Aus vs Arg

[dave_clark]

Barnesy, about 12 minutes in. shortly after giving the YC.

explanation timed perfectly, almost as if he had a commentary feed!

 

[The Fat]

Nigel is running down the touchline with head down and seemingly concentrating wholly on the touchline and still missed the foot in touch. Great try by the Argies though.
Wallabies were ordinary again for 70 minutes. Don't think they'll get a win in Pretoria against the Boks and I reckon the Argies will probably roll us when we play them in La Plata.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Barnesy, about 12 minutes in. shortly after giving the YC.

explanation timed perfectly, almost as if he had a commentary feed!

Actually, I question that YC

How is what McCabe did any different from cleaning out?

[LAWS]15.7 (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball.[/LAWS]

Its difficult to argue that Landajo was not near the ball.

 

[Robert Burns]

I suppose we can't ignore the Puma's try where he steps in touch for a split second. Tough on Nigel, but I'm sure he'll be gutted at missing it, he's a true pro.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Actually, I question that YC

Christ I must be feeling I'll. I agree with Ian.:biggrin:

 

[beckett50]

Player charged the tackle zone with no attempt to bind. It's one of iRB areas to watch this year.

YC entirely justified IMO

 

[Ian_Cook]

Player charged the tackle zone with no attempt to bind. It's one of iRB areas to watch this year.

YC entirely justified IMO

What are you looking at?

Firstly, he didn't charge the tackle zone at all, he was already in it, took a step forward and shoved the Arg #9 over

Secondly, he wasn't pinged for Dangerous Charging - 10.4 (g), he was pinged for playing the opponent without the ball - 10.4 (f)

I'm saying that 15.7 (d) clearly allows him to do that at a tackle when the opponent in near the ball. Standing over it and about to pick it up is near, isn't it?

 

[dave_clark]

my comment was more about the timing, but feel free to discuss other things too

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

What are you looking at?

Firstly, he didn't charge the tackle zone at all....took he took a step forward and shoved the Arg #9 over

I thought so too. He pushes him with two open palms. Not even a PK never mind a YC.

NB can someone please start a thread criticising Richie McCaw so I can disagree with Ian - this doesn't feel right.:biggrin:

 

[The Fat]

I thought so too. He pushes him with two open palms. Not even a PK never mind a YC.

NB can someone please start a thread criticising Richie McCaw so I can disagree with Ian - this doesn't feel right.

Just mention Grayling's elbow to RMC's head. Richie positioned his head perfectly for that hit.
But seriously, surely there is more to come of that incident.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just mention Grayling's elbow to RMC's head. Richie positioned his head perfectly for that hit.
But seriously, surely there is more to come of that incident.

Greyling has been cited. I reckon his RC is over, he'll get at least two weeks

 

[Account Deleted]

Greyling has been cited. I reckon his RC is over, he'll get at least two weeks

Agreed.

 

[Dickie E]

I suppose we can't ignore the Puma's try where he steps in touch for a split second. Tough on Nigel, but I'm sure he'll be gutted at missing it, he's a true pro.

The TMO would have seen it

 

[damo]

What are you looking at?

Firstly, he didn't charge the tackle zone at all, he was already in it, took a step forward and shoved the Arg #9 over

Secondly, he wasn't pinged for Dangerous Charging - 10.4 (g), he was pinged for playing the opponent without the ball - 10.4 (f)

I'm saying that 15.7 (d) clearly allows him to do that at a tackle when the opponent in near the ball. Standing over it and about to pick it up is near, isn't it?

Why are you quoting 15.7 (d)?

At 15 seconds into the clip there is clearly 2 players on their feet in physical contact over the ball on the ground so we have a ruck. Law 15 has nothing to do with the situation here. It is law 16 that we must deal with.

Here the halfback is digging for the ball and is not part of the ruck. He must not be touched until the ball is out of the ruck. Here the ball is not out of the ruck and he is tackled.

Does anyone think that a halfback who is not part of the ruck is fair game to be tackled when he is in the process of freeing the ball from a ruck?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Why are you quoting 15.7 (d)?

At 15 seconds into the clip there is clearly 2 players on their feet in physical contact over the ball on the ground so we have a ruck. Law 15 has nothing to do with the situation here. It is law 16 that we must deal with.

Here the halfback is digging for the ball and is not part of the ruck. He must not be touched until the ball is out of the ruck. Here the ball is not out of the ruck and he is tackled.

Does anyone think that a halfback who is not part of the ruck is fair game to be tackled when he is in the process of freeing the ball from a ruck?

I (gulp) agreed with the Aussie commentators. I thought it was just a tackle with no ruck formed.

Blue 10 was the first Argentinian player there and went straight off his feet (onto his knees with his left hand supporting him on the ground) and sealed off the ball (PK right there). He was definitely off his feet before Blue 12 touched him, so no ruck can form (ruck formation requires a minimum of one player from each team BOTH on their feet).

While its still a tackle, Blue 9 arrives and Gold 12 immediately shoves him away. Thats a clean out in my book, and therefore in accordance with 15.7 (d)

IMO, the YC was not warranted, in fact the PK should have gone the other way for Blue 10 off his feet and sealing off.

 

[Chogan]

I think WB would have played on if Landajo was wearing 13 or any number other than 9.

For me McCabe rucked Landajo of the ball. Play on.

 

[menace]

I (gulp) agreed with the Aussie commentators. I thought it was just a tackle with no ruck formed.

Blue 10 was the first Argentinian player there and went straight off his feet (onto his knees with his left hand supporting him on the ground) and sealed off the ball (PK right there). He was definitely off his feet before Blue 12 touched him, so no ruck can form (ruck formation requires a minimum of one player from each team BOTH on their feet).

While its still a tackle, Blue 9 arrives and Gold 12 immediately shoves him away. Thats a clean out in my book, and therefore in accordance with 15.7 (d)

IMO, the YC was not warranted, in fact the PK should have gone the other way for Blue 10 off his feet and sealing off.

I can understand why WB played it as a ruck and protected the SH. But very harsh YC when it was, as Ian points out, the 2nd infringement.

Overall I did not think WB managed the breakdown well at all. Arg rolled north over the tackled player and made minimal attempts to clear away from the back of rucks and slowed aust ball. It was deliberate and that was probably more worthy of seeing the YC used than the one for McCabe. WB just doesn't look the goods for test rugby anymore. Probably lucky he's moving on.

Aust did themselves no favours and were poor in their execution of most facets of their game.

 

[Phil E]

I can understand why WB played it as a ruck and protected the SH. But very harsh YC when it was, as Ian points out, the 2nd infringement.

What makes you think he played it as a ruck?

What he said was "playing the man without the ball".

I can't comment on the YC as I didn't see the whole game and YC's can never be judged on one incident, they are part of an escalation roadmap (usually).

 

[menace]

What makes you think he played it as a ruck?

What he said was "playing the man without the ball".

I can't comment on the YC as I didn't see the whole game and YC's can never be judged on one incident, they are part of an escalation roadmap (usually).

fair enough - maybe my poor choice of words...but first time I saw it in 'real' time it looked very much like 2 opposing players in contact over the ball on the ground while tackled player tried the squeeze ball so IMHO 'looked' a bit like a ruck had formed...so I could see how WB "MAY" have seen or judged it as a ruck...No 9 looked to have only hands on and 'digging' for the ball when McCabe took him out.

So I interpreted his "playing him without the ball" is the law reference/words he was using to mean "playing the scrumhalf" before the ruck had ended? happy to have my interpretation corrected.

"playing/taking out the scrumhalf" seems to be the words the test refs use but it's not actually a law is it? so what is the law broken when the scrumhalf digging from the back of the ruck is grabbed/taken out? (incorrect entry? or offside at a ruck?)

so if WB did not assess it as a ruck, but just a tackle, then why wouldn't he adjudicate that as a legitimate clean out? and then YC as a professional foul is even more weird IMO?

 

[Ian_Cook]

What makes you think he played it as a ruck?

What he said was "playing the man without the ball".

Because if he wasn't playing it as a ruck, then it must have been a tackle; they are the only two possibilities.

If it was a tackle, WB would have had no justification whatever for McCabe's YC, and since he did YC him, ergo, he must have been playing it as a ruck.

I can't comment on the YC as I didn't see the whole game and YC's can never be judged on one incident, they are part of an escalation roadmap (usually).

An "escalation roadmap" only the 12 minutes into a match?

- no warnings or verbal management as regards playing opponents at the tackle before the YC
- no PK advantages played against Aus up to that point
- only one PK in the match up to that point, and that was for offside (IIRC)