Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,335
Post Likes
1,440
How would one know? This is an amazingly idiotic statement. Your glasses are tinted so black that you can't see.

Oh, I watched that whole debacle live, and Ian's right. Australia were so bad the local U12 blind school could have beaten them. NZ actually improved the points difference when down to 14.

The sad truth is that Dave Rennie is good coach, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
**** me. I can understand lack of intent, but to argue it wasn't reckless strikes me as...well, let's say odd. I don't want to inadvertently libel anyone.

I look forward to players arguing that raising a knee into a tacklers head isn't reckless if they are unbalanced at the time.

I find it strange that people defend Barrett by saying that he was in the air and unbalanced etc, but IMO he placed himself in that position in order to gain an advantage over the opposition. He lifted his leading leg and went studs first towards the Wallaby's line and chasers. If the shoe was on the other foot and Koroibete had slipped over at the last minute, the Barrett's boot missed his face and he took Barrett out in the air would the same people say no red card as the Gold player was unbalanced? I doubt it - they would point out that the actions of the gold player put him in a position for the dangerous or reckless contact to occur and therefore its his fault.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Interesting that "intent" is now back in the equation.

Second time recently RC rescinded for lack of intent, isn't it?

Intent rather than outcome is a big change
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
I know some coaches actually coach leading with the knees when catching the high ball to protect yourself and give balance. Now we have ‘lead with your feet’ to achieve the same thing being given the green light.
It would have perhaps have helped if WR would say that the lack of obvious intent was at least worth a YC. At the moment without such a statement such reckless/careless play, it appears, shouldn’t be penalised at all.
 

JohnP

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
140
Post Likes
1
They are going to open a can of worms with intent, how the heck will a ref define that in the heat of a game. Sorry sir I didn’t intend to stand on that players head/ face in the ruck I lost my balance and as I’m 150kg bag of muscle of course there’s blood all over the place but it wasn’t intentional. Case dismissed ��
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Interesting that "intent" is now back in the equation.

Second time recently RC rescinded for lack of intent, isn't it?

Intent rather than outcome is a big change

If that is how they are rolling, that all I can say is... its about time!
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
How would one know? This is an amazingly idiotic statement. Your glasses are tinted so black that you can't see.

Hahaha! You clearly did not see the game.

There is no black tint in what I said.. even most of the staunchest Wallaby supporters would agree that they were ****ing woeful!
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2


Yeah, there are some blindingly obvious differences there.

1st: Tevita Nabura - Jumps, then looks down directly at the opponent's head, and then kicks out.

2nd: Paolo Odogwu - Jumps, then looks at the opponent's head, then lands, and then kicks out.

3rd: Dan Evans - Jumps, then lands, and then kicks out.

4th: Adam Hastings -Jumps, then lands, and then kicks upwards to hit the opponent in the face.

6th: Lester Etien - Jumps, then looks directly at the opponent's head, and then kicks out.

1st and 6th look intentional to me, 1st more so that 6th

2nd, 3rd and 4th were completely unnecessary - the other foot was down so there was no need for those players to lift a leg at all.
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
For all of the above, the leg movements (to extend up) start before the players (who looked at their opponents), looked. For all of the clips on the twitter link, they were all Red Card offences. Watching the Barrett one, I disagree with the rotation issue. He had leaned slightly back, yes. But he wasn't going any further back. He was on his way down and both feet would've landed perfectly well. IMO he knew what he was doing and put his foot up to deter the Aussie guy from attempting a tackle. he may not have intended a "Kick" but it was a definite attempt to avoid a big hit.

As for the jumping issues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them. If both player have a chance of catching the ball we play on. But for that to happen both catcher and chaser need to be on the ground or in the air (at the same height, well more or less). If one is on the ground running, he/she needs to check their run to tackle on the ground. In this case the play on the ground is in a position of strength and rightly so, we need to protect the more vulnerable player. Likewise if a foot gets thrown up the player on the ground becomes most vulnerable. So with the same logic they now need protected.

As a player, if you don't want to be wiped out in the air, don't jump. But you might lose the ball to a player who is jumping. Your choice.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
Ridiculous call by SANZAAR. I've not seen a single ref from outside NZ who disagreed with the RC, it's confused what was a clear framework that refs could use to explain calls, and brought intent back into things.
 

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
The problem for me is that I can get in position early, be perfectly positioned to catch the ball without risking jumping, and if someone jumps at me, I can be red carded.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(

isn't the head contact process for TACKLES...
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
The problem for me is that I can get in position early, be perfectly positioned to catch the ball without risking jumping, and if someone jumps at me, I can be red carded.

and if that someone jumps at you high enough to kick you in the face.... well that's just a rugby rugby incident, play on.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Surely though, if we follow the head contact process, certainly the way it has been upheld in the NH, there are plenty of cases where there has been accidental, but avoidable, contact with the head, that have had Red Cards issued, and upheld. Is this any different? Ignore the the in the air, rotating, balance stuff, it was contact with the opponents head, and avoidable no?

Bring intent into this and we're all snookered, we get enough 'but he didn't mean it' or 'his eyes were on the ball' at the best of times. If WR don't step in and clarify one way or the other there's a very mixed message going on here which doesn't help anyone :-(


We weren't snookered for the 100+ years before this outcome-driven BS that has infected WR started a few years back, why in earth would we suddenly be snookered now?
 
Top