Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth)
-
@chimoaus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I think one of the very first kicks of the last game looked like a 50-22 attempt, but it bounced up instead of out.
It is an interesting tactical change now because if you have the ball within your 50 and 40m line the opposition wingers almost have to drop back to protect the 50-22 which in theory opens up the wide channels. I'm not sure if that is how Akira was used. As in purposely get your phase play to just within your 50 and then send it wide. Or setup phase play to go for the 50-22 which if pulled off is a huge advantage.
Exactly. The effects of that law aren't immediately obvious. The intention was always to reduce the 13 man walls of defence.
@crucial said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@chimoaus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I'm not sure one 50-22 has been attempted by either side across all 3 Bledisloes?
I think one of the very first kicks of the last game looked like a 50-22 attempt, but it bounced up instead of out.
It is an interesting tactical change now because if you have the ball within your 50 and 40m line the opposition wingers almost have to drop back to protect the 50-22 which in theory opens up the wide channels. I'm not sure if that is how Akira was used. As in purposely get your phase play to just within your 50 and then send it wide. Or setup phase play to go for the 50-22 which if pulled off is a huge advantage.
Exactly. The effects of that law aren't immediately obvious. The intention was always to reduce the 13 man walls of defence.
May be more effective on a skiddy pitch against a Sean Edwards-style rush defense?
I haven't seen the AB's really change their push-up and drift defense in ... years?
I think percentage-wise they are still happy to give up ground, rely on speed to the breakdown and technique to isolate a center/wing and then target the breakdown to look to counter-attack.
-
I couldnt clearly recall the Nabura one, but jeez he looks like he lined that one up!
-
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster. -
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.@nostrildamus I think it's a case of "if the law says it's a red card, the law is an ass"
I think a more senior ref. might be more inclined to knowingly give a yellow, like Nigel Owens.
Wayne Barnes might be 50/50 i.e. give the red and then say to his superiors in the post-game review "look in this situation, the law is an ass and we need to look at it".
Harder for a more junior ref. trying to make it up the hierarchy though.
-
@nostrildamus I think it's a case of "if the law says it's a red card, the law is an ass"
I think a more senior ref. might be more inclined to knowingly give a yellow, like Nigel Owens.
Wayne Barnes might be 50/50 i.e. give the red and then say to his superiors in the post-game review "look in this situation, the law is an ass and we need to look at it".
Harder for a more junior ref. trying to make it up the hierarchy though.
-
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
I would argue against reckless.
-
@dan54 said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
Not sure how this will go,lifting your boot studs while catching a ball is reckless is, so is jumping leading with a knee if someone cops knee in face, but almost everyone does it as it almost impossible to jump up with legs straight.
Yep, but it's a degree and a proximity thing. Knees are close to the body, and if you hit it, it's like a tackle. In fairness to Kerevi, he was a long way back, and waiting to tackle. Raised sprigs make that bloody hard, and dangerous.
I don't like the outcome, as it's reflexvely reckless, but I can see the logic and the likely suspension incoming.
One thing I haven't seen (and haven't seen video again) is - did JB get bumped on his way up? If so, it may be a minor mitigation of some form (the Benjamin Fall defence, right)
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@crucial that is the problem, it wasnt a kick, it was reckless use of ones foot
No way that they should start the process at the same place as someone that deliberately kicked someones head.
I would argue against reckless.
@booboo careless I'd what I meant to put
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
In fairness to Kerevi, he was a long way back, and waiting to tackle
Thanks Nisbo.
@bones said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
In fairness to Kerevi, he was a long way back, and waiting to tackle
Thanks Nisbo.
glad I'm not alone at this party...
-
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
-
@landp you do realize invoking Wayne Barnes' name is instant PTSD?
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@landp you do realize invoking Wayne Barnes' name is instant PTSD?
Yeah I do, totally.
But after years of psychotherapy I admit he became a bloody good referee. And he's a seriously good rugby person if you check out his interviews. I know there's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance required to see this as an AB supporter :winking_face:
I mean would you prefer Wayne Barnes or say a random French or NZ referee versus the Boks now?
-
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.It was me being bitter and twisted, but reckon there was a degree of looking to confirm his impression. I don't think it was impartial.
I was pretty taken aback by how Murphy dealt with Jordie and the ABs in that instance too - came off really angry and almost like he'd been personally slighted.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
-
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
@nevorian said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
I happened to be seated near the race where the officials left the field at halftime. It was interesting that a few police officers had stationed themselves just above the race obviously anticipating the largely NZ contingent in this area to maybe offer a bit of advice to Murphy as he left.
Glad you didn't say the large NZer contingent!
Carefully crafted phrasing!
NB I notice that photo depicts a hand about to grab a player in the air.. -
Jordie will get 3 weeks.
Law 9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.
Low-end: 2 weeks
Mid-range: 6 weeks
Top-end: 10+ weeks
Max: 52 weeksIt's a mid range offence because it's contact with the head. He will get maximum discount of 50% leaving a sanction of 3 weeks.
Mark my words. They barely even need to have the hearing.
-
@booboo said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
My limited understanding based on snippets read is that "deliberate contact to the head with force" constitutes a RC.
So, break that down:
- deliberate? No
- head? Yes
- force? Minimal
Other mitigating factors?
- seeking balance for safety
- orange player impeding ability to safely execute
Struggling to get RC out of that.
Seeing a clip subsequent to the game it's clear Murphy immediately called for the TMO to "check that". So the TMO review IMO wasn't an impartial review of the facts, it was a process to try and confirm Murphy's immediate reaction.
Thanks, agreed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.
I'm glad you all are still discussing this and with more clarity than I could muster.@nostrildamus said in Wallabies vs All Blacks 3 (Perth):
reed with all except maybe last sentence: not sure if I follow you but not sure why immediate call for TMO can't be impartial (but this is so minor, forget it).
Onto the important point, I'd have thought a red card is to stamp out dangerous, cheating, unnecessary or evil foul play, I don't think it is any of those. Perhaps dangerous, but in my mind the jumper has to focus totally on the ball and if the tackler is going for the jumper rather than competing then the onus is on the tackler to be careful. I think this is a grey area and I wonder if/how they can police it more fairly.
Edit: I see Crucial already said something similar.I don't really agree with you here. It is also to stamp out dangerous actions, caused by poor technique whether they are deliberate or not.
The guy was kicked in the head. It wasn't deliberate but it was foreseeable. Players have stopped lifting inthe tackle because they know if they get it wrong they get a red card (even if it isn't deliberate). Players going to catch the ball should stop leading with their feet.
-
Jordie didn't lead with his foot, he kicked it out instinctively at the last second trying to avoid landing on his back.
