• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australia v England Test 1 Sat. July 2 @1955

Status
Not open for further replies.

dru

David Wilson (68)
Tempting to allow the late English rally to take the gloss off a gritty win, but as Cyclo points out, they finally pulled their fingers out against a team that had defended with 14 and 13 players and had sewn up the win.

I'm left a bit undecided about England's ceiling. It felt like an underperformance but I don't know where the improvement comes from.

I think many Melbourne fans have been shouting into the void about Kellaway's quality and rugby brain. Very pleasing to see him carry on from the last international season's form and justify not just his starting jersey, but putting a legitimate claim on the starting 15 position.

There are plenty of thoughts on it, though I think this a tad churlish by Clive:


TLDR - Forwards fine. Put Farrell back to FH (and don't need a second fly) then bring in the speed on the outside.

OTOH - Eddie seemed to be suggesting getting the forwards back on plan driving up the guts, pick'n'go etc.
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
From World Rugby:

"Australia second row Darcy Swain will attend an independent disciplinary hearing after receiving a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (A player must not physically abuse anyone) in Australia’s test match against England on 2 July.

"The player will attend a hearing via video link before an independent Judicial Committee chaired by Shao-Ing Wang, joined by former players Chris Smith and Stefan Terblanche.

"The hearing will take place on Tuesday in agreement with the player and his representatives."


I take that to mean they're disputing the charge, probably on the grounds of provocation?
Law 9.12, a player must not physically abuse anyone.

In this incident Hill dished out the abuse, rather than Swain. With ex-players on the Judiciary it is feasible that Swain will get off. More likely though a one or two week suspension to confirm that head butting in any form is unacceptable. But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
886B5582-A627-4A7F-8EB0-4485D68505BC.png

I’ve just frame by framed the headbutt incident and I can’t actually see any contact with the head. There’s no movement of hills head at all and there’s still space between heads in the closest still (attached). The contact is all shoulders. Still a bad look but surely there’s gotta be contact for it to be a headbutt….
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
View attachment 14016
I’ve just frame by framed the headbutt incident and I can’t actually see any contact with the head. There’s no movement of hills head at all and there’s still space between heads in the closest still (attached). The contact is all shoulders. Still a bad look but surely there’s gotta be contact for it to be a headbutt….
There was definitely a camera angle that showed contact and movement of Hill's head.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?

The danger has nothing to do with it.

He was incredibly dumb. England had a clear plan to get under his skin and it worked and left the Wallabies down a player for half the game. Sure, it shouldn't have worked and Hill should have been yellow carded for the initial shove in the face but that didn't happen.

Instead Swain lost his cool and did something that was an obvious red card offence.
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
There was definitely a camera angle that showed contact and movement of Hill's head.
I’m not sure there is. All the views where it looked like there was contact were from behind and you can’t actually see the point of contact. The side on view actually shows there was space the whole time and the contact was shoulder.
Unless the TMO has extra angles.
Anyway it was dumb and if he gets suspended it was his own fault for putting himself in that position.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
The danger has nothing to do with it.

He was incredibly dumb.

Nor has being dumb unless there is a rugby law to counter my thinking? "infringement: IQ below 85. Penalty; inadmissible to play rugby". Haven't seen that one. ;) Of course being dumb could influence the selectors to decide they can't take the risk - and sure that could be coming. And probably a just result to be fair.

England had a clear plan to get under his skin and it worked and left the Wallabies down a player for half the game. Sure, it shouldn't have worked and Hill should have been yellow carded for the initial shove in the face but that didn't happen.

Instead Swain lost his cool and did something that was an obvious red card offence.

Completely agree. I suspect the result will also be closer to the 12 weeks than being let off. Which would be unfortunate but probably to the letter of the law even if not exactly just, imo.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Law 9.12, a player must not physically abuse anyone.

In this incident Hill dished out the abuse, rather than Swain. With ex-players on the Judiciary it is feasible that Swain will get off. More likely though a one or two week suspension to confirm that head butting in any form is unacceptable. But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?

Who is going ballistic? I don’t think either that WR (World Rugby) look at who most deserves a red card worker. Swain deserved one for the head but.
Hill deserved one for the shove to the face. It’s not an either or scenario.
 

KiwiM

Arch Winning (36)
Who is going ballistic? I don’t think either that WR (World Rugby) look at who most deserves a red card worker. Swain deserved one for the head but.
Hill deserved one for the shove to the face. It’s not an either or scenario.

Whether Hill gets cited for it or not will determine whether it reached the threshold for a red card offence.
 

7137

Alex Ross (28)
They have 48 hours right? So still time.
No. I think the citing commissioner has until a certain time (much less than the 48hrs) to decide what he wants to examine. Teams may refer matters to the citing commissioner and they have 48hrs to do that.
So if the wallabies wanted to refer Hill formally, that is the only way it will be examined now.
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
View attachment 14017
This is the angle that shows contact was made - hard to show in a still obviously, but Hill's head/hair clearly move in a way that would suggest force coming from Swain's direction
That’s the same frame where the side view shows no contact.
Anyway I’ve said enough. I don’t actually care either way.
Tomorrow will tell.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Tom Curry is out of the tour. Flying home. That is big although plenty of good replacements in Underhill & Willis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom