- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
First things first. It is no disgrace to lose to this Pumas side as the Wallabies did 21-17 at Mendoza.
The Springboks twice got out of gaol this season against this Pumas. And, as the evidence of their brilliant victory against the All Blacks at Ellis Park suggests, this is a very, very good Springboks side that is running the ball with purpose instead of kicking it away to their opponents to run back at them.
The Pumas with their strong scrumming pack, their big and mobile loose forwards and a growing slickness in their back play look like a side that could grow into a very formidable side for next year’s Rugby World Cup.
Right now, the same thing can’t be said about the Wallabies. Last weekend against the Springboks they lost the lead with about nine minutes of time left in the Test. The Springboks then ran into several more tries to convert a narrow lead into an expansive victory.
This weekend against the Pumas, the Wallabies burst into a 14-0 lead. There was the possibility from the enthusiastic way they were running the ball that the Pumas were going to be blown away. But slowly and tenaciously, the Pumas worked their way back into the contest. At half-time the margin had been reduced to 14-8, a handy but not a secure lead for the Wallabies.
Ewen McKenzie’s on-field half-time talk had the all familiar out of the Wallabies playing with much less verve and intelligence in the second half than they did in the first half.
Early on matters weren’t helped for the Wallabies when Nic Phipps was sent to the sin-bin. The ensuing penalty was successfully converted and the Wallabies lead was reduced to 14-11.
Some time earlier, just before half-time, I had heard the referee Nigel Owens call out to a Wallabies player, as the play was going on: ‘Just be quiet. It ends now!’ I couldn’t pick out which player Owens was addressing with his shut-up instructions on the run but I have a suspicion (and I apologise if this is wrong) that it may have been Phipps, a player who yaps away like a chained dog much to the frustration of the referees all over the world
Anyway, the sin-binning of Phipps started a decline in the energy levels and effectiveness of the Wallabies from which they never really recovered.
They were hard-done by when Tevita Kuridrani appeared to score his second try. If Owens had asked ‘is there any reason why I can’t award a try?’ instead of ‘try or no try?’ the try must surely have been awarded.
The first question implies that the try has been scored. The TMO has to find something that disapproves such a finding. There was no evidence from the replays of any such evidence.
The second question implies, I believe, that there is doubt about whether a try has been scored. The TMO needs to find evidence of the scoring. As it happened, and this is frequently the case, the actual grounding of the ball over the try line was not evident. So the correct decision of no try – despite Greg Martin’s protestations that the ball could be seen grounded over the line – was given.
When a run of decisions like this goes against the visiting team you are tempted to wonder if the referee, as so many referees in the past have done, is being swayed by the emotions and roaring of the home crowd. The temptation was given further impetus towards the end of the Test when Michael Hooper was sin-binned for charging a Pumas catcher after he had kicked away the ball.
But much as I love conspiracy theories regarding the Wallabies and northern hemisphere referees (as devoted readers of The Roar will acknowledge) even I have to admit that Owens was correct in his rulings. Although I must make the point that the Phipps ruling was marginal. The Hooper ruling was clear-cut. As Owens pointed out to the disappointed Wallabies skipper, he had warned them several times about illegal high tackles, including an earlier high shot from Hooper.
The point here is that between these events, Owens awarded the Wallabies a couple of penalties, one a long way out and the other close to the posts. Bernard Foley missed both shots. With the second attempt, a laser could be seen very clearly searching out to affect his eyes. There is no doubt that this virtually forced the missed attempt. In the past a Roarer has made the excellent suggestion that in cases like this, when a kicker is lasered and misses the shot at goal, then a second kick would have been awarded.
I have no doubt that Foley would have converted his penalty under this regime.
With a few minutes left to play, the Pumas had clawed their way back from being behind 14-0 to a lead of 21-17. They survived some torrid minutes of scrumming, meat and more meat for the beefy Pumas pack, before they won a scrum penalty. And with time up they were able to boot the ball into the stands and claim what was for them a memorable and well-deserved victory, their first in the Rugby Championship tournament.
Without trying to take away from the glory of this victory for the Pumas, it needs to be said that the way the Wallabies collapsed in the second half is symptomatic of a side that is in crisis. Sides in these circumstances do disintegrate when extreme pressure is exerted on them, as the Wallabies have done in the last couple of Tests.
As another Roarer has pointed out, Ewen McKenzie’s record with the Wallabies is sliding rapidly into mediocrity. A record loss to New Zealand, a large loss to South Africa, third in TRC for the second year, 52 per cent winning Test record, 1 win in 10 Tests against a top four opponent (a very telling statistic) and now fourth place on the IRB rankings behind New Zealand, South Africa and England.
There doesn’t seem to be a settled Wallabies side. There doesn’t seem to be a settled style of play. The team doesn’t seem to be fit. Too many penalties are given away. The traditional Wallabies resilience is missing. It often seems as if the team is going through the motions.
The malaise the Wallabies are suffering from, or so it seems to me, goes further than this.
We have to now take some notice of the confusing matter of Kurtley Beale and Di Patston, the Wallabies team business manager.
Discussing the details of this matter is virtually impossible because it is not clear what actually happened. Phil Thomson, the ARU’s integrity officer, is investigating the incident. And we will leave this to him.
But what we can discuss is the reaction of the rugby media to the controversy.
Wayne Smith in The Australian wrote a typically vigorous article suggesting that it is probably time for the ARU to consider letting Beale leave the code.
Phil Lutton in the Sydney Morning Herald has a story that the ARU is backing Patston after the Beale argument.
But Georgina Robinson, also in the SMH, has reported that a last-ditch effort by some senior players in the Wallabies squad convinced/forced? Ewen McKenzie to keep Beale in the squad and not send him back to Australia.
There have been follow-up stories, too, quoting Michael Hooper saying that he wants Beale to remain in rugby because he is an asset to the code.
What does this mean? It suggests to me that the players are not in agreement with what seems to be the official ARU reaction to the Beale/Patston incident.
And if this is case, the Wallabies are facing a crisis, on and off the field. This is hardly the situation the team and the coach want to be in facing the pool of death at the Rugby World Cup next year in England.