AUS vs ARG

[Jarrod Burton]

Watching the end of the game at the moment and I think that Mathieu Raynal is really struggling for control of the match as far as I can see. I've only seen him referee a couple of times and he seems to struggle with the language barrier and confidence (which I suspect is related to difficulty in communicating with players - even the Australians are working hard to understand his english, I'd hate to be on the Argentinian team!). The YC to Kremer seemed like an overreaction, certainly a penalty but I felt the YC was a bit excessive for the action, while at least a couple of opportunities before that sould have seen cynical behaviour punished which were ignored.

One example was a failure to retreat 10 on a QT penatly to Aus, inside the 22 with almost no support from other Arg defenders, the Wallabies would have had a reasonable chance of scoring without the offending player there, and then a pretty cynical handling in the ruck by the Arg Captain being deemed a penalty only within 5 m of the line. The number of checks on Koroibete's hard hit on a Puma player from a restart was strange. It had the TMO a bit non-plussed with how many replays Raynal wanted to see for what looked like a fantastic hit with an unfortunate head-to-shoulder contact.

The Wallabies got the rub of the green on a couple of the "taking the 9" calls which I felt were a bit harsh on the Pumas when there was no players on their feet in the ruck and the Aus 9 not commiting to secure the ball.

A question to the Europeans, does Raynal look as uncomfortable as he seemed today when refereeing Top 14? If not, maybe it is a langauge barrier and some more work on International Rugby's "lingua franca" might help when refereeing internationals.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The number of checks on Koroibete's hard hit on a Puma player from a restart was strange. It had the TMO a bit non-plussed with how many replays Raynal wanted to see for what looked like a fantastic hit with an unfortunate head-to-shoulder contact.

If you saw some of the pathetic YCs and RCs that have been dished out in the French Top 14 this season (which is, of course, where MR referees) you will understand why he kept asking for replays. I am pretty sure he was heading for YC for shoulder to the head (RC if he decided it was " with force"), before thankfully, TMO MJ, and JP talked him out of it.

You can see an example of a pathetically soft RC at the end of the South Africa v All Blacks match, given to Damien de Allende for a late hit on Sopoaga. Referee was Jerome... nuff said!

ETA: And here is one of the Top14 ones

https://youtu.be/lgJX2wscKVU

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I saw the Tuifua YC a while ago and really wonder what their interpretation of a dangerous tackle is. Getting hammered by a legal tackle occasionally means your head gets rattled or knocked by a shoulder, but the minute we start penalising them the sport is pretty much over

 

[Dickie E]

The YC to Kremer seemed like an overreaction, certainly a penalty but I felt the YC was a bit excessive for the action,

Interesting. I saw this as a lift, drive and landing on very close to neck. Borderline RC. At least a YC.

 

[Cross]

The number of checks on Koroibete's hard hit on a Puma player from a restart was strange. It had the TMO a bit non-plussed with how many replays Raynal wanted to see for what looked like a fantastic hit with an unfortunate head-to-shoulder contact.

I'm cruious about what you guys think of this one.
The ref talks to the TMO, they appear to agree on that it was a neck clash. The assistant ref comes and "suggest" they check for a shoulder to head colision.
The ref asks the TMO, i quote:"there is no contact between the shoulder and the head, right?"
I am 100% sure there was such contact. The comentators agree, and i am 99% sure the assistant ref agrees too, hence his suggestion.
Did i really see a contact (shoulder to head) that didn't existed?
I am convinced it was accidental, but that is not the point.

And then regarding the language barrier. The split second after the ref tells him no penalty for the above play, Creevy has a conversation with ref and tells him that it'd still be a penalty for Arg as the australian player used the ball. Ref doesnt check, gives scrum to Aus but Creevy is convinced the scrum was going to be awarded to Arg.

This is the clip of the incidents

https://youtu.be/n4AmKPb17eY?t=3611

 

[Jarrod Burton]

And then regarding the language barrier. The split second after the ref tells him no penalty for the above play, Creevy has a conversation with ref and tells him that it'd still be a penalty for Arg as the australian player used the ball. Ref doesnt check, gives scrum to Aus but Creevy is convinced the scrum was going to be awarded to Arg.

That was another confusing one. I'm not convinced that MR really pays attention to the screen when there were replays on. The "strip" on the ground certainly looked like a penalty against Koroibete rather than a knock on from the Argentinian.

 

[Pegleg]

What time is the YC?

 

[ChrisR]

It looks like the shoulder clips the chin. Enough to KO but the larger point is that Gold player is not competing for the ball and has plenty of time to adjust and target the chest or below. For me it's reckless and a PK but no card.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

What time is the YC?

Around 70 minutes, play was somewhere near the ARG 10m from memory

It looks like the shoulder clips the chin. Enough to KO but the larger point is that Gold player is not competing for the ball and has plenty of time to adjust and target the chest or below. For me it's reckless and a PK but no card.

Does the gold player have to compete for the ball when he tackles a player with his feet on the ground? If the tables were turned I would have said it was a good hit with excellent timing. Koroibete's arms wrapped at the chest, on a player shorter than him. If the requirements for a tackle were reduced to no accidental contact to the head by any part of the tackler there are going to be some locks and back rowers in a whole lot of trouble.

 

[Pegleg]

The YC was fine by me.

The tackle ending in the scrum was just that. As we can't see at what point the ball is ripped, a scrum to the attacking side was fair enough.

 

[Cross]

The YC was fine by me.

The tackle ending in the scrum was just that. As we can't see at what point the ball is ripped, a scrum to the attacking side was fair enough.

Since an Aus player made the tackle, wouldn't that make Arg the attacking side?

 

[OB..]

Since an Aus player made the tackle, wouldn't that make Arg the attacking side?

The laws defines the "attacking side" in a way that frequently does not fit normal usage.
[LAWS]Attacking team: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]The opponents of the defending team in whose half of the ground play is taking place.[/FONT][/LAWS]

This defitinion was being used here, and is needed when there is doubt about who offended.

 

[Pegleg]

Since an Aus player made the tackle, wouldn't that make Arg the attacking side?

No and this is why my arguments about using the correct wording is important!

Page 4 of the law book:

Definitions:

Attacking team: The opponents of the defending team in whose half of the ground
play is taking place.

Defending team: The team in whose half of the ground play is taking place; their
opponents are the attacking team.

 

[Cross]

Thank you both. Learned something new today.

 

[Dickie E]

The tackle ending in the scrum was just that. As we can't see at what point the ball is ripped, a scrum to the attacking side was fair enough.

I thought the scrum was for the Arg knock on in the tackle (noting that the Arg player was unconscious by that time).

There certainly appeared shoulder contact with the chin and that is foul play irrespective of accidental or not.

 

[Pegleg]

I thought the scrum was for the Arg knock on in the tackle (noting that the Arg player was unconscious by that time).

There certainly appeared shoulder contact with the chin and that is foul play irrespective of accidental or not.

I think you are miss-reading 10.4 (e) If the arms end up around above the shoulders it is foul play. Any accidental contact with the head by head or shoulder is not by definition foul play. It MAY be deemed to be reckless but is it not automatically foul play.

I've not watch with the the sound on so did not hear the refs call on the scrum so you could well be right. I thik my call would have been "scrum attacking ball" for the reasons given in my earlier post.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

There certainly appeared shoulder contact with the chin and that is foul play irrespective of accidental or not.

There are a heap of legal tackles where the tacklers shoulder makes contact to the BC's head in every game. A taller player tackling a shorter player is almost certainly going to make some contact with the head in a ball and all wrap tackle, but these are still entirely legal unless the tackler fails to wrap, hits high with the arm or slides up.

If protection of the BC's head in a tackle is critical I can't see why we continue to allow the BC to fend above the chest unless somehow the BC's head is more important than the tackler.

 

[Dickie E]

I think you are miss-reading 10.4 (e) If the arms end up around above the shoulders it is foul play. Any accidental contact with the head by head or shoulder is not by definition foul play. It MAY be deemed to be reckless but is it not automatically foul play.

I've not watch with the the sound on so did not hear the refs call on the scrum so you could well be right. I thik my call would have been "scrum attacking ball" for the reasons given in my earlier post.

[LAWS]Reckless Tackle
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during
other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was
a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even
if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and
rolling/ twisting around the head/ neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the
shoulders.
To decide an appropriate sanction (PK, YC or RC), referees should be considering:
• Contact point – where did the tackle start/finish, was contact with hand, arm or shoulder?
• Action – was the tackling action accidental, reckless or deliberate?
• Degree of force – severity of impact, does the tackler ‘carry on’ through the tackle, e.g.
around the neck?
Referees should use common sense – but player safety is paramount.[/LAWS]

Extract from WR document. Accidental, with force, is at least a PK.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I'm cruious about what you guys think of this one.
The ref talks to the TMO, they appear to agree on that it was a neck clash. The assistant ref comes and "suggest" they check for a shoulder to head colision.
The ref asks the TMO, i quote:"there is no contact between the shoulder and the head, right?"
I am 100% sure there was such contact. The comentators agree, and i am 99% sure the assistant ref agrees too, hence his suggestion.
Did i really see a contact (shoulder to head) that didn't existed?
I am convinced it was accidental, but that is not the point.

And then regarding the language barrier. The split second after the ref tells him no penalty for the above play, Creevy has a conversation with ref and tells him that it'd still be a penalty for Arg as the australian player used the ball. Ref doesnt check, gives scrum to Aus but Creevy is convinced the scrum was going to be awarded to Arg.

This is the clip of the incidents

https://youtu.be/n4AmKPb17eY?t=3611

One factor that should be included on any review is the obstruction by ARGie (white skinned, retreating player at KO with white tape on both wrist, taped lift thighs: I can't identify by number)

This player even glances back to find route of advancing Aussie 12. Aus 12 has to change route to make tackle, this limits his ability to effect more proper tackle.

The ARGIE obstructor is just commonplace overlooked rugby, but it contributed to his teammates headache

 

[Paule23]

I've just watched the clip and my first thoughts are accidental contact with the head, play on (subsequent scrum as you see fit).

But having watched it a couple of times I'm thinking this meets the definition of a high and reckless tackle under the current law interpretations. The tackling player goes for a stand up tackle to wrap, which be it's nature has a higher risk of contact with the head. If contact with the head is made does this not then become a reckless high tackle? It only occurred as the tackler starter high in a high speed collision if they had tackled how I was taught, they would have been around the thighs and no risk of head contact.

Thoughts on this interpretation?