Monday's Rugby News - Green and Gold Rugby
Rugby

Monday’s Rugby News

Monday’s Rugby News

Monday’s Rugby News sees a ton of international rugby, a not so magic weekend, a junior Wallaby victory and Aussie Super Rugby sides travel to Japan.


 

TEST MATCH FOOTY

Aussie Fans

Aussie Fans

This weekend saw so much international rugby that if you blinked for a second, you would’ve missed a game.

For Australia, the stage is set for a blockbuster finale next weekend after going down to Ireland 26-21 at AAMI Park on Saturday night.

Australia started well once again, but was dogged but their own ill-discipline, an issue which has always haunted Michael Cheika’s Wallaby sides.

In fact Australia outscored Ireland 3 tries to 2 but it wasn’t enough against a much more experienced and cohesive Irish outfit compared to last week.

It wasn’t as if that Australia played inherently badly, but it was the Irish who clearly lifted their game, dominating possession and territory for large amounts of time and refused to turn the ball over to the Australian’s.

Arguably a major difference between the two Tests was the absence of the Wallabies line speed and aggression in defence which had served them so well last weekend.

It allowed Ireland to make the gain line and negate the skillset of David Pocock (AKA Jesus).

As reported in the SMH, captain Michael Hooper was frustrated with the idea that the team left so much out there to be desired.

“We put ourselves in with a chance to win it right at the end but left so much out there during that middle 50 in the game,” Hooper said.

“I’m aware that this team can be so great, we’ve got so many threats across the field and we were just a bit short there tonight. Our kicking probably summed up how the game went. Just not in the right spot. Being 30 centimetres off the mark.”

Added to the pain of the loss, Will Genia has broken his arm and will miss the remainder of the series. Coach Cheika described the hit from Ireland prop Cian Healy as a “king hit”.

Adam Coleman also came off injured but should be okay to play in Sydney.

In South Africa, England went down 23-12 in the 2nd test in Bloemfontein.

England started quickly once again with tries to both Mike Brown and Jonny May put the old firm ahead 12-0 early on in the match.

The loss marks a series defeat and a 5th consecutive test defeat for the Eddie Jones coached side.

According to the BBC, Jones described the loss as “like a horror movie” but said his team were determined to “get our pride back” in next week’s final Test.

“This team has a lot of pride, we’ve won back-to-back Six Nations, equalled the record for wins,” said Jones.

“Now we’re going through this tough period. Everyone will fight hard to get out of this.”

Another defeat would send English rugby into chaos, with rumours fuelled by former English scrumhalf Matt Dawson that Jones has supposedly “Lost the dressing room”.

I wonder how long this can last before a decision is made.

New Zealand beat France 26-13 in the second test but not without more controversy surrounding the officials decisions after the contentious early dismissal of visiting fullback Benjamin Fall.

Fall was punished for contesting for the ball as Beauden Barrett hit the ground as a result of the two players trying to catch the ball.

With his eyes firmly fixed on the ball in every camera shot, the referee made the decision to red card Fall.

What’s frustrating is that the French did so well without Fall, imagine the possibilities they would’ve had if the spectacle was on the game and not the decisions made by the officials.

The All Blacks will chase a series sweep and a 14th-straight win over France in next week’s third Test in Dunedin.

There was so much rugby played I wish I could write about all the games, but alas, I’ll give a short recap of the rest of the weekends fixtures.

The United States won a historic fixture against Scotland to beat a Tier 1 nation for the first time in 94 years, 30-29 on Saturday.

Argentina once again lost to Wales 30-12, losing the series 2-0 as well as their coach Daniel Hourcade who has stepped down from hiss role.

Fiji got up over Georgia 32-15 in Semi Radradra’s first international Test match for his country.

Italy beat the 2019 Rugby World Cup hosts Japan in a tight one 25-22.

Finally, Tonga were victorious over Samoa in a nail-biting fight for the pacific, with a 28-18 win.

NOT SO MAGIC WEEKEND

A few brave souls sit out the rain

Double Booked

After announcing a grand ‘Magic Weekend’ of NRL in which all matches would be played at Suncorp stadium from May 17-19, the NRL has had to embarrassingly change it tune after they found out that it clashed with the Reds derby against the Waratahs on the 18th of May.

Hours later the NRL announced the Magic Round would come a week earlier. Funny that.

According to ESPN, the NRL released a statement to clear up and ‘issues’.

“There has been some miscommunication over the availability of dates,” the NRL said in a statement.

“NRL Brisbane Magic Round will occur in Round Nine of next year’s NRL Premiership from May 10-12.”

The idea itself is brilliant, but maybe they need to check Suncorp’s calendar before making such a big announcement.

The Magic Round itself tipped to pump more than $60 million into the Queensland economy.

I wonder if it would be possible for Rugby Australia to organise something like this? It seems like a great idea both commercially and to excite rugby fans.

Would there be enough appetite is the question though.

FIRST IS THE WORST RIGHT?

Junior Wallabies defend

Junior Wallabies defend

As reported on rugby.com.au, the Junior Wallabies have finished their campaign with a cruisey victory over the Argentinians 41-15.

In a sign that this group of young men could’ve competed for a higher finish, the baby Wallabies barely got out of 2nd gear as they beat last year’s 6th place finish.

Australia’s strong forward pack, consisting of super rugby contracted Harry Hoopert, Efi Maafu and Harry Hockings dominated the clash from the get go with some devastating carries.

After going up 7-0 in the early stages, Argentina responded with a beautiful piece of heads-up rugby, putting an a lovely cross field kick off a penalty to send Mateo Carreras over for a try in the 15th minute.

The Australians crossed again with a well constructed driving maul and a pilfer to find of the tournament Fraser McReight handed Ryan Lonergan a shot at goal which pushed Australia to a 17-7 lead at half time.

After the break, Australia continued to deconstruct the South American’s with a try to Ross and a brutal run from reserve backrower Patrick Tafa setting up Hansen, further extending the lead.

Isaac Lucas scored the final try for the Australians, diving over late to seal the once again disappointing campaign at the World Rugby U20’s tournament.

Rugby Australia needs to do a review of their ‘pathways’ to Super Rugby and beyond as clearly we’re missing something at the U20 level on many fronts.

Hopefully the Under 19’s NRC competition announced earlier this year will go some way to helping our boys in the future!

BRUMBIES AND WARATAHS GO DOWN FIGHTING

Lord Laurie Fisher

Lord Laurie Fisher

As the Wallabies aim up to contest a grand final like final match against the Irish, both the Waratahs and the Brumbies will return to Australia after a brilliant initiative to play two Japanese rugby sides.

In a smart move to continue to improve skills and keep up match fitness, the Aussie teams went down to their Japanese rivals in a 3 point and 2 point loss’s respectively.

Both matches helped our youngsters learn how tight matches should be contested.

The NEC Green Rockets beat the Waratahs with a 29-26 win, reported by rugby.com.au

The Tahs-Green Rockets clash began the CHICHIBUNOMIYA Minato Rugby Festival on Sunday afternoon and from the very beginning, it was clear that attacking, free flowing rugby was the goal.

The young NSW side started in a dazzling fashion when Bryce Hegarty scored with two minutes and just 15 minutes later, hooker Hugh Roach marched over after a big Taqele Naiyaravoro (who else) carry split the line.

Mack Mason fittingly slotted the sideline conversion in a great start to open up a 12-3 lead.

Halfback Jake Gordon turned on the Tahs 3rd, with a quick tap leading to a try.

NEC finally settled into their rhythm and responded with two tries of their own prior to the half time whistle, sending the two teams into the sheds with NSW up 19-15.

The home side then took the lead with a try after play restarted and they made it 26 straight points, penning up a 29-19 lead.

Gordon hit back with a second try of his own to set up a tight finale, but it wasn’t enough for NSW.

The Brumbies battled out a similar style with Suntory which again went down to the final moments, with the Top League champions coming away with a close two point victory.

ACT followed NSW’s lead in starting well with Lausii Taliauli scoring the first try of the match.

Suntory responded with two of their own tries before outside back James Verity-Amm kicked the Brumbies back into gear, scoring a try and putting the Brumbies just two points behind at the break.

Verity-Amm nabbed his double to put the Brumbies in front when play resumed but Suntory responded once again.

The see soaring affair continued with a Christian Lealiifano try with 15 to play again putting ACT ahead.

However Sungoliath had the last laugh when they scored with nine minutes left on the clock and the conversion sailing through to send both of the Australian teams home without a win.

  • Kiwi rugby lover

    Thanks Ned, a cracker of a weekend with some great games. I’m actually glad there were some upsets as I think it’s the upsets and changes that helps make this game such a great game to watch. I firmly believe that any of the top 5/6 teams can beat any other on their day. All it takes is a the bounce of the ball, a few poor decisions by players and a bit of luck and anything can happen. I’m really enjoying the Books resurgence this year and I think they’ll be a real threat come the RC later on.

    I’ve got my tickets to the Sydney game next week and really looking forward to the Wallabies stepping back up and learning from the mistakes they made this week. I think they didn’t do that much wrong – only lost by 5, and if they just raise their intensity and then hold onto it throughout the game they’ll be fine and SH dominance will rule again.

    Now I know everyone on this site hates Hansen but I think his response to the red card has been pretty damn good. Hates that common sense seems to have gone and that people need to accept that in a game like rugby where people are intentionally going for collision that sometimes things will go wrong and people will get injured. The red card seems to have been more for the injury to Barrett than the actual challenge and I agree that this is a stupid decision the referee has to make. I do get with WR that it’s hard to rule on intent and so there are some that will cause injury and claim it was an accident, but personally I don’t think anyone who’s that much of a wanker will last long anyway and that in the main the players actually look after each other and want a contest not to cause injury.

    Good to see Rugby win out up in QLD. I must admit I was worried there for a while as with the power of League and their internal sponsors I thought that rugby might have got shafted. Good to see common sense win out.

    • Xaviera

      The red card is a tricky one, but with an emphasis on protecting the head, and rightly so, the guidelines are very clear:

      –START–
      Challenge in the air
      • World Rugby has provided guidelines for situations where two players contest for a ball in the air and
      collide:
      o Play on = Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the
      player lands dangerously, play on
      o PK = Not a fair challenge, wrong timing but no pulling down
      o YC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing
      on their back or side
      o RC = Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down/interfered with landing
      on their head, neck or shoulder
      –END–

      Blue 15 got it wrong, and that’s the risk. He got his timing wrong, and because of the way BB landed as a result, Gus had no choice but to red card him. I don’t think the eyes are relevant – he didn’t create a fair challenge. It makes it hard for the match officials, but we need to protect those in the air, and I’m not sure how else it could be done.

      Who knows how the French would have played with 15 – sometimes playing a person down galvanises a team, and lulls the opponent in to playing less than their best. We’ll never know.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        mate I agree and I’m not blaming Gardner. The difference is that I don’t see what was not fair about the challenge. The fact that one player can jump higher than another doesn’t make it unfair to me, that’s no different than one lock in a lineout jumping higher than another. Just because the players contact in the air doesn’t mean one is tackling or pulling the other one down. It’s like last week when the Irish got penalised. Folau fell onto the Irish player who just put his hands up to protect himself and then got penalised. personally I agree with Hansen in that WR have got it wrong and the direction they are giving to the referees is wrong.

        • Happyman

          Agree mate Kerevi got penalised in a contest off a kick off where he was in a lower position but came down with the ball and was told it was due to the fact he was in a lower position.

        • Jerry

          Locks in Lineouts are expressly forbidden from jumping into each other’s space though.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          No not quite. The locks aren’t allowed to close the gap before a ball is thrown and they can’t land in an offside position. That was brought in to stop locks jumping across and preventing the ball from beiong passed back in the Maul. The only rule about jumping is that they can’t actually attempt to grab each other in the air.

        • John Tynan

          Old mate was getting thrown across every Australian lineout on the weekend, including the one where Pocock got injured. Rounded out a pretty poor showing by the ref at the breakdowns and re-starts, I thought.

        • Xaviera

          The judiciary result is a terrible outcome – now every club footballer will be debating the merits of each contest – talk about the law of unintended consequences.

          World Rugby is trying to protect a person in the air, which is the right thing to do. The last thing we need is someone aerial being taken out by a runner at ground level, and at the moment, I don’t know that there is a better way to manage it. The onus is on those contesting to do so in a certain way. Occasionally, even in a fair contest, someone is hurt, but not often. Most injuries occur because of timing and height issues, hence the way the guidelines are structured.

          The aerial game, when played well (e.g. Folau at his best) is a sight to behold, and we need to encourage it.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Going to be fun on Saturday for my game

      • Ned Stevens

        Could you explain how it wasn’t a fair challenge? I’m confused because it looks as if he contested the ball and he didn’t pull Barrett down. How does the red card come about?

        • Xaviera

          He didn’t contest at the same level, and therefore, he endangered the higher player. It’s that simple.

    • Ned Stevens

      A kiwi lover comment is always a great way to start my morning!

      I agree these results from the Southern Hemisphere sides barring Argentina bode for a great rugby championship and more broadly all the international results bode for a great world cup.

      Also am with you on the contest for the ball. Not much Hansen can say or do regarding the refereeing call but it does continue the line of reasoning that the All Blacks do seem to get the rub of the green with the referees.

      The one thing I’ve always had an issue with is how captain’s get to interact with the officials. (Remember the test where Hooper got shafted last year?).
      Although I understand there is a time and a place (and Hooper was in the referee’s ear too much on Saturday) I can’t stand for one skipper getting more of an opportunity then the other. (Read and Hooper)

      Hopefully the Reds and Tahs will be killing it and we pull a big crowd to compete with the NRL

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Thanks mate. You know as a referee I think it comes down more to the Captain than the referee. Usually I will talk to both captains and listen to their gripes as I think it helps with the management of the game. There are times though where I’ve had captains just be cocks and I’ve probably let that affect my attitude to them as well. Now not calling Hooper a cock, but I think he does need to get some help in how to manage people and how to interact with Referees. The thing is I see this top 10% as the most6 crucial bit of the game at this level. I’ve banged on about this so many times before. But, I’m not sure that the coaching and management here agree. I think they still see this as some sort of soft optionj and that players just need to get harder and be more of a mongrl and it’ll work itself out.

    • Funk

      “… don’t think anyone who’s that much of a wanker will last long anyway…” I’d just like to point out that Richard Loe played 49 tests!

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Hahaha yeah and I know there is no way I’ll get anyone here to believe he wasn’t dirty. TBH he was but a different time and in today’s game he’d either have to change or would get dropped.

        • Funk

          Do you think you’d find any one from Otago who believes he wasn’t a dirty player????

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Mate I don’t thik anyone with an open mind will say he wasn’t dirty. He was and his actions proved it. I don’t think he went into a game saying “I’m going to get so and so” I just think he was a cock who always looked to hurt the opposition as part of his game.

        • Jerry

          Yeah, he just took every opportunity to hit the opposition, legal or not. I remember once he was playing for the AB’s vs Llanelli and was following play after a pick and go and instead of running straight up after the ball carrier to support, he did deviated his support line and took a step on a 45 degree angle so he could stomp on an opposition player on the deck. He didn’t use a lot of force and it wasn’t particularly dangerous but it was just so WTF in terms of going out of his way to hit an opponent with no regard for the law or even what’s best for his team. He had a bit of a screw loose on the pitch.

  • Jerry

    Not really the officials fault for the French card, they followed the guidelines. Blame WR and it’s too harsh sanctions on accidental collisons.

    • John Tynan

      I’d argue he was right where the ball was going to land?

      • Jerry

        Yeah, but that’s not the test they apply (and to be honest, I don’t think it works). Players know a receiver is likely to jump, you can’t just say you were planning to take the ball on the ground anymore.

        I don’t think accidental tackles in the air should be red (that should be for clearly deliberate tackles in the air which go wrong) but you can’t really say a guy who doesn’t jump is a realistic chance to compete anymore.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          But he wasn’t on the ground….

        • Jerry

          Yeah, it isn’t very clear law as currently policed. A tackle in the air clearly implies intent but they’re policing it as strict liability regardless of intent and requiring a level of split second awareness that isn’t really plausible. That said, this wasn’t the most outrageous decision I’ve seen – Fall wasn’t in any realistic position to outjump Barrett. Beauden could have jumped half as high and still won the contest easy. In situations like that – eg when the chaser is only going to be able to get to the ball on the run or something very close to it – I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the chaser to recognise he’s a very good chance of getting there too late and to check his run or at least have a look. But the penalty should only be a yellow if he doesn’t.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          What you say makes total sense.

        • John Tynan

          No need to be reasonable. :). Don’t disagree with anything you said there.

    • Gun

      Yep two guys fairly competing, no sanction.

      • Jerry

        Nah, I’d still say there’s some duty of care if you’re clearly later to arrive.

        I mean look as this one – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbfgka6XkE

        Emery is in a position where – if Le Roux wasn’t there – he’d be taking the ball on the fly. But he has to know that there’s a 0.0001% chance he’s gonna be able to take that ball unopposed.

        Fall’s wasn’t as bad as this, but he still should have been aware that he probably wasn’t taking that ball at that height.

  • Hitcho

    I might get howled down for this but IMHO the French red card was warranted and exactly what was required even though I don’t believe it was intentional.

    The player on the ground has the responsibility to ensure the safety of the player in the air. Regardless of eyes on the ball players must retain some situational awareness and either put themselves in a position to realistically compete or back off until the airborne player comes back down. I watched the incident 6-7 times and for me it comes down to laziness not intent.

    Either way this incident and the way Barrett fell as a result could have quite easily resulted in not only an end to Barrett’s night but also career, if not life. Regardless of who you support no one wants to see that happen in our game so early shower for Mr Fall.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Mate, both players were in the air so how does that translate into the player on the ground having responsibility?

      • Hitcho

        Maybe it was my beer goggles but he didn’t look airborne to me instead going in with his back to Barrett. I’ll go back and have another look.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          Rewatch it. He has both feet off the ground. Barrett just jumped about 3 feet in the air.

          It was a bloody impressive leap from Barrett.

      • Alister Smith

        There are definitely some situation where neither person is able to be responsible for each other. If both players are in the air and one happens to be fractionally higher than the other does that mean that the player with slightly less elevation has to be responsible. There doesn’t always have to be someone responsible for someone else. Sometimes in rugby, as in life, no matter what happens there will be an accident. In this way, the only ways to stop it is to either outlaw high kicks or outlaw players leaving the ground when jumping from the kicks and both those option are ridiculous.

      • Hitcho

        Went back to the trusty foxtel IQ box (the technology I have available to me) and watched it again. Jesus mate, I reckon calling the French player airborne is a stretch. It’s a last minute hop at best. Barrett on the other hand is in orbit.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          But Fall’s eyes never left the ball. He had no idea where Barrett was. In my mind it is unreasonable to say that players have to be aware of where the ball is, be under it, and also be aware of any other players contest and how high they are likely to get off the ground.

          Because, remember, it is only the player that doesn’t get higher up that has any duty of care to the other player. If you jump higher then all the responsibility is on the other guy.

        • Hitcho

          While conceding both Falls feet were off the ground but not by much. I don’t think it was a genuine attempt to compete.

        • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

          He didn’t know Barrett was there or how high he was because he did what he was supposed to do and followed the ball and was perfectly under it.

          It’s very difficult to follow so many different things in real time (ie keep your eyes on a moving ball to get yourself perfectly under it, and be aware of opposition players running in from distance and how high they’re jumping).

          Maybe you’re right and it does need to be a RC. But I still find it troublesome.

        • Happyman

          So in that case you do you believe it was a genuine attempt to put him on his head.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          And that’s where the referee really should be ruling. It’s very subjective though but then again so many of the rulings are. You have to make an instant analysis of both the technical and tactical application of the rule plus look at intent and then just adjuduicate on what you see. When you also realise that what you see depends on where you are standing you can see why there is so many arguments against what decision a referee makes. It’s interesting and personally I love it which is why I referee every Saturday

        • John Tynan

          I agree. We’ll end up with the AFL Nic Natanui thing about making different decisions based on who is in front of you…. ie me in Barret’s position would see a vertical leap of about 3 inches rather than 3 feet – does that mean the fully can go for the ball when it’s me in front of him, but not when Barrett is contesting?

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Yeah but again I don’t see that as an issue in that as long as he’s competing for the ball, just being a worse jumper than the opposition is not a good reason to hang him out to dry. I do understand the ruling is trying to reduce the amount of injuries and apart from that bloody stupid “Nipple Line” rule they are trying to bring in I thing World Rugby are doing a pretty good job. BUT, the game is still a physical contest and that needs to remain.

        • Hitcho

          Yep 100% agree with you. I’m not saying eliminate the high ball contest but it needs to be just that a high ball contest in the air not a player making a half assed last minute hop to get his feet off the ground while still remaining low enough to become a pivot point for the airborne player. All I’m saying is get up properly or don’t compete.

        • Human

          But why should a player be forced to jump to contest? I did not see the game (refuse to pay Foxtel so that I can watch the people’s game) but can envisage the French FB taking good solid side-on position on the ground under the ball – the AB steams in, jumps high, effectively jumping into the Frog, trips over said Frog and lands on his ear…how is the Frog responsible? Look at the Wallaby game – the Irish lock jumps to contest our throw in a lineout, lands on and injures Pocock who has both feet on the ground – the Irishman lands on his ear, Pocock is flattened – play on. Under the law, Pocock could have been given a red. Is that reasonable?

        • Happyman

          Mate use your technology and see how far back Barret jumps from.

        • Mr Wobbly

          One guy is running with the flight of the ball, the other guy is running towards the ball. The first guy is never going to be able to jump as high or as early as the second. Fall was just starting to jump, had his eyes on the ball and was bringing his hands up in to position to catch it when Barret clattered into him.

          Would Fall have caught the ball if Barret wasn’t in the picture?

          I reckon that is the question the Referee needs to consider when they make a decision. You could say it’s a dynamic situation. Play on.

        • Number 12

          Interestingly, if you have a look again you’ll see the French player just gets clipped by an NZ player as he’s about to take off – i think this has a contributory effect on the outcome but isn’t being taken into account!

        • Hitcho

          Yep you’re right he gets nudged by 13.

    • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

      The fact that that was even considered a penalty, let alone a red card, says to me that we may as well just ban contesting for the high ball, and leave it as a free mark to the receiving team.

    • Timbo

      If that’s the case, we go back to last week where old mate Frenchman received a fractured skull. This looks worse because Barrett dropped 3ft and landed on his shoulder and head, thankfully with only a HIA being required. Again, consistency is lacking in these decisions.

      • Hitcho

        I don’t disagree with you

      • Greg

        This is indeed the point. There was no intention from the blue player to tackle the black player in the air. red card.

        The previous week we can debate intention until the cows come home…. but as it was assessed there was no intent there was only a penalty sanction.

        It is inconsistent.

      • Ned Stevens

        Agree 100000%

    • John Tynan

      What about Barrett having responsibility for his own safety? A case could equally be made that it was his decision to jump high and onto/over/above the chasing player.

    • Happyman

      Mate for mine it just the problem is that just because a player jumps higher he is entitled to all protection. The french guy was pushed and did jump with only eyes for the ball. It is rugby not a high jump completion, IMO if it were a situation where he dropped his eyes and deliberately undercut him the Red.

      Unfortunately it also adds to the narrative that the Kiwis are adjudicated differently as Angus Gardiner was overheard saying that it was theft he landed on his head/ neck that caused the send off and the previous week the French guy had his head taken off. To quote Hansen “in a dynamic situation”.

      The Red Card should now just be for deliberate foul play with say an orange card for this type of thing being 10 minutes with one man down and then a replacement with the offender not coming back on.

      • John Tynan

        I’ve been advocating the mungo “on report” system for all but the most blatant red card infringements. All the red card did the other day was make me turn off the game 15 minutes in.

    • 22DropOut

      Agree.

      The podcast saying you shouldn’t send people off in this situation and it ruins the game for the spectators etc… blame the player for that not the rules. It is necessary.

  • Alister Smith

    I am not sure if Magic Round would work for rugby in Australia. We only have four domestic teams and I am not sure that you would get a much bigger crowd for Brumbies v Rebels and Reds v Tahs then you would for just the Reds v Tahs alone. Where RL has some advantages are that Brisbane is (1) mad for Rugby League (2) not all Brisbane and SEQ locals support the Broncos so there is more interest in watching some of the visiting clubs like Souths, St George, Cantebury, Parra that have big national followings (3) there are 3 qld teams (or 3.5 if you count the Melbourne Storm) so they will be able to get a local “headliner” for each of the 3 days.

    • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

      I’m not convinced the Magic Round will work well for NRL either, but will be curious to see the crowd numbers.

      • John Tynan

        I’ll be curious to see where this $60M into the local economy will come from. Sounds like an overblown estimate if ever I heard one…

        • Bobas

          Airport taxes

        • Mr Wobbly

          From the supporters of teams that have had their home game hijacked for profit by QLD?

      • Alister Smith

        maybe right…certainly they have had double headers with say Broncos v Cowboys and Titans v Sharks and they have had very big crowds (and probably suits the broadcasters as they can telecast from the same ground). These have been sold out games at Suncorp.

        With KRL’s point of NZ v Aus Super teams in a Super format – perhaps that might work OK. Some of our biggest crowds are Aus v NZ teams – even more so than local derbies. I am a little uncertain about a couple of things:
        1. is Brisbane the place to hold it or is it Sydney? Not sure which would get the biggest crowds – if you could get 70,000 at the Olympic Stadium it would be a good result
        2. will we have to increase funding to Lifeline/Beyond Blue in the likely event that all our Australian teams get flogged by Kiwi teams in the same place at the same time on the same weekend. At least the way it is now we have the opportunity to dribble all the bad news out across a few days and a half dozen different time zones.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      maybe a magic NZ Super teams vs Aus super teams would be a good idea.

      • Human

        Good idea – as long as the games were all on the one day and the gates were locked so that the Australian supporters could not leave after we were smashed in the first two matches.

      • John Tynan

        There’s a joke in here somewhere about “Magic Slipper” but I just can’t line it up….

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Hahahahaha Ba-Boom!

  • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

    Cheers for this, Ned, a really good mixture of different topic. It would have been easy to write about nothing but international rugby and red cards, but to your credit you really found some interesting stuff that I hadn’t been following too closely. Thanks.

    Really happy that the Aussie Super Rugby sides went to Japan. In fact, I think Australia and New Zealand (and South Africa if they’re serious about the SANZAAR alliance still) should try really hard to forge closer links with Japan. I know Japan is in the NH but it is geographically nearby and has lots of money, and perhaps may offer a way for us to try and stem the tide of the player drain northwards.

    • Ned Stevens

      Thanks for the kind words. Agree RE Japan, also gives our wider squad members (younger guys) the opportunity to experience close matches. A real win-win

  • Brisneyland Local

    Morning GAGR’s, gee this quote from Michael Hooper sums it up:
    “I’m aware that this team can be so great, we’ve got so many threats across the field and we were just a bit short there tonight. Our kicking probably summed up how the game went. Just not in the right spot. Being 30 centimetres off the mark.”
    30 cm off the mark. Try 30 fucking metres. Maybe that is why we cant win, our captain cant tell the difference between a centimetre and a metre!

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Maaaate it just looks closer when you’re at ground level

      • Brisneyland Local

        Maybe we should send him to Specsavers!

        • John Tynan

          I’d like to see the prescription for those eyes…

    • Andy

      We didn’t win because they were very good.

      Do you expect him to throw his team mates completely under the bus? Would that make him a better captain?

      • Brisneyland Local

        I dont expect him to throw his team mates under the bus, but he needs to be realistic.
        “Or kicking game just wasnt there tonight!” or “the accuracy of our kicking let us down!”
        But blind freddy could see that our defence and kicking game we sub par.
        And by sub par I mean complete shite! And to take nothing away from the Irish, they were good, very. But in comparison to last week, we were significantly worse.

        • John Tynan

          Also the decision to stand off at every breakdown – we weren’t slowing them down at all, and they thrive off clean, fast breakdown ball. You can see they are playing phases by pattern, rather than discrete moves, and we let them do it.

        • Brisneyland Local

          Not only did we let them do it, we werent smart enough to notice, react and counter!
          Very dissapointing.

        • Hoss

          Very noticeable from the offset that we decided not to contest ??? Must have been a clear strategy, but buggered if i know how it was supposed to benefit us…….Brissie we made a mess of their ball, this time we served it up on a platter – what was the thinking ?

        • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

          Also the continual attempts to win the lotto by going for the try every time instead taking the 3 points on offer for a penalty. Ireland won by accumulating 3 pointers. We passed up at least a possible 9 points (maybe more, I wasn’t counting). One of these was 40m in front, and Foley didn’t even manage to kick it past the 22m line. Next phase we lost the ball. In contrast, if we’d taken the goal attempt, even if we missed it, they’d then take a 22 drop out and we’d have the ball back from pretty much where Foley kicked it out in the first place. Woeful decisions, and woeful execution.

        • Brisneyland Local

          Had me throwing things at the Tv!

        • Bernie Chan

          By comparison, look at the penalty shots by the Boks flyhalf. Can’t recall the altitude in Bloemfontein, but Pollard was kicking his place kicks a very long way…Can’t keep giving up the 3 point opportunities.

        • Andy

          Pollard is the real deal. That guy could kick 60 metres under water

        • Bernie Chan

          Come the RC, if the Boks forwards can hold their own, Pollard will convert the points on offer…His confidence is sky high. Watch the interaction between Pollard and the captain Silosi…Silosi initially thinks “go for touch”, and then Pollard says I can kick this..Silosi backs his flyhalf each time. BTW…also watched the highlights of the U20 Championship where France beat England in the GF (the Baby Boks beat the Junior ABs in the 3rd/4th playoff…) and there’s some talent in those squads. Methink Oz underachieved, but the addition of a couple of Super Rugby lads helped. The young French flyhalf kicks long and straight…hardly looked like missing!

        • Andy

          Mate, Agree. I love watching the U20’s Comp and France looked really good which is surprising because they have been shit in recent tournaments. Overall though, those top 4 teams were far better than Oz. And this is the biggest indicator that we as a rugby nation are not keeping up with the rest of the word. It’s what worries me more than who is our coach, our captain, the ability of our current tactical kicking ect….

          It’s our future playing stocks. We haven’t been able to field a top 4 (competitive) team in the past 10 years. Which means either our playing depth is fucked or our coaching system is terrible and not up to scratch. I highly suspect it’s both and what’s worse is no one in Australian Rugby has been made accountable for this, ever. Literally no one takes ownership.

          All the things people whinge about with regards to our current team would be greatly improved if we fixed these 2 things. Imagine having 4 provinces with 4 very capable 5/8s. Instead we have the standout who has clear deficiencies in his game but has literally no pressure on his position because the other 3 teams have either 1. A Kiwi playing in that position or 2. A fullback fill in due the their incumbents inability to perform above club rugby level.

          No depth in a key position below the incumbent across the current senior or junior ranks. Pretty remarkable really…

        • Patrick

          The French U20s literally rammed the English, Baby Blacks and Baby Boks scrums in successive matches, their line-out was strong and they played a pragmatic game plan based primarily on forwards dominance and territory. The future of French rugby actually looks pretty bright!

        • Andy

          Seriously BL, what is wrong with those 2 quotes? It’s straight after the game in a presser and if anything, both statements are accurate. What does he gain by telling the press his kickers were “shit”?

          We know you hate the guy as our captain but don’t let that blunt your objectivity, which in general is very good.

        • Brisneyland Local

          I dont hate the guy. I dont hate anyone, particularly people I dont know and have never met. I think he is a poor option for a captain when we have much better already in the team. I think that during a presser he has to call it like it is. I didnt say he has to beat down on his team, but so to say we were out by 30 cm, is a groos exaggeration. Most of the kick were well off mark. As I said before there are many other words you can use other than the ones he did that aptly describe the scenario.

        • Andy

          I’m not fussed on Hooper as captain. I don’t think he’s bad or good. I don’t think his presser was bad though. I also don’t think a change in captain is not going to make this take the best in the world.

          On the other option I take it you are referring to Pocock? If so, what do people base their assumptions that he would make a better captain? I’d really like to understand this. For 1 thing, he wasn’t even around last year to be picked as captain and the year before we knew he was already not playing for a year. He doesn’t captain his Super Team either.

          When he has captained has he really peformed that differently? I remebr him constantly debating penalties with the referee. Something Moore has been panned for doing. But I’m only going off what I have seen.

          Not saying he is a bad option either I just don’t get the basis for his apparent elevation of his abilities.

        • HK Red

          Exactly and Cheika alluded to it during the mid-game interview.
          I think Kaf said something about our kicking being “a little off” just as a pointless box-kick went up in our own half, just handing Ireland possession. Cheika thankfully said “It’s not a little off mate, it’s a lot off, as you can see by that last kick”. So he at least sees that it’s a problem, the question is, what is he doing about it? Where I work, if someone won’t listen or change their behaviour, they get moved off that role until a level of trust is re-established. Why is Foley (aside from two massive clearances in the last two tests) still being allowed to kick?

        • Brisneyland Local

          Agree.

    • Greg

      I think the issue was the chasers, at least as much as the kickers. Were they blocked? disinterested? they just didn’t seem to be charging through.

      • Brisneyland Local

        Yep the chasers werent up to speed. sometimes they were impeded, and sometimes there was no one chasing a ball at all. If there is no one chasing, you have to put the ball out. Our exits from the 22 were not good. Beside the one kick Foley got 40m on, the rest were very bad. We have kickers that can put 50m plus on it. why in gods name arent they taking the exit kicks.

        • Ned Stevens

          Yeah our kicking game is very sporadic at the moment

        • Brisneyland Local

          Unfortunately!

        • HK Red

          I think “sporadic” is being generous. :-)

        • Nutta
        • Woolfe

          Its really weird, when you watch the Boks their box kicks go into empty space and their in field kicks gain heaps of ground and often roll out.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        I must admit in the replay I watched yesterday I thought Folau looked more disinterested than anything, almost as if he was thinking “well if you don’t kick it for me I’m not chasing it”. I don’t believe he does think that but he does come across as disinterested in the whole game sometimes. I personally think he needs to inject himself more rather than wait for someone else to briong him into the game.

        • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

          Folau was completely switched off!

    • Wobblies

      Foley’s kicking game is just not accurate enough for International standard. Almost without exception his kicks were too deep for any chaser to regain possession or at the very least apply pressure to the receiver. The chasers were not as committed as last week but Foley is just not at the level required to be a world class 10. Close games are won and lost on the precision of the 10 and sadly this is an area of Australian rugby that has been lacking for many years.

      • Brisneyland Local

        Yep

    • Georgia Satellite

      That was my thought: “What scale is he using to reference that? The replay on his smartphone?”

      I reckon there was one point at which we lost that game. We had just had 16 points put on us during Koro’s absence, then came back with some enormous rolling maul pressure to get a penalty try and one of theirs in the bin. We’re given the chance to replay that pressure moments later and make a psychological dent in the Paddies. But what does Foley do? Instead of kicking for touch to replicate the maul/try, he takes a quick tap with only one player quick enough to realise and go with him – into about 6 green shirts. FFS… So we put exactly zero points on them while they had a guy in the bin, they regroup and we keep making stupid decisions and skill errors. We were flattered by that score, IMO.

      • Brisneyland Local

        Agree Georgia. I tore out what little hair I have left when that happened! ;-)

  • Missing Link

    I’m not phased by the Ireland loss, we were outplayed, we capitalised on the few opportunities with the ball but ultimately, Ireland did their homework and held the ball for most of the game. Sexton is top class. Roll on next week, Ireland will use the same tactics to negate Pocock and Folau, let’s see if Cheika is up to it and can devise a superior game plan. What I’m not happy about is how Genia’s arm was broken, a week after we were denied a try due to an off ball hit to a decoy runner, Genia is clobbered off the ball by a prop, breaks his arm and there’s nothing to see here … move on.

    • John Tynan

      I honestly didn’t see much in any of the replays, even the one’s highlighting Genia’s movement, certainly not anything along the line of a “king hit”.

      • Missing Link

        There’s no footage of it as it was out of shot but it happened straight after a lineout

        • John Tynan

          I saw replays from a wider angle on Fox last night. They were trying to beat it up, but it was a non-event.

      • Bernie Chan

        Certainly wasn’t a “king hit”…but now we are left without a vital player. Sanchez is a better scrumhalf than Phipps by some margin, but his leadership is just as important methinks..

        • Alister Smith

          Phipps has some great assets – particularly fitness and defence (despite getting carried over the line for one try), IMO there are no doubts about his commitment and his pass, while less accurate is sometimes quicker but what we will miss most is Genia’s decision making. We looked anxious and rushed before Genia was replaced but we were absolutely headless chickens after he was gone.

        • Bernie Chan

          Agree…the loss of his leadership may be telling.

    • 22DropOut

      There was nothing in that bump between Healy and Genia, it was cringeworthy for Cheika to call it a “king-hit”

      • Missing Link

        I’ve been hit pretty hard before, never broken my arm. It takes a fair amount of force to break a bone, calling it a “king hit” is over the top, but Genia was clobbered hard enough off the ball to break a bone.

        • 22DropOut

          The impact didn’t break his arm it was the fall. It was innocuous and a freak accident.

        • Missing Link

          were you at the game?

        • 22DropOut

          Is there a need for that type of a comment?

          Yes I was at the game, in fact I was almost directly in line with the incident. I watched a recording of it too, and the clips of the hit several times.

        • 22DropOut
        • Happyman

          Mate Agree just a prop putting the halfback on the floor. No malice in that move on.

        • Missing Link

          What type of comment? A sincere question? I was hoping you said yes as you had a good view of the incident which was outside what the TV broadcast were showing.

        • 22DropOut

          Fair call I took it wrongly, apologies.

        • Missing Link

          And equally I have not seen the footage below until now. It does look like a bit of a storm in a teacup. As sad as it is to lose Genia, the incident doesn’t confirm any foul play.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Just watched the video. WoW! that is so far away from a King Hit the whole thing is a joke. Genia ran into the prop who maintained his line going the other way and then Genia fell over. Not even a hit let a lone a “King Hit”. I really hope Cheika was speaking after someone else and not basing that comment on what he saw as if he’s doing it to try and score some points then it’s a pretty weak and inneffective argument and more derving of a soccer match than a rugby match. Also, Genia’s pass straight after the fall was a good pass and while I can see him making that through the pain, it also indicates there wasn’t much in the contact.

        • Greg

          Does the prop give him a shove? Yes! Did he have any right to touch him? No. Does it happen 100 times a game? Yes.

          Desperately unlucky for Genia.

          From an income point of view it is an interesting discussion. Genia has been deprived of income (match fees) by an unlawful action during the game. I wonder if someone will bring a civil case one day.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          mate I think you’re taking this a bit far. The prop pushed a player out of the way who was cutting off from running a straight line to where the action is. Genia should have watched where he was running and he wouldn’t have got hurt.

        • Greg

          as much as the prop should have… yes?

        • Missing Link

          Not sure about a civil case but it does raise the point that Genia a. is the best 9 we have in this country, which is highlighted by the difference in the Rebels and Wallabies when he’s on the field and b. for a bloke who’s getting paid some good coin, he has missed a lot of rugby this year. fair to say that’s no ones fault, just an unfortunate circumstance. I hope he recovers quickly and is rearing to go for the RC, this better be his last injury!

        • 22DropOut

          The only legal case would be from Healy with defamation against Cheika!

        • Alister Smith

          more a Joker than a King?

      • Fatflanker

        It was a ‘king-push’! Minor bit of niggle with a very unfortunate outcome for Oz. Still, Genia is prone to injury and may not be available come RWC – we urgently need to grow our depth here.

    • Brisneyland Local

      Yep that is dissapointing. Not only his play, but the calming effect he has on Hooper, and assistance with decision making. there is little doubt that genia and Pocock are the spine of the team. That is the bit that concerns me more.

      • Hoss

        Hi Briz. No doubt he is experienced, but i reckon he is a ‘toys out of the cot’ type individual on the field. He sulks and its quite evident, he is also very testy with team mates when the going gets tough. For mine i don’t reckon he is much of a leader, not saying he cant play, but i wouldn’t personally call him a leader. More a tired toddler on the field than a calm general.

        • Brisneyland Local

          Probably right. which is why Pocock is my choice. But he certainly walks Hooper away from some bad decisions.

  • RugbyM

    Gees the French didn’t half turn up with 14men. Just imagining what they’d have done with 15!

    Maybe time for World Rugby to look at the carding system – keep the current ‘reasons for carding’ someone but change the overall system.
    > Yellow Card – player sits on the naughty chair and the team plays a man down for 10mins. After 10mins, the player himself is allowed to return. 15 plays 15 again

    > Red card – player sits on the naughty chair and the team plays a man down for 10mins. After 10mins, the player is not allowed to return himself, but can be replaced by someone else from the bench. 15 play 15 again. Post-match Wheels of Misfortune determine any further sanction

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      So many people are talking about this that i think something like this will eventually occur and I agree it would be much better. Funnily in all my years of refereeing I’ve always seen a team with 14 after a red step up during a game mucvh more than a team with 14 after a yellow. Must be something in the subconsciousness on both teams where one is trying extra hard to compenate and one takes it easy knowing they are one up.

      • RugbyM

        I think it goes both ways. Sometimes a team steps up, sometimes they just don’t have an answer.

        The Brumbles lost a man for a poorly timed hongi and stepped up against the Bulls, where the week before, at the same minute in the game, they’d turned off against the Lions (admittedly they did then go down to 13… but still)

        • moaning expat

          I always see the ABs playing much better with 14 than 15. In fact whenever they get a red or yellow i think the other team have just made it harder for themselves…

    • Brendan Hume

      The French bloke probably timed is jump perfectly to catch the ball, and was completely blinded to the position of the AB player as he was watching the ball. I feel it’s a bit rough to place all of the blame on the player that loses the contest – the AB’s player was in a much better position to see the potential for collision but he has no duty of care in the contest…

    • 22DropOut

      Part of the punishment for a red card offence is the reduction in team numbers for the rest of the game.
      A forced substitution would inevitably see the introduction of “professional red cards” which could be hugely dangerous

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        I used to think that, and I think that at the level I referee at it probably would occur. However, I’m not so sure it would happen at this level and the next couple down as I think it would become pretty obvious and would be stopped. I like the idea of a longer period with 14 than a yellow but then a new player coming on so the ability to have reserves come on later is diminished. I think that’s a good outcome.

        • John Tynan

          Is there any leeway for competition rules or a competition level in red/yellow cards, etc? or is it a non-negotiable to be considered sanctioned rugby union? ie club rugby and lower loses a man for good, internationals the one above? or it’s a Super Rugby rule like bonus points, etc.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          To be honest mate I don’t know. I think the bonus point is ok as it’s not a law of the game. The actual game rules must follow the internationally sanctioned rules so no leeway.

        • moaning expat

          How could you stop it? bring on an ‘expendable’ player to sacrifice. Bigger games i would have thought are a bigger risk. however the idea of a longer time off the field is a good idea rather than the whole match. And/or giving the Ref more leeway rather than having to play to the letter of the law- hell that happens now anyway.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I think at the lower level you could get a guy to come on and clobber a critical player in the opposition accepting the 14 players for a period if the opposition gets hurt enough to either adversely affect their game or even have to go off. Not a big risk but I’m sure people would do it

      • Missing Link

        what do you mean? like pick a lesser player to start, get him to take out the opposition danger man, get a red then replace him with your first choice?

        • 22DropOut

          I mean that a player could sacrifice himself with deliberate foul play knowing that the team will only be down to 14 players for 10 minutes.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Yep. I’ve already thought of it so others will and some dickhead would actually do it

      • I doubt that would occur. If someone does a McRae https://youtu.be/8Fa6HsY4ZC8, suspend them for a year. Increasing the potential sanctions on intentional red cards would be enough to ensure they don’t happen. And keeping the game a spectacle by allowing another player to come on after 10 minutes means that refs will be more likely to give red cards when warranted. The player should be punished, not the supporters by ending the game as a spectacle.

    • Mart

      They’ve gotta bring this rule in. We wouldn’t even be debating the jump contest as the spectacle would not have been ruined

  • Jack

    I’d attend a rugby magic round, a weekend chocablock full of super rugby at Suncorp would be great.

    On the test, plenty has been made of the general play kicking from the weekend, but I also thought the restart kicks were a bit of an issue. Foley consistently kicked short and flat giving us no chance at getting under it. What was the go..? Kickoffs should come down with bloody snow on them..!!

  • Nutta

    Morning

    I have 2 comments about the Blue15 Red:

    1. At an operational/tactical level on the night, go back and watch the whole build up to the incident. The Blue15 was clearly checked by Black13 as he was leading into the contest. I contend the Black13 blockers contact rubbed out any chance of Blue15 making a decent leap and the rest was history. My point is, the situation with Blue15 was manufactured by an illegal off-the-ball check from a deliberate blockers line. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    2. I have a real problem with the very idea of ‘not being in a realistic position to compete’. This would mean (as example) that I am not allowed to compete for a high ball at all (5ft 10in and 105kg of smoking man-love). Then take that idea on; am I not allowed to jump for a high pass also? Conversely given my ability to chew grass whilst still on my feet, does this logic also then mean that Israel Folou is not allowed to compete against me over the ball on the ground because my skill-set, body-weight and height would actually mean he is in danger of injury? This sounds all remarkably stupid to the tune of what the AFL did with Nic Naitanui last month when expecting a physically dissimilar player be conscious of their duty-of-care to the smaller player in a contact situation. But Rugby is a game expressly built around competition for the ball; it’s why we have ruck, maul, proper scrum and throws in the middle(ish) of lineouts. It’s what makes it fundamentally different to Mungo. By pro-actively making it effectively illegal for me to compete for the ball we are going against a very basic tenet of rugby itself. Provided my eyes are on the ball and it’s a legit attempt to compete and catch (as opposed to tunneling-out) then I have every bloody right to compete for the pill – even if I leap about as high as the Empire State Building can.

    Just my opinion.

    • Fatflanker

      What I am struggling with is that AFL, Gaelic football and the like have no problems with aggressive aerial contests – they are intrinsic to the game and do not seem to produce disproportionate rates of injury. Why is rugby taking such lengths to neuter this aspect of the competition? Let’s give the ref back some discretion to call genuinely dangerous play as he sees it.

      • IIPA

        Those sports done have so many contests where two players are coming at speed from directly opposite positions.

        Even in NRL generally bombs are only put up at the end of the field not mid-field so again the catcher is usually jumping from a stationary position not at speed.

        • Missing Link

          That’s the difference, the other sports don’t have “offside” therefore it’s only very rare when two players are going towards each other to contest in the air, mainly air contest involve two or 3 players moving in the same direction of standing still on the ground.

    • HK Red

      Completely agree with your analysis. I was surprised (not surprised) while watching the game live that the commentators didn’t see the interference by Black 13 as Fall ran through to contest. You can see him stumble after the push, which totally negates any ability to jump well. At the very least Gardiner and the TMO should have spotted it on the replay.
      Which leads to the “not in a realistic position to compete”. WTF is that? How can the Ref make a judgement on that? On his approaching run, how can Fall assess whether the opposition might jump higher than him and how that may affect his “realistic position”, with his eyes on the ball the whole time? Both players were in the air (Think Fall might have had a toe on the ground) at the point of contact…..should these things be decided by who jumps highest? Hansen had it spot on, that the officials are often deciding these things on outcome, rather than intent. There was clearly no intent from Fall. I didn’t see it as reckless, he was brave and committed to the ball. He could have taken a knee/elbow in the back of the head, but put his body on the line.
      So, should we perhaps be looking at this as a possible sanction? Jumping into contact with hip or raised knee aimed at opposition players head…dangerous play, penalty.
      I don’t want to see it come to that, but the way aerial play is being policed is clearly wrong. There needs to be some common sense applied.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      With you all the way Nutta. I didn’t notice the check and if the Blue 13 changed his line then you are correct, however if he didn’t then it’s not an issue. Will review tonight and get back to you.

      The whole game of rugby is based on a “fair contest” not fair in that a smaller person gives way to a bigger person or vice versa but fair in that the rules allow both teams to compete for the ball on an even footing. The only place this isn’t true under the laws is the driving maul where a team cannot legally challenge the ball carrier who is at the back, they have to go off side to reach him. While I understand the intent to protect players I don’t believe that this over regulated maangement of what happens after a legal challenge to be the right way. Sometimes shit just happens and the game needs to be big enough to accept that. While I agree it may turn off some people from playing then so be it, the chances are if they need that sort of protection they probably wouldn’t be any good any way so no loss. (and the whinging begin)

      • Nutta

        Completely concur on the definition of fair, but that’s not how it’s being policed atm.

        In-terms of the maul I think 1 pretty simple interpretation issue would fix it. I say that as long as the defender can tackle the ball-carrier by advancing directly up-field then all is fine. All too often, when a maul gets shaky we see the carrier bullwhip at the back of the maul and swing out wider than the face of the maul. I say he should fair to be tackled as he is no longer protected by the width of the face of the maul. I believe at that point he is fair game for a clean tackler (from last-mans feet on-side and not a slide-off) to advance straight up-field and take him.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Yeah I’ve always seen the maul as a bit weird as it’s the only part of the game where the ball carrier is protected. The sceptic in me says it was only ever brought in to allow the NH teams to combat the AB rucking but maybe I’m being one eyed there. I tend to agree and think that once a rolling maul breaks down at all then it becomes open play and a tackler can come from anywhere.

        • Greg

          interesting…. the check is explicitly mentioned in the judiciary dismissal. how is it the TMO went all the way back to the tackle off the ball last week but didn’t see this s few seconds beforehand?

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          As long as the player runs his line and doesn’t change it then there’s nothing unlawful about it. Still haven’t watched it to see yet

    • Hoss

      Great point mate and by extension anyone trying to attempt a take against Dusty should be red carded as they ‘are not in a realistic chance to compete’ – given his aerial skills……..so, instant red card for anyone who even thinks about jumping against Folau.

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        Hahahahaha. Now you’re pushing it mate

    • Tomthusiasm

      I agree with your second point, if both players are competing it should be play on.

      I couldn’t see an illegal block from black 13 though. Looks like he’s just running his line back, not looking at blue 15

      • Nutta

        Only my opinion, but I thought it pretty clear he was running a Blockers line. Fair enough he wasn’t looking about to make it obvious, but I’m fairly certain he was poodling across to disrupt any chaser (otherwise why do it? Why not get back behind your man and come forward to support?).

        Now to be fair, as the receiving Hooker, I did (and still do) pretty much the same thing at every kickoff to protect my Catcher from the charging Chasers…

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Of course he’s running a blocking line. Nothing illegal about that as long as he doesn’t change his line

    • Richard Patterson

      These are valid thoughts. There are 3 unfortunate realities though from the incident in question on Saturday night.
      1. In these situations, the colour of the card issued by the officials is influenced by 3 issues only.
      a/ Was there foul play involved? (see Highlanders player striking winger Cam Clarke in the face in the Waratahs game).
      b/ Was there intent to injure a player in the act of competing for the ball?
      c/ Did the falling player in question land dangerously on his head or neck?

      2. Beauden Barrett did land dangerously on his head. Had he landed on his shoulder, back or feet there was greater flexibility in the decision that Gardner and Ayoub could have delivered. The rules unfortunately did not present that flexibility in this case.

      3. Gardner and Ayoub could only judge on the result of the incident.

      The Rules reference a responsibility for players for the well-being of other players in situations such as Saturday night when competing for the ball. Isn’t it for this reason only that players back out of competing for a contest in the air? They know the upside is low, the downside extremely high.

      Benjamin Fall’s eyes were clearly on the ball. As a result, he had reduced awareness of Barrett’s position to catch the ball. 1. Is that a technical fault in his execution? 2. Should he have backed out? 3. Should he have taken better responsibility for the well-being for Barrett? I believe the answer to 1. is Yes. I don’t know the answers to 2 & 3. I do know the Rules left Gardner and Ayoub very little option.

      Call it the action / reaction sporting world we live in now. The “action” is too create better player safety. The “reaction” is to create rules that introduce automatic penalties when an incident on the field occurs that impacts the original “action”. We saw that Saturday night.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Mate world rugby must have read your post. Still haven’t managed to watch it again yet but you’re on the money from their report

      • Nutta

        ??

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          No penalty, took the red card sanction away and said it was because he was checked by NZ 13. No sanction on the 13 as he didn’t change his line

        • Nutta

          Cheers. Bugger me…

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I just watched it and I agree the Black 13 did nothing wrong

        • Nutta

          Yeh I’m not convinced it is legal. A player is under no obligation to vary their line to accommodate another Player. All things equal I completely support that. But if the purpose of that line is to be in-front of your ball-player (so offside) to then run interference against a legitimate, direct play at the ball by an opponent then it’s obstructing. That’s almost NFL-esque. It’s no different to having an off-side runner in-front of the ball carrier. It’s obstruction. It’s part of the reason a player in-front of a kicker may not advance – because it obstructs options to the opponent they would otherwise have. Further it is cynical and intentional. Thus I can’t see why the Blocker doesn’t get a yellow card (deliberate, cynical infringement).

          Going further, if Black13’s action was offside, deliberate and cynical which then directly manifested into a dangerous scenario (as it did here) then you know full well who should be copping a red card for dangerous play…

          I recall the obstruction element was the whole blow-up from a couple of years ago when Hodge (I think – or maybe it was 2Dads) was the catalyst for a disallowed Wobbly try vs AIB when he was pinged for running off a chaser BEHIND the ball even though he had ‘maintained his line’. I’ll go search UChube…

        • Nutta

          I was wrong – DHP Sauce…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK3MEJPvgz4

        • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

          You have to be a bit one-eyed to think that DHP didn’t interfere with Savea (0:30), but what the refs missed is that Savea interfered with DHP first (0:28) and DHP was retaliating (stupidly). I presume that means it should have been a try, but I’m not sure.

        • Nutta

          Morning

          Not being smart – just asking – but can you see my post immediately before talking about obstruction? I’ve got a message saying it’s held back by G&G for review…

        • disqus_NMXfOrw5ot

          Morning Nutta. Yeah I can see that post, but maybe I’m completely confused about what point you were trying to make. Please disregard my comment then :P

        • moaning expat

          Its being held back for review but has a button to click on if you want to see it. dont see the point in that personally…

  • Fatflanker

    No real surprises in the way Ireland played or that they were very effective in nullifying Pocock and Folau. On reflection the Oz performance was better than I initially thought. Don’t think the ref was as terrible as some are suggesting either. Foley probably lucky to escape a yellow. A bit of off-the-ball niggle/borderline foul play that was worthy of review – where was our eagle-eyed TMO from last week?!

    The Cheek needs to find an answer to that two-man ‘flying wedge’ technique – legal, very hard to stop and provides great platform for effectively sealing off the ball on the ground. – perhaps tackle the support player and go for an ‘obstructing the tackler’ penalty? or maybe we need to take a leaf out of Ireland’s playbook and have more than one man tackling. Dunno. Game 3 will certainly be battle of the coaches.

    • idiot savant

      Id like to see us using the latch. If both sides are doing it, the ref will have to make a decision.

      The guy who was lucky to escape a YC was Hooper. I saw Hoops hit Sexton with a high shot on or after whistle. (Sexton lay on the ground for a bit inviting the TMO to take a look). Then a couple of minutes later Hoops had one of the Paddys in a headlock that wouldn’t have stood much scrutiny. Barely 30 cms in it! Its amazing how a trigger happy TMO can sometimes look the other way!

      • Fatflanker

        Ahh, didn’t see that from Hooper. Bit of niggle both ways then – to be expected given the circumstances, but a poor look for the captain.

        Would not be surprised to see Ireland do something completely different again next week but I agree, worth the Wallabies giving it a trial – the Irish gang tackles on our lone runners were pretty effective in defending the gain line up until the closing stages of the game.

  • Brendan Hume

    It will be interesting to see that changes that Cheika makes after the weekend performance – for me, I’d like to see:

    Latu in to start, BPA or Faianga from the bench

    Coleman expected to be out – give Rodda the lineout, bring in Tui to lock

    Phipps to 9 is really the only choice that will happen, although I’d like to see someone else given a crack – Jake Gorden, Joe Powell, Moses Sorovi… I just think Phipps is a known quantity and has been shown up as not up to it time and again

    Rona in for Kerevi

    Hodge for Koroibete

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Some good choices there mate. I must admit I thought Phipps had improved earlier this year and I like the room he gives Foley with his speed but far too many passes are high or behind the player. Sorovi has the same speed and the same inacuracy unfortunately so I’d give Powell a go.

    • onlinesideline

      Mate totally agree on Tui at lock if Coleman is out (but I reckon he will be right)
      I think Timu / Pete Samu are due for serious input – good to have one of them plus Tui plus Pooper on at same time
      Hodge at 13
      Keep fijian flyer

      • Brendan Hume

        Yeah the forwards were a bit off during the whole contest – really Tupou was the only really effextive runner, and by effective I mean simply take the ball past the gain line and present it for a quick recycle. Simmons wasn’t terrible, but his effectiveness in the contact area is not enough.
        I think Koroibete is damaging with his pace but at this level, he is a defensive liability. I think Rona is a star in attack and defence, and I think Hodge adds a lot if brought into the wing slot. I really expected Kerevi to step in in the circumstances he was presented with on Saturday and grind that ball ahead, but the Wallabies really didn’t seem to have a plan that didn’t involve kicking.

  • Nicholas Wasiliev

    Great work Ned.

    It was an interesting weekend of rugby, but an encouraging one at that. The Irish controlled the game superbly, (particularly with their management of Pocock smd Folau) and Sexton’s impact was also much needed for the men in green. They played very smart.

    However, it gives me a lot of confidence that in the rare times we got the ball, we looked dangerous. The fact we scored more tries than them and we had 28% possession shows how much potential we have in attack.

    In the end, the time with Koroibete off the field really is what proved the difference. The Irish had their tales up and Sexton was on point.

  • Missing Link

    Any comments on the Moriarty Red, Wales v Argentina?

    Looks like Sanchez up ends Moriarty at a ruck, then pushes him to the ground twice before Moriarty puts Sanchez in a sleeper hold. Then a trainer tries to step in, the same trainer that went to pick up the ball a few years ago before Phipps laid him out. Obviously no one told him after that incident to stay out of these things.

    • Greg

      Brain explosion pure and simple. good video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r49xuqctSco

      The trainer needs to stay well out of it. The blue 10 could not have been blamed for swinging punches back over his shoulder…. and would also have got a red card.

  • Adrian

    It’s not a National disaster to loose to the world’s 2nd best team, by a handful of points, and score more tries than them.

    It’s ultra-annoying though, after we beat them last week.

    The Irish were better compared to last week on every single area…. perhaps only better by 10%, but better. We were worse by 10% in everyday. I initially thought the score flattered us a bit,…but no,….we did some things well at some stages,…mainly at the beginning and end of the game.

    IMO we got a bit carried away with how we went last week, and this was exacerbated by our early try.

    We thought we’d kick well, but of course our kicking in the first test was a fluke….even though it was good, but not brilliant. Add to that a worse chase, and we are behind the eight ball.

    Cheika’s post match comments included him saying that when we got behind we tried various ways of getting the ball back, which resulted in penalties. Slap downs etc he said .

    We are more than a chance next week, even without Genia, as I think that training will emphasize patience, disclipine, defence and fewer, but better kicks.

    They need to keep calm and execute flat backline moves that most of them know. I don’t think Kerevi deserves to be dropped, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rona, even on the bench. Tuopo could swap with Kepu too, as could Tui and Timu, and Latu and BPA, but I’d be ok with most staying where they are. They’ll be much more focused I believe.

    Phipps will be ok, but he’s no Genia, and Powell is slow, meaning IMO a 5:3 bench is possible,.. though I wouldn’t necessarily do that.

    Come on the Wallabies

    • D. Braithwaite’s The Brumbies

      Powell is slow but I like him more than Phipps. What he lacks I physical abilities when running the ball I think he compensates with a good pass, decent kick, very good defence and a clear head.

      We definitely got carried away.

      I don’t mean to be rude to Koroibete, but I don’t really see what he offers at present exactly. He’s very fast but he is very limited, and he misses a lot of tackles.

      • Ed

        It would not be the first time we, Aussies, have got carried away about a single Wallabies performance.

        I would like to see Powell given a run from the start, but he may not even make the 23 with Gordon called in. Phipps will start due to his combo with Foley, Beale and Folau, and he has the most important trait Cheika wants, “work ethic”. Unless Genia and Phipps are injured, they will be Cheika ‘s two scrumhalves in the 23 for the big games in Japan next year.

    • idiot savant

      Agree Adrian. The Irish intensity was up and that was the main difference. They played their game style with power and confidence. It is extraordinary how long they can maintain possession. Their forwards are very fit for big blokes and they catch hard balls really well. But they lack any real creativity. Its a constant combination of inside and outside forward thrusts with aggressive clean outs followed by deft kicks for touch deep in the opposite half. To only score 2 tries with all that ball shows a lack of flair. It was also a testament to the WB defence. The stats might say we missed a lot of tackles but many of them were effective slow downs against very big humans powering at us with latches driving them. Given the strategy we had to combat I think the boys did a great job in defence.

      And as you point out, the kicking strategy of last week was a total surprise but we haven’t had enough practice at it for the last 4 years to really expect it to work when the surprise factor was gone. Losing Beale early didnt help because he was the best kicker last week.

      I liked Tui’s work and would like to see more of him. All the finishers were good. Kerevi didnt have much to do as he barely saw the ball but im still not sure about him. Folau seemed out of sorts. DHP proved yet again he is a class act. I expect we will return to Cheik’s ball in hand philosophy next week with much less kicking which should help us keep the ball for longer and give us a chance. We will have a problem if Beale isn’t fit.

  • John

    Someone should ask Kurtley who or what he is constantly shaking his head at. It is a funny visual habit he has.

  • Tomthusiasm

    World rugby have cancelled Fall’s red card. That’s two games in a row that the officials have cocked-up in this series.

    • Hoss

      Yep – they refer to the Blue 15’s impact with Black 13 as a significant contributing factor.

      Common sense decision. Gardner cant be blamed, on the evidence of the night it seemed his only option.

      • Greg
        • Hoss

          Huh, they specifically reference Gardner and support his decision based on the evidence he had at the time. Gardner doesnt come out of it too bad i reckon (nor should he)

        • Greg

          yeah…. but hard to support in one paragraph and overturn it in another?

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Not really mate. Specifically says there is nothing Gardner did wrong, they just had a better view of the incident. I’m actually surprised at the vast amount of common sense that is on display

        • Greg

          Agreed re the common sense.

          Does the judiciary really have more video than the TMO? Could be true but would surprise me.

          Game still buggered by the decision.

          the collision between black 13 and blue 15 was an issue. That said, I couldn’t see too much wrong with the black 13… OK he wasn’t rushing to get back in the line but nor did he seem to charge into the blue 15.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          I think they just took more time. Mate 13 was fine he didn’t change his line so perfectly legal

        • Bernie Chan

          It’s in short supply…!

  • Tomthusiasm

    Does Mario Ledesma take over the Pumas?

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      They bloody need him. I never like player power getting rid of a coach but if you lose the change room it’s time to go

Rugby

A self diagnosed rugby snuff who loves wet weather footy and still can't figure out how to put a photo up of myself

More in Rugby