RWC 2015 Semi Final 2 - Australia v Argentina Twickenham, Monday 19 October, 2:45 AEDT

[Highlander35]

The try should of been a no try because the Scottish player was in front of the ball at the ruck when he picked it up.

Been discussed.

No Australian players=no ruck=no offside.

Regardless of the legality, it was nothing short of shocking defending, with no pillars and no sweeper, something which should be worked on to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Been discussed.

No Australian players=no ruck=no offside.

Regardless of the legality, it was nothing short of shocking defending, with no pillars and no sweeper, something which should be worked on to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Agree with the latter part, but just for the hell of it

15.6 (d)At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[boyo]

i don't know much about Sanchez, but from what i saw on the weekend he can really turn it on! Anyone else seen much more of him other than at the RWC?

Perhaps he should play diveball.

 

[boyo]

Mate I'd need the very high heels. She's about eleventy feet tall.

Fixed.

 

[Alex]

Been discussed.

No Australian players=no ruck=no offside.

Regardless of the legality, it was nothing short of shocking defending, with no pillars and no sweeper, something which should be worked on to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Apologies if I missed the discussion on this, but I am not sure if I agree that there were no Australian players, Highlander. Kepu made the tackle and was pinned at the bottom of the ruck the whole time. See

If a ruck was formed Horne clearly could not play the ball from in front of the last feet: Law 16.5: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16

However, ultimately whether Kepu was there or not is somewhat academic. If there was no ruck, there had still been a tackle, which would have put Horne in an offside position. Law 15.6(d): At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Of all the decisions in the match, this is the one that I most struggle with. Most of the other howlers you could put down to something like understandable human error (the knock on) or an unfortunate direction of travel in the way the game is officiated (the yellow card). This one is inexplicable to me.

All of that said, completely agree that the defending was shocking and if you leave holes like that you deserve whatever fate deals you.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

But do you really think the referee should have called a stop to play and denied the try?

Should Australia lodge an official complaint?

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

The Soap Dodgers were found to have had 16 players on the field during RWC03.

They seem to have a habit of believing rules are for others to comply with not them.

16 players on the field at RWC03 cost them 10000 fine (in either pounds or USD).

If the game wasn't forfeited then, it is a fairly good assumption that 18 players in the field of play now would result in just a fine for that team.

 

[Braveheart81]

Clearly these players weren't participants or trying to participate.

I agree they shouldn't have been there but it also happens every now and again.

I think it is a bit of a beat up over nothing. At worst Scotland should be told to keep their reserves off the pitch when the play is anywhere in the vicinity.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Sword of Justice]

Agree with the latter part, but just for the hell of it

15.6 (d)At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.



Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I did not know this Strewth. And also thank you Alex for post #345.

It seems Australia was robbed. Robbed of the opportunity to avoid a mountain of people on social media having a cry.

 

[John S]

I just watched the Pumas do over the Irish in their quarter. It was a closer game then the score suggests. The Wallabies will need to be on their toes and getting Pocock back would be good. Quietly confident but can't count them out. Wallabies by 10

 

[Joe Blow]

Seems as though there are teams(ranked below us) that the Wallabies struggle with historically. The Scots are an obvious one and Ireland as well.
Previously we have had issues against Italy and Argentina because of their forward strength compared to ours.
In the last 6 months we have shown this is not such an issue as Cheika has beefed up our forward play and set piece.
The Pumas have added another string to their bow with the ability to go wide and fast down the flanks and to counter attack just as well as the other 3 RC teams.
Defense will win this game and I would rate ours just a little higher than Argentinas. Experience will also be key if it is tight at the end.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Seems as though there are teams(ranked below us) that the Wallabies struggle with historically. The Scots are an obvious one and Ireland as well.
Previously we have had issues against Italy and Argentina because of their forward strength compared to ours.
In the last 6 months we have shown this is not such an issue as Cheika has beefed up our forward play and set piece.
The Pumas have added another string to their bow with the ability to go wide and fast down the flanks and to counter attack just as well as the other 3 RC teams.
Defense will win this game and I would rate ours just a little higher than Argentinas. Experience will also be key if it is tight at the end.

And the Boks

 

[Strewthcobber]

The Pumas have added another string to their bow with the ability to go wide and fast down the flanks and to counter attack just as well as the other 3 RC teams.
Defense will win this game and I would rate ours just a little higher than Argentinas. Experience will also be key if it is tight at the end.

Hopefully our outside defenders (and it might include Gits or Foley depending on the system used) do a better job than the Irish too. Some of those early breaks were through a fairly shambolic defensive alignment.

 

[dru]

Read this and think about it for just a little bit:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/20/argentina-australia-mario-ledesma-pumas

“Mario has brought a change of mindset to Australia’s scrum. Instead of being a platform to get the ball in play for them, they now look for psychological domination, which they got over England. They have attacked most teams and I like that because it means the scrum will be a proper contest, two teams wanting to test themselves there. As a front row, that is the opponent you want to face, someone who will contest the scrum rather than looking to neutralise you and get away with things.”

That is an Argentian team, revelling in the scrum, and getting excited about playing the Wallabies. Because they expect to be tested.

Come on, just think about it.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Argentina by 3. Wallaby fans to claim moral victory scoring 2 tries to 1 but ill discipline will cost them many points.

 

[Groucho]

Seems as though there are teams(ranked below us) that the Wallabies struggle with historically. The Scots are an obvious one and Ireland as well.
Previously we have had issues against Italy and Argentina because of their forward strength compared to ours.
In the last 6 months we have shown this is not such an issue as Cheika has beefed up our forward play and set piece.
The Pumas have added another string to their bow with the ability to go wide and fast down the flanks and to counter attack just as well as the other 3 RC teams.
Defense will win this game and I would rate ours just a little higher than Argentinas. Experience will also be key if it is tight at the end.

We do tend to play down to the level of lower-ranked teams, but we lose about as many as we should. In fact we lose precisely as many as we should.

That sounds like a strange statement, but what I mean is that we have an historical win-loss record against Ireland (for example) of about 3:1, which means we lose about one game in four.

That's the only meaningful measurement we have of the relative quality of the two teams.

When we lose that game, however, people go mental, as though a 3:1 record implies we should never lose to that team. This is based on the misconception that the stats imply we're three times better than them. In fact, what the stats show is that Ireland is better than us, one time in four.

Likewise Scotland. We also have about about a 3:1 record against them. That means we're going to lose some games. Quite a few games. One game in four. We shouldn't be overly surprised when it happens.

That's not accepting defeat. It's observing reality.

 

[Omar Comin']

If a ruck was formed Horne clearly could not play the ball from in front of the last feet: Law 16.5: http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16

However, ultimately whether Kepu was there or not is somewhat academic. If there was no ruck, there had still been a tackle, which would have put Horne in an offside position. Law 15.6(d): At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Of all the decisions in the match, this is the one that I most struggle with. Most of the other howlers you could put down to something like understandable human error (the knock on) or an unfortunate direction of travel in the way the game is officiated (the yellow card). This one is inexplicable to me.

Definitely wasn't a ruck. Kepu was the tackler, and was off his feet. It's the definition of a tackle situation.

I think Horne was fine. He entered the tackle area from behind the ball, kept one foot behind the ball at all times, then picked it up from underneath him when he realised the Wallabies weren't going to challenge him. He was doing nothing different than what halfbacks do quite a lot in a tackle situation (where they might initially think they may have to clean out, realise they don't have to and pass the ball away from underneath them). It was clearly legal to me and terrible defending.

 

[Marcelo]

Having big centres trying to bash through guys like Sanchez is a tempting prospect, however I haven't watched enough of the Argies to see how the backs defend. Plus a bit scared to lose our best in play kicker in Gits, his left boot has been quality this tournament.

My concern is how do we fit Beale and Falou into the same team? Mitchell out?

Yeah but Sanchez and Hernandez have played about 4 or 5 full games while To'omua only has played a full game (vs Uruguay) and few minutes in others games. He has a physical advantage against them with too much rest. At this level and in this moment, is a HUGE advantage for him. Also, the battle for the #12 between Gits and To'omua is one of the most competitive battles for a starter spot. I mean, everybody prefered To'omua over Gits before the WC

Just watched a few Argie highlights from the pool games and QF. They've got genuine pace out wide in Cordero and Imhoff. Was quite surprised at how these guys can really motor.

Ok but you forget that Imhoff and Cordero can't tackle. I hope Cheika has noted that.

 

[Groucho]

Definitely wasn't a ruck. Kepu was the tackler, and was off his feet. It's the definition of a tackle situation.

I think Horne was fine. He entered the tackle area from behind the ball, kept one foot behind the ball at all times, then picked it up from underneath him when he realised the Wallabies weren't going to challenge him. He was doing nothing different than what halfbacks do quite a lot in a tackle situation (where they might initially think they may have to clean out, realise they don't have to and pass the ball away from underneath them). It was clearly legal to me and terrible defending.

I agree it was terrible defending, but I can't agree on the legality. Law 15.6(d) says that players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player. Horne was behind the ball, but he certainly wasn't directly behind the tackled player. He was directly to the side of him. He reaches into the tackle area from the side.

Behind means behind the line of. Directly behind means in line with.

Not that I'm complaining. We got the benefit of other contentious decisions.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Why are we discussing a try by Scotland in this thread?

 

[KAOPointman]

Why are we discussing a try by Scotland in this thread?

Were trying to work out if the wallabies can (legally) get away with some sneaky buissiness at rucks n mauls vs the argies