Wallabies v France 3
-
@crucial it's all a matter of opinion then, since when is that shoulder charge? The French player is dropping into the tackle and the first point of contact is shoulder to shoulder before Koroibete proceeds to push up (as seen in the below screen shot). It's just a hard blimmen tackle from what I can see.
This screenshot of SBW against the Lions is the definition of a shoulder charge, it's reckless and fully deserves a red. The one above is hardly even a penalty and it shows how soft the game has gone with all these messy interpretations.
-
https://twitter.com/RugbyAUS/status/1416551594133311490
Would like to see the angle that the refs watched several times right before the decision.
-
-
@crucial it's all a matter of opinion then, since when is that shoulder charge? The French player is dropping into the tackle and the first point of contact is shoulder to shoulder before Koroibete proceeds to push up (as seen in the below screen shot). It's just a hard blimmen tackle from what I can see.
This screenshot of SBW against the Lions is the definition of a shoulder charge, it's reckless and fully deserves a red. The one above is hardly even a penalty and it shows how soft the game has gone with all these messy interpretations.
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial it's all a matter of opinion then, since when is that shoulder charge? The French player is dropping into the tackle and the first point of contact is shoulder to shoulder before Koroibete proceeds to push up (as seen in the below screen shot). It's just a hard blimmen tackle from what I can see.
This screenshot of SBW against the Lions is the definition of a shoulder charge, it's reckless and fully deserves a red. The one above is hardly even a penalty and it shows how soft the game has gone with all these messy interpretations.
That's why I went through the whole protocol. To show how it works for a non shoulder charge.
You still aren't justifying why you think it is 'messy interpretations' or a 'botch up'
-
Diving surrender monkey number 8 got bitched by a winger so bad his little baby head bounced off MKs back. He then held the other side of his face and did a diveball.
Permanent ejection from the game for being pathetic for the 'captain', high five for MK for being an absolute weapon.
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Diving surrender monkey number 8 got bitched by a winger so bad his little baby head bounced off MKs back. He then held the other side of his face and did a diveball.
Permanent ejection from the game for being pathetic for the 'captain', high five for MK for being an absolute weapon.
Gunning for the fern 'tough guy' badge?
-
@Canes4life a couple from another angle
Looks like shoulder to neck to me.
Now his head which was in front of him has been jolted back.
A High Tackle, meanwhile, is:
“An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear, direct contact to [the ball-carrier’s] head/ neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA”
So while the exact point of contact could be debated I think the other two criteria fit the bill. (I think he went for HIA?)
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial it's all a matter of opinion then, since when is that shoulder charge? The French player is dropping into the tackle and the first point of contact is shoulder to shoulder before Koroibete proceeds to push up (as seen in the below screen shot). It's just a hard blimmen tackle from what I can see.
This screenshot of SBW against the Lions is the definition of a shoulder charge, it's reckless and fully deserves a red. The one above is hardly even a penalty and it shows how soft the game has gone with all these messy interpretations.
That's why I went through the whole protocol. To show how it works for a non shoulder charge.
You still aren't justifying why you think it is 'messy interpretations' or a 'botch up'
@crucial you can refer to the rules all you like, my argument is that no matter what the rules say, the incident in question shouldn’t have led to a red card in my view.
If you want to go further though then why aren’t we pinging the ball carrier? The tackler did everything right, hit square and dropped his shoulder height to meet the ball carriers chest. Essentially you could argue that it was actually the ball carrier who deserved a red for being reckless and dropping his head at the last second but fuck me, then we would really open up a can of worms.
Dishing out a red because it ticks a few boxes is ridiculous and it’s a blight on the game. At the end of the day the rules need to be simple and need to factor in whether or not there is malice / intention in the tackle, how reckless the tackle is etc. Or if they are going to be pedantic, let’s bring in the 20 min red card replacement rule like we saw in SRTT.
-
I'm happy with the decision. Fits the RC criteria as laid down by World Rugby.
For all the Aussies whining about it, I bet most if them would take the opposite view if the sides were reversed.
I think the focus should be on overcoming that setback for a great win. And the French should be asking themselves why they played so dumb against an opponent short a player.
-
Another angle here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RugbyAustralia/comments/om4chl/another_angle/
Suspect that initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, quickly followed by bicep to jaw/neck.
Overhead view would be definitive.
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Diving surrender monkey number 8 got bitched by a winger so bad his little baby head bounced off MKs back. He then held the other side of his face and did a diveball.
Permanent ejection from the game for being pathetic for the 'captain', high five for MK for being an absolute weapon.
Gunning for the fern 'tough guy' badge?
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Diving surrender monkey number 8 got bitched by a winger so bad his little baby head bounced off MKs back. He then held the other side of his face and did a diveball.
Permanent ejection from the game for being pathetic for the 'captain', high five for MK for being an absolute weapon.
Gunning for the fern 'tough guy' badge?
When I read the post I pictured lots of dope gang signs.
-
@crucial you can refer to the rules all you like, my argument is that no matter what the rules say, the incident in question shouldn’t have led to a red card in my view.
If you want to go further though then why aren’t we pinging the ball carrier? The tackler did everything right, hit square and dropped his shoulder height to meet the ball carriers chest. Essentially you could argue that it was actually the ball carrier who deserved a red for being reckless and dropping his head at the last second but fuck me, then we would really open up a can of worms.
Dishing out a red because it ticks a few boxes is ridiculous and it’s a blight on the game. At the end of the day the rules need to be simple and need to factor in whether or not there is malice / intention in the tackle, how reckless the tackle is etc. Or if they are going to be pedantic, let’s bring in the 20 min red card replacement rule like we saw in SRTT.
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial you can refer to the rules all you like, my argument is that no matter what the rules say, the incident in question shouldn’t have led to a red card in my view.
So your problem is with the laws not the way they are applied? That’s not what you were saying before?
I think you’ll find that many of us agree that the 20 minute Red would be better.
As for the bit about actions of the ball carrier that’s just dumb. All ball carriers that can see a bit hit coming will brace themselves by spreading legs and dropping a bit if they have time to. The tackler knows that or at least should. Same argument for a tackler smashing a player as they jump for a high kick.
-
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
All recent Wallaby coaches are expected to follow the blueprint laid down by Deans.
-
@nepia said in Wallabies v France 3:
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
All recent Wallaby coaches are expected to follow the blueprint laid down by Deans.
Nah this is all Rennie. We’ve heard this tune before from him.
-
@nepia said in Wallabies v France 3:
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
All recent Wallaby coaches are expected to follow the blueprint laid down by Deans.
Nah this is all Rennie. We’ve heard this tune before from him.
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nepia said in Wallabies v France 3:
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
How original, another whinging Aussie coach.
All recent Wallaby coaches are expected to follow the blueprint laid down by Deans.
Nah this is all Rennie. We’ve heard this tune before from him.
Yeah, he's studied and modelled himself on Deans for years. He told me this in Raro. FACT!!!
-
@stargazer that French length of the field try is a thing of beauty
-
No mitigation. Ok.
https://twitter.com/Nelsonhdale/status/1416628842005889024?s=19
-
No mitigation. Ok.
https://twitter.com/Nelsonhdale/status/1416628842005889024?s=19
-
No mitigation. Ok.
https://twitter.com/Nelsonhdale/status/1416628842005889024?s=19
@nta that’s ridiculous, no bright coloured arrows.
