Wallabies v France 3
-
@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.
-
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
-
@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
@mikethesnow said in Wallabies v France 3:
@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
The missing player was a winger. Easy to adjust defensively for that loss and although it may remove some attacking options and firepower, again it's not super difficult unless all plays were 'get the ball to that guy'.
Harder work and more concentration required for sure and kudos to them for dealing with it well.
Certainly dealt with it better than the ABs did in Perth when they just played without a lock for 10 minutes then swapped a loosie for a lock. Would have made much more sense to ditch a wing and played with 8 forwards.
-
@mikethesnow said in Wallabies v France 3:
@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
The missing player was a winger. Easy to adjust defensively for that loss and although it may remove some attacking options and firepower, again it's not super difficult unless all plays were 'get the ball to that guy'.
Harder work and more concentration required for sure and kudos to them for dealing with it well.
Certainly dealt with it better than the ABs did in Perth when they just played without a lock for 10 minutes then swapped a loosie for a lock. Would have made much more sense to ditch a wing and played with 8 forwards.
-
Reckon some of you guys watch too much league. (Being Welsh, I'd say that any league is too mich league). The NH is starting to take brain injury seriously, but I'd say the SH - and in particular Oz - is a little behind. NRL seems to allow hits to the head that to my unconcussed mind should be consigned to history, and maybe that influences union watchers too.
My immediate impression was that it was a perfect tackle, but after seeing all the replays I don't think Marika can have too many complaints. Malice and intent are totally irrelevant for head contact, have been for a few years. Thr tackler has to avoid the head, and Marika's tackle involved head contact, which is a straight red unless there is sufficient mitigation to downgrade.
Agree that the French guy might have been hamming it up, but it didn't influence the decision. He did dip, but only a very small amount and just a natural adjustment to brace for the impact. I wasn't sure if the first contact was head, even after all the replays, but if it was shoulder or chest first it was so marginal as to not affect the outcome.
Another ref on another day might have said that was enough mitigation to downgrade to a yellow, but that's your best case outcome. The Wallabies have known that for a few years, and they need to adjust for it. Accidents can happen, they want to play on the edge and it's hard to get it right every time, especially when you're a massive unit like Koroibete travelling at Mach speed. But that's a skill that has to be practiced like any other.
The nonsense from the commentators was disappointing, I thought we might have left behind the "I'm all for player safety, but when it impacts my enjoyment of the game it's gone too far" nonsense when they got rid of Fox Sport, but unfortunately not.
-
@chimoaus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Out of curiosity what is the rule about where the hookers feet should be when throwing into the lineout? It seems most hookers stand in the field of play with just their heels touching the line.
Can’t be in the field of play…always are
@chimoaus @kiwiwomble said in Wallabies v France 3:
@chimoaus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Out of curiosity what is the rule about where the hookers feet should be when throwing into the lineout? It seems most hookers stand in the field of play with just their heels touching the line.
Can’t be in the field of play…always are
Only just read the thread and saw this. Have been through this a couple of times on here.
Apparently the refs (@Damo was one at the time and he clarified it) see that as out of the field of play. If they are on the line they are out. Same as any other player touching the line is out. Just the way it is ruled it seems.
