Ireland v Australia, Saturday 26 November

[Kenny Powers]

With Mumm's 'spear clean-out', if that's a thing, the bloke's torso was already on a 'head down, bum up' angle. This should reduce the sentence, but still there was a needless lift so there's no avoiding it. When you lift someone, you put yourself (and them) at risk.

Lifting aside, it was a bad clean out from a technical perspective. The Irish bloke had great shape and you were never going to shift him unless you did a very well executed crock roll, but Mumm tried to clean him conventionally. Silly stuff.

Actually the body shape he took in the ruck is against the laws of the game, so should be considered a contributing factor. It maybe that it is an impossible or unreasonable law to enforce, then get it out of the laws of the game. Lets not become like rugby league and scrums.

16.2 Joining a ruck

16.2 Joining a ruck

(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.​

Sanction: Free Kick

 

[KAOPointman]

Yeah the more I look at that the more it annoys me.

Ringrose ducks in like an NFL running back, he knew what he was doing. Garces didn't even bother looking at an alternate angle.

The question is - when will we get our apology from Alain Rolland??
.

And yet...despite these glaringly obvious bombshells from the Reff.....most on here choose to ignore that these moments could have clearly cost us the game. Most likely did.......but instead all we hear is dribble about the coach....how Folou is selfish.....how Aussie rugby is in tatters....and how we have zero respect for the rules!
No disrespect......but half of you are a bunch of blind nutters! Did anyone see the alternative post a Paige or 2 ago that shows that by the law......the first 20mins of apparent Irish domination....could have and should have been completely tipped on its head! That's were Ireland won the game......and it was off the back of complete one eyedand lazy Reff calls......which just as it happens turned into a theme for the game!
I'll post the above mentioned post below for the lazy ones......

 

[KAOPointman]

Interesting comment from the front page by TheRealHodgie here 13 hours ago

----------------------------------------

Can we talk the penalty count?

It feels a bit "awks" when Michael Cheika headlines the presser with strongly implied issues with the penalty count BEFORE he congratulates Ireland. However, when the WBs survived the first 20 minutes with only 20-30% possession, it's worth investigating why.
Here's an analysis that could have had Australia with two fewer penalty concessions and four more penalties earned in the first 20 minutes alone. Yep, that's a reversal of fortunes equivalent to SIX PENALTIES WORTH of extra territory, possession, points, or some combination.

1. Henry Speight was penalised for being offside as he exited a ruck near our right wing on defence and scurried back onside. He played no part in the game, no material effect. No penalty.

2. Ireland made a break down their right wing, DHP made a tackle, was sitting, arms in the air, in an effort to stay out of the way. The ref played advantage to Ireland and after the next phase returned and awarded the penalty to Ireland. No material effect, No penalty should have been awarded.

3. In that subsequent play, Pocock was all over the ball, on his feet and the Ireland player held on. Without the return to the previous advantage (above), penalty to Australia.

4. Earlier, on our lineout throw on our right side, our player initially successfully taps the ball down towards our receiver, Moments (literally) later, the Ireland lock knocks the Australian player's hand and distorts the flight of the ball. It bounces in front of the receiver (Moore) and back into the arms of the Ireland player. Australia loses possession on our own ball. An alternative interpretation is that the Ireland player, having lost the contest for the ball, should have been penalised for interfering with the WB jumper. Penalty to Australia.

5. Scrum on our own line, WB scrum under pressure, Genia rescues the ball from the base of the scrum as it shifts backwards and passes to (either DHP or Foley, feel free to check). Ireland half back Murray reaches out for the ball and knocks it on. Sorry, knocks it DOWN. The ref awards a scrum to Australia. Why not a penalty for a deliberate knock on? Penalty to Australia.

6. Ireland go right from a scrum in roughly the middle of the pitch, big blind side (or small open). Probably 3 on 3 and the Ireland centres play a somewhat intricate fake inside line and then break to the outside. Ireland make big metres. Reece Hodge was impeded in trying to take one of the Ireland players. Definitely impeded - could/should have been ruled obstruction. Penalty to Australia.
Some/all of these are open to interpretation. But have a look for yourself! These were in the first critical 20 minutes when the Wallabies had no ball!

Maybe Cheika had a point?

Yep here it is.....id personally love to see this format applied to the whole game....from both teams perspectives and that of the refs......with their reasoning on rulings of course. I could read that all day......

 

[JJJ]

Certainly left a bad taste in the mouth. There'll be plenty of feeling in the rematch, whenever that is. Next EOYT? 2018?

Hopefully the fellas can turn their frustration into aggression against England, but heading to Twickenham at the end of a long year with fresh question marks hanging over our scrum... Not ideal

 

[boyo]

Kuridrani's fault for not passing at the death against Scotland! No one wants to pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) lives!

 

[boyo]

Are they mutually exclusive though?

Is it "meet with refereeing boss to discuss dubious and inconsistent application of laws in regard to Australian team as to improve our refereeing performance moving forward" vs. "improve teams performance in the first half"?

Can't we do both?

Aside from that, is he really looking for excuses? He's acknowledged that we couldn't stay competitive with our penalty count and that we brought it upon ourselves. I certainly don't think he's making excuses.

If theres someone he'll be angry at it'll be the Australian team.

 

[boyo]

One interesting thing to take away from that law is how imprecise the wording of the rule actually is. So much of that is contentious. If that were a real world law there would be litigation for years.

The wording of all of the laws is couched in legalese and is subjective.

 

[Tomikin]

Sounds like a cheapskate.

I would have said fluffybunny

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Actually the body shape he took in the ruck is against the laws of the game, so should be considered a contributing factor. It maybe that it is an impossible or unreasonable law to enforce, then get it out of the laws of the game. Lets not become like rugby league and scrums.

His body shape initially was fine - it was a tackle not a ruck.

Once Simmons and Mumm bound on him, there's an argument that he should have got his head up but it was probably a bit hard given what Simmons was doing to it.

Having said that - when the croc roll is the only way to displace a guy in that position (in itself against the laws of the game imo) it's only a matter of time until that part of the game gets looked at.

 

[barbarian]

There has always been a split in rugby in what you can get away with on a tackle and what you can get away with on a 'cleanout'.

Where the tackle is strictly regulated, the cleanout has been international waters. You can fly in with the shoulder, dump blokes, elbow them and generally put a shot on them while they aren't looking.

We are slowly beginning to police this better, but there is still a way to go. Guys like Skelton and Naivalu have been pinged for aggressive shoulder-first clearouts in the last few weeks, but there are still 10-20 that go unpunished every game.

I have a bit of sympathy for Mumm, he was just trying to get Best off the ball in a way that normally works well - lifting the leg and rolling him over. A few circumstances conspired against him and it got a bit ugly.
.

 

[Pfitzy]

I have a bit of sympathy for Mumm, he was just trying to get Best off the ball in a way that normally works well - lifting the leg and rolling him over. A few circumstances conspired against him and it got a bit ugly.
.

Similar to the BOD "I could have died" incident on Lions tour 2005 - got wishboned because two ABs players had the same idea.

BUT two bans in a year isn't going to look great, even if one of them was by an All Black who was obstructing him off the ball in a gallant display of "I'm wearing a black shirt so fuck you all!"

Not like Mumm could have elbowed the giant git deliberately, without seeing where the target was.


BTW anyone wanting an apology from Allain Rolland: get a black shirt on and start mangling your vowels. That seems to work.

 

[wamberal]

BTW anyone wanting an apology from Allain Rolland: get a black shirt on and start mangling your vowels. That seems to work.

Our national captain needs to know how to manage all the match officials, in the sense of maintaining a good level of mutual respect and proper communication. If he doesn't know how to, he either should be replaced as captain, or educated.


Just because the ABs seem to know how to do it doesn't mean we can't.

 

[KOB1987]

BTW anyone wanting an apology from Allain Rolland: get a black shirt on and start mangling your vowels. That seems to work.

Cheika revealed he’s been snubbed by World Rugby referees’ boss Alain Rolland after asking for a meeting,

 

[amirite]

Actually the body shape he took in the ruck is against the laws of the game, so should be considered a contributing factor. It maybe that it is an impossible or unreasonable law to enforce, then get it out of the laws of the game. Lets not become like rugby league and scrums.

You're obviously correct by the letter of the law, but in rugby the laws mightn't change regularly but interpretations do and the interpretations haven't even been against that particular body shape (GSmith and RMcCaw were masters of it in the early 2000s). On that reasoning, I can't see them downgrading a sentence on a technicality.

Even presuming the game is reffed to the letter of the law, the burden is on the ref to call it, and not Mumm to do something illegal to prevent it. I honestly don't think this would even come up in the proceedings.

 

[amirite]

Cheika revealed he’s been snubbed by World Rugby referees’ boss Alain Rolland after asking for a meeting,

That's pretty classless. There's plenty of meetings I want to snub but due process and protocols have to be followed.

 

[TOCC]

Our national captain needs to know how to manage all the match officials, in the sense of maintaining a good level of mutual respect and proper communication. If he doesn't know how to, he either should be replaced as captain, or educated.
.

it was clearly a game plan to push the boundaries at the ruck, Richie McCaw as captain wouldn't have made a difference, Moore's interaction with the Ref was fine IMO, it wasn't his fault the penalty count was lopsided.

If you want to take aim at someone then perhaps look towards the coaching staff..

 

[wamberal]

it was clearly a game plan to push the boundaries at the ruck, Richie McCaw as captain wouldn't have made a difference, Moore's interaction with the Ref was fine IMO, it wasn't his fault the penalty count was lopsided.

If you want to take aim at someone then perhaps look towards the coaching staff..

I was answering Pfitzy's post. And I stand by my post. Rugby 101. The referee is always right, although he is human, and sometimes needs some help. The ABs know how to deal with referees. Why don't we?


All we do is whinge about them. How productive is that?

 

[TOCC]

I was answering Pfitzy's post. And I stand by my post. Rugby 101. The referee is always right, although he is human, and sometimes needs some help. The ABs know how to deal with referees. Why don't we?

All we do is whinge about them. How productive is that?

All Blacks are incredibly well coached, I doubt they would have persisted with a game plan that pushed the boundaries a the ruck after receding the first half a dozen penalties. So why did the Wallabies?

Modern day captains are the conduit between the team and the referee, but it's the coaches dictating the game plan. I thought Moores demeanour and approach towards the ref was fine, especially compared to how it was earlier in the year.

 

[Pfitzy]

I was answering Pfitzy's post. And I stand by my post. Rugby 101. The referee is always right, although he is human, and sometimes needs some help. The ABs know how to deal with referees. Why don't we?

What does that have to do with the ABs getting an apology after the match from the ref's boss?

Also: at no point has Cheika whinged about the referee. He stated that winning a game against a 13-3 penalty count is difficult. He sought a meeting with Rolland. So far that hasn't happened, but its only been two days.

What shits me is Rolland handing out apologies for AB yellow cards, prompted or otherwise.

For the record: I don't have a problem with either of the yellow cards we got. Having seen the incident with McMahon, that was more borderline and most of the time won't get a yellow.

BUT was definitely our penalty for green 6 entering the ruck from the side. Or for holding on as McMahon had the ball and was on his feet.
In front of their posts.
With 5 minutes to go.
With us down by 3 and having a backline firing like it has few times this year, I'm told.

 

[PeterK]

All Blacks are incredibly well coached, I doubt they would have persisted with a game plan that pushed the boundaries a the ruck after receding the first half a dozen penalties. So why did the Wallabies?

Modern day captains are the conduit between the team and the referee, but it's the coaches dictating the game plan. I thought Moores demeanour and approach towards the ref was fine, especially compared to how it was earlier in the year.

were there that many ruck penalties?

Of the 13 penalties from what I remember
2 in mauls for side entry
2 in scrums
1 offside
2 dangerous tackles
1 dangerous cleanout

so at most 5 ruck penalties