Reds v Brumbies - RD10 2013

[Quick Hands]

There are also inherent risks in taking quick taps. Particularly if you take the quick tap and run into an opponent. As I understand the laws, provided the opponent is retiring and the contact was as a result of the player with the ball running into him it is play on. As long as the defending player is retiring, he can also be put on side by a member of his own team who was onside.

Continually taking quick taps, particularly when the referee has lost the plot, will not guarantee you 2 bites at the cherry, i.e. taking it quickly and running into an opponent, hoping that if you don't score, you'll get another penalty.

Law21.8 (c)
Kick taken quickly. If the free kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to retire as described in 21.8(b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.

Law 21.9
If the referee believes that the kicker’s team has contrived an infringement by their opponents, the referee does not award a further penalty but allows play to continue.

 

[USARugger]

Quick Hands

I see referees in college matches here mess this up all of the time. I nearly got binned for calling a referee one-eyed (he was an alumni from the other team from ~20 years ago) when their 9 quick tapped and ran directly into the back of our retreating loose-head prop and he blew the whistle on us for not retreating.

 

[Lee Grant]

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.

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

Interesting about the Americans; I took an American friend to a Tahs game about 10 years ago and he loved the set pieces because they reminded him of the restarting 'downs' of American football. The choreography of the lineout participants was of particular interest to him.

Perhaps those Americans liked the attempts to get over the goal line because they were like a series of "4th and 1" downs.


Disagree about Owens - it would have been a better game if he had the whistle in my opinion.

In particular, his attitude towards chirping is legendary. Jackson could learn from his example.

Mind you, Jackson loved a chirp himself as a player and perhaps he thinks therefore that there is nothing untoward in the practice.

Law 21.9
If the referee believes that the kicker’s team has contrived an infringement by their opponents, the referee does not award a further penalty but allows play to continue.

Bugger me; I didn't know that law, or had forgotten it, and I read chunks of them every now and then. Thanks for posting it.
.

 

[Set piece magic]

I agree that Owens would have shut the captains up and would have gone to the pocket (and knowing Owen's would have awarded a try in the 68th minute) more often, however I would actually argue that because of Owen's policing of the ruck the Reds would never have gotten more than a few phases together anyway...

 

[Scott Allen]

Here's the detail as to why the referee should have issued red cards against the Brumbies, not allowed the repeated infringements in Saturday's match http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/reds-v-brumbies-referee-should-have-issued-red-cards/

 

[Braveheart81]

Seeing as Ben Alexander should have been red carded for not rolling away in the 70th minute and then gave away a penalty for collapsing the scrum two minutes later, what would that paradox create?

Double Secret Probation?

 

[Quick Hands]

I agree that Owens would have shut the captains up and would have gone to the pocket (and knowing Owen's would have awarded a try in the 68th minute) more often, however I would actually argue that because of Owen's policing of the ruck the Reds would never have gotten more than a few phases together anyway.

Just needed to be a more senior and assertive referee and what occurred from the 20 minute mark onwards before reaching its crescendo in the last 20 would never have occurred. We then wouldn't need to be talking about yellow cards, red cards or penalty tries.

 

[fatprop]

Seeing as Ben Alexander should have been red carded for not rolling away in the 70th minute and then gave away a penalty for collapsing the scrum two minutes later, what would that paradox create?

Double Secret Probation?

nah ... ... rugby

this thread is getting a lot like a Bled test match thread, I am beginning to get a deeper understand of our Kiwi brethren's woe at some of our post mortem threads

next will be screen shots and videos

 

[ACT Crusader]

nah . . rugby

this thread is getting a lot like a Bled test match thread, I am beginning to get a deeper understand of our Kiwi brethren's woe at some of our post mortem threads

next will be screen shots and videos

Although I'm yet to see someone call G. Smith a cheat, although there has been some dancing around the issue....

 

[Braveheart81]

Although I'm yet to see someone call G. Smith a cheat, although there has been some dancing around the issue..

St George and Sir Richie could play a game of invisible rugby against each other.

 

[Quick Hands]

Here's the detail as to why the referee should have issued red cards against the Brumbies, not allowed the repeated infringements in Saturday's match http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/reds-v-brumbies-referee-should-have-issued-red-cards/

You make a good case, however, in over 40 years of playing, coaching, refereeing and watching rugby, I have NEVER seen (or even heard of) a player red carded (or sent off before cards came in) for repeated infringements and I've seen more that a few games with a similar number of penalties close to the goal line.

Mostly at the top level, it never gets to that point because the referee is in control. That was the big problem on Saturday night - it happens in lower level rugby, but I've never seen a referee lose control of a game of top level rugby like that. I've seen refs turn in shockers at this level, but never lose control of the game as we saw on Saturday night.

SANZAR referees are really the ones who should be held responsible, clearly the referee was doing his best, but was out of his depth in that match. From the look on his face near the end, all he wanted was for the Reds to score and the siren to go, so he could get out of there.

 

[Hawko]

I am reminded of the game a couple of years ago, Tahs vs Reds, where Ian Smith copped a lot of criticism for similar reasons - I readily admit I was one of those going purple about his performance. Then it was the heroic Reds defense holding out the waves of blue attackers by fair means or foul for about 30 minutes. Now the boot is on the other foot and some of those most agitated about Jackson's performance were praising Smith's game control and impartiality. What goes around comes around I guess.

It was an intense game where the intensity caused both teams to play in a way that in the cold light of day they would modify if it was replayed tomorrow. Sometimes the emotion of the battle takes control of the analytical part of the mind even of the coaches, who are supposed to stay calm and reasoned. For example I thought the Brumbies made poor use of their wings all day, who are both top class, and the Reds needed to use their backline more in the last 20 minutes instead of engaging in trench warfare. You could list a dozen other things you would do differently if you were either coach.

No real long term harm done, both teams got 2 points, and both are well positioned to make the finals. How they recover from what was a test match intensity game will be what is occupying the coaches' minds now. The Blues and Force will be happy to be meeting the teams this week; that game will have inevitably softened up both teams up considerably.

 

[tranquility]

Yes, Reds fans are (on the whole) more one-eyed than Brumbies fans. And the penalty count (and YC count) indicates the Brumbies didn't get away with much at all. Obviously they got away with slowing down the ball a bit, but ultimately the ref can only do so much- the Reds needed to be smarter in both the way they played, and the options they took after receiving penalties.
.

This is trite.

 

[Scott Allen]

You make a good case, however, in over 40 years of playing, coaching, refereeing and watching rugby, I have NEVER seen (or even heard of) a player red carded (or sent off before cards came in) for repeated infringements and I've seen more that a few games with a similar number of penalties close to the goal line.

Mostly at the top level, it never gets to that point because the referee is in control. That was the big problem on Saturday night - it happens in lower level rugby, but I've never seen a referee lose control of a game of top level rugby like that. I've seen refs turn in shockers at this level, but never lose control of the game as we saw on Saturday night.

SANZAR referees are really the ones who should be held responsible, clearly the referee was doing his best, but was out of his depth in that match. From the look on his face near the end, all he wanted was for the Reds to score and the siren to go, so he could get out of there.

I agree you don't see it often (the red cards) because referees normally get things under control before it gets out of hand like it did on Saturday but I have seen it in professional matches.

If the provisions aren't really meant to be used, why are they included in the current game management guidelines? They're there for for a situation where a team just refuses to comply with instructions, even after getting a yellow as happened on Saturday night. Not something that should be discarded in my opinion.

 

[Merrow]

This is trite.

The first sentence may be a generalisation (or am I just being polite), but the rest of what Barbarian said is right on the money.

 

[Scott Allen]

I am reminded of the game a couple of years ago, Tahs vs Reds, where Ian Smith copped a lot of criticism for similar reasons - I readily admit I was one of those going purple about his performance. Then it was the heroic Reds defense holding out the waves of blue attackers by fair means or foul for about 30 minutes. Now the boot is on the other foot and some of those most agitated about Jackson's performance were praising Smith's game control and impartiality. What goes around comes around I guess.

It was an intense game where the intensity caused both teams to play in a way that in the cold light of day they would modify if it was replayed tomorrow. Sometimes the emotion of the battle takes control of the analytical part of the mind even of the coaches, who are supposed to stay calm and reasoned. For example I thought the Brumbies made poor use of their wings all day, who are both top class, and the Reds needed to use their backline more in the last 20 minutes instead of engaging in trench warfare. You could list a dozen other things you would do differently if you were either coach.

No real long term harm done, both teams got 2 points, and both are well positioned to make the finals. How they recover from what was a test match intensity game will be what is occupying the coaches' minds now. The Blues and Force will be happy to be meeting the teams this week; that game will have inevitably softened up both teams up considerably.

Hawko, there is no comparison - the difference with the Reds v Waratahs match was that in a 20 minute period (51st min to 71st min) the play went in and out of the Reds 22 numerous times and the Reds had possession numerous times.

There was one 5 minute period where the Tahs had the ball continuously and in that time the Reds conceded two scrum penalties, then got a warning. There were plenty of scrum resets but the Reds didn't concede another penalty after the warning until some 10 minutes later for a ruck infringement. There was no yellow card issued that would have required a follow up red.

 

[Scoey]

You make a good case, however, in over 40 years of playing, coaching, refereeing and watching rugby, I have NEVER seen (or even heard of) a player red carded (or sent off before cards came in) for repeated infringements and I've seen more that a few games with a similar number of penalties close to the goal line.

Pretty sure Drew Mitchell got Red carded a little while back in a Bledisloe I think it was, for something like this.

 

[louie]

hahahah

Laurie Fisher ‏@LordLaurie58

6m​

Really enjoyed being at Ewen's presentation to the IRFU last Saturday. #maulpickmaulpickmaulpickmaulpick

 

[louie]

All hail Lord Laurie

 

[barbarian]

Pretty sure Drew Mitchell got Red carded a little while back in a Bledisloe I think it was, for something like this.

He got a yellow for repeated infringements, but was already on a yellow so it became a red.
.