RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: yes, Rugby is indeed a giant flow chart....

and didn't Hooper suddenly change height as a result of Coles tackle and swing? However, I do see why red was awarded.

To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

cashead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Consistency is a big issue. Doesn’t stop it being red though. Barrett was a moron. Already penalty advantage down, Coles is making the tackle on Hooper and Barrett has a total brain fart and decides to cheap shot him.

Sure, I agree that it deserved a red, but I'm also arguing that Garces has no business refereeing at the test level, and has proven time and time again that he is unfit for officiating at a high level.

A referee has failed at their job when they have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, and even ignoring the red card, his complete lack of consistency in applying the law, and failing to recognise that he'd unfairly rewarded the Wallabies about 30m of territory off of their knock-on which led to a fairly decisive score is something he should be getting raked over the coals for.

His entire performance was the kind thing that reminds me of Ricky Stuart's rant last year when the Raiders were jobbed by some shitty refereeing against Cronulla, when he demanded that the refs attend the press conference too to explain themselves.

I get you there. Mind we’d only have about four refs if we applied it. I do think the standard at the moment is pretty weak all round. And would agree with you on Garces.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

I'd say it's so serious that I'd go as far as calling it a full half-Farrell.

Puja

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
To be honest, if he doesn't want to run the risk of someone changing their height and his shoulder charge hitting them in the head, he probably shouldn't be leading with the shoulder in the first place.

I see this very much akin to the spear tackles and how they died off after Warburton's red. Yes, sometimes a spear tackle happens because of the movement of the tacklee when they're picked up and sometimes it's harsh on the tackler. However, if the punishment is harsh enough and consistently enough applied, then tacklers will stop putting themselves in positions where the mistake can happen and it'll disappear from the game. Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

Different views tell different tales; one angle, as I said looks like a cheap shot, another angle looks like Barrett changing his mind as a result of Hooper swinging into him with a different direction from Coles tackle, whilst definitely going to ground- I do agree on multiple re-watches, that the body height change, whilst there, is negligable. My take is that it was accidental, yours a cheap shot. Again, I see why red was given.

( I note the exact same points and graphic from Twitter ).
Moving on, why do we not get the same reaction from refs on shouldering in ruck clear outs- the scatter rucking is illegal in the first place, and so many piledriving in with shoulders goes utterly unpunished................and its all intentional.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: I just think it happened too quickly to say he was leading with the shoulder, but its only an opinion (and many tackles are shoulder lead with the arms following). I've looked at a fair few angles- a couple look like cheap shots, and a couple look like accidental collision. As I said, I see why Red was given.
I'm much more aerated at the continued dangerous and deliberate clear outs of players at most rucks.

Except that he makes a positive motion to tuck his arm into a sling position prior to attempting the ‘tackle’. And
No Hooper’s body height doesn’t change whilst Cole’s is tackling him. It’s just a plain stupid cheap shot from Barrett.

Different views tell different tales; one angle, as I said looks like a cheap shot, another angle looks like Barrett changing his mind as a result of Hooper swinging into him with a different direction from Coles tackle, whilst definitely going to ground- I do agree on multiple re-watches, that the body height change, whilst there, is negligable. My take is that it was accidental, yours a cheap shot. Again, I see why red was given.

( I note the exact same points and graphic from Twitter ).
Moving on, why do we not get the same reaction from refs on shouldering in ruck clear outs- the scatter rucking is illegal in the first place, and so many piledriving in with shoulders goes utterly unpunished................and its all intentional.

Totally agree on rucks. Very, very occasionally gets noticed and dealt with, but its one in every thousand. Another big issue that's beinbg totally ignored.

Fuck it. Let’s start rebuilding for 2023.

Aussie were good. We were shit. I don’t like complaining about the red.

I get the need for a bit of foxing and experiment before a RWC but that doesn’t justify our worst ever defeat.

Silvercloud wrote:My question is: If the force of the contact to the head is deemed sufficient to warrant a red card, why is it not mandatory to send the player suffering the said offence for an HIA?

You're not wrong at all. There's been a few this weekend that should have gone - Francis in the England game was absolutely spark outand was allowed to play on for another two minutes.

We can't pick and choose when we give a sh*t about concussion.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Silvercloud wrote:My question is: If the force of the contact to the head is deemed sufficient to warrant a red card, why is it not mandatory to send the player suffering the said offence for an HIA?

You're not wrong at all. There's been a few this weekend that should have gone - Francis in the England game was absolutely spark outand was allowed to play on for another two minutes.

We can't pick and choose when we give a sh*t about concussion.

Puja

Yeah, like saying "That's a red card because he hit him in the head. I have to protect the player," and then 20 minutes later "Oh, a deliberate shoulder to the head of a prone player? Is that even a penalty? Fine, I'll give him a yellow."

Whitelock or Retallika for captain please. We have to learn how to deal with the ref when we are consistently trying his patience.

The worst thing about this result is having to be pleased that England beat Wales.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

Silvercloud wrote:My question is: If the force of the contact to the head is deemed sufficient to warrant a red card, why is it not mandatory to send the player suffering the said offence for an HIA?

You're not wrong at all. There's been a few this weekend that should have gone - Francis in the England game was absolutely spark outand was allowed to play on for another two minutes.

We can't pick and choose when we give a sh*t about concussion.

Puja

Yeah, like saying "That's a red card because he hit him in the head. I have to protect the player," and then 20 minutes later "Oh, a deliberate shoulder to the head of a prone player? Is that even a penalty? Fine, I'll give him a yellow."

Absofuckinglutely.

Consistency of rule application is the biggest blight on rugby right now.

Puja wrote: Just a shame the neck rolls ruling wasn't followed through on properly, despite its early amusing success in cutting short Calum Clark's international appearance.

Puja

The players don't have much of a problem with the neck rolls, bar they don't like they're not supposed to use them as they see them as one of the few ways to get a player off the ball, and they tend to think fairly safely, that leads to coaches pushing back on the refs too. Though we need to remember players and coaches were dragged kicking and screaming into the new scrum engagement play, so just letting them overly influence proceedings isn't without issue.

That said I don't know what the stats say on actual injuries resulting from neck rolls. Is it bad, or does it just look bad, and how does it compare to scatter rucking?

David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

World Rugby wrote: 20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. 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.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

Barrett gets a three game ban and rightly so.

This angle says it all really. As red as red can be.

I do feel for him, for that to happen in such close quarters, but it’s that pointed shoulder that really does it.

So, first game of the RWC and there's no Barrett and possibly no Retallick - who's in against SA? Tuipulotu?

Not that you're in any danger from Italy, but second place in the group must be a real possibility now.

Puja

Pretty sure Barrett will be available for the SA match, thanks to the NPC. At least in this case there will at least be a plausible case, as opposed to that game of three halves silliness a few years ago.

EDIT: Indeed probably available for the Tonga test, according to this:

While he will not be allowed to play in the blockbuster Bledisloe Cup test against the Wallabies in Auckland on Saturday night, Barrett will be eligible to play Tonga in Hamilton on September 7 and is now available for the World Cup in Japan. The All Blacks first game of the tournament is against South Africa in Yokohama on September 21.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... -world-cup

But were he unavailable, I'd probably go for Romano. Elsewise there's no one else really as we're plunging the similar depths of 2011's first fives. Maybe Franklin, I guess? But Romano would be safer.

cashead wrote:David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

World Rugby wrote: 20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. 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.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

I'm not defending the players in this, but they do seem to have a general sense that the actual risks from neck rolls are far less than worrisome than the ugliness of seeing it happen. And one injury in x years doesn't scream they're wrong, though they are wrong plenty often enough.

I'd be much more worried about neck rolls at lower levels of the game where people don't have such developed shoulder and neck muscles, so I can understand wanting it out of the game from a more general safety issue. And it certainly doesn't look good on TV, even if at the top level it's perhaps questionable to focus on neck rolls as the game has whilst ignoring scatter rucking is all

zer0 wrote:Pretty sure Barrett will be available for the SA match, thanks to the NPC. At least in this case there will at least be a plausible case, as opposed to that game of three halves silliness a few years ago.

So here's a question - which is it? Is it three weeks, or is it three games?

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

World Rugby wrote: 20. Dangerous play in a ruck or maul.

a. 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.
b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders.
c. A player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul.

I'm not defending the players in this, but they do seem to have a general sense that the actual risks from neck rolls are far less than worrisome than the ugliness of seeing it happen. And one injury in x years doesn't scream they're wrong, though they are wrong plenty often enough.

I'd be much more worried about neck rolls at lower levels of the game where people don't have such developed shoulder and neck muscles, so I can understand wanting it out of the game from a more general safety issue. And it certainly doesn't look good on TV, even if at the top level it's perhaps questionable to focus on neck rolls as the game has whilst ignoring scatter rucking is all

That there hasn't been a major injury yet is no reason to be lackadaisical in policing it. Last I checked, having a someone that is stronger than the average person forcefully yanking on your neck isn't exactly conducive to good health, and it's pretty clearly a matter of time. Sam Cane certainly wasn't too happy about it, considering he's just come back from a broken neck - and it further adds evidence that Garces is not fit to referee at the test level, when he's willing to apply the letter of the law when it comes to foul play to one team, but not the other.

zer0 wrote:Pretty sure Barrett will be available for the SA match, thanks to the NPC. At least in this case there will at least be a plausible case, as opposed to that game of three halves silliness a few years ago.

EDIT: Indeed probably available for the Tonga test, according to this:

While he will not be allowed to play in the blockbuster Bledisloe Cup test against the Wallabies in Auckland on Saturday night, Barrett will be eligible to play Tonga in Hamilton on September 7 and is now available for the World Cup in Japan. The All Blacks first game of the tournament is against South Africa in Yokohama on September 21.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... -world-cup

But were he unavailable, I'd probably go for Romano. Elsewise there's no one else really as we're plunging the similar depths of 2011's first fives. Maybe Franklin, I guess? But Romano would be safer.

Would he really have played the NPC? Really?

Puja

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:David Pocock was forced to sit out a test match against the Springboks after, ironically enough, being neckrolled out of several rucks a couple of years ago by the All Blacks.

It's also clearly covered in the World Rugby, in law no. 9

I'm not defending the players in this, but they do seem to have a general sense that the actual risks from neck rolls are far less than worrisome than the ugliness of seeing it happen. And one injury in x years doesn't scream they're wrong, though they are wrong plenty often enough.

I'd be much more worried about neck rolls at lower levels of the game where people don't have such developed shoulder and neck muscles, so I can understand wanting it out of the game from a more general safety issue. And it certainly doesn't look good on TV, even if at the top level it's perhaps questionable to focus on neck rolls as the game has whilst ignoring scatter rucking is all

That there hasn't been a major injury yet is no reason to be lackadaisical in policing it. Last I checked, having a someone that is stronger than the average person forcefully yanking on your neck isn't exactly conducive to good health, and it's pretty clearly a matter of time. Sam Cane certainly wasn't too happy about it, considering he's just come back from a broken neck - and it further adds evidence that Garces is not fit to referee at the test level, when he's willing to apply the letter of the law when it comes to foul play to one team, but not the other.

I think there's an issue in going after perceived problems rather than being guided by facts, but I'm also not going to worry much if neck rolls aren't allowed. And I'm happy to sympathise providing he doesn't have a history that includes him dishing out neck rolls, it would surprise me if he didn't as he has a history of dishing it out (that's mostly a compliment, I rather like Cane as a player)

cashead wrote:So here's a question - which is it? Is it three weeks, or is it three games?

It's matches these days, isn't it? I distinctly recall some shenanigans a few years ago over whether one of those 'game of three halves' counted as a match for the purposes of suspensions. If it's weeks then there's absolutely no problem over his RWC availability.

Puja wrote:Would he really have played the NPC? Really?

IIRC he played a fair bit for the Crusaders, so probably not. But Williams, Tu'inukuafe, and a few others have played in the NPC, so it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.

As it is, I'm quite in favour of suspensions being applicable at the level the match was played at, or higher. Using Barrett's example, he was suspended playing in a test, so he'd have to miss the next three All Black tests. He could play as much provincial rugby as he wanted, but would be unavailable for the AB's until the third test had passed. If it had occurred in a SR match, say a semifinal, then he'd have to sit out the SR final, as well as the first two test matches. But he could play as much provincial, or club, rugby as he'd like without it impacting upon his ban.

It’s 3 weeks, not matches.