Wallabies vs Ireland - 3rd test - Saturday 23rd June 2018 - Sydney Football Stadium

[barbarian]

Well I think it may well get changed too TSR, I actually wonder why we haven't had this discussion before, same as taking out players in the air law, we have all seen players Red carded for competing for the ball etc, but until it from the team we support we don't probably see the injustice of some of these calls.

The change for me is simple - judge the incident based on the intent and action rather than the outcome.

Let's take these two incidents under the current guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong, refs, but this is my understanding):

- Player has eyes for the ball but gets up slightly late. He clips the man in the air lightly, who then falls on his head. RED CARD.

- Player has no eyes for the ball and barrels into the legs of the man in the air. He does a full flip and lands on his feet. PENALTY.

See the problem?

The main question needs to be 'were they honestly competing for the ball?' and if that comes back as a 'yes' then red cards and suspensions should immediately be out of the question.

The landing position of the receiving player should be completely irrelevant.
.

 

[Derpus]

BR, they clearly implemented an absolute liability model to try and alter the in game behavior of players. Perhaps the intention of the law was to drastically reduce or remove competition in the air without moving to make it illegal entirely.

 

[Dan54]

The change for me is simple - judge the incident based on the intent and action rather than the outcome.

Let's take these two incidents under the current guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong, refs, but this is my understanding):

- Player has eyes for the ball but gets up slightly late. He clips the man in the air lightly, who then falls on his head. RED CARD.

- Player has no eyes for the ball and barrels into the legs of the man in the air. He does a full flip and lands on his feet. PENALTY.

See the problem?

The main question needs to be 'were they honestly competing for the ball?' and if that comes back as a 'yes' then red cards and suspensions should immediately be out of the question.

The landing position of the receiving player should be completely irrelevant.
.

Couldn't agree more Barb, and ok if a player jumping with his eyes on the ball does actually take out a player, it can be a YC (just to stop purposeful accidents) , but as you say it is a fairly easy tweek I would think. I recall a classic case of J Emery from the Highlanders copping a 3-6 week ban a year or so gain for exactly that(in a SA game) , his eyes were on the ball, but he took a player out. I mentioned then I thought it a bit unfair, but perhaps because he wasn't an Aus player, noone seemed to agree with me here. (that not a criticsm of posters, just we don't tend to worry if it not one of ours)

 

[Strewthcobber]

BR, they clearly implemented an absolute liability model to try and alter the in game behavior of players. Perhaps the intention of the law was to drastically reduce or remove competition in the air without moving to make it illegal entirely.

And to be fair to the lawmakers, I reckon it has changed behaviours. You see very few of the blatant tackle-in-the-air issues any more.

All that are left are the controversial ones

 

[barbarian]

I recall a classic case of J Emery from the Highlanders copping a 3-6 week ban a year or so gain for exactly that(in a SA game) , his eyes were on the ball, but he took a player out. I mentioned then I thought it a bit unfair, but perhaps because he wasn't an Aus player, noone seemed to agree with me here. (that not a criticsm of posters, just we don't tend to worry if it not one of ours)

Oh there should be a caveat in the Laws that if it's a Kiwi, regardless of intent OR outcome it's a straight red and 3-6 weeks on the sidelines.
.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Couldn't agree more Barb, and ok if a player jumping with his eyes on the ball does actually take out a player, it can be a YC (just to stop purposeful accidents) , but as you say it is a fairly easy tweek I would think. I recall a classic case of J Emery from the Highlanders copping a 3-6 week ban a year or so gain for exactly that(in a SA game) , his eyes were on the ball, but he took a player out. I mentioned then I thought it a bit unfair, but perhaps because he wasn't an Aus player, noone seemed to agree with me here. (that not a criticsm of posters, just we don't tend to worry if it not one of ours)

Think you're oversimplifying the reaction of Aus fans Dan. A couple of years ago, James Dargaville was also carded for a similar incident in which he was competing for the ball with eyes fixed on the ball, but didn't get as high in the air as the opposition jumper. It was an issue than, and it is an issue now to Aus fans, regardless of the nationality of the people involved. Remember the comments here about what was regarded to be an unfair dismissal of Fall, the French fullback for exactly the same reasons.

 

[TSR]

The change for me is simple - judge the incident based on the intent and action rather than the outcome.

Let's take these two incidents under the current guidelines (correct me if I'm wrong, refs, but this is my understanding):

- Player has eyes for the ball but gets up slightly late. He clips the man in the air lightly, who then falls on his head. RED CARD.

- Player has no eyes for the ball and barrels into the legs of the man in the air. He does a full flip and lands on his feet. PENALTY.

See the problem?

The main question needs to be 'were they honestly competing for the ball?' and if that comes back as a 'yes' then red cards and suspensions should immediately be out of the question.

The landing position of the receiving player should be completely irrelevant.
.

I’m fine with all that Barb, but I still think it is essential to remove the one man lift. Rather than provide support to the man in the air, which is what a lifted is supposed to do, the one man lift puts the player in a more vulnerable position as it increases the likelihood they will end up in an unsafe position.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Folau's appeal has been unsuccessful:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...nded-by-world-rugby-for-one-super-rugby-match

I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match). I can't help but think that if O'Mahoney had been wearing a Wobs jumper & Folau anything other than a Wobs jumper the reaction on here would've been very, very different.

 

[Up the Guts]

Folau's appeal has been unsuccessful:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...nded-by-world-rugby-for-one-super-rugby-match

I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match). I can't help but think that if O'Mahoney had been wearing a Wobs jumper & Folau anything other than a Wobs jumper the reaction on here would've been very, very different.

Well, all I can say to any team out there is start practicing your single man lifts.

 

[wamberal]

Folau's appeal has been unsuccessful:
I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match). I can't help but think that if O'Mahoney had been wearing a Wobs jumper & Folau anything other than a Wobs jumper the reaction on here would've been very, very different.

One week. This is a slap on the wrist. WR (World Rugby) know that they have to change the Laws to disallow lifting except in lineouts. It is too risky. Things can go horribly wrong.

 

[Derpus]

Folau's appeal has been unsuccessful:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...nded-by-world-rugby-for-one-super-rugby-match

I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match). I can't help but think that if O'Mahoney had been wearing a Wobs jumper & Folau anything other than a Wobs jumper the reaction on here would've been very, very different.

You sure seem confident he intended to play the man and bring him down, twice.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Folau's appeal has been unsuccessful:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...nded-by-world-rugby-for-one-super-rugby-match

I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match). I can't help but think that if O'Mahoney had been wearing a Wobs jumper & Folau anything other than a Wobs jumper the reaction on here would've been very, very different.

I agree WOB. I am impressed by the range of very creative excuses Wallaby and Waratah fans have come up with to justify their defense of Folau in these incidents.

 

[Derpus]

I agree WOB. I am impressed by the range of very creative excuses Wallaby and Waratah fans have come up with to justify their defense of Folau in these incidents.

What like he was in a realistic position to compete for the ball and didn't play the man and so is therefore in compliance with the law? radical.

Granted it's a change of tack from 'oi that Pocock bloke is real good at jackalling, we better change the laws'

to

'Oi that Folau bloke is real good at jumping we better randomly misinterpret this law to discourage him from doing that bouncy shit anymore'.

What a load of tangy ass cheese.

 

[barbarian]

Nah Derpus it's cos we're Taaahhhs fans mate. We've just got those blue tinted glasses on, unlike the other enlightened scholars on this board, those noble paragons of impartiality.

 

[barbarian]

I get what people are saying re: Stander's role but in terms of the Laws the first instance should've been Yellow & the second Red (for a second yellow in the match).

That's a pointless hypothetical though, because if he is given the yellow for challenge #1 it's fair to assume we change our tactic, or at least Folau is more cautious with his challenges.

I don't disagree that the first challenge deserved a yellow, but to then say in hindsight it should have ended in a red isn't necessarily correct.
.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Judicial report from world.rugby can be found here
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/347899

Folau was actually found guily of persistent offending, which carries a two week penalty, which was then reduced to 1 week

Forensic detail of the decision in the pdf at that linj

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ I don't think your hypothetical re: Folau being more cautious having been sin-binned is any less pointless than mine: double-Yellow is rare but far from unheard of.

You sure seem confident he intended to play the man and bring him down, twice.

I'd be horrified if he INTENDED to bring O'M down even once & I think the ban being only a week strongly suggests the tribunal don't think it was intentional, either. But the Laws are generally framed & almost always applied in terms of verifiable outcome not subjective intent.

 

[Derpus]

Judicial report from world.rugby can be found here
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/347899

Folau was actually found guily of persistent offending, which carries a two week penalty, which was then reduced to 1 week

Forensic detail of the decision in the pdf at that linj

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Right so, they ruled that every single one of his attempts was illegal? isn't that even worse/less accurate?

 

[Derpus]

I'd be horrified if he INTENDED to bring O'M down even once & I think the ban being only a week strongly suggests the tribunal don't think it was intentional, either. But the Laws are generally framed & almost always applied in terms of verifiable outcome not subjective intent.

But we've consistently seen that it's not outcome based. Clearly Folau was in the better position to catch the ball nearly every time.

What happens if Folau jumps, hits O'Mahony and lands on his head after winning the ball? Is O'Mahony off?

Shit's dumb yo.

 

[Silverado]

Well, all I can say to any team out there is start practicing your single man lifts.

Don't worry too much about the landing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk