Great game that was! And a 37 phase attack at the end 😳
I don’t think Eng will win the World Cup and don’t deserve to. So that means I want Fiji to win the whole thing…or realistically (and grudgingly) France…which is an odd thought!
And a 37 phase attack at the end
Remarkable
Unlucky for IRL that chip kick over the forwards in the 1st half by NZ really cut them up defense wise.
NZ do love to "cheat" at the contact zone they are class at running the clock down too. Some fantastic skill by both teams should be the main takeaway from the game.
Gutted, but extraordinary game. Such intensity
Spot the odd one out!
Ireland: (17) 24<br />Tries: : Aki, Gibson-Park, penalty try<br />New Zealand: (18) 28<br />Tries: Fainga'anuku, Savea, Jordan
Meanwhile in the anagallis house this morning.
What I took from both of the last two Irish games is that Ireland put a lot into their first line defence at the expense of deeper defence.
Scotland struggled to break that first line defence, but their two tries looked very easy once they did.
The New Zealand attacks from deep looked very similar to the Scots tries (just that NZ are a better team than Scotland). Once they found a gap or chipped over the first line, the second line was easy to cut through.
That said the Irish first line is pretty blinking good.
A Welshman goes into a bar. The Scotsman has the round bought.
I've now used up my blue and green sides. Not being ABE but I'd like to see Fiji cut loose and win. It's what England, and other home nations, need to see. Expansive rugby as opposed to structured grind it out.
It did seem obvious when Scotland played Ireland the a few early chips over would slow the defence down but we didn't do it same with SA, especially without faff.
NZ screwed Ireland first and foremost by attacking the breakdown in numbers and slowing the ball. It was a fantastic mix of brute force and determination combined with the usual sublime skills the players have with the ball.
By the way TJ still waiting for your working out on why the headshot at the ruck wasn't a pen saying it was 'accidental' does not make any difference in the laws.
Explained above AA.and by the ref and TMO at the time
I know you really struggle with this but its obvious. "Has there been foul play?" no in this case. Play on. ( I e accidental contact without any reckless behaviour)
the tackler was bent at the hips and waist and attempted a wrap so a legal clear-out. Tompkins due to the actions of other players dropped hugely at the last moment. the Argentinian player had no chance of avoiding the head contact.
I am certtain you will not accept this because of your lack of understanding how the protocols work. don't listen to the idiot commentators
That was obviously just a rugby incident and I called it at the time.
Just work thru the laws / protocols and guidance and its obvious
Second question here
2. Was there foul play?
Considerations:
• Intentional
• Reckless
• Avoidable
So the argentinian was not reckless, it was not intentional; and it was unavoidable - no foul play - play on
Fascinating stuff, but it wasn't a tackle so the tackle framework doesn't apply it's a ruck.
Law 20
Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.
A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
Guys chill in few hours you can join forces and hate england you know you want too.
On that clear out it was close, if the player had been a step farther back and been looking at player he hit and not the player next to him it would be dangerous play but it's not according to the match ref and tmo who let both teams off in the scrum a lot
A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.
correct - and the argentinian did neither so no foul play
Its the effing head contact protocol so applies in this case not the "tackle protocol"
A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
Yes - but in this case the argentinian player did not cause the head contact. the head contact was caused by the actions of multiple others so once again - no foul play play on
Guys chill in few hours you can join forces and hate england you know you want too.
I am totally calm, I just enjoy discussing such decisions. The ref went through the tackle protocol which is not applicable, he himself had called the tackle over so it's a ruck. Law20b says you can't hit a player in the head.
Its not the tackle protocol. Its the head contact process so applies in all situations<br /><br />Read what I posted above - its clearly called the head contact process
Come on TJ play the words not the man!!
Yes – but in this case the argentinian player did not cause the head contact. the head contact was caused by the actions of multiple others so once again – no foul play play on
A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
It's fairly simple surely?
Yes its very simple. No foul play occurred under the laws. The argentinian did not cause the head contact.
Once head contact has been seen the head contact process is used and that clearly is a "play on" as there was no foul play
I'm gutted for the Irish - you guys were meant to win after putting us out. FFS guys - if you were not going to beat NZ you should have let us have a crack at them!
I do find the culture of 'cheating' fascinating
NZ do love to “cheat” at the contact zone,
Every ruck you can hear AB voices reffing the game.
where the name of the game is to see how much you can get away with and letting the referee decide when it's too much and then instructs them so as to not penalise them. I know it's because it's a very interpretational game in that respect but it then leads to players managing the referee as the AB seem to do so well. If they can keep calling out their version - while it shouldn't, it has to have some effect on what the ref sees particularly if the ref isn't the most experienced.
If they didn't instruct in the way they do, would there be less cheating because you know you won't get told 'hands off' as a safety net before being pinged?
Great game shame for Ireland as they were doing so well, but in the end they were outplayed.
No foul play occurred under the laws
So does law20b not exist? Odd that's it's a law if it's not a law
I cannot fathom how you think it's not foul play, head contact was made, law20b says it's foul play if that occurs in a ruck. The only was it can move down from this point is back to a penalty kick, rather than yellow or red. At the bottom of the link you posted it cites law20b as what constitutes foul play
Because it is not foul play under the laws and head contact process.
I am really worried that a teacher seems to have such a lack of ability to read and understand the protocols / process.
I have explained it, the ref and TMO explained it.
there was no foul play. Play on.
Ist question " has there been head contact?" Yes
2nd question " has there been foul play?" no - play on
Last one in that attempted ruck clear out if it had been in the first 2/3 of the pool matches it would have been yellow or a even a red. I'm sure the refs have been instructed to relax the law or re evaluate it in real time because it was not working getting the TMO to do everything and make even the most simple decisions was spoiling the flow.
The refs in rugby do a fine act of letting stuff go and stepping in, straight line outs and forward non flat passes are being ignored and a TMO should be the best placed for that.
Both the games yesterday where reffed well in terms of control the penalty try especially.
Que Farrell lining up a cheap shot in the ruc against a Fiji brick wall and getting sent off.
Because it is not foul play under the laws and head contact process.
- So law 20b doesn't apply, he hit above the line of the neck in a ruck it's 100% foul play, no if's or buts.
I’m sure the refs have been instructed to relax the law
Maybe, but it's this infuriating changes to the standards and inconsistency that is the massive problem.
I didn’t notice anymore cheating by one side than another.
Yeh, but that wasn't the point of the post, which you have ignored.
What the refs coaching and shouting hands off, I agree just blow the whistle and ping them by the time you've shouted and they have slowly reacted it's too late.
I also agree with whoever it was that said hookers shouldn't be able to step towards their team just before throwing in. They are stood in from of the touch judge for Christ's sake how can they not see it.
Agreed the laws especially on dangerous play should be strictly adhered to if those laws are in place. I can almost guarantee if anything and i stress anything above the shoulder when running onto an opponent was a red it would stop in a season. They did it with taking out the jumper player and the game survived.
Both players falling and head contact is different it's sport.
The RFU wanted it to be like F1 with the TMO I'm sure just because you can rewind and rewatch an incident live is fine but do it after the match if you catch foul play and the ref missed it call it out in the next break.
NZ screwed Ireland first and foremost by attacking the breakdown in numbers and slowing the ball. It was a fantastic mix of brute force and determination combined with the usual sublime skills the players have with the ball.<br /><br />
Can’t disagree with that, but I was thinking more about how NZ opened up the Irish defence. All really good teams get worked out eventually, and then the next very good team becomes the really good team. Of course that’s frequently NZ.
I’m sure the refs have been instructed to relax the law
they haven't
Maybe, but it’s this infuriating changes to the standards and inconsistency that is the massive problem.
there is zero inconsistency. What there is is the commentators and many fans not understanding the laws and head injury process
What there is is the commentators and many fans not understanding the laws and head injury process
It's not a head injury process, it's head contact. Can you explain law 20b then, how is it anything other than foul play if you hit a head in a ruck?
Jesus Christ you two, knock it off!
Jesus Christ you two, knock it off!
We are allowed to discuss rugby on a rugby thread surely?
Maybe the laws of RU need to be simplified a bit....
After the TMO let the Welsh player off for a cynical shoulder to head I wonder if the ref decided to even things up a little in the second half.
Rather nice article about Biggar
After the TMO let the Welsh player off for a cynical shoulder to head
Must have watched a different game to you.
Adams cynical body check that started the ruckus.
https://www.ruck.co.uk/cheap-shot-josh-adams-lucky-to-escape-yellow-card-for-shoulder-hit/
Singing Swing Low during Fiji's Cibi.
Classy.
I;m just hoping for a decent game! been too many poor games in this WC for my liking
FFS - is that Dolly commentating? I so wish we could get feeds without the stupid commentators
A Fiji Afghanistan double in both World Cups today and I suspect up here we’ll be declaring a public holiday tomorrow!! 😀😀
