• 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.

Wallabies v Japan, Oita - 23 October, 3:45pm AEDT

TSR

Geoff Shaw (53)
Maybe. But he’s also the best guy at getting himself carded.

I want be surprised if he comes in next game, and I’m happy to back the call of the coaching group, but I won’t be losing sleep if they don’t.
 

Tomikin

Mark Ella (57)
Actually - the other really bright spot for me is that I think Valetini is really turning into a quality test player. Some of the detail in his work is extremely impressive.
Ive said it before, he seems to have grown another leg since being selected in the 8 jersey it happened at the Brumbies as well. Not sure why that is..
 

PhilClinton

John Solomon (38)
I think today was a bit of a back to earth moment for QC. In no way was he terrible, but it definitely showed us the side of him again which kept him from being the number 1 pick for the Wallabies for many years.

Assuming he is available for spring tour, I think he will improve from today and go back to basics. I guess he felt his game had to change a bit without Kerevi outside him making everything look golden.
 

Tomikin

Mark Ella (57)
I think today was a bit of a back to earth moment for QC. In no way was he terrible, but it definitely showed us the side of him again which kept him from being the number 1 pick for the Wallabies for many years.

Assuming he is available for spring tour, I think he will improve from today and go back to basics. I guess he felt his game had to change a bit without Kerevi outside him making everything look golden.
Yeah not having Kerevi to dump it too for awesome gains ment he did a bit more this game.. but bit of time off game away from home and a plucky Japanese side.. winners are grinners
 

Joe Blow

Jim Lenehan (48)
Paisami was unable to impose himself in attack as Kerevi does. Perese might be a better like for like replacement? Petaia earned himself a spot back on the wing I reckon. We might see KB back in the frame? There is not a recognised starting 15 in the squad.
Japan looked very tidy in spots. Their first up defence was brutal. As said, they need to be included in the RC sooner rather than later.
 

Rugbynutter39

Steve Williams (59)
I think today was a bit of a back to earth moment for QC. In no way was he terrible, but it definitely showed us the side of him again which kept him from being the number 1 pick for the Wallabies for many years.

Assuming he is available for spring tour, I think he will improve from today and go back to basics. I guess he felt his game had to change a bit without Kerevi outside him making everything look golden.
To me the most noteworthy was how we missed kerevi as without him our midfield was less effective
 

TSR

Geoff Shaw (53)
Yeah not having Kerevi to dump it too for awesome gains ment he did a bit more this game.. but bit of time off game away from home and a plucky Japanese side.. winners are grinners
The thing was QC didn’t try to use Paisamj to dump it to to make those hard runs in traffic. Now that could be because Paisami wasn’t as good at positioning himself, but it seemed like there wasn’t an intent there to try and play the more controlled game that has been working for us.
Don’t get me wrong, i don’t think Paisami was ever likely to be able to mirror what Kerevi does, but he is a strong runner and I felt like it wasn’t entirely his fault he wasn’t used to get us over the gain line a bit more.
 

Samson

Chris McKivat (8)
The penalty attempt by Cooper that hit the upright and then bounced into touch resulted in a lineout to Japan. Should the throw have gone to us ?
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
The penalty attempt by Cooper that hit the upright and then bounced into touch resulted in a lineout to Japan. Should the throw have gone to us ?
Someone more in the know than me can comment, but I think the ball is dead when it hits the upright? I actually think it should have been a 22 as no one touched it before it went into touch, therefore it was just a standard missed attempt.
 

Joe King

Bob Loudon (25)
The penalty attempt by Cooper that hit the upright and then bounced into touch resulted in a lineout to Japan. Should the throw have gone to us ?
Probably not. It's like having a penalty kick for touch that doesn't go out -- once you've had the kick, you've had your chance at an advantage.
 

Joe Blow

Jim Lenehan (48)
Someone more in the know than me can comment, but I think the ball is dead when it hits the upright? I actually think it should have been a 22 as no one touched it before it went into touch, therefore it was just a standard missed attempt.
The ball is very much alive. If we regather and touch down we score. I think it should have been our throw.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
The ball is very much alive. If we regather and touch down we score. I think it should have been our throw.
Yeah what I meant was that as the ball wasn't touched by anyone in between hitting the upright, coming back into the field of play, and going into touch, it became dead at that point and should have simply been deemed a missed penalty shot and therefore a 22 drop out.
 
Last edited:

TSR

Geoff Shaw (53)
Yeah what I meant was that as the ball wasn't touched by anyone in between hitting the upright, coming back into the field of play, and going into touch, it became dead at that point and should have simply been deemed a missed penalty shot and therefore a 22 drop out.
But it didn’t go touch in goal? I’m a bit lost on your logic.
 

KOB1987

David Codey (61)
But it didn’t go touch in goal? I’m a bit lost on your logic.
Based on this you're right regardless of how you look at it:

4 WHO THROWS-IN

The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.

Exception

When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly to touch.

But then there's this:

(d) Place kicking for touch. The kicker may punt or drop kick for touch but must not place kick for touch.

It doesn't say what the sanction is.

My logic is that it's not clear what the ruling is, but what is clear is that the place kick didn't result in 3 points, no one touched it, and therefore it was simply a missed shot at goal.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Its absolutely clear what the situation is - the kick was taken at goal, therefore it is general play as soon as the ball leaves the boot.

The ball hits the upright, goes into touch - NOT touch-in-goal - so whoever didn't put it out gets the throw.

This is less confusing that pretty much every other concept in rugby.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Kellaway was almost invisible when moved to fullback and given success he has had in the wing I don’t know if we need to shift him to another position

Kellaway didn't make a single error at fullback and given the success we had in winning the game - and the lack of other solid options - that's what we need.

This is Test Rugby, not carnival 7-a-side, so having a fullback who is safe is far more valuable than someone like Damian McKenzie.
 
Top