Was Ardie the Worst?
So, I re-watched the game - thank god for Sapporo Hana-bi-yabi beer (try it!)
I focused upon Ardie Savea, so I'll get there soon, but first I want to talk about some team issues, and who - IMO - were the worst players out there (Hint: Not Ardie!)
Overall, what I see on the rewatch is a lot of individual skill errors leading to turnovers, penalties, and opportunities missed. I also see us not responding to opposition tactics (like attacking our ball) with players not making any attempt to clean effectively, meaning shit ball, meaning less opportunities.
Cleaning
We got done around the break down because no one appeared to give a fuck about cleaning appropriately - or being on hand to secure the ball after the cleaners have gone over. This was the primary problem on the edges, where the French put men in and we had only one or two men making ineffective cleans (or sometimes only one). ALB was one of the few making strong cleans, but seemed to be alone to often. A few examples:
34:20 - Scott Barrett non attempt followed by weak Moody clean out leads to French turnover on our left flank.
39:15 - Squire and Cane blow over to the ball, but there’s no one there to help. S Barrett and S Whitelock are backing off, not seeing that we are losing the ball.
42nd minute - Cane breaks through, L Whitelock with no feel for the counter attack, leaves Cane isolated, result is turnover and opportunity gone.
76:23 - Players only setting for the next play, no cleaners. Fifita just watching
Effort
I only really remember two dominant tackles (Squire once, L Whitelock once) in the whole game, indicating we aren't really putting in the effort.
A related concern was the lack of urgency on defence, most obviously seen by defenders not making a big enough effort to roll away. Examples: S. Barrett, S Whitelock, N Harris
A Lack of patience
We'd start breaking them down outside, only to push it, rather than reset (no cleaners for that anyway, I guess) and go again. Some examples:
First half - Cody Taylor attempted offload in traffic on the sideline, leading to a turnover
46:40 - Unnecessary offload by Ioane leads to metres lost and Dmac to kick for the corner, which uuuust goes out on the full.
Later on - Ioane in space, pushes the late pass (rather than passing earlier or holding) leading to a turnover.
Individuals
Worst of the night: Sam Cane The worst I've ever seen him play. Behind the play, and when he caught up, he'd penalize (three times), and missed almost as many tackles as he made (4-3). Totally off the pace.
Second Worst: Owen Franks Holy shit, when he wasn't waving people through (first French no-try) he was hitting the ground faster than a 10 dollar hooker. Offered no ball running, hardly any cleaning, and was exploited for his lack of pace at least twice - made as many tackles as he missed (3-3). May have been injured, but he's also completely out of form.
Third Worst: Vaea Fifita You'd struggle to know if he was out there. One turnover, but was just constantly ball watching. It's incredible. He may have been injured, but he was terrible. According to ESPN, 3 carries and no metres gained. Supposedly made 9 tackles.
Joe Moody In his 50 minutes, he scored a good try, but also was packing on his knees, and missed two tackles that I saw. He also dropped a sitter 5 out when we were on attack. A numbr of poor clean outs and just looked tired.
Nathan Harris Terrible. One not straight when we are hard on attack, plus one overthrow, plus a missed tackle in the build up to the second French non-try (68:30), followed by a rolling away penalty. I'm not sure he made a positive contribution.
Codie Taylor Terrible offsides to give French ball in our territory
Aaron Smith Consistently bad passing, including the forward to Jordie
TJ Perenara Handling, kicking, and passing all not good enough. Worst of all, no patience when we got opportunities.
Dmac Bad drop 5 out when we were hot on attack Bad short pass to Franks, who promptly goes down like a 10 dollar hooker, which is followed by a bad clean out from Dmac and S Barrett, while Squire backs off rather than coming to secure possession Stupid chip kick at 53 mins Cracking box kick at 65:28, best of the night be a player in black McKenzie quick tap at 70:50, needed to get territory, we went quick and ended up turning it over (Crotty drop)
Ardie Savea (14 tackles, 3 misses, 1 clean break, 7 metres, 1 offload, and I think 3 turnovers earned)
Not good, but busy.
I think he gets (mostly) a hard time from us, mainly due to his inaccuracies (3 misses), and some problems with the way he gets himself back in the defensive line - in one case running past the obvious pillar spot to the other side of the ruck, leaving a gap for the french (which they exploit). I think this is the point @Bones makes a lot.
Having said that, he was busy as fuck, particularly in comparison to Fifita. However, his tackles don't tend to be dominant, and he tends to be busy as fuck for 1 minute, then unsighted (even though he's right there watching ) for the next minute. My notes below:
First tackle stops Basteureux (ND) Stands up and helps next tackle (ND) Cover tackle on Thomas (ND) Another after the line out (D) then competes for ball, slowing it down Misses tackle at 53 mins but gets up and tackles the following player (ND) and follows that by almost securing a turnover
Then goes missing during the next 5 minutes, always the guy holding off the tackle, then misses the fullback on the cut and looks worn out? Follows up and covers by getting the turnover when the ball comes out, then loses it, then he and Fifita tackle together (and Fifita gets hurt).
Is missing at 61 when TJ and Laumape can’t clean Basteureud quickly and we concede another breakdown penalty, even though he's coming across. Maybe I'm being unfair to ask him to get to that breakdown as others are closer, but backing off to set up, in accordance with our shitty cleaning strategy all night.
He stands by as we go backwards at 62:20, then makes a (ND) tackle, gets up, runs to the other side of the ruck, rather than setting a good pillar. That creates a gap that the French break through. TJP goes to the bin at the next ruck.
Makes a stopping tackle at 63:30 after getting stepped by Basteureud, followed by a (ND) tackle at 63:40, then is straight back up and makes the next tackle, but gets carried along, loosing metres.
Turns it over (or L Whitelock does) at 68:30, from a line out drive, and that allows the French to break for the line - it's ruled out due to double movement - note Harris shaken off by the Frenchie there too.
Makes a (ND) tackle at 70 mins, followed by a non-completed tackle at 70:29 that allows Frog to crawl a few metres. Nice miss though, because the Frenchie gets penalised.
Makes a good tackle on Thomas at 71:41, followed by a reasonable tackle with L Whitelock at 71:55.
Makes a tackle at 74:41, followed by turnover, relieving the pressure on us. Again, he makes a tackle at 78:28 followed by a turnover won, which goes five out, and then Perenara throws it away. Fuck.
Ardie makes a tackle at 79:5, while Fifita has been watching on, then Ardie concedes penalty adv trying to attack the ball, stands up and makes the next tackle, and the next one, while Fifita never comes across to cover the blindside pillar - even though he is clearly a passenger at this point and could use his body at least, leaving the blind open for them to open us up. They break through and everyone is too tired to run them down, and that's that.
Overall, I think Ardie is just still too inaccurate, and too busy without being purposeful. He seems to wear himself out then drop out for a few minutes, then jump in all blood and guts, then go missing again. It looks like they need to give me better strategic directions about how to apply himself.
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
what's the first thing drilled into your head (in any ball sport) "keep your eye on the ball"
so only way to fix it is to ban jumping. which is stupid.
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
What congested zone? The ball is kicked into space. Barrett is first there. He can run forward into space with small head movements checking where he's going and the flight of the ball.
You need to be first to dominate the opponent's response. Fall is second and as such he needs to make good decisions. He didn't.
I also reiterate you need to look where you're running. At no point does Fall do that, he's looking up into the air to his right while racing forward. It's basically negligent.
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@williethewaiter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
so if you're not looking and jump higher you're automatically in the right? They both ran in looking at nothing but the ball.
But one of them is running towards the flight of the ball. Because he's coming forward his peripheral vision and immediate knowledge means he's at an advantage. The only way it can go wrong is if he gets there too late. Barrett didn't, he was there before Fall, jumped earlier and higher. Fall's running forward at no point looking where he's running to. It's not a contest.
perhaps my difference of opinion is based on my thinking that i'd back myself to catch a ball no matter if i was chasing it or running towards it I don't really see any difference.
If you're chasing a kick looking at the ball, never looking at where you're going, how do you take into account other players?
that's the point - no one does. Any footage of Barrett looking at what the other players are doing? In reality he's running into the 'congested' zone coming forward so he needs to be the one looking.. or does there need to be a rule only the person coming forward can jump in the air?
what's the first thing drilled into your head (in any ball sport) "keep your eye on the ball"
so only way to fix it is to ban jumping. which is stupid.
There's a couple of debates rolled into one here:
-
the law as it currently stands, which the judiciary has inexplicably thrown out the window thus throwing the ref under the bus and causing massive confusion. TBH it brings the game into disrepute.
-
whether the law as it currently stands is the best way of approaching this.
The first one is straight forward, it's an outrageous decision that screams sheer incompetence.
The second one.... there's no easy answer, especially if the focus is meant to be on player safety.
Eyes on the ball is such bullshit anyway! Is there only a very select amount of people in the world with peripheral vision and the rest have severe tunnel vision? I feel blessed I've been able to play rugby and scan, seeing things out of the corner of my eye like guys I might pass along the ground to or people I may have to pretend to tackle. All without looking directly at them (might make eye contact). I feel sorry for all these highly paid professional rugby players that have such severely poor vision they must have to stop and stand still to catch a pass because if they don't look directly at the ball they won't see it...what a quandary that then they can't see defenders about to smoke them.
@no-quarter said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@MiketheSnow Fall could have avoided the collision by checking his run. The current laws have actually outlawed "only having eyes on the ball". They've mandated that players must be more aware when chasing high balls. And that's what he was doing - chasing, whereas Beauden was fielding the kick. The duty of care is on the chaser.
They did that to stop players clattering into their opposition while staring at the sky and then claiming innocence.
I don't for a second believe Fall intentionally tried to injure Beauden. But as it stands Beauden landed on his head and was concussed.
And you can bet your ass next time Fall is chasing a high ball like that he will check his run and avoid the collision, which is exactly the behaviour WR is trying to encourage with this.
The judiciary must have stopped reading after my post, not your reply ??
@stargazer that's the thing, his red card was 'cancelled' therefore it is gone, so does he now just get an off field yellow...nope, a warning...nope, just the judiciary throwing Gardner under the bus.
I'm fine if they want to rule all future red cards that way, but they need to just look back to this moment as the day they decided that as long as you are looking at the ball (assuming Fall doesn't have peripheral vision and could see those around him) it doesn't matter if you clatter into a player.
This weekend, IF an AB does the same thing, a ref will then be shit scared of issuing a red card, and then we will be back to the ABs getting away with murder.
@bones said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@stargazer well aren't they rescinding the red card? So by not issuing a warning, they're saying it doesn't even hit yellow card threshold. Fucking morons.
Sorry, I edited my previous post to say that only the Citing Commissioner seems to be able to issue warnings.
What I'm wondering, is why they didn't use this provision:
17.19.7 In cases involving offending that has been classified pursuant to Regulation 17.19.2 as lower end offending, where:
(a) ...
(b) where the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers that the sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the level and type of offending involved;
the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer may apply sanctions less than 50% of the lower end entry sanctions specified in Appendix 1 including in appropriate cases no sanction. In exceptional cases where the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers it is warranted it/he may (i) expunge the Ordering Off (Red Card) from the Player's disciplinary record, or ... (etc)
They could have let the red card stand, but impose a low or no sanction (although I still don't agree with the 'eyes on the ball' reasoning).
@gt12 did you notice when Fifita took his knock? Not excusing him, but obviously he took a knock at some point so if this has happened maybe he wasn't fully cognitive??
Now, after this decision about Fall's red card, does anyone still understand what is, and what isn't allowed when jumping to catch a ball? As long as you keep your eyes on the ball, everything is okay? Will refs know which decision to take? I assume, if the same thing happened again, the player in Fall's position will get a yellow, but will refs dare to give even a yellow, after the WR Judicial Committee throwing Gardner under the bus?
They won't, but I wish NZR would appeal this decision; if only to get more clarity.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@gt12 did you notice when Fifita took his knock? Not excusing him, but obviously he took a knock at some point so if this has happened maybe he wasn't fully cognitive??
About minute 58 when Fifita got hurt the first time, but I’m not sure if that was a head knock. Worth taking into account though.
He was clearly a passenger in the last five though, and Ardie was busy as fuck.
Ardie is just innacurate is all. I think we need a flanker coach (ahem, McCaw?) to help him get a bit more effective across his whole time out there.
Certainly, I won’t blame his effort anyway.
@gt12 don't think anyone has ever questioned Ardies effort, his accuracy and effectiveness of the effort that seems to be the issue.
@pakman said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Forgive me for intimating we might take a leaf out of AFL books, but surely those crazies have a rule to reduce the carnage which might otherwise result from their marking antics?
Big difference between the two is that they more often have a pack of guys all moving in the same direction. The collisions therefore have less force and, more often, guys land safely. With rugby, guys contesting are almost always moving in opposite directions, which increases the impact of the collisions and, in turn, creates more risk.
@junior said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@pakman said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Forgive me for intimating we might take a leaf out of AFL books, but surely those crazies have a rule to reduce the carnage which might otherwise result from their marking antics?
Big difference between the two is that they more often have a pack of guys all moving in the same direction. The collisions therefore have less force and, more often, guys land safely. With rugby, guys contesting are almost always moving in opposite directions, which increases the impact of the collisions and, in turn, creates more risk.
I remember years ago there were lots of big head on collisions. You don't see it at all now. I wonder what rules they've put in to make that safer
so IF ALB has pushed Fall, this will in no way have affected his run in, look how far away Fall & BB are at the point when ALB could have pushed him
then the next still shows Fall still about a metre from the impact point when BB is going almost straight up, not from a long way back as someone may have alluded to (I am bored AF at work waiting for TR Jnr to finish up at Scouts)
Just when i thought rugby surely couldn't sink any lower they go and pull this out. Seriously what the fuck is going on? Before we had a fairly strict set of parameters with a little bit of grey. Now there is just grey as far as the eye can see.
What also pisses me off is now the media have started with the "red card was wrong, france dudded 2 weeks in a row".
The red card was right. The judiciary are the incompetent ones here. I would be pissed if i was the ref.
Serious question: Are the judiciary controlled by World Rugby or are they just a bunch of lawyers doing their best to come up with complicated rulings and obscure defences? WR should be annoyed by this because it undoes all the work they have put into this area in the last few years. I guarantee they won't say anything publically about it though. If it was an AB getting off on the other hand.....
@pukunui One guy is a lawyer- Adam Casselden. The other 2 are ex-players - David Croft and John Langford. It's an Aussie team.
@pukunui said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Just when i thought rugby surely couldn't sink any lower they go and pull this out. Seriously what the fuck is going on? Before we had a fairly strict set of parameters with a little bit of grey. Now there is just grey as far as the eye can see.
What also pisses me off is now the media have started with the "red card was wrong, france dudded 2 weeks in a row".
The red card was right. The judiciary are the incompetent ones here. I would be pissed if i was the ref.Serious question: Are the judiciary controlled by World Rugby or are they just a bunch of lawyers doing their best to come up with complicated rulings and obscure defences? WR should be annoyed by this because it undoes all the work they have put into this area in the last few years. I guarantee they won't say anything publically about it though. If it was an AB getting off on the other hand.....
If the judiciary is controlled by WR, there's a huge natural justice problem. Judicial committees, officers, etc should rule independently. The appointment criteria should ensure you get the right people for the job; if not, reconsider those criteria.
Edit: maybe not; the appeal committee IIRC are all independent lawyers.
@pukunui said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Serious question: Are the judiciary controlled by World Rugby or are they just a bunch of lawyers doing their best to come up with complicated rulings and obscure defences? WR should be annoyed by this because it undoes all the work they have put into this area in the last few years. I guarantee they won't say anything publically about it though. If it was an AB getting off on the other hand.....
You mean like how Tu'ungafasi got off?
Th whole reason they rubbed out the red is because Tu'ungafasi wasn't even carded. I suppose it's all down to perspective. Had it been Cane in hospital with a fractured skull, I wonder if you would have anything to say about the offending player unintentionally injuring Cane.
I'll make it simple:
Cane & Tu'ungafasi unintentionally injure Grosso = No card/citing
Fall unintentionally injures Barrett = Off for 70 odd min with a red card
It looks so bent that WR had to do something - And it does little to console the French imo.
I was at the game, and literally everyone was talking about how they didnt pay to watch 15-14. That call killed the game. Red cards need a 10min binning followed by an enforced subbing of the offending player.
Anyways, the game may have been forgettable, but the atmosphere generated by the sellout crowd redeemed the night. Will be back for the AB vs Bok game. Probably be a bittersweet moment.
I'll try - you've sort of got the point, and you sort of haven't.
@pn said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
You mean like how Tu'ungafasi got off?
Th whole reason they rubbed out the red is because Tu'ungafasi wasn't even carded. I suppose it's all down to perspective. Had it been Cane in hospital with a fractured skull, I wonder if you would have anything to say about the offending player unintentionally injuring Cane.
In the real world, the two situations are unrelated. They aren't the same type of tackle, they aren't even the same players. They are just the same teams in the same series - there is no legal binding between the two situations.
I'll make it simple:
Cane & Tu'ungafasi unintentionally injure Grosso = No card/citing
Fall unintentionally injures Barrett = Off for 70 odd min with a red card
It looks so bent that WR had to do something - And it does little to console the French imo.
Yes, I agree. But they need to be consistent on similar incidents. They need to acknowledge why Ofa wasn't red carded compared to indicents which bare a hell of a lot of simliarity. And now, they also need to really explain why Fall hasn't been cited (and had his red card rescinded), even though there have been plenty of other similar situations where they players have been out for weeks.
What they have done now, is thrown ALB under the bus, which once again makes it look like the "All Blacks get away with everything".
I was at the game, and literally everyone was talking about how they didnt pay to watch 15-14. That call killed the game. Red cards need a 10min binning followed by an enforced subbing of the offending player.
Agree - but not for all situations. Badly positioned tackles, mid air collisions, sure. But second yellows and straight knock out punches - no.
Anyways, the game may have been forgettable, but the atmosphere generated by the sellout crowd redeemed the night. Will be back for the AB vs Bok game. Probably be a bittersweet moment.
Pretty rare to hear that there was a good atmosphere at an NZ match from a neutral! Good stuff.
On a seperate note, must be happy with the weekends events ... Boks have their tails in the air!
@pn said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@pukunui said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Serious question: Are the judiciary controlled by World Rugby or are they just a bunch of lawyers doing their best to come up with complicated rulings and obscure defences? WR should be annoyed by this because it undoes all the work they have put into this area in the last few years. I guarantee they won't say anything publically about it though. If it was an AB getting off on the other hand.....
You mean like how Tu'ungafasi got off?
Th whole reason they rubbed out the red is because Tu'ungafasi wasn't even carded. I suppose it's all down to perspective. Had it been Cane in hospital with a fractured skull, I wonder if you would have anything to say about the offending player unintentionally injuring Cane.
I'll make it simple:
Cane & Tu'ungafasi unintentionally injure Grosso = No card/citing
Fall unintentionally injures Barrett = Off for 70 odd min with a red cardIt looks so bent that WR had to do something - And it does little to console the French imo.
I was at the game, and literally everyone was talking about how they didnt pay to watch 15-14. That call killed the game. Red cards need a 10min binning followed by an enforced subbing of the offending player.
Anyways, the game may have been forgettable, but the atmosphere generated by the sellout crowd redeemed the night. Will be back for the AB vs Bok game. Probably be a bittersweet moment.
How can you compare the Tu'ungafasi incident with this?
And yes it's a shame that the game was ruined as a spectacle but dangerous play is dangerous play and until now WR have been very clear about the sanctions for these types of incidents. Obviously that's all gone to holy hell now so good luck refs.
But seriously after the Lions series how could anyone in their right mind think that officials pander to the ABs? People either have very short memories or are completely fucking stupid.
What utter bullshit. If I was anyone of the other players who had gotten a red card for such an incident in the past I would be seething. I am thinking of the Payne incident off the top of my head. But I am sure there are others. The Ref was right under current rules straight red.
On another note, I see all the talking heads are saying red cards ruin games and we need to solve this problem for accidental contacts. One week after they were baying for a red card for Ofa. Pack of fucking hypocrites. Where was the call for this orange card when Sonny bill didn't get low enough in the lions test? That ruined the test, that was a dynamic impact affected by a 3rd party!
The biggest joke of all is that during the SA Eng Match one of the English wingers copped a shoulder to the head as he was going down in a tackle. But as there was no injury, thats fine! Never mentioned again. I hate to sound like an old man but this shit is ruining rugby.
Intentional dirty play should get a red.
Reckless a yellow.
If you miss it the citing official should pick it up. We don't need 35 different coloured cards to officiate rugby we need common sense.
My personal take on the incident is that I hate that it's a red card offense to try and compete for the ball. But that is the precedent and that was red all day long under the current interpretations.
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
But seriously after the Lions series how could anyone in their right mind think that officials pander to the ABs? People either have very short memories or are completely fucking stupid.
It's the third option. The self fulfilling prophecy. The conclusion is already decided and all evidence which enforces it is acknowledged, those that doesn't, is ignored.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
My personal take on the incident is that I hate that it's a red card offense to try and compete for the ball.
It's fucken not! This is the bullshit that people are buying into that is "ruining the game" for them. It's (usually) a red card offence to be an idiot and pretend you can't see anything else but the ball - which would then put you in trouble for not taking any care at all to check your surroundings. Well shit I was out duck shooting and this duck dropped down into a crowd of people, so I tried to shoot it, I couldn't see the people. Who knew that was a bad thing?
WR prove yet again how defensive and reactionary they are. Dare to criticise the way we instruct the refs and we'll say the refs got it wrong.
Show them how their attempts to stop head injuries aren't stopping them but instead are creating controversy headlines for the game and they will double down with another stupid and inconsistent application.
I give the refs a bit of stick sometimes but in this instance I feel sorry for Angus G. He did exactly what he was told to do only to be made look incompetent.
It wasn't that long ago that WR completely supported the ludicrous RC decision on Finn Russell where he was standing still to catch a ball, and a running in and leaping player launched toward him at speed creating the clear danger of a knee to the head.
Ignoring comparisons though, it is clear that the laws do not stop accidents and that treating accidents the same as intentional foul play only makes the game look stupid and are very unfair on the accountable party. There can be very easy ways around this but they fail to entertain addressing this and instead wriggle around being inconsistent at hearings.
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
Well I must watch too much rugby. I've seen a heck of a lot more contests where there was little to no jump than ones where there is a big leap.
I don't think anyone (even WR) disagrees with your second para.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
And you think that happened in this case?
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
And you think that happened in this case?
Nope which is why it should have stayed a red.
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
And you think that happened in this case?
Nope which is why it should have stayed a red.
Fair enough 
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rancid-schnitzel said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@mooshld said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@bones I don't see it the same to be honest. I guess I was trying to say that there is now only one way to compete for the ball, jump. No jump well you didn't compete.
I agree people charging in with no regard for others around should be penalised. But I also think that in all fairness if you launch yourself at a stationary player from 3 meters away and get flipped as a consequence that is tough shit.
And you think that happened in this case?
Nope which is why it should have stayed a red.
Fair enough
What just happened there??? ?
@pn said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@pukunui said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
Serious question: Are the judiciary controlled by World Rugby or are they just a bunch of lawyers doing their best to come up with complicated rulings and obscure defences? WR should be annoyed by this because it undoes all the work they have put into this area in the last few years. I guarantee they won't say anything publically about it though. If it was an AB getting off on the other hand.....
You mean like how Tu'ungafasi got off?
Isn't that exactly his point? The chairman of world rugby publicly tweeted his personal undermining of his ref, TMO and Judiciary last week after being badgered by 'neutral' media on his twitter account.
What will he do this week? Nothing, because Reuben at stuff.co.nz social media desk has no followers ....
@pakman said in All Blacks v France Test #2
Forgive me for intimating we might take a leaf out of AFL books, but surely those crazies have a rule to reduce the carnage which might otherwise result from their marking antics?
I think in AFL and Basketball this would be an ejection. I believe their rules mean if you take out a jumpers legs from under them then it wasn't a realistic jump.
I'm no expert though.
I also believe- If they went shoulder to shoulder and someone fell on their head, by some fluke, then unlike rugby (until the judiciary just turned everything upside down ....) they don't rule on outcome from a fair jump?
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@pakman said in All Blacks v France Test #2
Forgive me for intimating we might take a leaf out of AFL books, but surely those crazies have a rule to reduce the carnage which might otherwise result from their marking antics?
I think in AFL and Basketball this would be an ejection. I believe their rules mean if you take out a jumpers legs from under them then it wasn't a realistic jump.
I'm no expert though.
I also believe- If they went shoulder to shoulder and someone fell on their head, by some fluke, then unlike rugby (until the judiciary just turned everything upside down ....) they don't rule on outcome from a fair jump?
I had a quick look at the AFL rulebook and this may be the clause in which it is covered.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: (a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury; (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or (ii) below the knees.
@crucial said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@rapido said in All Blacks v France Test #2:
@pakman said in All Blacks v France Test #2
Forgive me for intimating we might take a leaf out of AFL books, but surely those crazies have a rule to reduce the carnage which might otherwise result from their marking antics?
I think in AFL and Basketball this would be an ejection. I believe their rules mean if you take out a jumpers legs from under them then it wasn't a realistic jump.
I'm no expert though.
I also believe- If they went shoulder to shoulder and someone fell on their head, by some fluke, then unlike rugby (until the judiciary just turned everything upside down ....) they don't rule on outcome from a fair jump?
I had a quick look at the AFL rulebook and this may be the clause in which it is covered.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: (a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury; (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or (ii) below the knees.
That's a nicely worded rule