• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Northern Hemisphere 2021-22

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
Next up on the "I didn't want him when he was here but now he's overseas I do" merry go round is Jack Maddocks. Got MotM in Pau's absolute dismantling of Bordeaux on the weekend.

The Australian back of Pau delivered a great performance this Sunday. Author of several decisive movements, in particular Clément Laporte's first try. A dazzling first half, Maddocks was always in the thick of it. His kicking game was faultless and he gained metres with every carry. A little quieter in the 2nd half, he still had an almost unblemished game, thus he's the MoTM.
 

Derpus

David Wilson (68)
Next up on the "I didn't want him when he was here but now he's overseas I do" merry go round is Jack Maddocks. Got MotM in Pau's absolute dismantling of Bordeaux on the weekend.
I think he was always a loss - at least to the Tahs. He'd still be starting fullback.
 

Wilson

Mark Loane (55)
Maddocks is tricky, he was woefully out of form when he left and probably needed the change of scenery to find it again. Could absolutely be an asset if he came back though.
 

KevinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
Maddocks is tricky, he was woefully out of form when he left and probably needed the change of scenery to find it again. Could absolutely be an asset if he came back though.
Maddocks was a tricky one, left Melbourne cause he wanted to return home. Then didn't really perform to the same level at the Tahs as he had Rebels.

All reports was he had attitude issues at Colts level before Rebels as well.

He struggled last season at PAU, glad his starting to play well. But wouldn't really be rushing him back
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
Maddocks was a tricky one, left Melbourne cause he wanted to return home. Then didn't really perform to the same level at the Tahs as he had Rebels.

All reports was he had attitude issues at Colts level before Rebels as well.

He struggled last season at PAU, glad his starting to play well. But wouldn't really be rushing him back
what 'issues'?
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
The London Irish/Montpelier game (Heinekin Cup) just finished. Good tight game, Iridh suffered from RC to Creevy at 30 min mark. Otherwise I thought they had that. Of interest to Aussies I thought was how well I thought Rob Simmons ad Adam Coleman played for LI, they were both very good.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
if any of you are missing rugby I recommend watching London Irish v Saracens. Great game for a neutral, lots of strange situations that I rarely see happen. It’s worth watching just for the ref’s performance alone.
 

John S

Nev Cottrell (35)
He was apparently cited to face the judiciary though. Will be interesting to see how the judiciary lottery pans out
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
Armless Owen is at it again:


Ref saying it was too far back for him to look at seems more than a little fucked up...
Yep was watching the game on tv, think I mentioned it on NH club thread, about ref not going back and looking.
I wonder if it part of the speed game up with TMO's not being able to go back more than one phase? Kind of like it if that is reason, thought TMOs are going to have to react faster.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Phil Waugh (73)
^ there's now video of a second OF high shot in the same game that also went unnoticed. I'm all for minimising TMO involvements but this "too far back" is bullshit & it doesn't have to hold the game up, TMO can be looking at it while play continues & jump in at the next stoppage (which is what appears to have happened) IF it warrants a Card.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
^ there's now video of a second OF high shot in the same game that also went unnoticed. I'm all for minimising TMO involvements but this "too far back" is bullshit & it doesn't have to hold the game up, TMO can be looking at it while play continues & jump in at the next stoppage (which is what appears to have happened) IF it warrants a Card.
That's what I thought WOB, why I was so surprised that the ref asked if it was in the same play. I not sure if it been changed so the ref can't go back was wondering if that a trial or something in that comp. I was real surprised while watching game that nothing happened at time and to top it off Farrell was then still on to win game with drop kick, seemd a little unjust to me.
Though I do kind of like not going back beyond one play, as there has to be I guess a limit? Are they trying to stop a try being scored after a few stoppages and then overturning it? I really don't know it seems a change.
 
Last edited:

waiopehu oldboy

Phil Waugh (73)
That's what I thought WOB, why I was so surprised that the ref asked if it was in the same play. I not sure if it been changed so the ref can't go back was wondering if that a trial or something in that comp. I was real surprised while watching game that nothing happened at time and to top it off Farrell was then still on to win game with drop kick, seemd a little unjust to me.
Though I do kind of like not going back beyond one play, as there has to be I guess a limit? Are they trying to stop a try being scored after a few stoppages and then overturning it? I really don't know it seems a change.

Pretty sure the cutoff point under the new directive is the previous stoppage & the reports I've seen suggest it was after that - obviously you'll know for sure having watched it - so if that's the case there's really no excuse for ref not acting. I get that there are always going to be teething problems but I'd hate to see a situation whereby a try is scored, there's obvious foul play back downfield but ref says "too far back, try stands". Kinda makes a(nother) mockery of WR (World Rugby)'s stated aim of protecting players from the consequences of contact to the head & needs to be looked at pronto IMO.
 

molman

Chilla Wilson (44)
Farrell got four games so is available for 6N opener. How convenient :rolleyes:
It does raise the spectre of credibility for some of these decision. It was my understanding that it was 3 games for a low, 6 for a high and 12 for a high. How do we start from the position of 4 games?

The issue is the lack of consistency both across games but also the different competitions. There also seems to be fluctuations in what is or isn't called. The result which no one seems willing to face is the degree of impact this is having on games and results. The mantra of take the ref out of the game I think is starting to sound a little weak.

I still recall the Kerevi card in the game against Wales in the 2019 RWC where I'd never seen a attacking palyer penalised for pushing another player away in the attempt of tackling, who by protocol had poor technique being very upright. It got nicely freezed when he was at full extension of his shove like he was running with his arm away from his body, aiming for peoples necks. I'd watched a lot of comps in both hemispheres and never seen anything like that penalty before. Then you have other games like this one where obvious direct to the head incidents (not just Farrells) get totally missed. Massive inflection points in both games by penalities for one and not the other.
 
Last edited:

Wilson

Mark Loane (55)
It does raise the spectre of credibility for some of these decision. It was my understanding that it was 3 games for a low, 6 for a high and 12 for a high. How do we start from the position of 4 games?

The issue is the lack of consistency both across games but also the different competitions. There also seems to be fluctuations in what is or isn't called. The result which no one seems willing to face is the degree of impact this is having on games and results. The mantra of take the ref out of the game I think is starting to sound a little weak.

I still recall the Kerevi card in the game against Wales in the 2019 RWC where I'd never seen a attacking palyer penalised for pushing another player away in the attempt of tackling, who by protocol had poor technique being very upright. It got nicely freezed when he was at full extension of his shove like he was running with his arm away from his body, aiming for peoples necks. I'd watched a lot of comps in both hemispheres and never seen anything like that penalty before. Then you have other games like this one where obvious direct to the head incidents (not just Farrells) get totally missed. Massive inflection points in both games by penalities for one and not the other.
The ban itself here is pretty consistent with what the judiciary has been giving over the last couple of years. It was a six week entry point mitigated down to four given the tackle was judged to be a mid-range offence by the panel. Given it's been 2-3 years since his last offence he then also has the option of World Rugby tackle school open to him for another weeks reduction. There was not further mitigation applied given his previous record, but equally there was no loading applied for repeat offences given the time since his last offence.



I think there are pretty significant issues with the process, but this is one space they have at least brought some consistency in recently. The bigger issues with someone like Farrell is that he has a record for making tackles like this and getting off without a card or citing, so it doesn't factor in when he fronts the judiciary. It's frustrating but it's also the way it should be, the important thing now is consistency around what actually makes it in front of the judiciary.
 

molman

Chilla Wilson (44)
The ban itself here is pretty consistent with what the judiciary has been giving over the last couple of years. It was a six week entry point mitigated down to four given the tackle was judged to be a mid-range offence by the panel. Given it's been 2-3 years since his last offence he then also has the option of World Rugby tackle school open to him for another weeks reduction. There was not further mitigation applied given his previous record, but equally there was no loading applied for repeat offences given the time since his last offence.



I think there are pretty significant issues with the process, but this is one space they have at least brought some consistency in recently. The bigger issues with someone like Farrell is that he has a record for making tackles like this and getting off without a card or citing, so it doesn't factor in when he fronts the judiciary. It's frustrating but it's also the way it should be, the important thing now is consistency around what actually makes it in front of the judiciary.
It wasn't mitigated down to 4 weeks because the tackle was judged to be a mid-range offense. 6 weeks is mid-range offense entry point. It was mitigated down for the usual wishy-washy reasons that get dolled out (he was a good boy during the process and such). Good bedtime reading these: https://www.englandrugby.com/governance/discipline/disciplinary-decisions

The fact that Farrell admits to the contact, but doesn't accept that it warranted a red card flags for me a lack by him to accept that his approach to tackling has systemic issues as witnessed by his incidents both cited (and un-cited as you also note, which there are a fair number of video clips for). Frankly it was a pretty odd position for him to take which is glossed over.

You are right however that the sanctions are inline with with recent head high tackles once they 'do' get cited, so maybe I am being unfair with the consistency of the outcome with regards to the process, more-so, as you point out, the inconsistencies in what 'is' cited and that this outcome is a by-product of the fact of past failures in this area as we have a player who has a pretty consistent record of dodging appropriate sanctions for this aspect of his play during his 340 professional games.
 

KevinO

Peter Sullivan (51)
It wasn't mitigated down to 4 weeks because the tackle was judged to be a mid-range offense. 6 weeks is mid-range offense entry point. It was mitigated down for the usual wishy-washy reasons that get dolled out (he was a good boy during the process and such). Good bedtime reading these: https://www.englandrugby.com/governance/discipline/disciplinary-decisions

The fact that Farrell admits to the contact, but doesn't accept that it warranted a red card flags for me a lack by him to accept that his approach to tackling has systemic issues as witnessed by his incidents both cited (and un-cited as you also note, which there are a fair number of video clips for). Frankly it was a pretty odd position for him to take which is glossed over.

You are right however that the sanctions are inline with with recent head high tackles once they 'do' get cited, so maybe I am being unfair with the consistency of the outcome with regards to the process, more-so, as you point out, the inconsistencies in what 'is' cited and that this outcome is a by-product of the fact of past failures in this area as we have a player who has a pretty consistent record of dodging appropriate sanctions for this aspect of his play during his 340 professional games.
The best thing about this outcome, is any tackle for the rest of the year including the RWC will receive the full punishments.
 
Top