Wallabies v Lions II
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Question on laws from those in the know. Do they actually say you can't make contact above shoulders? Just in last ruck/breakdown Tizzano actually had his neck and head lower that his shoulders.
Ok just taking piss , but hey..........Was a tackle not a ruck. His head was level with his hips but when he was hit by Morgan he folded due to the impact on his neck.
To my knowledge there is no requirement by a jackaler at a tackle to have their head level or above their hips but as soon as someone from the opposition binds to them to form a ruck then they would need to instantly adjust their height.
The laws are f'ed and contradictory. If it were a computer program it would be a bug.
People say that those kind of clean outs were happening a lot throughout the game and I think that's true. I also think a lot of the cleanouts were dodgy by the Lions all series. Charging in and no bind.
-
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
-
Anyone should, whether they have skin in the game or not, accept that both instances, whilst contentious, were subject fine margins and interpretation and as such, liable to go either way. To a degree this is the essence of sport, but here it is not helped by the ambiguity of the laws leaving a much greater emphasis on that interpretation thing. We've all been subject to 50/50 decisions and been on the losing end of it.
Grow a pair of bollocks and move on to the next game.
-
The problem is the interpretation of "foul play" changes from week to week, ref to ref and TMO to TMO.
Meaning what is penalisable or worse one week isn't the next, that creates huge issues for the game.
I think if that had been called back and a penalty awarded we'd still be having this same conversation about "that moment"
-
Spot on.
-
-
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions II:
There’s a very easy way to sort it out and it has precedent
When I started playing rugby in the 70s we did drills every training session to prepare yourself for the match situation
As soon as you hit the deck you let go of the ball and placed both your hands on your head to protect you from the inevitable trampling that would follow
World Rugby are not going to bring back rucking but if they mandated that the ball carrier soon as the hips hit the deck has to either pass the ball instantly and/or release the ball and not handle & place it like he’s a Vegas dealer then the contest for the ball becomes cleaner and quicker
Invariably the jackler will win possession but then is fair game for a legal hit/tackle from the opposition
Anyone other than the tackled player off their feet then it’s an automatic penalty, regardless of whether it’s deliberate or accidental
Defence coaches are already training their players to commit to some breakdowns and not others
This is a skills and timing issue which can be learned
And the better players and coaches learn very fucking quickly
Amen, Mike in rugby you meant to be out of game when you off feet. I think they need to be a little harder on passing off ground too. Like you when I played in late 60s and 70s, when you hit ground you let the ball go, and got out of way.
-
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Rugby must be an utterly baffling sport to the occasional viewer.
I agree sparky, and strange as it sounds, I think it one of the appeals of the game.
I perhaps like the fact it's not simple, though I can understand that others prefer simpler game. -
@Dan54 It's chess with 30 people. It's warfare without the gunpowder.
It's game I love. It's the Game of Our Lives.
But yeah, I get that in an era when people like their entertainment simple, accessible and undemanding that other sports might suit our times better.
-
@sparky said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 It's chess with 30 people. It's warfare without the gunpowder.
It's game I love. It's the Game of Our Lives.
But yeah, I get that in an era when people like their entertainment simple, accessible and undemanding that other sports might suit our times better.
Perhaps not our times mate, just some people in our times.
-
No skin in the game for TAS this time, maybe an axe to grind - but don't we all with the laws and their interpretation
Brought up some very interesting points and opinions, especially Australian captain asking the ref to look at the wrong thing
As I mentioned earlier, could easily see both incidents reversed in favour of Australia on any other day
-
@MiketheSnow My two cents, there is enough wrong with the Sheehan try that it should not have been given and I think the ref has set a dangerous precedent.
The decision on the Morgan clear out before the Keenan try is consistent with the way the international game has been officiated for the last decade or so. I think if it's even 50:50 then it's attacking team advantage. We might see something similar go another way in another game and it would have been good for the series as a whole if a penalty had been given, but that is not the referee's concern. He got that one right IMHO.
-
Going back to the Sheehan try, I can quite see his view about it being dangerous but, and I know this is a little different, how many times to we see a ruck near the line and a player picking up the ball and diving over the ruck to score? As i say I can see that it is different, but the question is, how do you police this? A ruck still has defenders which are being dived over. In truth it might have been better for the Lions if he hadn't scored and Slipper penalised for being on the ground and interfering with play. That would have been the third or fourth penalty on the trot and maybe a team yellow. Assuming the officials even noticed the offence that is.
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Lions II:
There comes a point where rugby may have to to accept the jackal has beaten everyone else to the ball and no cleanout could be legal - however we're talking split seconds here.
Totally agree, Nick! BTW I recall David Pocock complaining that his neck was taken a pounding after he was on and got smashed into neck to clear. Think he called for rule changes. Not sure if any occurred.
-
Example of one way to deal with jackaller: https://rugbylad.ie/tadhg-furlong-greatest-cleanout-ive-ever-seen-david-pocock/
-
@Bovidae said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Lynagh is shite. He cost them that game in my view.
Also some dumb decisions by Wilson and Sua'ali'i at attacking rucks. Wilson sort of lost the plot in the 2nd half and wasn't making any ground carrying the ball. Unless they were cooked Schmidt's decision to replace Valetini at HT and Skelton early in the 2nd half was a mistake and proved costly.
Seems Bobby V and both props were gassed by halftime.
