Reds v Brumbies - RD10 2013

[Quick Hands]

I don't think that anyone really thinks the ref favoured either team. Decisions went both ways. It just happens that 'loosing control of the rucks' normally favours the defensive team (as it means slow ball).

We see this in international rugby a bit as well, and my opinion is that something needs to change if we want rugby to move to the next level.

The big thing that must happen is that the referee needs to get on top of this from the first minute. Players from both sides tested Jackson out on this and the players won. I think that more whistle early would have stopped at least some of what went on. I've always said that referees need to card early if a team or teams are doing this - no point leaving it to the last 20 minutes as the tone of the match has been set by then. I think that everyone has noticed that the flood of penalties and yellow card did not alter anyone's behaviour because it all happened too late. Players from both sides got away with doing things in the first 20 minutes which were penalised in the last 20.

Refereeing is a difficult craft - too many penalties kills the game, but not enough (particularly in a game like this) can also have a negative effect.

Despite the poor refereeing, I think that the Reds had enough possession and scoring opportunities to win that match, but they didn't take advantage of them. They seemed to have no problem getting the the Brumbies 22 and I'd suggest that the quickest way to stop any breakdown infringements would have been to keep knocking over penalty goals. It's not as if the Reds were coming from 30 points down. I think that 2 or 3 penalty goals might have had more effect on the Brumbies than the yellow card. I'm sure it would have caused the Brumbies to adjust their tactics - as it was the Reds, the Brumbies and the ref all kept doing the same thing.

The very reason I favour keeping penalty goals at 3 points is that this lessens the advantage of cynical try stopping penalties. (and I mean this in general terms, not particularly at the Brumbies on Saturday night)

 

[Set piece magic]

Well lads I think we can all agree that whatever the outcome on Saturday it was a fucking enthralling game that brought out the best of Rugby - amazing backline movement, bustling forward play, high tempo movement, outstanding goal line defense. The game had everything.

There were plenty of people in there that had no idea what Rugby was - I was sitting in front of 10 Americans who also shared my view that it was an enthralling game.

You could see that throughout the match the crowd got more into the game - fantastic. At the start they were a bit quiet, content to watch. Throughout the second half they got more and more loud, deafening in the last ten minutes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see another big crowd on Friday night - I for one was left hungry for more Rugby.

Also, I think we can settle that Jackson is a great ref, he lets the game flow, but he's not quite ready for test matches yet. I know of plenty of refs that are fine for Super Rugby level because they just let the game roll on, but at test match intensity it just doesn't work. (ala Bryce Lawrence).

I would still rather Jackson than some muppet like Owens or Rolland to blow the pea out of their whistle for 80 minutes.

Bring on Brumbies V Reds final at Suncorp

 

[Rassie]

A kick doesn't count as a turnover. A turnover only happens when you lose the ball unintentionally whether it is from a knock on, a forward pass, a missed lineout or losing the ball in a ruck/maul when your side takes it in.

The Reds dropped a lot of ball (plus there were a couple of errant passes) which is why their turnover stat was so high.

Actually not really. When you kick it upfield and you do not retain possession its a turn over. You gifted possession away. The Bulls Kings match 77 percent of the Bulls kicks they couldn't retain. No those they could retain check how many metres they actually made with that low total and you will find its at times twice the amount made by guys who ran the meters. I know the the snooze fest called South African rugby but we will always play catchup due to league not being popular at all here.

Oh I found this and the reason why the Reds might have a go at the maul. If the Stormers 6 men can do it maybe our 12 can do it better

 

[Scoey]

A lot of talk about ref giving warnings etc and taking the quick tap removes the ability for the ref to give a warning but is there any requirement for a ref to 'warn' a captain before going to the pocket?

All Rugby players should know that repeated infringements inside your own red zone = card. I don't think anyone would've had an argument if one of the Brumbies had been carded without an actual warning as the consecutive penalties/advantages were quite ridiculous at times.

I'm ok with the result - I was happy with the win over the Tahs a year or two back in similar circumstances so can't complain about being on the other side of it now. That's Rugby.

One of the curious things for me was when we were panned by all a few years back for our win over the Brumbies when we were out scored in terms of tries but got home off the boot of Cooper. We were almost demonized for our 'negative' Rugby but when our coach has a moan about it when the shoe's on the other foot apparently that's not on? Seems like a double standard.

 

[Braveheart81]

Actually not really. When you kick it upfield and you do not retain possession its a turn over. You gifted possession away.

Not in terms of the match statistics it isn't.

I don't know any statistics providers that count a kick where your team doesn't retain the ball as a turnover.

The only time a kick would be considered a turnover statistics-wise is when you kick out on the full from outside your 22 and the lineout takes place from where you kicked it.

 

[Braveheart81]

A lot of talk about ref giving warnings etc and taking the quick tap removes the ability for the ref to give a warning but is there any requirement for a ref to 'warn' a captain before going to the pocket?

All Rugby players should know that repeated infringements inside your own red zone = card. I don't think anyone would've had an argument if one of the Brumbies had been carded without an actual warning as the consecutive penalties/advantages were quite ridiculous at times.
.

Yes, an official warning is required.

Law 10.3 (b)

Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s). If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).​

 

[Scotty]

It's a tough judgement to make though. Part of slowing down the ball is legitimately trying to steal it before the referee calls you out to let go of it for being off your feet or the ruck formed.

Watering down the ability to pilfer the ball would take away a lot of the contest at the breakdown. If you were too harsh on players getting that wrong it would have a significant impact on removing that contest.

The Reds got so many penalties against the Brumbies in the red zone, but one thing that taking a quick tap denies is time for the referee to give a formal warning to the opposition captain. There was one moment in the game where Jackson told Horwill that he needed to wait if he wanted him to issue a warning and on that occassion the Reds did wait before kicking for touch to take another lineout.

As long as you keep taking quick taps, every successive quick tap is effectively going to be a 'free' penalty for the defensive team in that it is not going to result in you being issued a warning until there is another penalty and play actually stops.

Also, once a player has been yellow carded, the penalty count is effectively going to reset before another warning is issued and another card is given. No referee in world rugby is going to give back to back cards for repeated infringements. There will be a couple of penalties, then a warning and then potentially another card.

The second part of this post is more a general comment in terms of many posts in this thread rather than a reply to your post above.

Some good points, BH.

I agree - we do not want to see the contest removed, but I do want to see the contest slightly favour the team with the ball. All too often in international rugby this does not occur and we then end up with teams preferring to kick and defend than run/pass and attack.

As far as warnings go, there is no rule that states that a referee must give one before issuing a yellow card.

The most glaring misses by Jackson were the offsides on the quick taps. This happened 2-3 times and ran close to warranting a penalty try yet Jackson didn't even determine they warranted a penalty!

 

[Braveheart81]

The most glaring misses by Jackson were the offsides on the quick taps. This happened 2-3 times and ran close to warranting a penalty try yet Jackson didn't even determine they warranted a penalty!

I can only think of one occasion when the Reds weren't given a penalty from offside at the quick tap. There were a couple of times where advantage was played and then another penalty was given because there was another infringement later on during the advantage (i.e. slowing the ball down). Jackson had already been playing advantage for not being back 10 though.

 

[meatsack]

You are assuming that somewhere in the laws it says once a ref has warned a team he must yellow card the next infringement.

I agree he was too lenient, but he is hardly alone in that department. It happens more often than not that a ref who has warned a team won't immediately YC the next infringement.

It is at the refs discretion.

The timing of the warning is at the Refs discretion, the actions afterwards are not.

IRB Laws

10.3 (b) Repeated infringements by the team. When different
players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the
referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated
infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the
team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and
temporarily suspends the guilty player(s) for a period of 10
minutes playing time. If a player of that same team then repeats
the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick

So the way I read that is after a warning, the next penalty given for the same offence is an automatic yellow, if another team member does it again it's a red.

Edit: left reply window open too long and Braveheart already beat me to it.

 

[louie]

On the plus side of this match it's great to see Australia teams so competitive in battle. Australian Rugby is getting stronger each year. Great to see two Oz teams at the top.

 

[Scoey]

Amen Louie. Is it too much to start dreaming that this may be a big year for Aus Rugby? It's nice to dream. ;-)

 

[meatsack]

Also, once a player has been yellow carded, the penalty count is effectively going to reset before another warning is issued and another card is given. No referee in world rugby is going to give back to back cards for repeated infringements. There will be a couple of penalties, then a warning and then potentially another card.

Re-read 10.3 b). The first offence after the warning is a yellow card, the next one after that is a red. It doesn't reset.

 

[Slim 293]

Re-read 10.3 b). The first offence after the warning is a yellow card, the next one after that is a red. It doesn't reset.

No it isn't....... it's only when the same player reoffends that a red card is produced.........

Edit: after re-reading that though it infers that if a player on the same team infringes in the same manner as the previous yellow then it's possibly a red card.........

 

[Braveheart81]

Re-read 10.3 b). The first offence after the warning is a yellow card, the next one after that is a red. It doesn't reset.

There is some abiguity in that law, concerning whether it is if a yellow carded player then commits the same offence they are red carded or whether it is any player. In practice I've never seen it refereed like that (where any similar offence by any player is given a red card after a yellow has been issued).

It always seems like a team has to build back up to another card once one has been issued.

 

[meatsack]

No it isn't... it's only when the same player reoffends that a red card is produced...

Nope, the title is: Repeated infringements by the team and uses language like 'If a player of that same team then repeats
the offence'

 

[meatsack]

There is some abiguity in that law, concerning whether it is if a yellow carded player then commits the same offence they are red carded or whether it is any player. In practice I've never seen it refereed like that (where any similar offence by any player is given a red card after a yellow has been issued).

It always seems like a team has to build back up to another card once one has been issued.

Agreed, I haven't seen it done either; just a lot of people are saying there aren't laws for it, when there clearly is.

 

[Slim 293]

Nope, the title is: Repeated infringements by the team and uses language like 'If a player of that same team then repeats
the offence'

Sorry, my edit was too slow.......

What it seems to infer that if a player on the same team repeats the same infringement directly after the yellow then a red can be applied........

Not if a player generally offends after the yellow.........

 

[meatsack]

Sorry, my edit was too slow...

What it seems to infer that if a player on the same team repeats the same infringement directly after the yellow then a red can be applied....

Not if a player generally offends after the yellow...

Yeah basically, but I don't think it has to be directly after though. If you've been warned for offsides. Then get pinged for not rolling away. Its not a yellow, but if any time after the final warning you get pinged for offside, its a yellow, doesn't mean it has to have occurred within 5 minutes of the warning given.

To be clear, I'm not saying it should be that way or that it should have happened on Saturday night, just pointing out that it is a law.

 

[meatsack]

Just found this, check question 4. http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2045355.html#you+rugby+world+cup+referee

Seems it doesn't have to be the same player to be a red card.

 

[Jets]

I enjoyed the game and really liked the way the Reds went for tries. I'll admit that I'm a one eyed Reds supporter but I was impressed with the way the Brumbies went about their defensive effort.
I am also coming around to thinking that Jessie Mogg in a gold 15 jersey wouldn't be a bad thing. Always had pace and a big boot but he's now understanding how to use both to great effect. I can see how the Brumbies form dropped when he was out of the team.
The Reds failed to win the game as a result of their poor handling and some bad decisions by some players. Tapuai's dropped ball when in a hole early, Lance's 2 bad passes, Davies dropping the ball etc. I'll even put in Ant not heading back in field when going for the try as they had a good chance to score if they recycle the ball.
The other issue is the Reds penetration through the forwards. They need to make more ground as their pick and drive play just seems to stay in the same spot until they pass it out.
While Jackson didn't have the best game I think it would have been a good experience for him and he'll be a better ref because of it.
I really hope that the Reds keep playing the same style in weeks to come as it is very exciting to watch.