURNALISTS ... who are sending messages to Gosper!! Seriously, here's the fucking video:
ALB did JACK SHIT. His eyes were on the fucking ball too, it doesn't even look like he touched him, let alone ran from 50 yards away to directly push poor skinny Fall into Barrett to milk the red card. The world rugby media release here is COLOSSAL BULLSHIT, written purely to appease the same NH media they infuritated with their COLOSSAL BULLSHIT media release from a week earlier about Ofa.
And you want to hear the ultimate shit in the face ? During the England - Tunisia football match, Harry Kane was tackled in the penalty box, rugby style .. One Walrus wrote ... "Some of the high tackling on Harry Kane in the Tunisian box would have even got an All Black carded. Lord Harry I should say"
Not a big deal really, for the pompous alanis morrisette style irony fellow, but you know who liked it?
His BFF Brett Gosper.
[/tin foil hat]
-
Best rant in ages. Virtual pint
