Rugby is officially dead

[Ian_Cook]

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

Yes, he did

What Law do you reckon he actually broke ?

9.12 (and by the looks of it, so did Barrett in the photo posted by Cross)

 

[Cross]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You inserted something that didn't actually happen to argue against it. Again, he did NOT lead with the forearm.

Looked like he lead with the forearm to me.

So first it was leading with the forearm, a fact.
Now it's an opinion.

That was what the TMO and Referee saw as well - I'll go with their assessment (and my judgement) not yours.

Wayne Barnes saw nothing wrong with Michalak's pass in 2007. Did you go with his assessment (and other people's judgement) back then, too?

The silliest part of all is that Kerevi had his hands up to protect himself because the red player was going high.

When they make contact Kerevi's arm is tucked in against himself. Here is the video, no still, no nothing, just a video. If you think that is leading with a forearm (you've claimed that repeatedly in this thread) you need to go to the optometrist asap.

https://twitter.com/10SportAU/status/1178226295680966656

 

[pedr]

In terms of the words used it is undoubtedly leading with the forearm. The forearm is the foremost part of the player’s body otherwise it wouldn’t have been the first part to make contact.

Since the laws don’t prohibit leading with the forearm in those precise terms, that’s only relevant inasmuch as World Rugby and referees are using that to mean unlawful and dangerous use of the forearm in a tackle situation. There’s clearly disagreement over whether this was unlawful/dangerous.

It’s probably not quite as dangerous as Megan Rom in the women’s autumn internationals last year: https://youtu.be/GN7RvTTWxMU but going into contact with force to run over a tackler with arms at chest height is dangerous and Rom was banned for 3 weeks for infringing 9.11. https://www.world.rugby/news/378770?lang=en

 

[Flish]

He pushes red away from him with his forearm, very clear to see, *not* his palm, that’s a forearm fend in my world, and illegal. If he keeps his arms in and doesn’t move them then that’s a different story, but he doesn’t he clearly pushes red away in an active movement, that’s what gets him in trouble.

 

[crossref]

.

Since the laws don’t prohibit leading with the forearm in those precise terms, that’s only relevant inasmuch as World Rugby and referees are using that to mean unlawful and dangerous use of the forearm in a tackle situation. There’s clearly disagreement over whether this was unlawful/dangerous.

But did you think it was actually dangerous ?
I dont think either RP or the TMO used that word
I don't see anyone on this thread claiming it was actually dangerous.

Only that is was unlawful .. which to me is not entirely clear .

 

[pedr]

I think it was. It’s dangerous to use a forearm to fend a player off, even if the initial contact is with the player’s chest, because if it hits the head or neck it can cause serious harm. It hit the neck here, “indirectly” as the TMO/RP said, so some of the unwanted outcome actually happened.

Now lots of things in rugby are actually dangerous and not penalised, but when a player does something which risks injuring an opponent and then causes contact of the sort which can cause injury, that seems to be appropriately penalisable (and subject to greater sanction if they cause contact which is likely to cause injury such as contact with the head). If Patchell had been 2 inches shorter and the contact had been directly to the head, would we be saying a red card would have been wrong?

 

[crossref]

Fair enough if that's what you think
I note RP and the TMO agreed PK only.. so clearly they didnt thi k it was that serious

 

[crossref]

Fair enough if that's what you think
I note RP and the TMO agreed PK only.. so clearly they didnt thi k it was that serious

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes it is. You inserted something that didn't actually happen to argue against it. Again, he did NOT lead with the forearm

I inserted something that DID happen.

So first it was leading with the forearm, a fact.
Now it's an opinion.

Say what?

Wayne Barnes saw nothing wrong with Michalak's pass in 2007. Did you go with his assessment (and other people's judgement) back then, too?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren't we? Going back 12 years ago to a different game where something totally different happened in order to draw conclusions about a contemporary event.

That is a text book example of "Irrelevant Conclusion"

I'm going off topic for a moment to address your claim.

FWIW, I never had a real issue with him missing the forward pass. It was clearly forward, but the real issue is that WR (then the IRB) made two major mistakes at that RWC. One of these was issuing an edict that the Touch Judges* were not to call in offsides and forward passes and the TMO could only rule on tries on the act of scoring. This meant WB had to make an immediate decision and could not rely on any help from elsewhere.

However my main issue with WB was the second mistake the IRB made - appointing a rookie referee to the RWC in the first place. Prior to the 2007 RWC, WB had refereed one, and only one Tier 1 match. He had not even refereed a Six Nations match. He was the RFU's golden boy and they pulled a lot of strings to get him included. Then the IRB appointed him to a quarter final, bypassing far more experienced referees. WB was clearly out of his depth, like a possum in the headlights. He completely ignored the ruck and midfield offside line in the second half. That was my issue, not the forward pass.

However, my biggest issue was that the players and the coach didn't recognize what was happening. They couldn't see that WB was never going to PK France for the offsides on defense, and they had no plan "B" to deal with that. It wasn't until the last moments that this dawned on them, and Nick Evans had a crack at a Dropped Goal. This is what they should have realized half way through the second half, they should have been making Dropped Goal attempts way back at that point.

* Yes, they were still Touch Judges - they weren't changed into Assistant Referees until the 2009 Laws.

The silliest part of all is that Kerevi had his hands up to protect himself because the red player was going high.

When they make contact Kerevi's arm is tucked in against himself. Here is the video, no still, no nothing, just a video. If you think that is leading with a forearm (you've claimed that repeatedly in this thread) you need to go to the optometrist asap.

https://twitter.com/10SportAU/status/1178226295680966656

Looks like leading with his forearm to me!

....and by the way "the red player was going high." Really? Looks to me like he was wrapping about Kerevi's waist. If you think that is high, "you need to go to the optometrist asap."

 

[Cross]

I still cannot believe you claim not to have watched NZ vs RSA game.

 

[SimonSmith]

An Edinburgh player got suspended for the forearm lead back in November.

This seems to be settled law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I still cannot believe you claim not to have watched NZ vs RSA game.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms.

Firstly: In New Zealand, Spark won the rights to the RWC... this means no RWC on SkyTV.

Secondly: This means that everyone watching had to live stream it because Spark have no terrestrial broadcast capacity. The live stream went down for many, many people in the second half.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/11...d-with-choppy-coverage-of-the-rugby-world-cup

Thirdly: There is no way to record a live stream (and even if there is, I don't have the equipment or the ability to do this)

Fourthly: I watch the RWC on ITV (using a VPN), but still, there is no way to record this, so if I wasn't sitting at my computer at the time it was broadcast, there is no way for me to see it later.

Fifthly: As I said, on the night of the game, I was in Christchurch attending the funeral of a long time friend. I was therefor away from my computer, and therefore could not see the game.

The only thing I have seen of the game was a 20 minute highlights package. That's it.

And frankly, I don't give a rats arse whether you believe me or not anyway!

 

[crossref]

An Edinburgh player got suspended for the forearm lead back in November.

This seems to be settled law.

That incident would have been a red card offence , though , something dangerous which is covered by Law 9. (Can you find the disciplinary report, would be interesting to see what Law they refer to)

But yesterday incident wasn't dangerous . It was a PK only.
It's hard to say what Law was actually broken

Yes there is a convention about leading with forearm , but really it's high time WR addressed this area and wrote some Laws spelling it out, as they have with a tackler. A flow chart even

 

[Ian_Cook]

But yesterday incident wasn't dangerous . It was a PK only.

So you are saying that anything that does not warrant a card is not dangerous?

Got it!

It's hard to say what Law was actually broken

Not it isn't. Its just that you are pretending you haven't been told.

 

[crossref]

Here is Kerevi

. Samu Kerevi has called on the authorities to bring in players to advise on the regulations covering the contact area,

. I respect the referee’s decision and I understand the pressure they are under, and not just from the media. But is there a ruling on the way we are meant to run? Players understand that rugby is a collision sport and all we want is consistency. You would think that players would be involved in drawing up these rules and you have to understand it from our point of view

Which is what I am saying. We need some Laws and guidance that clearly lay out the responsibility of the ball carrier

9.12 isn't good enough. Kerevi didn't do any of the actions listed out in 9.12

9.11 is too vague and subjective. It's a good Law as a catch all for something very unusual or unexpected. It's not sufficient to cover tackles


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/30/samu-kerevi-all-we-want-is-consistency

 

[Ian_Cook]

Here is Kerevi




Which is what I am saying. We need some Laws and guidance that clearly lay out the responsibility of the ball carrier

9.12 isn't good enough. Kerevi didn't do any of the actions listed out in 9.12

9.11 is too vague and subjective. It's a good Law as a catch all for something very unusual or unexpected. It's not sufficient to cover tackles


https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/30/samu-kerevi-all-we-want-is-consistency

If you read my post #16 you would know that all the coaches have been briefed about this. I know that Hansen and his team have passed that information onto his players, and from Michael Cheika's comments to the media after the Reece Hodge citing and suspension, I deduce that he intentionally has not. More the fool him.

 

[crossref]

On post #16 you say there is a secret slide presentation , covering the responsibility of the ball carrier, that has been shown to RWC coaches , but not to the wider world

If that's the case it rather supports my point.
The Law Book alone doesn't cover this properly , a slide presentation is needed with clear guidelines and a flow chart .. and that need to be published

 

[Ian_Cook]

On post #16 you say there is a secret slide presentation , covering the responsibility of the ball carrier, that has been shown to RWC coaches , but not to the wider world

If that's the case it rather supports my point.
The Law Book alone doesn't cover this properly , a slide presentation is needed with clear guidelines and a flow chart .. and that need to be published

It wasn't secret! The NZ media knew about it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12268500

The ITV commentators knew about it because they mentioned it during the commentary.


Here is what Steve Hanson had to say about the current round of referee-bashing in the World Cup

"All I'll say about the tournament and the referees (and I'm not going to say any more so please don't ask me) is they're under a lot of pressure. I talked before this tournament about how pressure can affect rugby teams, and referees are no different so there's no point everyone climbing into them because it's not going to do anything other than put them under more pressure and it's not going to fix the problem."

 

[crossref]

It wasn't secret! The NZ media knew about it.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12268500

The ITV commentators knew about it because they mentioned it during the commentary.


Here is what Steve Hanson had to say about the current round of referee-bashing in the World Cup

"All I'll say about the tournament and the referees (and I'm not going to say any more so please don't ask me) is they're under a lot of pressure. I talked before this tournament about how pressure can affect rugby teams, and referees are no different so there's no point everyone climbing into them because it's not going to do anything other than put them under more pressure and it's not going to fix the problem."

That's the one that covers tacklers
We all know about that, the flow chart is on the WR website

What we don't have is an equivalent document covering ball carriers. You claimed in post 16 that there is one. It seems that there isnt then ?

 

[Cross]

Let me explain this to you in simple terms.

....
The only thing I have seen of the game was a 20 minute highlights package. That's it.

And frankly, I don't give a rats arse whether you believe me or not anyway!

I'm afraid i still dont get it. Maybe you can help me out. See, this is the thing. You and i both post on this other rugby forum. Pretty sure you knew too, in case you didn't, you know now. Both our posting styles are rather unique and we've both been posting here and there for years. Hard to miss kinda thing.

So what i cant get my head around is how here you claim that you had little evidence and therefore cannot pass judgement on that NZ vs RSA pic i posted, but on the other forum you argued with everyone about everything related to that game.
In fact, you argued so much and with so many people, calling a NZ Hater to anyone who dared to disagree with you, that you decided to stop posting until the RWC is over. That's how berserk it went down.

So my question is, which on is it? Did you watch the game like you claim there, or you did not, like you claim here?
Were you lying there or are you lying here?
The only thing i know for certain is you lied, but that's not really a surprise.

PS: people who genuinely, sincerely dont care whether i believe them or not dont answer. You took quite the time to answer me. Then again, given what's above it was naive of me to expect sincerity from you.