Page 1 of 2
Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:26 pm
by Galfon
Smart try by Biggar early doors.
All happening already - ref. Peyper off with calf injury, replaced by English Dickson.Welsh shirt numbers also on their way off, oddly.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:30 pm
by Ross. S
Galfon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:26 pmWelsh shirt numbers also on their way off, oddly.
Its a smart ploy. If one of our lads do something card worthy the officials wont know who to bin/red
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:31 pm
by Mikey Brown
Are clear incidents of forceful (if unintentional) head contact not considered for HIAs when they are friendly fire?
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:32 pm
by Mr Mwenda
Argentina are their own worst enemies, ridiculous to be so far behind on the balance of play. If Wales just keep calm they'll cruise to victory.
No HIA for the two Welshmen whose heads collided? Crazy.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:39 pm
by Donny osmond
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:32 pm
Argentina are their own worst enemies, ridiculous to be so far behind on the balance of play. If Wales just keep calm they'll cruise to victory.
No HIA for the two Welshmen whose heads collided? Crazy.
Cheika has really done a number on Arg, they're so much better than this. They could get nilled here, showing absolutely nothing.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:51 pm
by Galfon
Cheap shot Adams - lucky only the pen.
Lavanini needs to be careful too - bagged a red at the last WC for a hit on Owen F.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:51 pm
by Donny osmond
Cheap shirts, cheap shots
That one's mine
Edited, FFS
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:52 pm
by Mr Mwenda
10-6 is a better reflection of the game, rackon. It'll be interesting if the pumas can get under the welshies' skins.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:54 pm
by 16th man
Looked like Wales were going to be reasonably comfortable until the line out fell apart and Josh Adams wanted to be macho.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:14 pm
by Galfon
Boff..elli.!
Dangerman.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:33 pm
by 16th man
If Argentina showed any imagination they'd be dangerous.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
by 16th man
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:38 pm
by Mr Mwenda
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
What was it? I am cooking and looked up to see what I thought was gonna be a red card and then it was ignored.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:44 pm
by Donny osmond
Mr Mwenda wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:38 pm
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
What was it? I am cooking and looked up to see what I thought was gonna be a red card and then it was ignored.
Basically he said the arg joined the ruck legally and it was just unfortunate that Tomkin's head was in the way.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:44 pm
by Donny osmond
I quite agreed with him
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:45 pm
by Donny osmond
I feel like I might fall asleep tonight dreaming of hoofing Dan Biggar squarely in the nuts
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:58 pm
by Donny osmond
Ok, I don't know how many of you know of Glasgow rugby banter, but you say a team might get nilled, that's rugby chat for might go on to win fairly deservedly
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:06 pm
by Galfon
Wal didn't play a great deal in 2nd half, despite renowned fitness. Credit to Arg durability and determination - reckon Zammitt should have gone to ground in the corner , and if Biggar hadn't hobbled off it may have gone t'other way.
Arg fans always good to have at latter stages of a tournament !
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
by Puja
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:25 pm
by UKHamlet
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I agree. Earlier in the tournament it would almost certainly have been a yellow. Today it was a sensible decision.
We lost to a better Argentina. Making a mess of three lineouts in succession didn't help. We'd have almost certainly scored off one. Changing our style of play didn't help. Losing Faletau didn't help. Having a crocked flyhalf and fullback didn't help. Having our most creative back off for an HIA didn't help. But most of all having Argentina outplay us didn't help at all.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 7:51 pm
by Banquo
UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:25 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I agree. Earlier in the tournament it would almost certainly have been a yellow. Today it was a sensible decision.
We lost to a better Argentina. Making a mess of three lineouts in succession didn't help. We'd have almost certainly scored off one. Changing our style of play didn't help. Losing Faletau didn't help. Having a crocked flyhalf and fullback didn't help. Having our most creative back off for an HIA didn't help. But most of all having Argentina outplay us didn't help at all.
Top man
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:54 pm
by Oakboy
UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:25 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I agree. Earlier in the tournament it would almost certainly have been a yellow. Today it was a sensible decision.
We lost to a better Argentina. Making a mess of three lineouts in succession didn't help. We'd have almost certainly scored off one. Changing our style of play didn't help. Losing Faletau didn't help. Having a crocked flyhalf and fullback didn't help. Having our most creative back off for an HIA didn't help. But most of all having Argentina outplay us didn't help at all.
Well said. As an England fan I can't come to terms with how disappointed I am with this result. It's an 'on the day' shock.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:54 pm
by Sandydragon
Well done to Argentina. They simply did the basics better.
We made too many errors and should have capitalised on our first half dominance. Losing three lineouts in key areas was just asking to lose the game. But as frustrating as it was to lose a
Game we could have won, we didn’t and that’s that.
But at least we got out of the pile having been written off pre tournament.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:04 pm
by pompey-zebra
Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:54 pm
UKHamlet wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:25 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I agree. Earlier in the tournament it would almost certainly have been a yellow. Today it was a sensible decision.
We lost to a better Argentina. Making a mess of three lineouts in succession didn't help. We'd have almost certainly scored off one. Changing our style of play didn't help. Losing Faletau didn't help. Having a crocked flyhalf and fullback didn't help. Having our most creative back off for an HIA didn't help. But most of all having Argentina outplay us didn't help at all.
Well said. As an England fan I can't come to terms with how disappointed I am with this result. It's an 'on the day' shock.
Perhaps not that much of a shock. Wales have played beyond expectations this RWC but today we saw the limitations of the position where Wales are starting from.
Re: Wal v. Arg - QF1
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 3:14 pm
by Son of Mathonwy
Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 pm
16th man wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:37 pm
You can see Dickson's point but its a bit of an abandonment of the principal of head contact is absolutely a no no.
He's absolutely correct by the laws - the first part of the protocol is "Was there foul play?" Usually with accidental contacts, the foul play is because someone's doing an upright tackle and therefore it's their fault, but in this case Petti was bent at the waist, entering a ruck situation with his arms out looking to bind, wasn't hurling himself out of control or off his feet, his shoulder was at waist height, he wasn't aiming for a stationary head or anything - he was the definition of performing a legal action. As such, the protocol ends there and it's irrelevant that there was head contact. Dickson's not gone off-piste or anything - he's just made a really good decision and applied the laws correctly.
I know, that last sentence sounds weird to me too.
Puja
I disagree (and you've forced me to look at this match again too, you swine
). It's foul play because it's dangerous play and infringes law 9.15 ie
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push, charge or obstruct an opponent not in possession of the ball.
The situation was a tackle. The ruck had not yet formed (the ball was not on the ground) hence the Argentinian could not charge Biggar and Tompkins because they did not have the ball. To do so is dangerous play.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/l ... t=reckless
(I think you could also argue that it's reckless play. His trajectory would have taken him into his teammate's head if his teammate hadn't fallen lower. The same fall that took his teammate out of the way took Tompkins into the path of his shoulder. He was always dangerously close to hitting someone's head. But anyway this is moot because of the above.)