Wallabies v Ireland, Saturday 16th June, 8.00pm, AAMI Park, Melbourne

[dru]

Sorry to disagree.



If the Laws of the Game were not meant to be followed, what is the point of having them?


"Letting it flow" might work in park footy. It does not work at the professional level.

Have to agree with this. And, Wam, it also means I think that certain rules are a problem - which goes with some of your "future of rugby" thinking. For me the rules should be changed to always have 15 on 15. A carded player can be replaced but faces a mandatory disciplinary break.

 

[Derpus]

I don't think Ireland adapted any better last week. I think changing game plans off the cuff in response to your opposition is actually incredibly difficult.

This is the big thing for me. It is a three game series. We had a cracking game and result in game #1 with some obvious dominances. The Irish re-gathered made some changes in tactics and started the top players who had been on the bench.

Wallabies were unable to adapt on the field. (This in itself is worrying, though not apparently unusual).

Over to Cheika and the coaching staff. Let's see a positive response.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Have to agree with this. And, Wam, it also means I think that certain rules are a problem - which goes with some of your "future of rugby" thinking. For me the rules should be changed to always have 15 on 15. A carded player can be replaced but faces a mandatory disciplinary break.

Totally agree that we want to see 15 against 15, except in cases where there was either malicious intent, or total disregard for the opposition player's safety.


We cannot countenance the situation where a star player could be king hit with impunity in a crucial match. In cases like this, the offending player should still be sent off, but would be replaced after 10 minutes from the bench. In other words, the offending team now has a bench of 7 instead of 8.


Perhaps a penalty try could be awarded as well. That would make the use of violence pretty unappealing to any team, I would say.

 

[Up the Guts]

Totally agree that we want to see 15 against 15, except in cases where there was either malicious intent, or total disregard for the opposition player's safety.

Agree about the intent aspect, but I think the referee has to be a bit more discerning or World Rugby needs to allow them to be more discerning because there's a real frustration when the French player gets a red and shows no intent whatsoever but Sam Cane can deliberately take out the halfback off the ball and it's only a penalty.

 

[K974]

And you are, presumably, a rusted on rugby fan. God knows what casual observers think.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more about the TMO comments ,
Also I find every single game now comes down the a gripe with the ref I think it's a bcecoming a big prob with rugby
I think next week wallabies by 20+ , ireland have proven their point 1st xv vs 1st xv
But because of what happens against Argentina in Rwc 15 they'll play their 2nd/3rd side in Sydney
If you are not aware in rwc 15 we lost sexton o connell sean o brien and Peter o Mahoney , the lack of depth was exposed , it's now about building that depth.
Personally I'd like to see em go after the series
Ireland are so blunt in attack , they have no cutting edge like the wallabies have

 

[wamberal]

In response to Up the Guts post: Okay, but what you might discern to be okay, I might not. In the heat of battle we need officials who are given clear rules to follow, wherever possible. There are always decision which are made that upset one side or the other. To me the worst situation where discernment is integral is the refereeing of the scrum.


The answer is in ensuring that the rules are sensible and fair to both sides, wherever possible.

I have suggested elsewhere that in cases like a possible red card offense, there should be something in between the current yellow and the current red. That is one case where discernment could be a factor. There are many others, particularly when it comes to TMO decisions on proper grounding for a try.

 

[wamberal]

Couldn't agree more about the TMO comments ,
Also I find every single game now comes down the a gripe with the ref I think it's a bcecoming a big prob with rugby
I think next week wallabies by 20+ , ireland have proven their point 1st xv vs 1st xv
But because of what happens against Argentina in Rwc 15 they'll play their 2nd/3rd side in Sydney

. I hope not, for the sake of the wonderful Irish supporters who deserve to see the best.

Ireland are so blunt in attack , they have no cutting edge like the wallabies have

Their attack might not be based on sparkling open rugby, but it is bloody effective. Blunt but powerful and too strong for us.

 

[dru]

Agree about the intent aspect, but I think the referee has to be a bit more discerning or World Rugby needs to allow them to be more discerning because there's a real frustration when the French player gets a red and shows no intent whatsoever but Sam Cane can deliberately take out the halfback off the ball and it's only a penalty.

I think the system behind the referees is fine. No further "flexibility" is required to the ref. They simply follow the rules. Interpretations of these rules is where the flexibility enters - the referee body re iews and suggest changes which are then adotped by the refs as consistently as possible.

Doesnt mean that the changes in interpretations are always right - but it is a sensible system.

My gripe is that rugby remains a game of 15 on 15.

 

[Up the Guts]

I think the system behind the referees is fine. No further "flexibility" is required to the ref. They simply follow the rules. Interpretations of these rules is where the flexibility enters - the referee body re iews and suggest changes which are then adotped by the refs as consistently as possible.

Doesnt mean that the changes in interpretations are always right - but it is a sensible system.

My gripe is that rugby remains a game of 15 on 15.

In a perfect world yes, but I can't imagine a game of rugby where the laws directly match what occurs on the pitch and there's not some element of referee discretion. Trying to stringently fit some laws to situations that they don't really apply is where it gets frustrating for viewers and players in my view.

 

[Istanbul]

Sorry to disagree.



If the Laws of the Game were not meant to be followed, what is the point of having them?


"Letting it flow" might work in park footy. It does not work at the professional level.

No need to be sorry - I appreciate the different views. We often see a player get into an offside position in a ruck, not impacting the play he will essentially put his hands up and retreat back onside. Most refs can acknowledge it hasn't advantaged or disadvantaged with team and they will let it go. By the letter of the law the player was offside a penalty should be blown. I think every ruck has elements of grey in it with both side potentially infringing. Did he hold on too long, were there hands in there, was he on his feet. If something is blatantly wrong, blow your whistle. But if it's grey and the ball comes out in a reasonable way, allow both teams the same grace and call play on so the game can flow. I felt there were big minutes last night where teams were playing with the advantage. It was over officiated for my liking. Definitely not saying let anarchy rule and ignore blatant penalties- just let it flow...

 

[Quick Hands]

No, but it should have been a penalty as you cannot jump across in to the other lineout.

Not quite what the law says.

29 All lineout players are onside if they remain on their side of the mark of touch until the ball has been thrown in and touched a player or the ground.

​

30 Players jumping for the ball who cross the mark of touch and do not catch the ball must immediately return to their own side.​

​

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=18​

 

[Quick Hands]

Sorry to disagree.



If the Laws of the Game were not meant to be followed, what is the point of having them?


"Letting it flow" might work in park footy. It does not work at the professional level.

If every law was stringently applied from beginning to end, then the game would never get beyond one phase before the referee blew his whistle.

 

[wamberal]

If every law was stringently applied from beginning to end, then the game would never get beyond one phase before the referee blew his whistle.

I must be watching another channel. Can you give expand a bit?

 

[Joe Blow]

I don't think Ireland adapted any better last week. I think changing game plans off the cuff in response to your opposition is actually incredibly difficult.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, but we came out with the same team intending to play exactly the same way as the first test and by doing so played right into Ireland’s hands. J. Schmidt had been working on countering it all week.
Amazing that we stayed in touch and were a score away from winning at the death.
Surely we should have brought something different?

 

[wamberal]

The Irish had a much better team on the paddock. That was the difference.

 

[Joe Blow]

The Irish had a much better team on the paddock. That was the difference.

Are you suggesting that we are incapable of beating that Irish lineup?

 

[wamberal]

Are you suggesting that we are incapable of beating that Irish lineup?

They are number two in the world for a good reason. We could not beat them last night, on our home soil. They have a relatively young team, and had at least one world class player (Sean O'Brien) unavailable. This is their off season.


So I guess the signs are not good.

 

[Dan54]

Totally agree that we want to see 15 against 15, except in cases where there was either malicious intent, or total disregard for the opposition player's safety.


We cannot countenance the situation where a star player could be king hit with impunity in a crucial match. In cases like this, the offending player should still be sent off, but would be replaced after 10 minutes from the bench. In other words, the offending team now has a bench of 7 instead of 8.


Perhaps a penalty try could be awarded as well. That would make the use of violence pretty unappealing to any team, I would say.

Well I heard Shag Hansen in after match conference have a bloody good idea. When queried he said he didn't think the Red was good, but said Ref was correct to call it , but suggested there needed to be another card added , like a yellow with red stripe for instance, which meant in a case like this the player would be YCed, and then go in front of judiciary!! I though it best idea I have heard for a long time!!

 

[Up the Guts]

They are number two in the world for a good reason. We could not beat them last night, on our home soil. They have a relatively young team, and had at least one world class player (Sean O'Brien) unavailable. This is their off season.


So I guess the signs are not good.

Not sure about this, many of their players are reasonably old, didn't we get the "young" Irish team last week? They are number two in the world and clearly a good side but hardly unbeatable, not sure you can be so in control of territory and possession and still let a team who made a huge amount of poor errors in with a chance in the last minute.

 

[fatprop]

Are you suggesting that we are incapable of beating that Irish lineup?

Last night we weren't, the week before we didn't look like losing. Last night after about 5 minutes we never looked capable of winning

Next week, it depends who turns up