@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
The failure in your argument is the presumption that because an option might have been available to the attacker ('to a team mate'), this removes the infringement. He made no attempt to tackle the opponent, turning his back to him and flopping down onto the ground in front. Having done so he's also prevented the attacker from playing the ball, for which the attacker has options. A central tenet of the game is that you have to be on your feet to participate in the field of play.
The failure of your argument is in persisting with the narrative that there was an infringement. There wasn’t. He didn’t violate 13.3 because he didn’t tackle the player, didn’t play the ball, didn’t stop the ball carrier from playing the ball.
And he didn’t violate 13.4 because he didn’t fall on or over the ball carrier, he fell on the ground. And by doing so and staying where he was on the defenders’ side of the breakdown, and not interfering with anybody, he was, as you say, out of the game. He never prevented the player from doing anything.
We both know that 13.3 is intended to make sure tackling players release the tackled player, and 13.4 is to stop people flopping on rucks. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were intended for the purpose Owens used them for, but then again... he didn’t did he? He said Todd was never onside, which is clearly false, then apparently said he used no arms in the tackle when there was no tackle. That being the case, any post facto justification is just smelly bullshit.
