Rugby Championship 2019 chat

AbusesToilets

swiwi_ wrote: »

Dont' think these clearouts have a place in rugby. So I'm OK with the red card. Just hope that it's consistently replied.

I'd actually like the law applied correctly - ie binding onto a player and driving off the ball, not these flying wedge clearouts that we see all the time.

From an Irish point of view, Cian Healy would want to watch his technique.

It's a plague on the game. Half to laugh about WR going on about their concerns for player welfare with regards tackle height, and yet they allow rucks to look they way they do. I've seen cleaner breakdowns in the NFL ffs.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

For those not familiar with the lingo, "all we want is consistency" loosely translates as "the ref got it right, but I really need to find some way that our defeat was a blatant stitch-up."

There is lots of consistency. There is just no willingness on the part of fans, coaches or the media to take it with any sort of grace when it's their player in the wrong.

Complete and utter bollocks.

The All Blacks were well beaten, and I have no problem with the red. There is loads of inconsistency with reffing, however.

aloooof

Basil3 wrote: »

Complete and utter bollocks.

The All Blacks were well beaten, and I have no problem with the red. There is loads of inconsistency with reffing, however.

I think he was referring to the shoulder/head tackle, rather than reffing in general?

NeonWolf

NeonWolf wrote: »

While i essentially agree which what you are saying , I think a clearer discussion is needed into where they want the game to go. Snyman crocked Retallick on purpose (legally) last week. Garces allowed Vunipola to forearm smash Beauden Barretts head into the turf in the same game he sent Sonny Bill off in.

We are either all out for protecting heads and necks or we aren't.

Alesana Tuilagi was cited for something no more egregious than what Kerevi did in the last world cup. There is no consistency.

Everyone needs to speak up , because some week it will be the team you support who will be nobbled by this inconsistency either via player being injured or being reduced to 14 men arbitrarily.

The hit on Retallick was not legal. The entry to the ruck was illegal, and he did not bind to the hindmost player on his team.

swiwi_

Former Former wrote: »

For those not familiar with the lingo, "all we want is consistency" loosely translates as "the ref got it right, but I really need to find some way that our defeat was a blatant stitch-up."

There is lots of consistency. There is just no willingness on the part of fans, coaches or the media to take it with any sort of grace when it's their player in the wrong.

A condescending post from FF. Well I never.

Former Former

Basil3 wrote: »

Complete and utter bollocks.

The All Blacks were well beaten, and I have no problem with the red. There is loads of inconsistency with reffing, however.

The ref is never going to see everything. There are 30 players on the pitch, and each of them is trying to get away with as much as possible for 80 minutes. That's the nature of the game.

I absolutely hate this idea that as soon as a call goes against your team, you have to immediately start combing through the footage of the game to find something the ref missed so you can pretend to be unbiased by saying "I've no problem with X but what about Y?"

This isn't an NZ thing by the way. It's universal. Every time Ireland or a province lose a game we expected to win, the micro-analysis begins and you can be damn sure some salty Irish lad will find "inconsistency".

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

For those not familiar with the lingo, "all we want is consistency" loosely translates as "the ref got it right, but I really need to find some way that our defeat was a blatant stitch-up."

There is lots of consistency. There is just no willingness on the part of fans, coaches or the media to take it with any sort of grace when it's their player in the wrong.

By the same token, those using the “letter of the law” argument are missing the fact that if games were reffed by “the letter of the law”, we would see at least 3 red cards and a dozen yellows in every game played.

Former Former

stephen_n wrote: »

By the same token, those using the “letter of the law” argument are missing the fact that if games were reffed by “the letter of the law”, we would see at least 3 red cards and a dozen yellows in every game played.

Or that it would take four hours to complete a game with all the stoppages for TMO reviews.

stephen_n

Former Former wrote: »

Or that it would take four hours to complete a game with all the stoppages for TMO reviews.

Well that too, so the letter of the law argument is in effect, we’ll do it sometimes but it’s not convenient to do it consistently. Which puts referees and TMO’s in a bad place.

irelandrover

Also all these statements of if you slow down play enough it will look bad.
The ref saw it in real time and was so confident that it was a red card offence he stopped play with Aus in an attacking position rather than give advantage.

NeonWolf

irelandrover wrote: »

Also all these statements of if you slow down play enough it will look bad.
The ref saw it in real time and was so confident that it was a red card offence he stopped play with Aus in an attacking position rather than give advantage.

The same ref used the TMO in the second lions test and didn't red card Vunipola for smashing a prone players head into the ground who wasn't even involved in play.

Thats the inconsistency. Not a "whinge coz we lost" affair.

NeonWolf

Former Former wrote: »

For those not familiar with the lingo, "all we want is consistency" loosely translates as "the ref got it right, but I really need to find some way that our defeat was a blatant stitch-up."

There is lots of consistency. There is just no willingness on the part of fans, coaches or the media to take it with any sort of grace when it's their player in the wrong.

Thats not a fair assessment at all Former Former.

Interested Observer

https://twitter.com/FOXRUGBY/status/1160810296732090368

It's the reddest red card that was ever painted red in the red card factory. 10 or 15 years ago this was a red card if it gets picked up (which it probably wouldn't pre-TMO).

NeonWolf

Interested Observer wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FOXRUGBY/status/1160810296732090368

It's the reddest red card that was ever painted red in the red card factory. 10 or 15 years ago this was a red card if it gets picked up (which it probably wouldn't pre-TMO).

That hasn't swayed me either way. You want to win the collision. He got it wrong close to his own line. It was knee height. Letter of the law a red , but i don't see any malice in it.

sydthebeat

Led with the elbow to the head... there is only intent to do harm when you do that.

Tackling low down you keep your arms low and bring them up.... not down on a player like SB did.

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

Led with the elbow to the head... there is only intent to do harm when you do that.

Tackling low down you keep your arms low and bring them up.... not down on a player like SB did.

So by the same token did Kerevi intend to do harm by bashing Beauden in the head or Beale on Goodhue?

NeonWolf

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12257778


14 unpunished neck rolls by Australia apparently. Sour grapes from the herald possibly, but interesting too see the stat and the feedback to come.

sydthebeat

NeonWolf wrote: »

So by the same token did Kerevi intend to do harm by bashing Beauden in the head or Beale on Goodhue?

You definitely penalise the ball carrrier if they lead with the elbow or forearm to the head.... however you dont penalise the ball carrier if he has both arms low and bumps off a would-be tackler like Kerevi did.

Kerevis arms never go higher than his stomach. Barretts technique was awful when trying to tackle a big guy running full pelt... he needed to go a lot lower, and not tackle him right in the core of his power.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

im already on SA to win the comp.... @ 11/2

I think their game v NZ will be epic... and similarily i think Argies v Ozzies will be epic for similar reasons.....

south africa to go 3 from 3
australia to go 0 from 3

One thing i cant wait to see tomorrow is Elstadt hunting down Foley for 80 minutes and giving him a torrid time. Foley will stand off deeper and deeper and we'll see the weird juxtaposition of an aussie team kicking everything and a bokke team running everything. I think even with the players Rassie has moth balled, they are good enough to beat this aussie team.. its as poor an australia team as ive seen in a long time.

Typically though cheika will have them very hard to beat, but i think their lack of invention in the back line will be theri undoing. Kerevi is the only player of the lot that id take straight into an ireland team.

I think the kiwis will be spooked by the argies in Argentina, but will come good to eventually win by around 11 or 12.

Ive reece tipped to be to try scorer in the RWC so i want to see him open up on the right...

as for my predictions....

happy to get the Boks championship win call correct and get that 11/2 bet pay out.

i certainly didnt expect the ABs to be as crap as they were.. they could easily have ended up in last place if the Argies had some composure in the first game. im not sure BB at 15 is the right call. Put Ben Smith back in there with BB to 10 and RM to 22. Reece / bridge to the right wing. They have certainly given the other top tier countries a fillip by how poor they have been.... but they tended to be below par going into the last couple of RWCs and still won the thing.

fair dues to australia, they got better as the competition progressed and have a settled team now. They seem to have gotten over the Folau situation without any major upheaval. i still wouldn't have them as possible RWC winners, i think they are still too short in the back three area for real specialists, they are playing full backs instead. Next weeks Bledisloe 2 will be tough for them as NZ will be out for blood.

Argentina will be most disappointed, especially with 2 home games and on the back on the jaguares SRXV performances. On their day they are deadly dangerous but they lack a bit of cohesion currently. With one 1 real proper warm up game ahead of them (next week v boks) they will want to improve significantly to hope to get out of their group.

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

as for my predictions....

happy to get the Boks championship win call correct and get that 11/2 bet pay out.

i certainly didnt expect the ABs to be as crap as they were.. they could easily have ended up in last place if the Argies had some composure in the first game. im not sure BB at 15 is the right call. Put Ben Smith back in there with BB to 10 and RM to 22. Reece / bridge to the right wing. They have certainly given the other top tier countries a fillip by how poor they have been.... but they tended to be below par going into the last couple of RWCs and still won the thing.

fair dues to australia, they got better as the competition progressed and have a settled team now. They seem to have gotten over the Folau situation without any major upheaval. i still wouldn't have them as possible RWC winners, i think they are still too short in the back three area for real specialists, they are playing full backs instead. Next weeks Bledisloe 2 will be tough for them as NZ will be out for blood.

Argentina will be most disappointed, especially with 2 home games and on the back on the jaguares SRXV performances. On their day they are deadly dangerous but they lack a bit of cohesion currently. With one 1 real proper warm up game ahead of them (next week v boks) they will want to improve significantly to hope to get out of their group.

Argentina and NZ both had the super rugby finalists and are finishing 3rd and 4th.

Fatigue? Did Rassie and Cheika have time for an ambush? Or just a coincidence?

Interested Observer

NeonWolf wrote: »

Letter of the law a red

Wonderful.

NeonWolf

Interested Observer wrote: »

Wonderful.

What’s wonderful ?

Interested Observer

NeonWolf wrote: »

What’s wonderful ?

That you've admitted your mistake and you now agree it's a red card.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

You definitely penalise the ball carrrier if they lead with the elbow or forearm to the head.... however you dont penalise the ball carrier if he has both arms low and bumps off a would-be tackler like Kerevi did.

Kerevis arms never go higher than his stomach. Barretts technique was awful when trying to tackle a big guy running full pelt... he needed to go a lot lower, and not tackle him right in the core of his power.

Not a lot wrong with his tackling technique there, imo. Aiming for around hip height, then slide down to the legs. Exactly how I was taught as a kid.

Easy to say it was poor in hindsight, because of what happened.

NeonWolf

Interested Observer wrote: »

That you've admitted your mistake and you now agree it's a red card.

I don’t agree with it. Not how it’s being applied anyway . The law is an arse.

I’m acknowledging the law exists but I’m not acknowledging that I agree with it .

sydthebeat

Basil3 wrote: »

Not a lot wrong with his tackling technique there, imo. Aiming for around hip height, then slide down to the legs. Exactly how I was taught as a kid.

Easy to say it was poor in hindsight, because of what happened.

BBs approach is all wrong... if you give him the sideline then he needs to hit him lower and side on, cheek to cheek.
if you tackle him straight on, like he tries to do, then he needs to be making that tackle a lot lower, chopping downward onto the thigh area with front foot planted so you basically become a planted obstacle. Bb hasnt got much momentum here, its all with Kerevi, who was always running a straight line
BBs head is in the middle of kerevis chest.... too high.
his leading leg is nowhere near where it should be to tackle a guy straight on.

Yeah_Right

No issue with the red card. When a player tucks their arm in before contact, they're leaving themselves open to getting a red. I'm just surprised it was the only red in the 4 games I watched at the weekend.

I'd also like to say well done Australia. Thoroughly deserved their win. They played well. But they are going to get a hiding this weekend at Fortress Eden!!!

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

BBs approach is all wrong... if you give him the sideline then he needs to hit him lower and side on, cheek to cheek.
if you tackle him straight on, like he tries to do, then he needs to be making that tackle a lot lower, chopping downward onto the thigh area with front foot planted so you basically become a planted obstacle. Bb hasnt got much momentum here, its all with Kerevi, who was always running a straight line
BBs head is in the middle of kerevis chest.... too high.
his leading leg is nowhere near where it should be to tackle a guy straight on.

It wasn't a front on tackle, Barrett came from the side trying to tackle him out over the line. Kerevi changed angle last second, and dropped his shoulders, but the actual height of the tackle was still only about hip height.

Point is, I still see very little wrong with what BB was trying to do. Kerevi got the better of him with how he adjusted for the impact.

Exclamation Marc

If that was an Irish player who lead like that, I'd fully understand a red card.

There are so few relevant mitigating factors in this. The argument that 'well if that's a red card, then this should have been' is deflection at its finest and complete horsesh¡t logic.

Focus on the foul alone and its a red card. If the attacking player is angled a different way, it's a serious injury in waiting.

sydthebeat

Basil3 wrote: »

It wasn't a front on tackle, Barrett came from the side trying to tackle him out over the line. Kerevi changed angle last second, and dropped his shoulders, but the actual height of the tackle was still only about hip height.

Point is, I still see very little wrong with what BB was trying to do. Kerevi got the better of him with how he adjusted for the impact.

yeah im not saying that BB could have stopped him, but it does show up some issues with him at 15.

as for the tackle, it was 100% a front on tackle. have a look at it on the wide shot... BB actually crabs across to hit him front on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD0stunVh78

3:10 here

the side line cam angle make its appear like a side on tackle, but its not.