RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D)
-
@African-Monkey said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@KiwiMurph It's the problem when these refs have never played the game at any level....
It's not the refs lack of experience, it is the changes to laws to keep tackles down below the shoulders.
While I fully understand the stupidity of some of these decisions, the IRB is concerned about medical evidence around concussions and is making a concerted effort to protect players heads/necks so that if rugby is stopped its due to silly rules rather than legal challenges bankrupting the sport.
The danger is that the dynamic nature of players colliding with one another sometimes leads to the wrong player being penalised (i.e. poor technique on the part of a player results in their team getting a penalty or the opposition having a player carded).
In an ideal world, these have come into force following the RWC but the earlier introduction shows how worried the IRB is with this issue.
-
Comment on Gwlad
"Can't wait for an England- Australia QF.
One objectionable, paranoid, embittered, delusional Australian gets to go home and the other gets to face the All Blacks."
-
Hooper in presser
"the drop goal was a change-up that worked quite well for them, and that's probably the difference in the end"
-
@Rapido said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Ref was good.
TMO was bad.
But, 2 tmo interventions and no one got a card, I'll take that.
Rest of it all washes up pretty much even. No howlers. Biggest decision - Wales could have got binned for repeated fouls on their line, but Aus scored anyway, but another 7 or 8 mins could have been left on a hypothetical yellow.
I thought Poite had balls: after both Samoan players got red cards post-match, I expected cards left right and centre. Instead he went with penalties only, correctly IMO.
The Welsh 10 should have got a red card for his tackle technique though...
-
I think the problem is that the reffing of tackles varies so much from game to game. If Hodge's tackle merited a suspension then Josh Adams merited more than just a penalty.
I feel for the players. It really is down to the Refs to do their job consistently from game to game and from Ref to Ref and I think that can be done much better.
-
I’m no fan of Cheika but I think he has a point. The referees are acting like startled rabbits, second-guessing themselves and appearing terrified of crossing their increasingly legalistic overlords. The game is being ruined by excessive scrutiny by lawyers to the point that referees aren’t making decisions based on the game in front of them but by how they think their World Rugby overlords will see it.
-
@MrDenmore said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
I’m no fan of Cheika but I think he has a point. The referees are acting like startled rabbits, second-guessing themselves and appearing terrified of crossing their increasingly legalistic overlords. The game is being ruined by excessive scrutiny by lawyers to the point that referees aren’t making decisions based on the game in front of them but by how they think their World Rugby overlords will see it.
I’m in many ways a very petty man and one of the ways that manifests itself is when another team or it’s supporters -particularly Irelaland and South Africa and to a lesser extent Australia and England bleat about refereeing decisions. After the asinine behaviour of their fans and press in the wake of the 2007 quarter final to any suggestion that Barnes had a mare the likes of Cheika can help themselves to a big warm cup of GFYs.
-
Well that game raised another curly scenario for the refs/law makers to deal with.
If a tackler is coming at you upright and your instinct tells you to protect yourself from head injury you should get leeway for instinctively raising your arm.
Apparently you can’t fend with your elbow even to protect your own head and the craziest thing is that if that elbow had connected with the head the RC would have gone to the player protecting himself from poor technique.
Cheika would have also suffered an extreme head injury as he head butted the desk.Hate to say it but clown and Hooper had this one right.
-
@Crucial said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Well that game raised another curly scenario for the refs/law makers to deal with.
If a tackler is coming at you upright and your instinct tells you to protect yourself from head injury you should get leeway for instinctively raising your arm.
Apparently you can’t fend with your elbow even to protect your own head and the craziest thing is that if that elbow had connected with the head the RC would have gone to the player protecting himself from poor technique.
Cheika would have also suffered an extreme head injury as he head butted the desk.Hate to say it but clown and Hooper had this one right.
And that's where the interpretation muddies the water.
You saw/say fending with the elbow to protect, others saw/say fending with the elbow to inflict.
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@Crucial said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Well that game raised another curly scenario for the refs/law makers to deal with.
If a tackler is coming at you upright and your instinct tells you to protect yourself from head injury you should get leeway for instinctively raising your arm.
Apparently you can’t fend with your elbow even to protect your own head and the craziest thing is that if that elbow had connected with the head the RC would have gone to the player protecting himself from poor technique.
Cheika would have also suffered an extreme head injury as he head butted the desk.Hate to say it but clown and Hooper had this one right.
And that's where the interpretation muddies the water.
You saw/say fending with the elbow to protect, others saw/say fending with the elbow to inflict.
Agree that you can interpret what happened two ways but when you look at the full circumstance it was the so called “tackler” that created the situation by steaming in upright and creating risk of a head clash. Looked like instinctive protection because of that.
If he had been lining up a decent tackle then the elbow would definitely have been out of order. -
I didn't think the penalty for the fend was a big deal. You can't raise a forearm to the throat -- and that's always been the case. As with tackles nowadays, the "it slipped up" defence no longer applies. You fend with the hand, not the forearm.
Should be an on-field decision though. If it's not terrible enough for the ref to notice, it's play on.
Every game will have a poor decision or two. Many worse than that.
-
Also of concern is that the officials seem mostly unable to not pass a sanction on every tmo review.
It's as though " no, just an accident, resume play" is not even an allowed as we watch them pathetically build a narrative to keep the legal teams and the "optics" satisfied while rugby people the world over think "wtf"
Great progress is made with vague rules that are only discovered after the fact - said no one ever.
-
@booboo said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@sparky said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Some heroes for Wales tonight. Wyn Jones 23 tackles, Navidi 15 tackles and no misses, Gareth Davies made over 110 running metres from half back.
Because everyone loves a corrector ...
..
That's "Jones" or "Alan Wyn" ... mot "Wynn Jones".
His given names are "Alan Wyn".
His surname is "Jones".
I'm helping ...
Umm, yeah, but it's Alun.
-
World Rugby should be concerned that Garces and Poite seem to be a part of many of the more controversial moments in games over the past few years.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
World Rugby should be concerned that Garces and Poite seem to be a part of many of the more controversial moments in games over the past few years.
Whilst I am on correcting - I thought they were Faeces and Prat?
They are both terrible refs but I don't think the outcome would have been different in this case and it was a great game to watch.
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
@Crucial said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
Well that game raised another curly scenario for the refs/law makers to deal with.
If a tackler is coming at you upright and your instinct tells you to protect yourself from head injury you should get leeway for instinctively raising your arm.
Apparently you can’t fend with your elbow even to protect your own head and the craziest thing is that if that elbow had connected with the head the RC would have gone to the player protecting himself from poor technique.
Cheika would have also suffered an extreme head injury as he head butted the desk.Hate to say it but clown and Hooper had this one right.
And that's where the interpretation muddies the water.
You saw/say fending with the elbow to protect, others saw/say fending with the elbow to inflict.
Over to the team at SA Rugby magazine 😎
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC: Australia v Wales (Pool D):
World Rugby should be concerned that Garces and Poite seem to be a part of many of the more controversial moments in games over the past few years.
This is Skeen, though.
-
@NTA he is, but in the middle they could have over-ruled him...
I know it isnt always thier fault, but they are still somehow involved, like controversy follows them....
