Reds v Brumbies - RD10 2013

[Braveheart81]

hahahah

Laurie Fisher ‏@LordLaurie58

6m​

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

Gold!

He's got the perfect surname for what's he's doing too!

 

[Scoey]

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

Was it? Ok, thanks for clearing that up. All I remember was he got sent off for repeated infringements, but now that you mention it I think I do remember it going like that.

 

[barbarian]

Was it? Ok, thanks for clearing that up. All I remember was he got sent off for repeated infringements, but now that you mention it I think I do remember it going like that.

Yeah. He spear tackled someone (from memory) and got yellow, then came back and impeded an AB's quick throw in, which Joubert had already warned us about. So he copped another yellow, which became a red.
.

 

[Scott Allen]

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

Yes, I was just making a point like this on the blog.

"There is an equivalent rule for an individual who receives a yellow card – if they then infringe in a similar way again the second yellow becomes a red. Whilst you don’t see it often, the law is there and even though it has a massive impact on a match, it is an automatic upgrade to a red card, just as the team law is. When Drew Mitchell was red carded against the All Blacks in 2010 it ended any chance the Wallabies had in the match but the referee had no choice, just as he had no choice in this situation – it is not a discretionary matter for the referee."

 

[Scotty]

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.

The only reason we kicked so many penalties in that game was because every time we entered the brumbies half they infringed. We could have done the same in this game and won, but rugby will be better for teams having a crack and highlighting negative tactics of defending teams.

 

[boyo]

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

But could we see it? (perhaps a philosophical question, like "If a tree falls in the forest etc.).

 

[Merrow]

So instead of rehashing the same argument over and over again. I'd like you guys to tell me this; what you would have done if you had been in the same position as the Brumbies? I believe this is a pretty fair question.

 

[Lindommer]

What you all seemed to've forgotten was Mitchell's YC was for a dangerous tackle, which wasn't dangerous. THAT was the contentious issue in Drewster's sending-off.

 

[Penguin]

Yes, Reds fans are (on the whole) more one-eyed than Brumbies fans.
.

Perception is such a funny thing. Personally I'd call it the other way around - with Tah supporter being the most one eyed of the lot.

 

[Scotty]

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).​

This doesn't necessarily apply to cynical tactics where teams infringe to ensure the attacking team doesn't score? (Eg offside at quick taps, holding the ball in rucks on the tryline).

 

[Braveheart81]

So instead of rehashing the same argument over and over again. I'd like you guys to tell me this; what you would have done if you had been in the same position as the Brumbies? I believe this is a pretty fair question.

Nothing differently. The Brumbies were largely getting away with the infringements (with just penalties which were not costing them points) so doing anything different would have been stupid and not playing to the referee.

 

[Scotty]

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.

Going to a red straight away would be too harsh, but if we saw refs go to a yellow on the next offence we'd see a cleaner game.

 

[Ruggo]

You're probably right about our Reds brothers and sisters there, barbarian (and what's wrong with being a passionate one-eyed supporter of one's team?), but the Brumbies faithful are quickly gaining a reputation for seeing things only through a horse's mouth. I've been to Canberra these last two years to watch them clean up my beloved Tahs, some Brumbies fans are positively feral. And I'm not the only one who's noticed this development.

I second that Lindo. Once again not all of them but the times I have watched the Reds in Canberra there have been some total arseholes in the crowd. I was lucky in that we won and not unexpected they went into a cowardly silence.

I have seen some dickhead Reds fans at Suncorp also. The bloke behind us on Saturday night who couldn't let a sentence out with the F word despite women and children present. In 2011 some dirty bastard threw food at my brother who is a Brumbies fan at full time after Giteau slotted that penalty on full time. I don't consider myself a violent man but I wanted to knock his block off for that.

 

[Scott Allen]

So instead of rehashing the same argument over and over again. I'd like you guys to tell me this; what you would have done if you had been in the same position as the Brumbies? I believe this is a pretty fair question.

Go as hard as you could but once the yellow was issued you have to be aware enough not to infringe again. Before that do whatever you can, legal or not to stop the Reds getting over the line.

I don't subscribe to the 'cheating' claims.

 

[Merrow]

I second that Lindo. Once again not all of them but the times I have watched the Reds in Canberra there have been some total arseholes in the crowd. I was lucky in that we won and not unexpected they went into a cowardly silence.

I have seen some dickhead Reds fans at Suncorp also. The bloke behind us on Saturday night who couldn't let a sentence out with the F word despite women and children present. In 2011 some dirty bastard threw food at my brother who is a Brumbies fan at full time after Giteau slotted that penalty on full time. I don't consider myself a violent man but I wanted to knock his block off for that.

You're obviously sitting with the wrong people in Canberra

 

[Scott Allen]

Going to a red straight away would be too harsh, but if we saw refs go to a yellow on the next offence we'd see a cleaner game.

Scotty, what you propose requires a change to the laws - if they are changed, fine, implement the new laws.

But whilst there is an upgrade clause for the team card after a yellow to be a red, just as there is for an individual, then they should implement the laws and the guidelines that exists today.

 

[Quick Hands]

Yeah. He spear tackled someone (from memory) and got yellow, then came back and impeded an AB's quick throw in, which Joubert had already warned us about. So he copped another yellow, which became a red.
.

And that scenario is pretty straight forward and in my opinion is completely different to the repeated infringements situation.

Most of us have played in, coached or supported a team which have been in the same position as the Reds were on Saturday night. With the greatest respect, this is the first time that I have ever heard it suggested that players should be red carded for repeated infringements. Particularly if it is a team warning for repeated infringements.

Why it's in the playing guidelines I have no idea, perhaps it's like maximum penalties for criminal offences - in writing but never used.

 

[Scotty]

Nothing differently. The Brumbies were largely getting away with the infringements (with just penalties which were not costing them points) so doing anything different would have been stupid and not playing to the referee.

Exactly. I would have done the same as them, which is why it is a refereeing and law issue, not a Brumbies one.

 

[Merrow]

Exactly. I would have done the same as them, which is why it is a refereeing and law issue, not a Brumbies one.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear. BTW, I think that the words 'cynical play' have been done to death both on the forum and on the blogs. Desperate play yes, cynical......not so much.

 

[Rassie]

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.

Fair enough I understand what you mean. But reading it that way you are going to sit with the stats are like a bikini problem. Because even if kicked out on the full it still don't mean you turned it over as a line out is one of the set plays where you have a very good chance of winning the ball. That is also why most tries get scored of it.

Here is some stats I got.

Cooper kicked a lot less in this game. Look how many kiicks the Brumbies made and check how much possession they actually had. They kick little possesion they had away.

Now this is for the most turn overs before this game.

Most Turnovers conceded:
1. Quade Cooper (Reds) – 22
2. Raymond Rhule (Cheetahs) – 17
3. Charles Piutau (Blues) – 16
4. Luke Jones (Rebels) – 16
5. Israel Dagg (Crusaders) – 15
5. Rene Ranger (Blues) – 15

Can you tell me what that stat is actually one cause you know you are going to get the usual one eyed fans taking that and run around and saying Cooper is not good enough he conceded a lot of turn overs giving ball away.

Here is the kicking stats

Most Kicks:
1. Morne Steyn (Bulls) – 77
2. Joe Pietersen (Stormers) – 62
3. Patrick Lambie (Sharks) – 61
4. Beauden Barrett (Hurricanes) – 58
5. Quade Cooper (Reds) – 55

Most Lineouts Won:
1. Ben Mowen (Brumbies) – 40
2. De Kock Steenkamp (Stormers) – 34
2. Scott Higginbotham (Rebels) – 34
4. Andries Bekker (Stormers) – 32
5. Juandre Kruger (Bulls) – 30

Most Tackles Made:
1. Lappies Labuschagne (Cheetahs) – 146
2. Wimpie van der Walt (Kings) – 126
3. Ed Quirk (Reds) – 114
4. Phillip van der Walt (Cheetahs) – 109
5. Michael Hooper (Waratahs) – 104

Cheetahs kick the least but opposition run a lot at them which can tell you either their tactical kicking is not up to standard, or they play high risk rugby and lose the ball on their part of the field. I think that is why Kiwi's dominate the error stats due to the way they play. SA will try to minimize the risk. But look at amount of kicks Cooper made amount tackles his team mates had to make and the line out column which none of the Reds feature on.

Then if you look at the possession 63 to 37 percent and the score is 19 all? The Brumbies were actually very successful with their kicks and getting territory out of it. Where the Reds tactical kicking was way less successful. They had to carry the ball up where the Brumbies could make that yards by kicking mostly.

Brumbies were punished for their infringements and the opportunity were given to the Reds to either take a pot at goal or go for the try. They made a lot of errors in attempting to go for glory rather than converting all that possession into points. So its their own fault for not winning this one.