Page 2 of 2

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm
by Mellsblue
The clear out vs tackle disparity continues. That’s surely a red if a tackle?

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm
by stepsider
Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:54 pm
by Mellsblue
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
Always a bad way to start a sentence.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:58 pm
by Puja
Mr Mwenda wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:48 pm "Sums up Sarries doesn't it?" Yes, not very good.
Embarrassing that Earl didn't make it the first time - needed to just dive straight at the floor, rather than trying to outman the winger.

Speaking of embarrassing, Andrew Brace has just entirely fucked up that decision, abandoning the framework entirely for his own bullshit interpretation. If it's viewed as a legal clearout, it's not mitigation that reduces it down to a yellow, it is the second step of the framework that results in it being no penalty whatsoever. Doesn't matter that it's "high danger" - if he's performing a legal action, then the answer to "Has there been foul play" is "No".

Not relevant to the result, but he should know and do better.

Puja

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:59 pm
by Mikey Brown
Austin never played for Sarries did he?

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:03 pm
by Mellsblue
Mikey Brown wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:59 pm Austin never played for Sarries did he?
Austin didn’t play for any team. The team played for Austin.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:08 pm
by Spiffy
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
Austin's defence - "he couldn't see what he was doing" doesn't cut it. Otherwise it's a get out clause for foul play.
Clearing out is not illegal, but doing it dangerously is.
Yellow card OK for that incident.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:22 pm
by fivepointer
I watched on ITV so missed out on Austin's comments. Always a sound move i reckon.

It wasnt a classic game. Neither side at their best. Too many errors and some seriously dull discipline. Botia really is quite some player.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:42 pm
by stepsider
Spiffy wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:08 pm
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
Austin's defence - "he couldn't see what he was doing" doesn't cut it. Otherwise it's a get out clause for foul play.
Clearing out is not illegal, but doing it dangerously is.
Yellow card OK for that incident.
The real problem is inconsistent application of the laws. Which doesn't just apply to clearouts.

No excuse for Saracens inaccuracies, but Brace appeared only to be reffing them for much of the game.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 6:14 pm
by Spiffy
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:42 pm
Spiffy wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:08 pm
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
Austin's defence - "he couldn't see what he was doing" doesn't cut it. Otherwise it's a get out clause for foul play.
Clearing out is not illegal, but doing it dangerously is.
Yellow card OK for that incident.
The real problem is inconsistent application of the laws. Which doesn't just apply to clearouts.

No excuse for Saracens inaccuracies, but Brace appeared only to be reffing them for much of the game.
He seems a totally incompetent ref who only reinforces that assessment every time you see him. I don't think he was responsible for Sarries' loss, but he certainly can spoil a competitive game of rugby.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:08 pm
by Banquo
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
It has been for many years. Make a huge difference if sorted

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:11 pm
by Puja
Spiffy wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 5:08 pm
stepsider wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 4:52 pm Have to agree with Austin, clearing rucks has now become illegal
Austin's defence - "he couldn't see what he was doing" doesn't cut it. Otherwise it's a get out clause for foul play.
Clearing out is not illegal, but doing it dangerously is.
Yellow card OK for that incident.
I will add the caveat that I was watching on my phone, so I may not have had the best view, but to me it looked like Wolstenholme was bound onto the ruck and bent at the waist. Surely that's a legal bit of rucking (more legal than we normally get!) where it was just unfortunate that someone's head was in the way?

Puja

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:37 pm
by morepork
Will Skelton is an odd rooster. He's really, like, big but doesn't seem to have much else to him. Am I missing something?

Really good to see Kerr-Barlow getting amongst it, including sitting Jack Frost the Icy Man on his arse.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:47 pm
by Mikey Brown
morepork wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:37 pm Will Skelton is an odd rooster. He's really, like, big but doesn't seem to have much else to him. Am I missing something?

Really good to see Kerr-Barlow getting amongst it, including sitting Jack Frost the Icy Man on his arse.
He does have some incredible offloading skills in addition to the ridiculous carrying presence. Not sure we saw any of that or have done since he left Sarries though?

It feels like he shouldn’t be as effective as he is, but it looks like a bit like an adult playing against children at times, even at this level.

Re: La Rochelle Vs Saracens

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 8:57 am
by Galfon
Mikey Brown wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 7:47 pm
It feels like he shouldn’t be as effective as he is, but it looks like a bit like an adult playing against children at times, even at this level.
His younger bro. here is less small, - the youngest (> 7 ft.) least small but not following in his brothers' footsteps apparently...
The food bills must have been huge, or farm went well. :shock:
Image