SA v AUS

[damo]

May as well start a thread cause someone has to.

Plenty to discuss. I think 3 of the 5 cards were debateable (one of which should have been a RC IMO), the TMO appeared to miss an eye gouge when he was asked to look for foul play after a scuffle, there was an "advantage over" call taken back, twice the ball came out of the same tunnel in scrums, which were a general shambles again.

Fortunately the refereeing didn't really impact on the result because the Wallabies were bloody awful, but if the Boks had been down to 14 or even 13 for the second half they might have been able to make it a bit closer.

 

[Ian_Cook]

May as well start a thread cause someone has to.

Plenty to discuss. I think 3 of the 5 cards were debateable (one of which should have been a RC IMO), the TMO appeared to miss an eye gouge when he was asked to look for foul play after a scuffle, there was an "advantage over" call taken back, twice the ball came out of the same tunnel in scrums, which were a general shambles again.

Fortunately the refereeing didn't really impact on the result because the Wallabies were bloody awful, but if the Boks had been down to 14 or even 13 for the second half they might have been able to make it a bit closer.

I counted only four yellow cards, and some of those calls were just plain wrong. One of them was wrong in Law and therefore a possible Law error.

1st YC: 27 min against Gold 7 for a dangerous tackle.
IMO, this was not even a PK. The Green player jumped into the tackle, making contact with Gold 7's shoulder as he stooped to tackle him. There was no lift and the rotation of the Green player was purely down to his feet being off the ground while he was in forward motion. What was Gold 7 supposed to, just vanish?

However, in the aftermath, there was some handbags during which Green 3 makes, IMO, intentional contact with the eyes of a Gold player. This should have been a RC against Green 3.

2nd YC: 39 min against Green 5 for striking
Green 5 used an intentional, swinging elbow to the face of the Gold ball-carrier. Even the South African commentator said it was "a shocker". For me, this a stone-cold RC, all day, every day.

3rd YC: 66 min against Green 8 for intentional knock on
Fair call, no problem

4th YC: 74 min against Gold 19 for striking
Gold 19 launched forearm first into a pair of players (one Gold, one Green) on the ground. His forearm misses the Green player completely, and strikes the Gold player. This is not even a PK, let alone a YC

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

It is not an offence to strike a team-mate, only an opponent. IMO, this is a Law error by Garces.

Summary
Out of the four yellow cards he gave, he only got one right. Prior to issuing the first YC, he had asked the TMO, Graham Hughes, for advice on the dangerous tackle and the handbags that occurred afterwards, then once he saw the tackle on the big screen, he cut the TMO off before he had finished speaking. Essentially, it looks like he forgot that he had asked about the handbags as well. This means he missed a potentially serious offence by Green 3, the possible eye-gouge.

IMO, Garces performance was well below the standards required for this competition.

 

[Rushforth]

Ian, I have not watched the match.

Could you please clarify your position that punching your own player because you are aiming at an opponent and miss makes it OK? Because that seems to be your primary focus in your argument that the ref got 3/4 wrong, of these major decisions.

IMO, referees who perform below the standards expected by the armchair brigade (not you) do, in time, improve.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I have not watched the match.

Could you please clarify your position that punching your own player because you are aiming at an opponent and miss makes it OK? Because that seems to be your primary focus in your argument that the ref got 3/4 wrong, of these major decisions.

IMO, referees who perform below the standards expected by the armchair brigade (not you) do, in time, improve.

I said earlier in another thread that the Law does not address the issue of attempting to strike an opponent, i.e. there is no PK, in Law, for a swing and and miss. I would be thoroughly in favour of a change in 10.4 to add the words "or attempt to", and to replace the words "an opponent" with the words "any player" in all the appropriate places, for example, instead of...

[LAWS](a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
...we would have...

[LAWS](a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike, or attempt to strike, any player with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

But as it stands, striking your own player, even if you go for and miss you opponent, is not a PK (in Law), and referees, especially at this level, should not be making it up as they go.

 

[The Fat]

I counted only four yellow cards, and some of those calls were just plain wrong. One of them was wrong in Law and therefore a possible Law error.

1st YC: 27 min against Gold 7 for a dangerous tackle.
IMO, this was not even a PK. The Green player jumped into the tackle, making contact with Gold 7's shoulder as he stooped to tackle him. There was no lift and the rotation of the Green player was purely down to his feet being off the ground while he was in forward motion. What was Gold 7 supposed to, just vanish?

However, in the aftermath, there was some handbags during which Green 3 makes, IMO, intentional contact with the eyes of a Gold player. This should have been a RC against Green 3.

2nd YC: 39 min against Green 5 for striking
Green 5 used an intentional, swinging elbow to the face of the Gold ball-carrier. Even the South African commentator said it was "a shocker". For me, this a stone-cold RC, all day, every day.

3rd YC: 66 min against Green 8 for intentional knock on
Fair call, no problem

4th YC: 74 min against Gold 19 for striking
Gold 19 launched forearm first into a pair of players (one Gold, one Green) on the ground. His forearm misses the Green player completely, and strikes the Gold player. This is not even a PK, let alone a YC

[LAWS]10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including
the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

It is not an offence to strike a team-mate, only an opponent. IMO, this is a Law error by Garces.

Summary
Out of the four yellow cards he gave, he only got one right. Prior to issuing the first YC, he had asked the TMO, Graham Hughes, for advice on the dangerous tackle and the handbags that occurred afterwards, then once he saw the tackle on the big screen, he cut the TMO off before he had finished speaking. Essentially, it looks like he forgot that he had asked about the handbags as well. This means he missed a potentially serious offence by Green 3, the possible eye-gouge.

IMO, Garces performance was well below the standards required for this competition.

Well that saved me writing almost the same thing.
The only thing I would add is to your last sentence, "......, and neither was the wallabies performance in the first 20 minutes of the game".

 

[Dickie E]

the crounch, bind, set seems to have resolved nothing

 

[menace]

I said earlier in another thread that the Law does not address the issue of attempting to strike an opponent, i.e. there is no PK, in Law, for a swing and and miss. I would be thoroughly in favour of a change in 10.4 to add the words "or attempt to", and to replace the words "an opponent" with the words "any player" in all the appropriate places, for example, instead of...

So why not in the interim use the law regarding actions against sportsmanship and fair play?? surely attempting to snot someone falls into that category? (Haven't seen the game yet...but YC sounds far fetched for an airswing)

 

[damo]

I thought it was debatable, but perhaps OK. He just dived on top of a tackled player on the ground, which is illegal in itself. The way he did it was potentially dangerous, although he missed his target and snotted his own player I can live with a YC, though personally I would have just gone for the PK for diving on a player on the ground.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So why not in the interim use the law regarding actions against sportsmanship and fair play?? surely attempting to snot someone falls into that category? (Haven't seen the game yet...but YC sounds far fetched for an airswing)

Not an airswing really. He went to ground with a leading forearm, missed the Green player and got his team-mate.

 

[menace]

Not an airswing really. He went to ground with a leading forearm, missed the Green player and got his team-mate.

Not going to split hairs. To-mar-to. To-may-to.!

[Ian_c] "i.e. there is no PK, in Law, for a swing and and miss." = "airswing" [me]

Both against sportsmanship to warrant PK is what I was suggesting.

 

[The Fat]

Not an airswing really. He went to ground with a leading forearm, missed the Green player and got his team-mate.

Sigh. At the moment, we can't even execute foul play competently.

 

[The Fat]

Suggest McCalman to 8 and Mowen to 6 (Fardy to bench), Genia back at 9 with Toomua at least covering QC. Timani to start ahead of Simmons. Horwill may have aggravated hammy so may need another lock into the squad. Consider Benn Robo to start in front of Slipper.
McCalman, Moore and Ashley-Cooper are the only three players who know where the gain line is.
Make Fianga do double number of practice throw-ins at training this week in case he has to replace Moore late in the game.
Teach ALL TH props to get a longer bind.

Just a few points for Link to consider before we play the Argies next week.
Oh yeah, and someone give JOC an extra slap around the head for playing up last week forcing Tomane to fill in.

 

[damo]

What about the "advantage over" call which was then retracted as the Springboks made an intercept? I reckon he had finished saying it before the ball was lost and it really should have been play on. Still it was well premature, and so perhaps the lesser of two evils was to bring in back.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Just watching the replay and the 68th? min when the WB's get pinged for not straight, the boks take the next one, which to me was pretty much not straight either.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Flip van der Merwe, the player who got YC#2 (which I said ought to have been RC) has been cited.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/r...ane-in-cape-town/story-fnibc972-1226729366503

 

[menace]

IMO, Garces performance was well below the standards required for this competition.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I Just watched a replay. Garces was unbelievably inconsistent. I thought his ruck management was confusing at best...SH!thouse at worst. Not to any particular side...just all round.

Flip van der Merwe, the player who got YC#2 (which I said ought to have been RC) has been cited.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/r...ane-in-cape-town/story-fnibc972-1226729366503

Good. It was plain thuggery. He had no intention to grasp at all. Strange to believe that even with TMO looking at multiple replays that he didn't recommend RC? Back to U12s for the TMO!

 

[Chogan]

A whole half of test rugby with only 13 men on the field would have given a very different result no matter how bad Australia were in the first half. :norc: :norc:

We have a lot to do to sort out the TMO procedures. I don't think it'd hurt if we adapted to how the league lads do it.

Pat Lambie didn't make the TO3 look too good either. To clarify, if the ball is touched by an AR does that count as outside interference?

 

[menace]

Not an airswing really. He went to ground with a leading forearm, missed the Green player and got his team-mate.

Have now had a chance to see this. I don't really object to it being given a YC but I found it hard to believe this got a YC on the basis I saw at least 3/4 other instances just like this with players joining a ruck (yes i know the other was just a tackle, but it doesn't make a difference imo). This action is prevalent in the elite game despite a law against it at the ruck yet it is allowed to go on without penalty. Worse still the intention is to cause harm...not legally clean out!

Ie16.2

[LAWS](b)
A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.[/LAWS]

It is also pervading into grassroots because they see it at the elite level. I've Issued YC for such actions (usually after PK and warning the first time).

 

[Dickie E]

We have a lot to do to sort out the TMO procedures. I don't think it'd hurt if we adapted to how the league lads do it.

+ 1

To clarify, if the ball is touched by an AR does that count as outside interference?

If you mean is the QT no longer on, then yes.

 

[Chogan]

Thanks Dickie E