Waratahs big winners, routing Rebels 50-23

First Tahs game this year where I enjoyed watching the whole game (even the moments when the Rebels had the upper hand). It wasn't perfect (few games are) but it was entertaining. I hope they can keep up the standard in the coming weeks. The two games in New Zealand will be very difficult, but winning or losing, if we play well I'll be happy.

Thought Horwitz was good and Horne had a very average game in a team with such a dominant backline James. The nice surprise has been Hegarty who's made some nice little cameos this season. I'd probably ride winning momentum and keep Phipps at 9 for the Highlanders but Gordon again was sharp yesterday and did well in one try scoring movement and would be playing 25minutes minimum.

Fionn - All good. I do agree that cynical play especially in the 22 should be carded more. I used to be sure no tolerance should be the rule , none of this 3 warnings etc, any infringement that the player knows they are illegal (i.e well offside, playing the ball when lying on the ground , etc) should be a yc everytime. The only reason I question this is the appalling one sided SA refs when in SA. Jaco Van heerden, Marius Westhuisen (sp?), Stuart Berry. I could see 5 players off for the the sa team and no sa players.

My issue is the hyberbole of the extent of the infringing or in your case cynical play. Fair enough, and I concede, you're right, I apologise. As I stated, it was initially meant tongue-in-cheek and ironically.

I find it difficult to celebrate an ozzie win when it is one ozzie team beating another ozzie team. I too look forward to the day when we beat a kiwi side.

twas - additionally every time a rebel was tackled into touch that was illegal as well was it? FIONN - Did I say that? Tahs did infringe more than the rebels. They were cynical in some of it. They were more cynical than the rebels. Mumm should have been yc'd, but so should Hanson and Koirebette. My issue is the hyberbole of the extent of the infringing or in your case cynical play. One of the offside calls was clearly not offside ,there was a second that was Mumm was clearly offside. Take twas, he states every single attack of the rebels was stopped by illegal play (now he excuses the 3 tries). So every turnover, every tackle into touch and so on was illegal? You on the other hand harp on about cynical play in the first 30 mins. I am asking what specific cases of cynical play was there? Not just infringements. Foley for the yc'd, and Mumm killing the ball. Latu's was not cynical play even if his technique is at fault. When you mention continually not rolling away and playing the ball on the ground did you miss rebels did that on defence all game as well?

Pretty hard to compare the two, McMahon has been injured for the best part of 6 months and before this game he had a cameo off the bench. Let him get a couple of full games into his legs before you start judging him. It doesn't matter what you think he's worth, he's worth whatever someone is willing to offer him, which just happens to be 7 figures. (better start on those hats then mate)

Mumm was the sacker, that's correct. As it went straight to ground it's a tackle, not a maul. Meaning Mumm is required to let go.

Latu did not use the same technique that others did. I noticed once or perhaps twice that Mafi was off his feet; the offside was offside; continually not rolling away; continually playing the ball on the ground, including Mumm. As I've said, however, I overstepped the mark last night when I seemed to imply that the decisions necessarily determined the outcome of the match. The Tahs won the match, but please, Peter, don't pretend that both teams infringed equally. You're one of the, if not the single, least biased fans on this site, so I can't believe you seriously think that the Tahs weren't cynically infringing.

OK I was being polite, he was not offside on one of the calls, he was back in line but as soon as the ball was lifted off the deck he took off fast, then Gardner looked up and saw him on the rebels player and being in front of the others assumed he was offside. Mistake but understandable. That statement shows your bias TWAS. Surely when Hooper caused turnovers at the ruck that were not penalised they were not all illegal. When tackles jolted the ball loose, when they stole a ball at the lineout, or won a scrum penalty or are all of these illegal despite not being penalised. You were clearly biased in your view i.e every single attack was stopped illegally. FIONN- List the actual cyncial infringements then in the first 30 mins. A scrum collapse, an offside that wasn't, latu using the same technique that others did. You keep saying cyncial , how many in the first 30 mins and what were they?

Unfortunately, Peter, the fact that the Tahs were so much obvious in their cynical and repeat infringements meant that the attention was all paid to them. The fact is that once the Tahs survived the first 30 minutes they were always going to win the match. They survived the first 30 minute onslaught via continual repeat and cynical infringements, and were let off lightly by the referee.

Well if it's marginally offside - then it's offside. It's not accurate? How often did the Rebels attack not end in a cynical infringement from the Waratahs? About 3 times - the 3 tries.

twas - I am sure the ref didn't see it that way. He was wrong though wasn't he? Even you said Mafi was resting on his arms but he was not penalised. Mafi was clearly offside never retreated when gardner said it was ok ball was out. I went through the log and you mentioned rebels infringing once, the mafi one. You ignored their many infringements. Constant comment about tahs illegal play though, hardly neutral. this is an example Let me rephrase that for you: And in a match where we resorted to illegal play to kill any attack from the opposition Hardly accurate though is it. They killed every single attack of the rebels with illegal play did they, every single one, thats what the statement kill ANY attack means.

2 for latu doing what everyone else (hooper, mcmahon, mafi) did but not getting away with it 1 for a marginal offside that wasn’t offside Pretty sure the referee didn't see them that way...

what repeat cynical infringements then First 5 penalties before the warning was given 2 for latu doing what everyone else (hooper, mcmahon, mafi) did but not getting away with it 1 for a scrum penalty collapsing 1 for a marginal offside that wasn't offside 1 for not rolling away there were 2 cynical infringements foley for which he was yc'd and Mumm on the ball. Rebels slowed the ruck ball with hands all the time and not rolling away if you want to include these type of infringements

Yep. McMahon never won a turnover off his feet so I never mentioned it. Mafi did though.

Actually, he did mention Mafi resting on his arms, I remember reading it. Most of the Rebels' infringements came when the momentum had already turned, and aside from Mafi, was more down to Rebels' incompetence as opposed to cynical repeat infringements. The Tahs cynical repeat infringement killed the Rebels' attack almost every time.

twas - but in the thread did you ever mention mafi and mcmahon resting on their arms, off their feet when pilfering AND not being penalised. Or foley being tackled in the air. Or rebels not rolling away from rucks. Or mafi way offside twice and not being called. Or were your comments about tah infringements

Are you saying the cumulative penalties, which resulted in a warning, mean every subsequent penalty is a yellow? No. "Certainly he’s not going to YC for repeat infringements immediately after a YC." Clearly I'm in fact not saying that. My point is Mumm's act was a YC offence due to the cynical nature killing attack in the attacking zone. The threshold should not be any higher. If it is a YC offence with 15 on the park, it's a YC offence with 14 on the park. Being a man down does not give a team a right to infringe a bit more without repercussion.

I'll celebrate when we beat a Kiwi side. Might be a dry month or two...