RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D)
-
So I have only just managed to see the game so was able to replay the Kerevi incident a few times. I think there is initial contact to the head from the fist of Kerevi, to me it looks as though the head of Patchell jolts back and the jaw muscles move consistent with a blow. Skeen got it wrong when he said initial contact to the chest which slipped up to hit throat/head.
Also when did Biggar suffer his head injury - not during the Hooper late tackle?
-
@nzzp said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Wonder if they were right in law, by the way. Excerpt below - height not indicated anywhere in the law. @Damo any rulings or interpretation we need to know about?
> A ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used.
Sanction: Penalty.
Law 9.24
Is what Kerevi did a hand off? It wasn't a Cory Jane style fend with the hand, it was a forearm. Anyone know if the laws touch on this specifically?
-
@Nevorian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
So I have only just managed to see the game so was able to replay the Kerevi incident a few times. I think there is initial contact to the head from the fist of Kerevi, to me it looks as though the head of Patchell jolts back and the jaw muscles move consistent with a blow. Skeen got it wrong when he said initial contact to the chest which slipped up to hit throat/head.
Also when did Biggar suffer his head injury - not during the Hooper late tackle?
Tackling an Aus runaway - think it was Koroibete. Got his head on the wrong side of the tackle.
-
On Kerevi - I understand that a forearm to the throat is a penalty, but I've never seen it penalised in that instance.
The times I've seen it called are when the arm is extended from the body and it's an aggressive move against a defender. It's the classic 'stiff-arm' that's gone a bit wrong.
To me, Kerevi's arm never really left his chest. He was carrying the ball in a manner that a lot of other players do, and the Welsh defender ended up in a very poor position.
I don't have a huge issue with the penalty in isolation, but it's the consistency that rankles me. We see that sort of fend-off used multiple times a game, but for some reason we only decide to penalise it in a crucial RWC match.
-
@barbarian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
On Kerevi - I understand that a forearm to the throat is a penalty, but I've never seen it penalised in that instance.
The times I've seen it called are when the arm is extended from the body and it's an aggressive move against a defender. It's the classic 'stiff-arm' that's gone a bit wrong.
To me, Kerevi's arm never really left his chest. He was carrying the ball in a manner that a lot of other players do, and the Welsh defender ended up in a very poor position.
I don't have a huge issue with the penalty in isolation, but it's the consistency that rankles me. We see that sort of fend-off used multiple times a game, but for some reason we only decide to penalise it in a crucial RWC match.
The way it's going this RWC will be decided by some sort of controversial decision. I hope not
-
@canefan said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
The way it's going this RWC will be decided by some sort of controversial decision. I hope not
the frustrating thing is we thought this would be the case before the Cup kicked off. It's a real arse.
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@barbarian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Do you reckon Cheika looks at the opposition at all? Or just relies on the team playing their way to be enough?
Nope. I've interviewed him on the GAGR pod and he said as much.
It's such a self-defeating approach to the game in 2019.
that is actually astounding
And yet not surprising. The idea of developing a tactic to negate an opponent's strength and maximise their weakness appears foreign to him. His entire approach is select big players, carry hard, rant at half-time and hope the natural skill overcomes the opposition. If there's nuance, it's too subtle for me.
-
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Now, I'm about to go all Alan Jones, create my own story, and then rail against the authorities for the way they are acting on this thing i just made up, so i will not be offended if you pull me up and call bullshit
I feel like this witch hunt on "high tackles" is stemming from the litigation against the NFL for their treatment of concussion over the year. But, it's my understanding that the law suits etc over there aren't around the way games are played, but more around the treatment of players with concussion, and the hiding of data that allowed them to keep guys on the field who had no reason being there. They have made some changes, like helmet to helmet charges being outlawed etc. But the main changes are around player welfare.
However what World Rugby have done is taken it waaaay further and tried to remove all possibilities of head injuries from a collision sport all together. Any head injury must result in a sanction against, in the vast majority of cases, the tackler. There is no longer any such thing as incidental contact, despite this being a sport that is 80 minutes of 100+kg humans smashing in to each as hard as they possibly can, carrying the ball, hitting rucks, scrums, mauls, catching kicks. Every single act in the game is a chance for incidental contact.
So we have arrived at a point where incidental contact sees a guy get sent from the field, and then get 3 weeks (for a first offense). Guys ducking in to tackles result in 5 minutes of replays to make sure there isn't a way we can send that guy off. It's lunacy, and taken way too far.
I feel like World Rugby will be fulfilling its duty of care to have strict rules around the the treatment of concussion, and to punish deliberate acts. Leave the rest as rugby accidents. But it's too late now, the toothpaste is out of the tube. And the game is suffering for it, and turning a lot of long time watchers off.
This 100%.
The stupid thing is they could have come up with a new system to discourage high tackles while not destroying the game. Eg. An ‘on report’ system, more use of yellow cards or a new orange card where a carded player can be replaced. Instead they have tried to fit it in to the existing system using red cards which are so extreme that it pretty much kills the contest. IMO this has caused a lot of the inconsistency because if ruled to the letter of the law the games would become a farce with multiple red cards. Then you have refs trying to avoid this situation by ignoring some things but not others.
It fucked the Lions tour and it is in the process of fucking the RWC. -
@pukunui said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Now, I'm about to go all Alan Jones, create my own story, and then rail against the authorities for the way they are acting on this thing i just made up, so i will not be offended if you pull me up and call bullshit
I feel like this witch hunt on "high tackles" is stemming from the litigation against the NFL for their treatment of concussion over the year. But, it's my understanding that the law suits etc over there aren't around the way games are played, but more around the treatment of players with concussion, and the hiding of data that allowed them to keep guys on the field who had no reason being there. They have made some changes, like helmet to helmet charges being outlawed etc. But the main changes are around player welfare.
However what World Rugby have done is taken it waaaay further and tried to remove all possibilities of head injuries from a collision sport all together. Any head injury must result in a sanction against, in the vast majority of cases, the tackler. There is no longer any such thing as incidental contact, despite this being a sport that is 80 minutes of 100+kg humans smashing in to each as hard as they possibly can, carrying the ball, hitting rucks, scrums, mauls, catching kicks. Every single act in the game is a chance for incidental contact.
So we have arrived at a point where incidental contact sees a guy get sent from the field, and then get 3 weeks (for a first offense). Guys ducking in to tackles result in 5 minutes of replays to make sure there isn't a way we can send that guy off. It's lunacy, and taken way too far.
I feel like World Rugby will be fulfilling its duty of care to have strict rules around the the treatment of concussion, and to punish deliberate acts. Leave the rest as rugby accidents. But it's too late now, the toothpaste is out of the tube. And the game is suffering for it, and turning a lot of long time watchers off.
This 100%.
The stupid thing is they could have come up with a new system to discourage high tackles while not destroying the game. Eg. An ‘on report’ system, more use of yellow cards or a new orange card where a carded player can be replaced. Instead they have tried to fit it in to the existing system using red cards which are so extreme that it pretty much kills the contest. IMO this has caused a lot of the inconsistency because if ruled to the letter of the law the games would become a farce with multiple red cards. Then you have refs trying to avoid this situation by ignoring some things but not others.
It fucked the Lions tour and it is in the process of fucking the RWC.yep agree 100%, there would be a big shift behind the scenes on player welfare but also to reduce their liability on possible legal actions 2, 5 or 10 years down the track. Also happening in AFL as well as NRL.
-
-
@pukunui said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Now, I'm about to go all Alan Jones, create my own story, and then rail against the authorities for the way they are acting on this thing i just made up, so i will not be offended if you pull me up and call bullshit
I feel like this witch hunt on "high tackles" is stemming from the litigation against the NFL for their treatment of concussion over the year. But, it's my understanding that the law suits etc over there aren't around the way games are played, but more around the treatment of players with concussion, and the hiding of data that allowed them to keep guys on the field who had no reason being there. They have made some changes, like helmet to helmet charges being outlawed etc. But the main changes are around player welfare.
However what World Rugby have done is taken it waaaay further and tried to remove all possibilities of head injuries from a collision sport all together. Any head injury must result in a sanction against, in the vast majority of cases, the tackler. There is no longer any such thing as incidental contact, despite this being a sport that is 80 minutes of 100+kg humans smashing in to each as hard as they possibly can, carrying the ball, hitting rucks, scrums, mauls, catching kicks. Every single act in the game is a chance for incidental contact.
So we have arrived at a point where incidental contact sees a guy get sent from the field, and then get 3 weeks (for a first offense). Guys ducking in to tackles result in 5 minutes of replays to make sure there isn't a way we can send that guy off. It's lunacy, and taken way too far.
I feel like World Rugby will be fulfilling its duty of care to have strict rules around the the treatment of concussion, and to punish deliberate acts. Leave the rest as rugby accidents. But it's too late now, the toothpaste is out of the tube. And the game is suffering for it, and turning a lot of long time watchers off.
This 100%.
The stupid thing is they could have come up with a new system to discourage high tackles while not destroying the game. Eg. An ‘on report’ system, more use of yellow cards or a new orange card where a carded player can be replaced. Instead they have tried to fit it in to the existing system using red cards which are so extreme that it pretty much kills the contest. IMO this has caused a lot of the inconsistency because if ruled to the letter of the law the games would become a farce with multiple red cards. Then you have refs trying to avoid this situation by ignoring some things but not others.
It fucked the Lions tour and it is in the process of fucking the RWC.Yes.
There's not even a legal test case that says red cards may protect them from legal action and penalties, yellows, HIA protocols etc don't.
Seems we've jumped from A to E.
Who's to say the following won't protect them:
- tackles below the nipple are legal,
- Base sanction: Between nipple and shoulder is free kick, and above that is a penalty.*
- Reckless contact to head/kneck is a yellow card,
- deliberate is red.
*Accidental and not reckless is original sanction. Combined with thorough HIA protocols.
Combine with the above, with refereeing interpretations that reward classic good low tackles:
- don't let the tackled ball carrier pass or pop the ball off the ground. Reward the fucking tackler you morons.
-
@canefan said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@barbarian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
On Kerevi - I understand that a forearm to the throat is a penalty, but I've never seen it penalised in that instance.
The times I've seen it called are when the arm is extended from the body and it's an aggressive move against a defender. It's the classic 'stiff-arm' that's gone a bit wrong.
To me, Kerevi's arm never really left his chest. He was carrying the ball in a manner that a lot of other players do, and the Welsh defender ended up in a very poor position.
I don't have a huge issue with the penalty in isolation, but it's the consistency that rankles me. We see that sort of fend-off used multiple times a game, but for some reason we only decide to penalise it in a crucial RWC match.
> The way it's going this RWC will be decided by some sort of controversial decision. I hope not
You just know that it is going to happen.
-
two things in this image
If there is video from pubs in Hamilton in 90s, there is no doubt shots of chicks looking like this after i too have thought "fuck it, i'll just go for it". If my experience tells me anything (and i think it does), Georgie North is about to explain how he likes me, but not like that.
secondly, what the fuck is that in the foreground? Is that the racist midget from In Bruges? is he the mascot? Are his parents related?
-
-
@barbarian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Do you reckon Cheika looks at the opposition at all? Or just relies on the team playing their way to be enough?
Nope. I've interviewed him on the GAGR pod and he said as much.
It's such a self-defeating approach to the game in 2019.
Well he really is a clown then.
Blind Freddy could see that Genia passing long is easy pickings for an opposition player close to the ruck. Why persist? Lack of variation and tactical awareness on what your opposition will do.
-
@voodoo said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life agree, I though the Wallabies were going to roll over the top of them. Thought White wasn't as good as he has been, but he was heaps better than Genia, and Toomua was great, so direct.
That said, the Welsh really stopped playing in the 2nd half, like they were just trying to defend the lead. Played with none of the width they had so much first half success with.
As an aside, so good to see the Wallabies hoist up a couple of defensive lineouts in their own half, it feels like a lost art these days!
The Welsh looked gassed in that 2nd half. Lots of players taking a knee and hands on hips.
It was played at a cracking pace and the Wallabies subs really upped the anti.
-
@barbarian said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@mariner4life said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Do you reckon Cheika looks at the opposition at all? Or just relies on the team playing their way to be enough?
Nope. I've interviewed him on the GAGR pod and he said as much.
It's such a self-defeating approach to the game in 2019.
That is jaw-dropping, but at the same time a bit scary. They are as good as that and able to beat the best teams without even doing anything to counter the opposition? Fark.
-
Helluva game for a neutral.
Thought the Welsh were absolutely clinical in taking their chances early on, and Aussie looked a bit off the pace initially.
Then such a strong comeback from the Wallabies, I thought they'd win it for sure. The Welsh looked knackered. And yet they gutsed it out for the win. Great game.I did think the Kerevi call was harsh...
