Rugby is officially dead

[belladonna]

@pedr
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
And, what arm?!?

 

[Decorily]

View attachment 3924 You mean like this one?

Yes....I mean exactly like this one and the previous!
Pointless!

 

[belladonna]

Yes....I mean exactly like this one and the previous!
Pointless!

Here's a still from the post-match discussion on ITV, it's a few frames on from when the Gold 9 picks the ball up off the floor, but its the first frame in which the ball is clearly visible in his hands and clear of the ground - and Red 9 is still on side. He's watching Gold 9 like a hawk and times his run to perfection. Sorry for the poor quality, my ancient HDR only does SD
PS. Hopefully people won't think this pic is pointless too!!
View attachment 3925

 

[Decorily]

Here's a still from the post-match discussion on ITV, it's a few frames on from when the Gold 9 picks the ball up off the floor, but its the first frame in which the ball is clearly visible in his hands and clear of the ground - and Red 9 is still on side. He's watching Gold 9 like a hawk and times his run to perfection. Sorry for the poor quality, my ancient HDR only does SD
View attachment 3925

Now we are getting close to an example of a still image that is actually useful! !
This scenario is a good example of how a badly timed scan can lead to a less experienced referee making bad calls in termsof OS.

 

[TigerCraig]

Alain Rolland specifically went around all the teams in this tournament with a slide presentation explaining what was going to be looked at. One of those things was ball carriers leading with the forearm into the throat/head would be tacklers.

Every time the TMO checked in during this match he was absolutely correct on every call. If the right decisions are being made, there is not a lot to complain about. The TMOs are again using "Hawkeye" at RWC.

I am absolutely 100% in support of the idea that TMOs call in foul play when they see it. Simply waiting for the referee to call him in is useless if the referee doesn't see it to call it in.

As for Michael Cheika's remarks earlier in the week (where he said his players didn't need to know the framework for the high tackle sanction) well, I am aghast. What on earth was he thinking? EVERY player should know the possible consequences of what they do and how it is arrived at. One of the ways you learn things is to understand how the end result is achieved.

After Scott Barrett got his RC in the Perth test, Steve Hansen called in a referee coach from NZ Rugby to work with him. As a result of this consultation, Barrett has changed his tacking/clean-out technique - he wants to make sure he doesn't let his team down in the future.

This is an example of the way Hansen thinks. Cheika seems to have adopted a siege mentality.

Problem is that rugby isnt played in super slow motion.

 

[belladonna]

Problem is that rugby isnt played in super slow motion.

Yeah but either way, the forearm hand-off is still illegal - as RP pointed out to the player later. It has to be open hand, not forearm.

 

[TigerCraig]

Yeah but either way, the forearm hand-off is still illegal - as RP pointed out to the player later. It has to be open hand, not forearm.

Thank god im done with refereeing

 

[belladonna]

Thank god im done with refereeing

Why? Are you saying you don't think it wasn't a penalty offense?
Watching live on TV (not the same as reffing on the field I grant you) I called it in real time and at full speed, and thought Aus were very lucky to have got away with (a fourth?) cheap shot.
Very glad to see the TMO spotted it and called them back.

 

[TigerCraig]

Why? Are you saying you don't think it wasn't a penalty offense?
Watching live on TV (not the same as reffing on the field I grant you) I called it in real time and at full speed, and thought Aus were very lucky to have got away with (a fourth?) cheap shot.
Very glad to see the TMO spotted it and called them back.

Technically yes, but no harm no foul. I also thought the penalty against red 11 for a high tackle was ridiculous.

If it keeps on like this Australia will be playing off with the minnows in 2 cups time. Its already a 3rd tier sport and will become a laughing stock. The PI boys in particular will keep flocking to league

 

[tewdric]

Tiger Craig - If you read the forums you will see that most assertions are reasonably argued and backed up with facts and law references. Your posts stand out as being baseless and emotional rants. You may find a debate that works better for you in a general rugby forum, rather than in here,.

 

[crossref]

Yeah but either way, the forearm hand-off is still illegal - as RP pointed out to the player later. It has to be open hand, not forearm.

What Law do you reckon covers this?

(I have to admit some sympathy with Cheika- there is lots in Law book about what tacklers can do, very little about ball carriers. And TBH I didn't find either the TMO or RP very convincing)

 

[Rich_NL]

What Law do you reckon covers this?

9.12

Most coaches I meet know that the ball carrier can't forearm/elbow smash a tackler in the head, to be fair.

 

[Flish]

What Law do you reckon covers this?

(I have to admit some sympathy with Cheika- there is lots in Law book about what tacklers can do, very little about ball carriers. And TBH I didn't find either the TMO or RP very convincing)

[LAWS]9.24 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ball-carrier is permitted to [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]hand off[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] an opponent provided excessive force is not used [/LAWS]

coupled with the definition;

[/FONT]Hand-off: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A permitted action, taken by a ball-carrier to fend off an opponent, using the palm of the hand.
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Seems to cover it
[/FONT]

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]9.24 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ball-carrier is permitted to [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]hand off[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] an opponent provided excessive force is not used [/LAWS]

coupled with the definition;

[/FONT]Hand-off: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A permitted action, taken by a ball-carrier to fend off an opponent, using the palm of the hand.
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Seems to cover it
[/FONT]

Agreed that it wasn't a hand off
But what Law did he break ?

 

[crossref]

9.12
.

[LAWS]9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.[/LAWS]

but he didn't do any of those things, did he?

Most coaches I meet know that the ball carrier can't forearm/elbow smash a tackler in the head, to be fair.

He didn't do that either.

 

[Treadmore]

but he didn't do any of those things, did he?



He didn't do that either.

you've seen off 9.12 and 9.24, now what about 9.11 (Flish gave earlier).
[LAWS]
9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.[/LAWS]

A bit straw-clutching for me but if the ref so determines 9.11...and Poite did say "reckless" at one point.

I don't agree; Patchell was reckless (as was Biggar) trying to tackle Kerevi with that technique!

Someone mentioned a pre-RWC briefing by Alain Rolland about leading with the forearm - anyone know if that is available online? Would help us all if we could see everything the refs had been briefed.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.[/LAWS]

but he didn't do any of those things, did he?

So you think whacking a forearm into an opponent's throat is not "striking with any part of the arm"?

 

[Cross]

So you think whacking a forearm into an opponent's throat is not "striking with any part of the arm"?

First, that is a textbook case of straw-man. That is not what happen. It's the second time you've done it in this thread alone.
When red's neck touches gold's forearm his (gold) arms were around the ball and close to his body. Then during the contact he (gold) tries to push the tackler away. Since the tackler's neck was the one who touched his forearm it was virtually impossible for him to do so without touching the tacklers neck. He was not "leading with the forearm into the throat/head would be tackler" like you claim.
He never "lead" anything.

Second, following your logic just for the sake of the argument, lets have a look at the pic below.




Where were your comments about this when the ABs played the Springboks?
Or do you only comment on these things when it fits your narrative?
Cause that would make it incredibly convenient.

 

[crossref]

So you think whacking a forearm into an opponent's throat is not "striking with any part of the arm"?

It would be.
But he didn't do that either , did he ?

What Law do you reckon he actually broke ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

First, that is a textbook case of straw-man.

No it isn't. It directly answered the post, even quoting part of it.

A strawman is when you mischaracterise your opponent's argument, then argue against your mischaracterised version. If you are going to accuse people of using logical fallacies, do yourself a favour and learn what they are actually are and how they work!

That is not what happen. When red's neck touches gold's forearm his (gold) arms were around the ball and close to his body. Then during the contact he (gold) tries to push the tackler away. Since the tackler's neck was the one who touched his forearm it was virtually impossible for him to do so without touching the tacklers neck. He was not "leading with the forearm into the throat/head would be tackler" like you claim.
He never "lead" anything.

Looked like he lead with the forearm to me. That was what the TMO and Referee saw as well - I'll go with their assessment (and my judgement) not yours.

Second, following your logic just for the sake of the argument, lets have a look at the pic below.

View attachment 3926


Where were your comments about this when the ABs played the Springboks?

I didn't make any, because I haven't seen the whole game (away in Christchurch at an old friend's funeral). The only thing I have seen is a 20 minute highlights package, and this either wasn't in it, or no attention was drawn to it (and I watched the highlights on ITV with UK commentators). Are you telling me the TMO called this in and nothing happened?

(FWIW, if this is a bad as it looks, he should have called it in, and at least a PK, perhaps a YC awarded. I'd like to see the video rather than a useless still to make a judgement though.

Or do you only comment on these things when it fits your narrative?
Cause that would make it incredibly convenient.

The game under discussion here is Wales v Australia - I don't have a dog in that fight (therefore, no supporting narrative) although I am more likely biased towards Australia seeing as they are our kissin' cousins, and a SH team.