Wallaby O’Connor injured in Rebels loss

62 Have your say

    Star back James O’Connor has suffered a sternum injury in the Melbourne Rebels’ Super Rugby game against the Blues, threatening his Wallabies selection.

    The injury could put him in doubt for the upcoming Test series against the touring British and Irish Lions, with an initial 25-man squad to be named on May 18.

    If fit the versatile 22-year-old is a certainty for a call-up.

    O’Connor went for X-rays immediately following the Eden Park match, which his team lost 36-32.

    He first appeared troubled by the injury 21 minutes into the game but played on.

    Four minutes later he was slammed onto his back by a rampaging Rene Ranger as he set up a try for centre Frances Saili, which was his second of the opening 40 minutes.

    The Rebels suffered another blow just minutes after O’Connor’s departure when replacement five-eighth Angus Roberts dislocated his shoulder.

    It went back in but will undergo further testing.

    The absence of that duo meant 20-year-old Bryce Hegarty earned his Super Rugby debut.

    Blues winger Frank Halai scored a hat-trick in the first half to give his team a 29-10 lead at the break before the Rebels fought back to within four points.

    A late try by Ranger sealed the result for the home side before Rebels fullback Jason Woodward scored after the siren to earn a second bonus point.

    © AAP 2018

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (62)

    • May 12th 2013 @ 3:52am
      bluerose (Rotuma Island). said | May 12th 2013 @ 3:52am | ! Report

      oh dear, speedy recovery.

    • May 12th 2013 @ 6:56am
      Adsa said | May 12th 2013 @ 6:56am | ! Report

      A Ranger speed bump, you would worry about picking a 5/8 that has trouble defending in the frontline.

      • May 12th 2013 @ 7:31am
        Tj said | May 12th 2013 @ 7:31am | ! Report

        You obviously did not watch the game or many of o’connors matches he is one of the better defensive backs in oz. He was in some serious pain last night and still stood up to try and slow down ranger, it was Lachie Mitchell and Vunas defence last night that was questionable

        • May 12th 2013 @ 7:49am
          Red Kev said | May 12th 2013 @ 7:49am | ! Report

          No, he’s merely pointing out that JOC is not held to the same standards that QC is when it comes to defence – JOC let in 3 missed tackles (1 leading to a try) and missed three kicks at goal before he picked up his injury.

          • May 12th 2013 @ 8:57am
            Mike said | May 12th 2013 @ 8:57am | ! Report

            JOC’s defence is just as good as Coopers, if not better.

            JOC has always put his body on the line in a way that Quade is starting to do, on occasion.

            • May 12th 2013 @ 9:01am
              PeterK said | May 12th 2013 @ 9:01am | ! Report

              it USED to be better. This year JoC’s defence is worse than Coopers IMO. He is missing the important tackles whilst QC is making try saving tackles, the ones that count.

              • May 13th 2013 @ 7:15am
                Tembavj said | May 13th 2013 @ 7:15am | ! Report

                Wow you guys are so deluded!! Joc stats for 2013, Joc misses 1 in 7.2 tackles defending in the front line. QC misses 1 in 3.2, you guys obviously blinded by your opinions.

                I think you guys should join Marto on the list of red blinded fools

        • May 12th 2013 @ 8:00am
          Adsa said | May 12th 2013 @ 8:00am | ! Report

          TJ I watched the first half only then took the kids to the circus, and as Red Kev said their were some ordinary moments by the chosen one at 5/8, other 5/8 in Oz would be slammed for that type of performance.

          • May 12th 2013 @ 9:24am
            A Different Cat. said | May 12th 2013 @ 9:24am | ! Report

            The chosen 1?
            Where is all this coming from? If JOC is Deans preferred 10 somebody better remind Deans because hes preferred Cooper whenever possible according to selection.
            JOC has been played at 10 for Australia once and thats because Cooper was injured.
            People also say Barnes is a Deans favourite at 10. SINCE WHEN? He never, ever, ever has been and was selected at 10 in 2012 after Lealiifano, Beale, JOC and Cooper were injured and Giteau had left for Europe. Then he played 4 matches at 10, got 2 man of the match awards, and was dropped pretty much as soon as possible.
            Cooper or Beale will be the Wallaby 10 and I would suggest that Cooper is far more likely.

      • May 13th 2013 @ 7:22am
        AussieKiwi said | May 13th 2013 @ 7:22am | ! Report

        Jeez, trying to stop Rene Ranger at full speed AFTER you have picked up a nasty injury to the sternum – I would call that courage, not failure. Not saying JoC is right for WB 10, but the comparison between QC’s tackle on Ranger and that one – utterly unfair.

        • May 13th 2013 @ 8:42am
          Mike said | May 13th 2013 @ 8:42am | ! Report

          I agree. Some people are such one-eyed Quade fans that they feel they must denigrate any other potential No 10 in order to talk Quade up, even when the basis of denigration (JOC’s ability and commitment in defence) is patently absurd.

          I think Quade is mature enough to realise that he can make his own case for selection (and he is doing a pretty good job now). Pity some of his fans aren’t the same.

    • May 12th 2013 @ 8:20am
      PeterK said | May 12th 2013 @ 8:20am | ! Report

      looks like only wing is a good spot for JoC his defence is weaker than Coopers and as bad as Beales.

      Since his goal kicking is not that accurate this year I would not pick him starting but have CL at 12 and give him the goal kicking duties.
      Ioane and Tomane on the wings and Folau at F/B (now that Folau proves he can kick long).

      • May 13th 2013 @ 1:33pm
        Bunyip said | May 13th 2013 @ 1:33pm | ! Report

        Yes, this is the correct back 3.

    • May 12th 2013 @ 9:25am
      Chivas said | May 12th 2013 @ 9:25am | ! Report

      Funny how quickly a story on an injury to JOC, becomes a lets knock JOC and push claims for Quade. Wonder how long this will go on for. The fact that JOC has an injury and may not play in any position…. who cares let the roaring begin!!

      • May 12th 2013 @ 11:23am
        Rebel said | May 12th 2013 @ 11:23am | ! Report

        Agree, but you will be shouted down if you dare bring up QC or the Reds on an unrelated topic. The double standards is staggering. As Cat said, Cooper has always been picked when fully fit. The fact he has not played for the Wallabies since his injury is used by the paranoid as an excuse to jump on Deans or any other 5/8.

    • May 12th 2013 @ 10:16am
      terrykidd said | May 12th 2013 @ 10:16am | ! Report

      I agree with Red Kev and PeterK …. JOC’s defence is below par, not just last night but for the last few weeks. He is falling off tackles that he shouldn’t. At this point in time QC is defending better and Foley and Toomua are streets ahead of both in defence.

      JOC’s injury maybe a blessing in disguise, as he may no longer be fit, and therefore a selection consideration for the Lions tests at 10. JOC is not a test standard 10.

      • May 13th 2013 @ 7:21am
        Tembavj said | May 13th 2013 @ 7:21am | ! Report

        Sure JOC is worse then QC in defence, what a joke, Cooper misses one in 3, Joc one in 7. I am not saying make him Aus 10 but let’s not ignore reality. JOC dis not commit to the Ranger Tacle because of injury.

        Some of the blokes on the Roar are simply too one eyed.

        Please give me the proof that QC is better in defence or stop making silly statements that will leaves you looking like a “Marto”

    • May 12th 2013 @ 11:43am
      DT said | May 12th 2013 @ 11:43am | ! Report

      That ‘try’ to Saili from the Ranger pass and kick through proved costly to the Rebels. Really. Not sure the kick through was intentional…more like it brushed his fingertips and fell onto his boot. Is that control?
      Also interested to see how young Hegarty was the only player apparently unable to throw a spiral pass. Like a lot of league players, he chucks it like a sack of potatoes. Why is this the preferred way to pass in the 13-man code?

      • May 12th 2013 @ 2:17pm
        Justin2 said | May 12th 2013 @ 2:17pm | ! Report

        Control doesn’t exist in the laws as far as I can see in the official app I have. I thought he intended to kick it, you can see by the change in action.

        Thought Heggartys passing was woeful. As a 10 you can’t throw under spinning passes like that, it’s madness. Slow inaccurate rubbish for mine.

        • May 12th 2013 @ 2:34pm
          Jerry said | May 12th 2013 @ 2:34pm | ! Report

          Control doesn’t exist no, but it’s a useful test when determining if some stated criteria are fulfilled – you can’t catch the ball without some measure of control of the ball and there’s no way that Saili had any control over that ball. I don’t think he intended to kick it until he dropped it, and most refs are on to it enough not to fall for that one, especially with multiple instant replays.

          Poor call, I reckon.

          • May 12th 2013 @ 4:47pm
            Red Kev said | May 12th 2013 @ 4:47pm | ! Report

            Exactly correct call – the kick is intentional and a kick is an act of intent and control. If he had dropped the ball and it had hit his foot through provenance that is a knock on, however it is as plain as day that he intends to kick the ball once he realises he can’t gather it.

            • May 12th 2013 @ 5:07pm
              Justin2 said | May 12th 2013 @ 5:07pm | ! Report


            • May 12th 2013 @ 5:21pm
              Jerry said | May 12th 2013 @ 5:21pm | ! Report

              “An act of intent and control” is irrelevant – the law doesn’t require control or intent, it requires a catch. Like I said ‘control’ isn’t in the laws, it’s only relevance would be in determining whether someone has satisfied a criteria that IS in the laws.

              Put simply, common sense suggests control is required to make a catch. But in this instance any element of control that isn’t related to making a catch isn’t relevant.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 7:08pm
                Red Kev said | May 12th 2013 @ 7:08pm | ! Report

                Wrong, wrong and wrong.

                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,
                (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.

                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; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

                Control is never mentioned, not in the law not in the clarifications, therefore the fact you drop the ball unintentionally and kick it is irrelevant. It is still a legal kick.

                In this situation the ball was dropped – Part 1 of the knock on condition satisifed, but Part 2 was never satisfied – the ball did not touch the ground or another player to complete the knock on.
                What occurred instead was a kick. A legal defined act.
                Why is a kick different to a tap – because a tap does not have a definition in the laws of rugby.

                No where is control mentioned in the knock on law, nowhere is control mentioned in the kicking definition. If you execute a kick it is a kick, regardless of whether you intended to drop the ball or not is irrelevant.

                Please note the wording (since you all apparently need comprehension lessons), “hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot” and note especially the difference between “the ball hitting any part of the leg or foot” and the intentional act of “hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot”.

                The try was legal.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 7:25pm
                Jerry said | May 12th 2013 @ 7:25pm | ! Report

                Oh good god, you’re a parody of a human being.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 10:25pm
                Chivas said | May 12th 2013 @ 10:25pm | ! Report

                Well when the FK did that change. So now I can drop the ball, lash out with my foot and it’s a kick. Do you know how many people at all levels of rugby have been called for that. I wish I’d had you with me when I was playing. I’d just tell the ref to FK off and point to you with your rule book.

                Did you know the knee thing only came in because of spencer. When he first dropped it on to his knee he got called for it. He did it on purpose to pop it over the first line. Every time he used it over two games it was called based on that ruling them they changed the rule book with regards what constitutes a kick.

                I still don’t believe it.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 11:19pm
                dadiggle said | May 12th 2013 @ 11:19pm | ! Report

                Big Kev. You are wrong go learn how to read the laws for goodness sake. Numpties guide to armchair refereeing

                Did he have control of the ball? No
                Did he intend to kick it out of hand? No

                According to you knocking it forward then jumping forward and tipping it back before it hits the ground is not a knock on?
                Because the conditions have not being met eather. The ball did not touch the ground when it went forward and you knocked it back which means its now backwards? Is it a knock on?
                No! Why? Because you have to have control of the thing. Simple geez *facepalm

              • May 12th 2013 @ 11:20pm
                dadiggle said | May 12th 2013 @ 11:20pm | ! Report

                and ugm ugm

                Law 17: Knock on or forward throw.
                You can only knock-on with your hand or arm – a ball that goes forward from a head, chest or leg is not a knock-on.
                You can still be blown for a knock-on if the referee feels you lost control of the ball before you kicked it.


              • May 13th 2013 @ 9:06am
                Justin2 said | May 13th 2013 @ 9:06am | ! Report

                They aren’t the laws, end of story. Show me where in the IRB Laws it states that…

              • May 13th 2013 @ 9:22am
                Red Kev said | May 13th 2013 @ 9:22am | ! Report

                Since the knock on law is Law 12 not Law 17, I think it is fair to say that is out of date.

                The fact is that nowhere is there a clarification of this law for the kick scenario, it was plainly not considered when the law was written. It seems odd as it appears ripe for a published clarification – I have seen a clarification request regarding this issue but not an official response.

                I am quite sure examples from international matches could be found to support both points of view.

                Unless the referees get directives that we don’t have public access to, and someone can produce a copy of it – it is fairly clear that you aren’t going to convice me and I am not going to convince you.

          • May 12th 2013 @ 5:09pm
            Justin2 said | May 12th 2013 @ 5:09pm | ! Report

            But as you say Jerry, he didn’t intend to kick it UNTIL he dropped. From that point it was his intention and he had every right to. It was the right call. He made a kicking action and connected.

            • May 12th 2013 @ 5:16pm
              Jerry said | May 12th 2013 @ 5:16pm | ! Report

              Not according to how the law is worded.

              Once he’s lost it forward, according to the law the only way he can prevent it being called as a knock on is to catch it, which he didn’t do. He DOESN’T have the right to kick it, he has to catch it.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 5:49pm
                PeterK said | May 12th 2013 @ 5:49pm | ! Report

                I agree with jerry, many a time a player loses the ball forward and then kicks it and this is ruled a knock on, exactly as I was taught as a ref to rule.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 6:52pm
                Chivas said | May 12th 2013 @ 6:52pm | ! Report

                That is the correct interpretation. If you drop it lashing out at it with your foot does not make it a kick. It is a knock on. If you attempt to catch it… same deal.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 9:16pm
                Justin2 said | May 12th 2013 @ 9:16pm | ! Report

                He has only lost it forward when it hits the ground or another player. It’s in the rules as per red kegs post.

                The ball never hit the grand or another player. He kicked the ball which had touched his hands.
                No knock on, try stands.

              • May 12th 2013 @ 11:37pm
                dadiggle said | May 12th 2013 @ 11:37pm | ! Report

                No the ball still went forward travelling towards the opponents goal line. No control mention in the laws?

                The IRB Playing Charter
                The International Rugby Board publishes a Playing Charter setting out Rugby’s basic principles: conduct, spirit, CONTROLLED physicality and contest for possession. The Charter’s objective is to ensure that Rugby maintains its unique character both on and off the field.

              • May 13th 2013 @ 6:16am
                Justin2 said | May 13th 2013 @ 6:16am | ! Report

                Physicals laity not skill!!!

                C’mon try harder…and read the laws.

              • May 13th 2013 @ 6:30am
                dadiggle said | May 13th 2013 @ 6:30am | ! Report

                Long story short: if you support the Blues, it was a brilliant play. If you support the Rebels, you got robbed. If you are an armchair referee, welcome and consider taking up the whistle!

              • May 13th 2013 @ 9:04am
                Justin2 said | May 13th 2013 @ 9:04am | ! Report

                Well iam a rebels supporter and had no issue with his kick…

          • May 13th 2013 @ 1:35am
            A Different Cat. said | May 13th 2013 @ 1:35am | ! Report

            “I dont think he intended to kick it”


            • May 13th 2013 @ 4:19am
              Jerry said | May 13th 2013 @ 4:19am | ! Report

              Sure, but based on the pretty clear evidence that he intended to catch the ball and couldn’t.

    , , ,