Autumn Internationals Team Announcement/Talk

The Dagestani Eagle

CatFromHue wrote: »

ruck formed and he tackled the scrum half, is that not a foul ?

maybe a foul but a yellow?

The Dagestani Eagle

sydthebeat wrote: »

Law 10.4 (j)

I disagree .

Interested Observer

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

I disagree .

This is the law:

Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst
that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body
come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Which bit do you disagree with?

The Dagestani Eagle

Interested Observer wrote: »

This is the law:



Which bit do you disagree with?

All of it. It is inconsistently enforced. Lawes on Plisson for instance

Interested Observer

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

All of it. It is inconsistently enforced. Lawes on Plisson for instance

Well that's a totally different argument. You're saying above you don't know which law he broke, it's pretty clear-cut there imo.

sydthebeat

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

I disagree .

Disagree all you want. Thats obviously the law that was broken

hahashake

No penalty. Thought it looked a bit familiar.

hahashake

Double post

Jump_In_Jack

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

https://i.imgur.com/g3DMZOl.gif

Surprised this was a yellow.He doesn't lift his legs, does'nt go beyond horizontal and doesn't land on head neck or shoulders.

i don't understand what law it broke .

He clearly body slams the ball carrier down on his upper body, shoulder and head hit the ground first.
Is the fact he’s wearing an all black jersey affecting your ability to see it?

The Dagestani Eagle

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

He clearly body slams the ball carrier down on his upper body, shoulder and head hit the ground first.
Is the fact he’s wearing an all black jersey affecting your ability to see it?

No the black jersey and matching socks + shorts combination is quite easy to see.
In fact I find the USA one harder to make out.
Head does not hit the ground first. Completely fatuous statement, and if true would have been a red card.

randomname2005

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

No the black jersey and matching socks + shorts combination is quite easy to see.
In fact I find the USA one harder to make out.
Head does not hit the ground first. Completely fatuous statement, and if true would have been a red card.

But this is the law:

" that the player’s head and/or upper body
come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."

And shoulders hit first.

I played rugby for a long time, was a referee for a while and a coach, but I find myself getting more and more drawn away from watching rugby and towards individual sports where it is only down to the skill/speed/power of the individual and where there is no dubious decision in the middle of a game which impacts the outcome.

Podge_irl

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

The Japanese captain needing a translator to give an aftermath interview in Japanese was a sad indictment of the modern game.

Michael Leitch has lived in Japan half his life and speaks fluent Japanese.

hahashake

Japanese try scorers: Samuela Anise, Hendrik Tui, Tim Lafaele 2, Jamie Henry.

Suprrised there has been not a peep about this

hahashake wrote: »

No penalty. Thought it looked a bit familiar.

Interested Observer

hahashake wrote: »

No penalty. Thought it looked a bit familiar.

That's nuts, how was it not penalised. Right in front of the ref as well.

The Dagestani Eagle

Podge_irl wrote: »

Michael Leitch has lived in Japan half his life and speaks fluent Japanese.

don't understand the need for a translator then. bizarre.

Fabulous player for what its worth.

The Dagestani Eagle

Interested Observer wrote: »

That's nuts, how was it not penalised. Right in front of the ref as well.

Carley had a shocker of a game. Not cut out for it.

All this talk of safety first is nonsense. its all window dressing.

I personally think the game has gone soft , but decisions I've seen even in last few weeks alone leave me wondering in what spirit is the game being reffed.

Kaino, Cipriani, Farrell for instance. i had no issue with any of the tackles , but i have an issue with how they were reffed and also the spirit in which people enter in discussions about the tackles. The dice is loaded before discussion starts.

Also its patently obvious that refs ref the clock, ref the table and ref the "optics" of the people involved, as in for Farrells tackle -if in the 5th minute its a yellow, if its a Pacific Islander its a yellow and if its a big team against a minnow its a yellow.

Morgan Tuirinui's take on it was spot on today on the rugby ruckus podcast.
He's probably the best voice in rugby at the moment.

ScrubsfanChris

:pac:

https://twitter.com/Petrivz/status/1059669701444427778?s=19

The Dagestani Eagle

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

Carley had a shocker of a game. Not cut out for it.

All this talk of safety first is nonsense. its all window dressing.

I personally think the game has gone soft , but decisions I've seen even in last few weeks alone leave me wondering in what spirit is the game being reffed.

How many early retirees have we had this season?

How often did players have to retire early back when the game was 'hard'?

The Dagestani Eagle

Deleted User wrote: »

How many early retirees have we had this season?

How often did players have to retire early back when the game was 'hard'?

To be honest, i think that comment is a little disingenuous. I don't think its to do with tackle technique rules or their application. Professionalism has made the players bigger and faster with forwards as fast as backs and 106kg backs like SBW.
The players are just too big and too strong now.


But if we take your point at face value i would also offer the argument that was put forward in a recent study ( i can try and dig it up) that it is in fact the tack-LER not the tack-LEE who statistically had more concussions and field leaving injuries.


As an aside, I find it all hard to take seriously, if indeed player safety is at the forefront, that things like one man open field lifts a la stander on O'Mahoney are not prohibited , and then innocuous things are sanctioned like Alesana Tuilagi pumping the legs in contact , or parisse being sent of for bracing himself for impact.

There is no consistency in ideology, application or spirit and i just feel that if we are going to clutch our pearls then lets clutch them uniformly across the board with a bit of clarity.

It's an a le carte menu now and it is deciding games.

The Dagestani Eagle

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

To be honest, i think that comment is a little disingenuous. I don't think its to do with tackle technique rules or their application. Professionalism has made the players bigger and faster with forwards as fast as backs and 106kg backs like SBW.
The players are just too big and too strong now.


But if we take your point at face value i would also offer the argument that was put forward in a recent study ( i can try and dig it up) that it is in fact the tack-LER not the tack-LEE who statistically had more concussions and field leaving injuries.


As an aside, I find it all hard to take seriously, if indeed player safety is at the forefront, that things like one man open field lifts a la stander on O'Mahoney are not prohibited , and then innocuous things are sanctioned like Alesana Tuilagi pumping the legs in contact , or parisse being sent of for bracing himself for impact.

There is no consistency in ideology, application or spirit and i just feel that if we are going to clutch our pearls then lets clutch them uniformly across the board with a bit of clarity.

It's an a le carte menu now and it is deciding games.

There is a big difference in what you said above, and saying the game has 'gone soft'.

There is a growing inconsistency problem and interpretation problem that World Rugby needs to 'tackle'. I think saying 'the game has gone soft' undermines this effort. At it's core, I believe improved player safety is the desired goal, If some poor calls happen on the road to this result then fair enough, not ideal but better than more early retirements and serious injuries.

I don't think the game has ever been tougher personally. Huge intensity over 80 minutes with continuous massive collisions.

I think the game is getting more strict, not more soft. The strictness around contact in the sport is a direct consequence of the increased toughness of it imo.

lawred2

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

:pac:

https://twitter.com/Petrivz/status/1059669701444427778?s=19

Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?

Squidgy Black

Players retiring due to concussions, and back injuries etc that will have life long effects on their health and well-being.

"The game's gone soft".

The Dagestani Eagle

lawred2 wrote: »

Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?

Rassie is playing a blinder.

And to be honest i kind of hope a springbok folds a french player in half this weekend with a shoulder to see what happens.

errlloyd

I'd have sympathy for any other team. But the Saffers are consistently the most on the edge physically. So **** em.

kuang1

lawred2 wrote: »

Probably being dim here and that's it's obvious to all except me but please tell me that was staged to lampoon what happened last Saturday!?

That was my immediate assumption anyway.

The Dagestani Eagle

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a big difference in what you said above, and saying the game has 'gone soft'.

There is a growing inconsistency problem and interpretation problem that World Rugby needs to 'tackle'. I think saying 'the game has gone soft' undermines this effort. At it's core, I believe improved player safety is the desired goal, If some poor calls happen on the road to this result then fair enough, not ideal but better than more early retirements and serious injuries.

I don't think the game has ever been tougher personally. Huge intensity over 80 minutes with continuous massive collisions.

I think the game is getting more strict, not more soft. The strictness around contact in the sport is a direct consequence of the increased toughness of it imo.

tHe game is being reffed softly would be a better way of putting it.

The Dagestani Eagle

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Players retiring due to concussions, and back injuries etc that will have life long effects on their health and well-being.

"The game's gone soft".

The concussions were always there. The players are just more aware of it now.

Back in the day the gob****es just played on.


The increase in concussion diagnosis and an opinion the games gone soft can both be right at the same time.

OldRio

'Game gone soft'?
Seriously?
'Back in the day the gob... just played on'

No, we just laughed at them because they looked drunk until they passed out and were sick. We were ignorant arseholes. Untold damage was done at every level of the sport. Physical and mental. Thank God attitudes have changed.

stephen_n

OldRio wrote: »

'Game gone soft'?
Seriously?
'Back in the day the gob... just played on'

No, we just laughed at them because they looked drunk until they passed out and were sick. We were ignorant arseholes. Untold damage was done at every level of the sport. Physical and mental. Thank God attitudes are changing

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/Smallclone/status/1059834056198754307?s=19