In a sense you have to feel for the Rebels, with tonight’s game against the Blues their third match in succession against a top New Zealand franchise. We’ll have live scores and commentary from 5.35pm AEST.
It is highly unlikely to find a tougher sequence of matches than having to play the Crusaders, Chiefs and Blues on the trot.
Bravely, they have taken the Crusaders and Chiefs on, challenging both these teams for a full 80 minutes.
One might say that the Crusaders benefited from a succession of penalties in the last 15 minutes. The Rebels conceded half a dozen penalties through their scrummaging.
The Chiefs, on the other hand, raced to a comfortable lead, but the never-say-die attitude that we have come to appreciate from these bottom-feeding teams shone through.
With the deployment of Kurtley Beale onto the paddock, the Rebels fought back and although being outscored by six tries to five, showed there are more quality in them than most would give them credit for.
Unfortunately for the Rebels, Beale has again been involved in off-field controversy and has been stood down indefinitely, meaning he won’t be suiting up for the visitors tonight.
So the 33-39 loss to the Chiefs and a 26-30 loss to the Crusaders might not be what they would have wanted, but it will most definitely warn the Blues of what is to come.
The Blues, on the other hand, have not had the best of times in the previous two weeks.
A 11-12 loss to the Reds in a low-scoring affair, and the boot of Chris Noakes having saved them against a Stormers outfit which outscored them two tries to nil, would suggest that despite gaining five points out of their previous two matches, they aren’t in the greatest form.
The Rebels have a leaky defence, and there is no use denying it.
They have conceded 41 tries in 10 matches, and that is as bad as it gets, so defensive organisation and commitment in defence will be the key for them.
If they can somehow correct the issues in defence and work on their set pieces, then the Blues might just be in for a surprise.
The Blues, on the other hand, will want to get the momentum going again for the business end of the competition, as there are only seven matches to go.
They are still in with a shot at qualifying, but having to travel to South Africa and tough derby matches to go, this will be seen as a must-perform match for them.
Because this is a home match for the Blues and the fact that they will have more to lose than the Rebels, I pick them beat their opponents by 20 or more.
They have met only twice before. The Blues beat the Rebels 40-23 in 2011 at home, and the Rebels turned the tables on them in 2012, with a 34-23 home win.
Jerry
Guest
Oh bugger this, I'm bored. You're wrong as will no doubt be proven in short order.
Red Kev
Guest
Your mistake is in not understanding the law as written and the purpose of a necessary but not sufficient condition. In both the Italian example and the try in this match the first condition was satisfied. However the second condition was only satisfied in the Italian example - the ball hit the ground. In this game a kick occurred before the knock on was completed (i.e. before the second condition was satisfied). Why is a kick different than a tap? Because a kick is a defined part of rugby, it has a definition in the laws, as does a pass. A tap does not. You and dadiggle can whinge and moan all you want but it will not change the fact that I am right and that I am supported in both instances by the actually refereeing decision.
Red Kev
Guest
Take the law as written and try to prove that the break up I have detailed is wrong - you are free to use HSC English teachers and Barristers if you wish - you will find I am 100% correct. Furthermore: Definitions: Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee "hitting" is active so provided there is intent the act of the ball hitting the leg is a kick, the intent to drop the ball is relevant.
Jerry
Guest
If you think the law as written supports your assertion, you've got no right to be questioning anyone's written comprehension.
Red Kev
Guest
1 The law as written supports me 2 The law as clarified on SARugbyRefs and by the TMO in this match support me So what exactly is your contention that it wasn't a try resting on? Nothing.
Jerry
Guest
You're reaching Kev. A tap back is legal and it's not mentioned. A kick is legal and it's not mentioned. Neither of them is a catch which IS mentioned. There are many legal acts in rugby, but only one - catching the ball - is stated as sufficient to prevent a knock on. And I find it laughable that you're trying to claim the law as written supports your view - it says catch. Not kick. Not control. Not a legal act. Other than one decision by one TMO, there's nothing to support your view. And as to your 'If a tap back was caught it wouldn't be a knock on" - again, I don't see how the law supports that. It says if it's knocked forward, then touches another player or the ground it's a knock on. Now you're trying to say the 'touches another player' bit doesn't apply if the ball is tapped back but the 'touches the ground' part still does? Absurd. I can see where you're coming from to some extent - a kick or a drop goal pretty much requires the ball to be (deliberately) dropped forward prior to the kick. But refs aren't idiots and 99.9% of the time when a ball is dropped accidentally, they'll call a knock on even if it's kicked before it hits the ground - "Nice try, knock on".
Red Kev
Guest
Think about the two following situations. 1 - You catch the ball but fumble it, it leaves your hands forward, drops onto your knee, then your foot, then the ground. Knock on. 2 - You catch the ball but fumble it, it leaves your hands forward, but you see it do so and before it touches anything else you kick it. The kick is a deliberate and legal option. The fact the ball leaves your hands forward when attempting a kick is irrelevant. It is irrelevant in every kick. It is a perfectly legal response to losing the ball - even the linked discussions say so - the tap is not good enough to re-exert control. Write in with this exact situation and the footage and they will tell you what I have. Moreover, the actual letter of the law is clear to anyone who understands English properly: A knock-on occurs when (PART 1 – this is a necessary but not sufficient condition) - a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or - when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or - when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, AND (PART 2 – required in conjunction with PART 1 to constitute a knock on) - the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. A kick is not mentioned because a kick is a legal act. If the player had tapped the ball back and it had been caught by a second player BEFORE touching the ground it would not be a knock on.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
He's all right. Will be fine to wear the Wallabies 10 jersey.
Vhavnal
Roar Rookie
Any news on James O'Connor?, taken to hospital, seems like a Sternum injury...may be ruled out of the Lions tour..
That is correct Atlas, prior to this weekend of the 72 games played only 26 was with more than 7 and only 16 by more than 14 points. After this weekend the stats look even more competitive.
Justin2
Guest
Awful game of football, just awful. What's happened to Woodward? How many time did he kick it from half way even, tuck and run. Just a poor standard all round.
Justin2
Guest
I don't want any ten who throws under spinning passes thanks. If that bloke is a s15 10 then I will come out of retirement. Forking dreadful to watch.
Jerry
Guest
Well, firstly the Italian does tap in backwards - he taps it on one side of the 22 and it ends up on another. But that's not really relevant here. The law says catch. A tap isn't allowed cause the law says catch. It doesn't say kick either so I think you're gonna have to come up with something a bit more convincing than 'using your feet is an integral part of rugby' which is about as convincing as something Daryl Kerrigan would say. Kicking is a legal part of rugby. So is tapping the ball backward. So is tackling people. So is catching the ball. The IRB in its wisdom (such as it is) have decided that only one of those is listed as an exception to the knock on law. Basic statutory interpretation - hel, basic logic and comprehension of English - suggests that none of the others are. And I'm not even gonna bother addressing the sheer idiocy of your last sentence.
Red Kev
Guest
Because using your feet is an integral part of rugby - like clearing the ball from a ruck with feet but not hands. And a scoop is close to a pass, a tap is not. The specific incident in question - the Italian player didn't even tap the ball backwards, the attempted tap was still a knock on as I looked at it. And the fact remains the TMO is a referee and ruled play on, therefore it is FACT that you can kick it.
Jerry
Guest
"you can lose it and catch it and it is play on. You can lose it and kick it and it is play on" Nah - the law specifically says you can catch it. No mention of kicking it. If anything, a tap is closer to a catch so if that's not permitted why would a kick be?
Kuruki
Roar Guru
Williams was terrible tonight and he knows it. The blues were breaking the Rebels line at will in the first half but they pushed to many passes instead of building pressure. The game ended up being close when they should have put them to bed after halftime.
Ohtanis Jackets
Roar Rookie
Yeah Higgers is the form 6 and 8 of the comp at the moment.
Jerry
Guest
Well, the fact it says 'before the original player can catch it' in the laws. You can argue that a tap back with the hand is a 'catch' (I'm not sure I buy it, but I can see the argument) but there's no way you can argue a kick is a catch.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Agree, thanks BB. Another game of two halves, William saying he played like rubbish. Can be a bit hard on yourself, like the Reds yesterday, when a team gets a blowout score in the first half, its sometimes easy to forget there is another team in the match trying to correct that. Did anyone catch teh commentator calling the kiwi O'Conners facial hair a "Dirty Sanchez"? Rotlf.
Dan H
Guest
Yeah I agree but then JOC wont fit into the deans "master plan" of playing him at 10 for the lions series. Being a rugby fan in this country can be frustrating at times.