Rugby 2023-24 World Cup Year!

Game on!

Every ruck you can hear AB voices reffing the game. I’m surprised it’s been allowed*

*no I’m not; it’s the ABs!

Yeah.  And how is Barrett not pulled up for the neck roll?

So much for a northern hemisphere clean sweep for the semifinals 

Shit on it.

(From an Englander who wanted an Irish wi’ of the whole thing)

****!!!    Oh no, but the desire and skills on show, massive shout for Ireland, Northern Hemisphere hero’s for sure.

So much for a northern hemisphere clean sweep for the semifinals

Yep. A southern hemisphere clean sweep now looking likely, although it would be funny if England were the only NH team to get through 🙂

Incredible match. That’s all really.

Can we talk about Ireland and Wales please?   The other team doesn’t really deserve to be discussed in here tonight.

Great game over all

Wow, I thought the two yellow cards would be the downfall of NZ.

Boring if NZ or SA win again.

Allez Les blues!

Wonder what Rieko Ioane said to piss Johnny Sexton off at the end there!

I don’t think it’d have taken much to piss Johnny off tbf.

Really felt for Bundi Aki at the end there. Poor guy was broken.

Wonder what Rieko Ioane said to piss Johnny Sexton off at the end there

Don’t think you need to say much!

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) 24Tries: : Aki, Gibson-Park, penalty tryNew Zealand: (18) 28Tries: 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

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/03/10/e597c9c8-e852-4e19-875f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf

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 situationsRead 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.