Forum menu
No obviously not.
OK. Apologies for being an arse.
AFAIK the citing commissioner is independent and can cite any player regardless of whether the act in question was looked at by the match officials or not.
In the Reece Hodge one they looked at it on the field and decided it was fine but the commissioner thought otherwise.
5plusn8
Member
A question about citing – if the incident has been reviewed on the pitch and nothing found – can someone still be cited? Like double jeopardy.Posted 42 minutes ago
Yes, their job is to pick up on anything the ref misses or doesn’t deal with “properly”
if the incident has been reviewed on the pitch and nothing found – can someone still be cited?
Yes, but it doesnt happen often. Hooper should of been a yellow so unlikely to be cited imo. I dont understand how refs and tv pundits cant asses high tackles and no arms as two things, no Hooper didnt go high but it was late and had no arms!!
However I thought Patchell should have been Penalised for leading with his head
How odd.
So you don't think this tackle would have been a card if it wasn't for the forearm? As I said, I am no expert on the rules, but I though head to head contact was not allowed, and it was the tacklers responsibility to avoid it? Can anyone explain why or why not? How is this head to head contact Ok when others are not?
https://twitter.com/10SportAU/status/1178226295680966656
Not from that angle no. Head might have hit shoulder at worst.
I think the ref got that and the Adams one right, I think Hooper was lucky not to get a yellow.
Ok, fair if you think the head didn't make contact I see it. However, from other angles (which I can't find) it seemed clear it did make contact. So hypothetically if it had been clear head to head then Patchell off yes? Just trying to understand the rules.
Just watched it.
That was a match saving turnover.
So hypothetically if it had been clear head to head then Patchell off yes? Just trying to understand the rules.
Patchell’s head would not have swung into Kerevi’s if Kerevi hadn’t forearmed him in the throat. Leading with your forearm hasn’t been allowed for years, decades even. Yes, Patchell looked to be rather upright in the tackle and may even have given a penalty because of it but he didn’t complete his tackle.
So hypothetically if it had been clear head to head then Patchell off yes? Just trying to understand the rules.
Dont thonk so, would be a accidental head clash. He didnt lead in head firys.
Ok, I really don't get it then, I thought even if it was an "accident" it was still illegal. I had understood the rules to mean the tackler should have his head and rest of his body below the ball carriers shoulder so he doesn't accidentally make head contact?
Otherwise they are all "accidental" right?
He didnt lead with his head as idlejon says his head only moves forward because the Aussie player led with his arm. Its all about the initial contact and where that is. In this case the first contact is the aussie forearm with his chest.
Had he dived head first at him then yes that would be a problem, but he didnt.
only Johnstone,Nel and Harris are time qualified.The rest have at least a blood link.
Oh yeah, I realise that. Scotland have long drawn on English players who have a pretty close link to Scotland.
I remember in the early 80s in a Probables v Possibles match at Murrayfield where the Possibles pack was led by a renowned Harlequins flanker. He exorted his fellow forwards by saying. "Right lads, let's go out there and get into those Scottish bastards!"
It stands out more with Japan because Kiwis/SAFFAs and PIs look a bit different to the Japs. Whereas Englanders look pretty much the same as the Scots - except generally more handsome, obviously.
Ok, thats as clear as mud.
Anyway whats amusing is Cheika complaining, and I reiterate what I have said before, if you lose because of a few marginal calls, you probably were not going to win. You have to build the unpredictable nature in to your game. Plus he doesn't appear to recognise that the most obvious reffing error would have seen Hooper off for 10...
Plus he doesn’t appear to recognise that the most obvious reffing error would have seen Hooper off for 10…
I’m only just watching the Georgian game now, and in view of the red card in this game there should have been three yellows in Welsh match. Hooper, Kerevi and Adams. I thought at the time that it would be just Wales’ luck for the only card to be against Adams. 😁
Just seen this on another forum.
Just a pen
Three week ban
should have been three yellows in Welsh match. Hooper, Kerevi and Adams
Not rewatched the Adams one but I thought it was just a pen, Hooper was lucky but it wasnt an outrageous call...forearm smash was also something and nothing I think the ref got that right to tbh.
NMbuzz,seen Dan Cole close up have we?
NMbuzz,seen Dan Cole close up have we?
Not if I can help it........ 😬
I am sure once he sobers up AA will be along to post a picture of the best looking rugby player ever.in.the.world. Although it is a matter of some conjecture as to WHY he has so many oiled, topless pictures of the guy in question.
The Kerevi one was daft, it has been law for years. I like to call it the Teo law. I was still reffing when it came in and the example discussed was somebody speedbumping a 9 or 10. It was before the current head ruling and we were told to decide whether it was going to turn into a handoff when deciding sanction. With the much vaulted focus on outcome to protect player safety, it only looks at one players actions to make that decision. So “terrible tackle technique” has no bearing even if it contributed to it being Patchells head instead of his chest another time. Not fair in my opinion.
My opinion, hooper is a pen, no more. Kerevi is a Wales pen, no more.
But if that was a Welsh player making Kerevi’s hit and he got penalised I’d be a bit pee’d with the decision.
It’s a contact sport, let the game flow. Poor tackling technique shouldn’t be a pen to the defender.
Yes forearm smashes are illegal, but if the opponent is stood too tall in the tackle then there needs to be some leeway.
I know I’m wrong in that, as I’ve said before as an ex league player I hate to see niggly penalties. My mindset is that if he’s too high into the tackle (with the intention of blocking an offload) then it’s the fault of the defender for having his head in the wrong position, let the game flow. (Yes I know that’s not the rules)
w00dster
My opinion..........
Couldn't agree more.
Yes forearm smashes are illegal, but if the opponent is stood too tall in the tackle then there needs to be some leeway.
I'm not sure how the defenders position alters the fact he led with the forearm?
Penalty seems fair, move on. Like I said Hooper getting a yellow wouldnt have been out of the question.
The massive forward pass of the aus 9 just before their try was annoying but hey ho.
AA, I’d accept a pen (to the letter of the law).
The defenders position makes all the difference. As an attacker you’re trying to protect the ball. Look at Serevi’s arm position while running. As you go into contact your non carrying arm will move outwards to ward off the attacker, your ball carrying arm will look for an offload or to take the hit and set up the next phase.
If the defender is stood tall in front of you, then they will get an arm in the face. If the defender makes a genuine attempt at a tackle their head would be lower (below chest height, arms ready to go low) with their shoulder ready to drive into the attacker.
A defender stood high in the tackle is all about breaking up play, the intention is to stop an attacker being able to offload.
In terms of player safety, I get that leading with a forearm is illegal. But the onus should also be on the defender to attempt to make a legitimate tackle.
As a Welshman this is why I preferred league, Union was/is just stop start. We had similar rules, but our games are refereed in a manner respecting the contest. I would have expected the referee to tell me to learn how to tackle and to also say to the attacker, be careful. Whilst the game continued.
As I’ve said before though, I’m probably a dinosaur in terms of my views on the game. I know I’m wrong by the letter of the law. I’ve not heard ex pro players view on it (apart from Australians), but Be good to hear. I imagine their is a bit of a division of opinion.
If you lead with the arm its illegal regardless of where it hits the opponent. If you want to hand off you lead with the hand.
Like this, welsh and played league!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ypD7VUR_wpI
Not rewatched the Adams one but I thought it was just a pen, Hooper was lucky but it wasnt an outrageous call…forearm smash was also something and nothing I think the ref got that right to tbh.
I agree, but I was comparing them to the red in the Uruguay game which was only marginally worse than Hooper's shoulder.
AA - I'm not saying I'm correct. But I don't see Fonotia's as a ban either, would say it is a penalty but not a red card offence. (Yes I know what the law is trying to do/protect - but its not as black and white as that in my opinion)
For me, North braces to make the hit, he does lower his body, whilst Fonotia moves the ball and also gets ready to take the contact.
North goes for the grapple, braces and lowers his body, look at his arms going to stop Fonotia from releasing the ball. Its all done quickly and slow mo gif's make actions look worse than what happens.
North could have easily tackled Fonotia but he wanted (correctly) to slow down play, hence going for the grapple. Collisions at speed in close impact do occassionally result in an accidental arm to the face. But the ref's, TMOs and citing officials need to understand the difference between a deliberate forearm smash and a reactionary move, and the defenders position is part of the decision making process.
One big difference with John D is that he has the time to extend his arm fully, Fonotia and Kerevi is in a significantly smaller time to react. But all the same its always great to watch a proper handoff executed perfectly.
But I don’t see Fonotia’s as a ban either, would say it is a penalty but not a red card offence
Yep, yellow at most!
boreathon
Scrappy game so far, with lots and lots of handling errors from both sides.
Samoa look pretty ropey - Scotland should breeze this with a bonus point.
Samoa struggling to look organised. Scotland more composed but the ball is like a bar of soap. Reckon that’s kept the score line lower.
Not chasing the game in the second half should hopefully mean we don't have to force it and can get a few more tries. Really so need that bonus point though.
I’m afraid the Pacific island tackling style is being removed from the game - they need to learn.
Well, that sets up the Scotland-Japan game to be a great decider to close out the pool games.
Good BP win BTW, especially in the Kobe soapbox! I enjoyed Scotland’s tactics today - used the space in behind really well, rather than playing into Samoa’s hands with an open running-fest.
If Scotland win every game can Ire go out?
It comes down to bonus points, it is possible though, since we still have Japan to play it's more likely that the Irish will end up in second with us third.
Currently, Japan have 9 points, Ireland 6, and Scotland 5. Assuming Ireland win their two remaining games without bonus points, that would put them on 14. Scotland need bonus point wins in the next two games to beat that. Japan can equal that with a bonus point win against Samoa, even if they lost to Scotland. If Japan score a losing bonus point against Scotland and a bonus point win against Samoa, they would also be on 15. Scotland absolutely have to score a big win against Japan, but Japan can still get through even if they lose.
Ireland's next two games are against Russia and Samoa.
You have to assume they will get 10 points from those 2 games, putting them on 16.
Scotland will probably get a bonus point against Russia putting them on 10 when they face Japan.
Japan already have 9 points. If they get a bonus point against Samoa they will be on 14 when they face Scotland.
So realistically Scotland needs a BP win over Japan to progress. Japan will top the group if they beat Scotland
Ireland will get bonus points, Scotland's fate is out of our hands,we need Samoa to do us a favour. My tip; Japan get a losing bonus against us and that is what it comes down to.
So realistically Scotland needs a BP win over Japan to progress. Japan will top the group if they beat Scotland
I don't think that's quite right.
If Scotland start the match with 10pts and Japan 14pts then if Scotland win by more than 7 and deny Japan a losing BP then both sides end on 14pts. In that instance, the head-to-head record is the decider so Scotland would go through.
Of course, it's not a given that Japan will get a BP against Samoa either.