The Wrap: England gets the rub but Cheika gets it wrong

Geoff Parkes Columnist

By Geoff Parkes, Geoff Parkes is a Roar Expert

 , , ,

552 Have your say

Popular article! 8,695 reads

    In the brilliant Coen brothers film Fargo, there is a scene where the suspect, played by William H Macy, knowing the net is closing in on him, sneaks out of his car dealership mid-interrogation, leaving Minnesota police chief, played by Frances McDormand, empty-handed.

    “He’s fleeing the interview”, she yells in frustration, taken aback that a man might suddenly run from questioning.

    So to the bowels of Twickenham, where Wallabies coach Michael Cheika, frustrated and angry after his side went down 30-6 to England, similarly fled an interview in remarkable scenes that will almost certainly reignite debate about his suitability for the role.

    It started well enough, Cheika acknowledging his team’s mistakes and failure to close out opportunities but – as soon as he was goaded into reacting to accusations of him being caught on camera exclaiming “f***ing cheats” in response to a ‘no try’ call against his side – things headed south. Spectacularly.

    Cheika was right to feel that he was being baited, but what he failed to sufficiently anticipate was that any journalist worth their salt would be pressing him hard on this public and inappropriate utterance.

    Instead of playing it down, Cheika lapsed into angry victim mode, reeling off comments such as; “it’s irrelevant what I say”, “everyone’s got eyes” and “Australia is very easy to penalise.”

    To his credit, Cheika had later cooled, and he handled his press conference professionally. But what would be fascinating to know is if today, in a sober moment well beyond the immediate emotion of the contest, Cheika truly believes Kurtley Beale made a genuine catching motion before receiving his yellow card, or that George Ford’s kick for Eliot Daly’s try definitely went out.

    Hooper Beale

    (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

    It’s an important question because if he does, his judgment is clouded. Alternatively, if the decisions were wrong (which in my view they weren’t) then Cheika’s temperament is called into question. He is lacking the emotional intelligence to accept 50/50 decisions as part of the cut and thrust of Test rugby.

    Captain Michael Hooper’s judgment too must be questioned, if his response to questions about him being ruled offside and having his first-half try disallowed is anything to go by.

    “I worked back”, said Hooper. Well, no Michael, you didn’t… you just put your arms up and ran a bit slower.

    “I don’t know what I’m meant to do there”, he continued. Yes, obviously. Maybe try doing what the law requires, which is to immediately stop until you are put back onside?

    The 69th-minute obstruction call against Stephen Moore was terribly cruel on the Wallabies, who sought reward for some superb interplay as they swept towards the try-line. But cruel doesn’t mean wrong.

    It was difficult to fault referee Ben O’Keefe’s ruling on the obstruction, because it was there and did impede an onside Chris Robshaw wrapping both arms around Marika Koroibete, even if Moore’s contact was inadvertent.

    Let’s not forget also, that even without the obstruction on Robshaw, there was doubt about Koroibete grounding the ball and no video evidence at all to confirm that he had.

    In simple terms, this was sheer bad luck for Australia, but these are the times for strong leaders to dust themselves off and implore their troops to go hard at it again – not to clap sarcastically and call the officials cheats.

    At this level, the margins between winning and losing can be very fine – remember Dunedin? It is one of the traits of successful sides that they reek of calm, authoritative leadership that tips those fine margins one way – think John Eales and Rod MacQueen, Richie McCaw and Steve Hansen.


    (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

    This Wallabies side is much improved and – make no mistake – they were very close to winning this Test match, whatever the scoreline suggests. But what they lacked was a strategy to play the right tactics for the conditions, and to finish the game off in a disciplined, clinical manner.

    It is at this juncture where the performance of the players aligns with the performance and demeanour of the coach and, given the context of Cheika’s meltdown, the result becomes more understandable.

    It is also likely that the Wallabies’ post-match analysis will be flawed, and the ability of the side to learn from their mistakes will be hindered, if the starting point is to angrily deny reality.

    In truth, this day has been coming for a while. Cheika’s lack of composure is evident at almost all matches, and here, with the stakes ramped up high, the desire to get one back on Eddie Jones forefront, and a few curly circumstances thrown into the mix, were the raw ingredients for an eruption.

    With Rugby Australia’s leadership currently lacking in authority, and Cheika having accrued currency in recent times through the side’s positive performances, it is unclear if any recriminations will arise. But at a minimum, it is important that Cheika is told that what he says is, indeed, relevant. Particularly when it is offensive towards the match officials and is broadcast to everyone, children included.

    Rugby Australia might also consider placing alongside Cheika on match day a more authoritative and rational figure, as opposed to ‘mini-me’ yes-man Pat Molihan, who should probably be down with the players anyway.

    For his part, O’Keefe is a referee who some find hard to warm to, often tending to be overly pedantic and uptight. But given the run of play and number of contentious situations that arose, in this match, he handled himself with poise, communicated clearly, didn’t over-officiate, and got most – if not all – of the key decisions right.

    So instead of 13-13 and Australia with momentum entering the final ten minutes, Koroibete’s misfortune merely set the stage for replacement halfback Danny Care to spark England’s irresistible finish – three late tries blowing the score out.

    England won because they played to the conditions, their first three tries coming from determined kick chasing – tactics any rugby player at any level of the game knows pays dividends when things are wet and greasy. Note how Jonathan Joseph gathered and slid for his try when Koroibete didn’t when faced with the same opportunity in the first half.

    Marika Koroibete Australia Rugby Union Wallabies 2017

    (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)

    England also got more from their big men Joe Launchbury and Courtney Lawes than Australia did without Adam Coleman in the side. It was largely left to Sean McMahon – a human dynamo in attack and defence – to inspire the forward effort, and Koroibete and Samu Kerevi both had strong games in the backline.

    Australia will have other days when the rub of the green goes their way. Daly’s remarkable try could just as easily have been a spectacular one to Tevita Kuridrani, or a lineout near halfway. But Kurtley Beale joining 82,000 others at the ground in assuming that the ball was going out instead of chasing hard to ensure it did was a self-inflicted wound.

    To rub salt, Eddie Jones’ post-match interview was a masterclass in saying little by mouth and everything by smirk. He already knew Cheika had shaped the headlines and wisely played a straight bat.

    Scotland coach Gregor Townsend’s post-match interview was an example of how to deal with disappointment with class and decorum; Scotland falling 17-22 and coming agonisingly close to a final-minute try which may have heralded their first Test victory against the All Blacks.

    Perhaps expectations in Scotland are lower. Perhaps the Scots are more accustomed to losing. But disappointment is disappointment whatever jumper it is dressed in, and it’s a sure bet that a majority of Scotland fans are today feeling proud of the effort of their side and the sportsmanship showed by both camps.

    Hearts were also warmed by the appearance before the match of Scotland great Doddie Weir, who sadly has Motor Neurone Disease, but nevertheless stirring on his side with plenty of vigour.

    All Blacks fans waiting for a convincing 80-minute performance from their team will have to wait a while longer. With their best XV selected, expectations that had quietly been building about this being ‘the week’ were dashed by committed Scottish defensive pressure and direct, no-nonsense attack.

    In the end, it was a faltering scrum that did Scotland in, unable to parlay off the sin-binning of Sam Cane and Wyatt Crockett late in the match. Crockett’s ‘effort’ was particularly disappointing, once again failing to convince that his 70-Test career should extend into 2018.

    The All Blacks lacked precision throughout – save for the 67th minute when Sonny Bill Williams, Damien McKenzie and Beauden Barrett combined for a try of such beauty it almost rendered all of the prior muddling redundant.

    Williams, this time behaving himself, was a strong presence again, although Rieko Ioane was the standout player in black, topped only for man-of-the-match honours by the fizzing fullback Stuart Hogg.

    All Blacks player Sonny Bill Williams

    (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)

    Notable was the high number of penalties awarded by referee Matthew Carley against the attacking side – including one against Vaea Fifita for “blocking in front of the ball” when Aaron Smith kicked from the base of a ruck. While Carling was technically correct, this seemed like murky territory to be entering when the same instance occurs multiple times in almost any match.

    The contrast in refereeing styles between Carley and Nigel Owens was starkly illustrated with the France versus South Africa match marked by few penalties and the ball in play for long spells, including over three breathless minutes from the kick-off.

    A relieved Bok captain Eben Etzebeth was happy to take the one point win – vitally important after last week’s meek display against Ireland. While both backlines were deficient in structure and alignment, and there were multiple turnovers both ways, the closeness of the contest kept everyone on edge throughout.

    Also close were the so-called Tier Two versus Tier One contests, Wales edging Georgia 13-6 and Ireland holding off Fiji 23-20.

    If World Rugby turns a blind eye to a leading international coach publicly denigrating its match officials, perhaps they can be excused on the basis that their dream of hosting a Rugby World Cup where a dozen teams are a genuine winning chance is drawing nearer.

    Geoff Parkes
    Geoff Parkes

    Geoff is a Melbourne-based sports fanatic and writer who started contributing to The Roar in 2012 under the pen name Allanthus. His first book, A World in Union Conflict; The Global Battle For Rugby Supremacy, was released in December 2017 to critical acclaim. For details on the book visit Meanwhile, his twin goals of achieving a single figure golf handicap and owning a fast racehorse remain tantalisingly out of reach.

    This video is trending right now! Submit your videos for the chance to win a share of $10,000!

    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 (552)

    • Roar Guru

      November 20th 2017 @ 7:06am
      Nick Turnbull said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:06am | ! Report

      Hi Geoff,

      I thought the Hooper no try was technically correct. Hooper does not have to stop he just can’t run in the direction of the ball or opponents as per the laws;

      11.1 (c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

      O’Keefe should have not yellow carded Hooper as he incorrectly implicated Hooper for collapsing a maul then being offside twice. Well on the replay Hooper does not appear to be in THAT maul; his first offside he is defending under the posts and comes forward when the English player picks up the ball, that’s legal and I accept he edged off the line in the 3rd so perhaps a penalty over a penalty and a yellow card?

      As for the Korabiete try / no try. Even if you accept Robshaw was obstructed this all occurs post Owen Farrell being off side who did have an effort, albeit a rubbish one at Korabiete. If it’s good enough to ping Hooper with the benefit of the TMO why not Farrell?

      It’s was an average, average performance by O’Keefe.

      Best part of the weekend; Seeing Doddie Weir walk onto Murrayfield with his boys.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 7:32am
        Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:32am | ! Report

        Spot on regarding the multiple missed offside prior to the MK non-try.

        That is the true fail for the ref and the TMO.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 4:19pm
          jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:19pm | ! Report

          That one was my biggest frustration from the weekend. O’Keefe actually instructed the TMO to check for a grounding and if he couldn’t see one to go and look at the potential the defence was off-side.

          Instead he looked for grounding and then checked for obstruction by the attack. I agree with the TMO that there was no conclusive evidence of a grounding and would also have supported a no-try decision based on Moore’s efforts.

          BUT He was told to go and look at an earlier offence by the English and didn’t go back to review. A review may or may not have exonerated the English defence but the TMO never looked at it. How can that happen when the ref has given a clear instruction?

          Coupling that with Itoje’s slap down as just a penalty while Beale’s one handed attempt is a yellow card there were was a fair bit of inconsistency.

          Made all the worse once I saw Read’s deliberate knockdown completely missed in the other game!

          • November 20th 2017 @ 4:34pm
            rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:34pm | ! Report

            Jez, not all situations are the same. Beales infringement prevented a certain breakaway down field and potential try. Otoje was at the back of a maul. I believe the level of penalty was correct for each instance.
            Just like Sam Cane was carded for sealing off a metre out from his line against the Scots. he wouldn’t have been carded if it was down the other end of the field.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 5:15pm
              jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 5:15pm | ! Report

              Otoje was a clear slap out of the halfback’s hands and ruled by the ref to be a deliberate knock on.

              He saw it as a deliberate/cynical infringement and should have dealt with it using the standard he had set earlier.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 5:22pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 5:22pm | ! Report

                The point is no two instances are the same. Beale’s deliberate knock on was as clear as day and prevented a break away, Itoje slapped the ball (backwards) out of the SH hands.
                Beale remonstrated with the official about Jonny Mays previous knock on, trying to compare them, the difference again, was that May was actually in a position to catch the ball but didn’t.
                Regarding the non try, the referee having looked at the replays himself, clearly stated that he was happy that Robshaw was back onside.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 5:51pm
                jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 5:51pm | ! Report

                It doesn’t matter if Itoje slapped it backwards. O’Keefe ruled it a deliberate knock-on. If seen as deliberate and based on his prior decision why not a yellow?

                For the TMO, O’Keefe didn’t say check Robshaw, he said check the defence – per what Jerry has posted below there is doubt around Farrell. They never went and checked it.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 6:32pm
                ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:32pm | ! Report

                Well if that’s the case then Beale should have been YCd for the one he got away with a short time before as I pointed out.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 6:50pm
                jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:50pm | ! Report

                Clarke – I’m asking how the referee interpreted two events he decided were deliberate differently.

                And how the TMO did not look at what the referee asked for but instead looked for a penalty against Oz.

                Missing a different deliberate knock on is an example of poor refereeing if it occurred (as it certainly occured for Keiran Read in the Scotland game) but isn’t relevant to the two questions I’m asking.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 7:06pm
                ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:06pm | ! Report

                Jesnez – check Farrell for yourself. Is he offside? I say probably not.

                It does not matter if it was slapped backwards? Well it jolly well should matter. The referee clearly made an error – although he did justify the penalty on him being offside as well.

                We are now wanting players YCd on referee errors? Surely not?

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 7:21pm
                jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:21pm | ! Report

                This is spiralling in an entirely predictable but unintended direction.

                I was simply relaying my frustration that a ref saw two incidents that he decided were deliberate knockdowns and carded one but not the other.

                Similarly a ref asked the TMO to look at two things, the TMO looked at one of those items and then looked at something else.

                Farrell may or may not be onside but the TMO never looked at it.

                Rugby Pass is frustrating to watch rugby on as it doesn’t manage replays well. But you do get to see exactly what the TMO is looking at. He went straight from checking the grounding to seeing if Moore impeded the defence. There was no review of whether the English defence was on-side which is what the ref had asked for.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 7:27pm
                Dave_S said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:27pm | ! Report

                jeznez I’m hearing you in the TMO. It’s not the first time we’ve seen them taking over from the ref as the ultimate adjudicator – whether they get the decision right or wrong is one thing, but we seem to agree there needs to be a consistent protocol as to who is actually driving the review process.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 7:30pm
                jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:30pm | ! Report

                Thanks Dave – that is exactly what I’m trying to get at.

              • Columnist

                November 20th 2017 @ 8:06pm
                Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:06pm | ! Report

                Agree with that guys. Especially when the officials don’t all have English as their first language, sometimes it’s clear as day that there is little in the way of process and the outcome is a raffle

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 12:18am
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:18am | ! Report

                Cheers Alanthus.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:42pm
                Benchwarmer said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:42pm | ! Report

                There is a part of this that has been missed with the Korabiete try / no try, is that when the TMO was requested for the review, I’m pretty sure I could here Farrell in the background talking to the ref about the obstruction (it was early and not much sleep), can’t remember the exact words, but he was in his face before and after the review saying something about obstruction. Many players do this and I’m old school, respect the ref.

                What also happens regularly on all grounds around the world, is that the home side media/ground gets to influence the vision showing on the screen, which can influence the ref and the use of the TMO. Until this is resolved there should be no vision/replay at the grounds to ensure the ref and TMO are no influenced by the big screen or the crowd.

                It seemed to appear early on that O’Keefe was going to be easily influenced by the players and crowd in making a decision. There was an early penalty given after a knockon was pulled up with one of the Wallabies forwards holding on to the ball on the ground and the English forwards trying to rip it off him. In my years of refereeing you always played the first infringement unless it was foul play.

                Consistency was the big issue on the night, England won because they can close out a game, unlike the Wallabies who are inconsistent in this task.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:45pm
                ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:45pm | ! Report

                Jeznez …they considered grounding, offside by Eng and Moore’s obstruction. This is clear from the match coverage.

                The TMO can provide any further additional information he chooses.

                And of course the referee would have had access to the big screen so the obstruction was hardly going to be overlooked was it.

                What surprised me was that they even considered grounding when the obstruction was clear and obvious.

                Regards the intentional knock ons, Rebel and Jimmy have pretty much covered it.

                The first knock on by Beale is relevant however because according to you it would warrant a YC as well as you would not want it treated differently to the one he was YCd for.

                So if the first one had been seen I would have expected that he would not have been YCd for the reasons covered by Rebel and Jimmy – i.e different circumstances.

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 12:20am
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:20am | ! Report

                Grounding was the first thing the red asked for.

                He said to then check offside as he was playing advantage but the footage on RugbyPass showed them going from grounding to obstruction.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:47pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:47pm | ! Report

                I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but its wilfully ignorant to suggest that because the ref called Beale and Itoje for the same offence that the outcome should automatically be the same, they were different situations one in open play with a broken field defence and one from a maul with a fully formed defence.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:38pm
                rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:38pm | ! Report

                Sorry can’t agree, different circumstances in different field positions.
                A knock down is not an automatic card. One in a try scoring opportunity is.
                Same thing as offside in the redzone compared to the other end of the field.

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 12:32am
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:32am | ! Report

                Clarke – the missed offence doesn’t enter the question I am asking since it is impossible to know how he would have ruled on it. If he saw something we can be confident was a deliberate knockdown and elected to rule that it was fine – then yes it would massively be part of the question.

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 12:36am
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:36am | ! Report

                Rebel – it should have been a penalty try then?

              • November 21st 2017 @ 8:05am
                rebel said | November 21st 2017 @ 8:05am | ! Report

                No Jez, was not a certain try, but a try scoring opportunity. You know as well as all of us that each situation should be judged on it’s merits. That is what happened in both of these instances and I believe they got them both correct.
                I’m not saying they they are always right, only hat these two were judged correctly on their unique circumstances.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 12:41pm
                ClarkeG said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:41pm | ! Report

                Jeznez I’m pretty sure you get my point.

                Forget about whether the referee saw it or not. The point is that , like the Itoje penalty, the knock on by Beale that was missed would not have warranted a YC unlike the knock on he was YCd for which was fair enough.

                But your stance seems to be that whatever the circumstances an intentional knock on should be a YC simply because another was.

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 2:50pm
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 2:50pm | ! Report

                We are just talking at cross-purposes mate, I’m not saying anything like that (or at least not intending to).

                I think I get your point but not having picked up the other knock down I can’t hazard a guess whether O’Keefe would have carded it if noticed or not.

                With Jimmy and Reb’s argument that there are two different scenarios in play with:

                1. Beale possibly preventing a try and
                2. Itoje just being a nuisance due to a set defensive line

                I can get their argument despite personally holding a different view. I thought Beale did not use a downward motion with his hand, he looked to be hanging it out there and so could argue he was intending to flick the ball up and try and catch it.

                Itoje was a direct slap out of the halfback’s hands with zero attempt to try and contest possession so was a clearer statement of intent.

                Anyway – I mostly just needed to vent yesterday and am much more over it today. Thanks for engaging as I got some frustration out of the system.

                Looking forward to Scotland now (we usually get the rub of the green from the ref against them)!

                ps. can’t believe no one will bite on my fishing comments on Read – did no one see the incident? Or the rest of you are just being good netizens and not feeding my attempt to troll?

              • November 22nd 2017 @ 7:44am
                ClarkeG said | November 22nd 2017 @ 7:44am | ! Report

                Jeznez …you are now just taking the p…

          • November 20th 2017 @ 6:28pm
            ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:28pm | ! Report

            They come to the conclusion during the process there was no offside by England so they in fact, did consider it.

            The Itoje penalty for intentional knock on was interesting in that it clearly went backwards although the referee did qualify that by saying he was unbound and thus offside anyway.

            Regards the Beale intentional knock on, he did get away with one moments earlier before the YC.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 8:07pm
              Cuw said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:07pm | ! Report

              when does a knock down become a strip ??

              coz i remember there was a knock down / strip probably at world cup where SBW was involved and deemed a strip.

              i think usually a yellow is given for a knock down if the team with the ball has a chance of going for a try , with an overlap or a lot of supporting players and defence in disarray.

              but then it depends on the ref and consistency is rarely seen either way.

              • Columnist

                November 21st 2017 @ 6:31am
                Geoff Parkes said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:31am | ! Report

                I think that one’s easy enough to determine cuw.
                Itoje’s was obviously a slap out of the hands, a strip is grabbing the ball and wrenching it out.
                Anything in between… ?? That’s up to the referee’s judgement.

          • Roar Guru

            November 21st 2017 @ 12:49am
            jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 12:49am | ! Report

            Anyway apart from all the above, Cheika could certainly learn something from Townsend – although Gregor may not have caught the Read infringement or he may have blown up like Cheika did.

            Is frustrating that even though the Scottish players implored the ref to go to the TMO that no official saw a hint of the infringement which would have had to be another card and NZ down another player at the death.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 8:09pm
          Cuw said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:09pm | ! Report

          maybe all this needs to be looked at , rather than just one clause in the LAW>

      • November 20th 2017 @ 7:50am
        Drongo said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:50am | ! Report

        Right or wrong, Hooper’s reaction to the decision was perfectly ok. The author, as usual, puts the most negative interpretation on everything the Wallabies do, whilst plastering over the cracks in the ABs game (and subtly blaming the ref). He also suggests that our coach is not suitable for the role. A stupid suggestion that plays into the hands of the haters that came out like flies to the carcass yesterday. Two words, Craig Bellamy. Oh, four, and Eddie Jones last week. Get a grip.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 8:37am
          Riccardo said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:37am | ! Report

          “The author, as usual, puts the most negative interpretation on everything the Wallabies do…”

          How so? By directly quoting Hooper? Or Cheika? Or was it his endorsement of McMahon, Koroibete and Kerevi?

          I’ve seen you have a few goes at Geoff’s excellent prose now and you are out of line.

          Geoff correctly calls the All Blacks on lacking precision, a problem all year. While he mentions the officiators it’s more a comparison of styles than subtly blaming anyone.

          Nowhere does Geoff suggest Cheika is not suitable for the role but there are many on these pages who do.

          And, to be fair, while Cheika’s histrionics are entertaining and there is little doubt the Wallabies are improving, the reality is that Cheika’s commentary and behaviour might require some damage control.

          Perhaps the tonic here Drongo (I really love the accuracy of your moniker) is an informed rebuttal, penned by you, on the other side of the Rugby page.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 12:37pm
          Perthstayer said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:37pm | ! Report

          Drongo –

          Cheika is not suitable for the role.

          My kid asked me what Cheika had said when we were left to lip read the awful truth.

          I was mortified but refused to dress it up, I just told my kid Cheika was a bad role model..

          • November 20th 2017 @ 10:39pm
            PiratesRugby said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:39pm | ! Report

            Cheika has form for this kind of behaviour. It’s boorish and boring. He’s bringing Australian rugby down to his (mediocre) level. Could you imagine Rod McQueen carrying on like this? But his complaint about refs again distracts from his failure to deliver, again.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 3:31pm
          Tahman said | November 20th 2017 @ 3:31pm | ! Report

          Spot on Drongo. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. I stopped reading this rubbish article after I saw that.
          So what if Cheika rants and raves and swears. Seriously who are these people. Obviously they have no pulse.

          Interestingly I saw the rugby Review last night and Zinzan Brooke gave a glowing appraisal of Cheika and said he is definitely the right man to coach Aus.

          I reckon Zinzan might know a bit more than old Geoff mate

          • November 20th 2017 @ 4:37pm
            rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:37pm | ! Report

            How do you know what Geoff wrote when you stopped reading after the 4th paragraph.

          • November 21st 2017 @ 8:16pm
            Debz said | November 21st 2017 @ 8:16pm | ! Report

            We will see what the officials think of Cheika tomorrow won’t we? He’s being investigated for his boorish behaviour.

      • Columnist

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:20am
        Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:20am | ! Report

        Hi Nick

        Of all the contentious decisions the YC for Hooper was the one that seemed overly harsh and probably shouldn’t have happened.

        But this article isn’t really about that. It’s about how to best react to adversity.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 9:25am
          Nick Turnbull said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:25am | ! Report

          Hi Geoff,

          Reactions and what cause them are inextricably linked. You can write an article on one without all the issues being ventilated. Chop into Cheika as much as you want, but let’s put the same focus into the poor officiating at the hands of O’Keefe et al.

          Cheika has no control of the game, the officials do. The true farce of this test is the inconsistency of the officiating not reactions of a person who was not even on the park.

          • Columnist

            November 20th 2017 @ 11:16am
            Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:16am | ! Report

            Hi Nick

            I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the referee. Yes there were inconsistencies and things that could have gone the other way. I’ve been critical of him in the past too. But in this match, I think he handled things pretty well.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 12:07pm
              Nick Turnbull said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:07pm | ! Report

              Thanks Geoff. I’ll agree to disagree mate. Regards.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 8:24pm
              Cuw said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:24pm | ! Report

              @ Geoff Parkes

              funny thing was , the auzzy team did very well to not England score during the 10-15 minutes they didnot have full team on the park.

              so just maybe the yellows did not affect the outcome ……

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:35am
          jim boyce said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:35am | ! Report

          Geoff – Cheika obviously reacts emotionally to events in the game. Successful men recognise their weaknesses and take steps to have calming influences close by. I don’t know who that elderly overweight guy was on his left shoulder ,who then accompanied Cheika down to the players area . He was playing off the same score sheet as Cheika. That is really dumb for both of them as it seemed as if each was fuelling the other.

          • Columnist

            November 20th 2017 @ 11:22am
            Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:22am | ! Report

            Hi Jim

            That’s been noticeable for a while now. It’s Pat Molihan, ex Ch 7, reportedly a close friend of Cheika, who was appointed team manager last year.

            He may well be suitably qualified for the position, although there have been queries about him not sitting down with the players.

            I fully concur with your point, ie it is rare for strong leaders to benefit from the close counsel of ‘yes men’ or people who simply reflect/echo their own thoughts and feelings.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 12:42pm
              Cynical Play said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

              Get the cameras off the coaches. Solved. Why should the coach be punished for emotion.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 12:48pm
                Marto said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:48pm | ! Report

                Top games from your mates Mr Play, Bravo.. hahahaha

                Head to Head

                5 to Eddie the eyebrow..
                0 to Cheika the Clown…

                Beale Foley Flanders Phipps Robertson Simmons must go….And Chieka after the Scotland game should fall on his sword…Bye Bye..

              • November 20th 2017 @ 1:48pm
                Cynical Play said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:48pm | ! Report

                Marto…you’re alive. Waiting in the dark ..ready to pounce.

                That really you, Marto?

              • November 21st 2017 @ 6:32am
                Sgt Pepperoni said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:32am | ! Report

                ‘Get the cameras off the coaches. Solved. Why should the coach be punished for emotion’

                Not a bad idea. Unfortunately they’re just too entertaining and that is the point of the spectacle after all

                Overall the weight of emotion I would say comes from a position that the wallabies were in a position to win in the first place. Despite the (unfortunate) result this is progress for the team

          • November 20th 2017 @ 3:19pm
            Charlie Turner said | November 20th 2017 @ 3:19pm | ! Report

            That little fella is Cheikas mini-me. Been watching his sycophantic mimicking of Cheikas actions for a while now. He’s good at his job though, when Beale dresses inappropriately Mini-me just snaps his fingers and it’s back into the number ones for Kurtley.

            • Columnist

              November 20th 2017 @ 4:58pm
              Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:58pm | ! Report

              • November 20th 2017 @ 6:00pm
                BAgs said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:00pm | ! Report

                That is priceless! I actually dont like the focus on the coach, but the picture does capture the inflaming rather than quelling contribution of the manager. A quiet hand on MC’s arm would be more helpful than a mirror image homage.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 6:32pm
                Charlie Turner said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:32pm | ! Report

                Haha beauty Geoff. The frame before this one Mini-me see’s Cheika put his hands to his face and copies him. It’s truely cringe worthy.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 9:55pm
                Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:55pm | ! Report

                Hopefully the Scots will get an invite to play the ABs in NZ. I don’t think they have played there since Cullen ran riot

              • November 21st 2017 @ 9:14am
                Pinetree said | November 21st 2017 @ 9:14am | ! Report

                Bakkies – “Hopefully the Scots will get an invite to play the ABs in NZ. I don’t think they have played there since Cullen ran riot”

                The last time Scotland played the ABs in NZ was in 2000. I am not sure if Cullen was playing or if that was the time he had his leg injury?

                I believe the year you are referring to is 1996, where Christian Cullen scored 4 tries in the first test at Carisbrook, in Cullen’s 2nd match for the ABs (Cullen scored 3 tries against Samoa in his debut test the week before).

                The last 8 matches have been at Murrayfield, so it certainly is well overdue for Scotland to tour NZ!

        • November 20th 2017 @ 2:44pm
          dirtyrottenscoundrel said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

          Solution to reacting to adversity… do a Wayne Bennett. I am sure the regular whingers will still complain but Cheika won’t have to worry about stopping on a dime he will always be onside.

          Can see him in the presser…. crickets…. now that would be priceless.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 8:46am
        In brief said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:46am | ! Report

        A worrying precedent was set when O’Keefe rolled over to post try protests by Farrell. Acting like a football prat Farrell was literally screaming at O’Keefe who unbelievably rolled over like an obedient puppy and did exactly what Farrell told him (review the non existent obstruction of a defender was himself offside).

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:10am
          jutsie said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:10am | ! Report

          yes surprised at the silence from most commentators / journos about Farrells behavior. How many self righteous articles have been written over the last couple of years about the poor way Hooper / Moore talk to referees and how it negatively effects the wallabies yet not a peep about farrells behaviour.
          I can only imagine what the fall out would be if it was hooper doing the screaming and the ref was nigel owen.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 10:04am
            AUssie Joe said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:04am | ! Report

            Ypu probably want to listen to Stuart Barnes who laid into Farrell and also in a number of uk newspapers who said it was an ugly advert for the game.

            Noone I’ve read has been kind to Farrell over his behaviour

            • November 20th 2017 @ 10:25am
              JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:25am | ! Report

              Hang on, Farrell is just ‘passionate’ give him a break.
              Ps you can safely ignore literally everything Stuart Barnes says.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 4:09pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:09pm | ! Report

                Having watched the match again, at no point did Farrell scream at the ref, was he quick to point out the obstruction, for sure, and with good reason. It should be noted that he was England’s captain at the time.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 7:07am
                Internal Fixation said | November 21st 2017 @ 7:07am | ! Report

                He repeatedly interrupted the ref and TMO during the replay process. More propaganda from you than North Korea mate.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 1:08pm
                JimmyB said | November 21st 2017 @ 1:08pm | ! Report

                Not at all, because that’s simply not what happened. Watch it again.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:19pm
          ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:19pm | ! Report

          Hardly rolled over…he couldn’t ignore the obvious.

          You know where this is heading don’t you…introducing a challenge process.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 1:27pm
        Curl said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:27pm | ! Report

        Another incident that O’Keeke got wrong in my view was when Beale was hit late after a kick out of the Wallaby’s 22. Beale was hit late, and O’Keefe correctly ruled a penalty to Australia, but if you look at the footage, it is clear that Beale was well off the ground when he was hit. Can you only be yellow carded if you are tackled off the ground receiving receiving a kick? I would presume, that if you are off the ground and you are tackled, then it is a dangerous tackle regardless. If this is the case, then why wasn’t the English player yellow carded?

        This is just another example of a litany of inconsistent decisions made by O’Keefe and the other officials on the day.

        Not good for rugby in my view.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 2:18pm
          Kane said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:18pm | ! Report

          Inconsistent? Yes it was late but not that late. That is always a penalty. Very rare a yellow card. That’s a ruling that consistent.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 2:37pm
            ThugbyFan said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:37pm | ! Report

            But Curl is asking for a yellow card, not because it was a late tackle but that the player struck K.Beale who was clearly both feet off the ground, and crashed into the ground. If Beale had been catching a ball, from a kick or a pass, and his feet were off the ground when struck it would a penalty and likely a yellow card if an intentional hit and Beale lands badly, so Curl is asking why not when he is kicking.

            Same situation that he got belted while off the ground and landed badly enough to wind him. Interesting point!

            • November 20th 2017 @ 3:48pm
              soapit said | November 20th 2017 @ 3:48pm | ! Report

              well mk caught someone off the kickoff that way and not even a penalty so not too bad.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 6:16pm
        ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 6:16pm | ! Report

        The referee did not implicate Hooper in the maul collapse. He certainly attributed two offsides to Hooper but there were two other infringements (including maul collapse) that he attributed to no particular player.

        The referee at the award of the penalty indicated repeated infringements so Hooper’s two particular offences, by themselves, would probably have not incurred a YC.

        The reason Farrell was not considered offside was because he very probably wasn’t. He looked more than ok. The only player that appeared to come into offside considerations was the tackler, Robshaw, but he looked ok as well.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 11:43pm
        Jusy said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:43pm | ! Report

        The ref had a poor game and refs make mistakes however its more frustrating when he seems to make more mistakes against one team. No consistency. If he was making mistakes against both teams at least it would be consistent.

        That was not the case on Sunday morning unfortunately.

        I feel the Wallabies biggest issue is first five. They need a leader at first five who takes control of the game and tactically plays the game well. I don’t believe Foley is a great leader or tactician. At best he is average. Cooper has the xfactor but he is a front player. Plays well when the team is doing well but struggles when the team is under pressure.

        It’s a position Australia has struggled with for a while and I have no idea who they could realistically replace Foley with currently.

      • November 21st 2017 @ 8:52am
        Stuart Reynolds said | November 21st 2017 @ 8:52am | ! Report

        Which was after 2 passes in the same phase of play. If you’re going to go back you have to take everything into account not just the stuff that backs your side of the argument.

    • November 20th 2017 @ 7:09am
      George Maharris said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:09am | ! Report

      Hooper can not stop on a dime at full pace. Are we insisting players do this? really? Players have to snap both ACL’s if someone kicks while they running at full pace. The law is he must not advance and he was in the process of stopping while running sideways, before Korobite put him back on side and then he was entitled to play on. Very technical but I can cope the ruling, not the insuaion from the author that Hooper should’ve defied biomechanics science to avoid a penalty.

      Why was robshaw not penalised for being offside (by no less than 5m) at the ruck before tackling koroibete over the line? If Moore interfered than it was only against a player coming from an offside position, so it was still a try, and if we want to argue he’d got himself back onside (which is not in the law book… you’re either offside at the line of the ruck or not) then we still have a penalty advantage from him being originally offside at the ruck. Robshaw did the right thing mind you but the referee got that completely wrong. It was either a try or a penalty to australia.

      The ball touched the line in the first english try. As Cheika said, we have eyes.

      Hooper had not be given a chance to rectify things before his yellow card. The referee afforded that courtesy to england halfway through the 2nd half then failed to yellow card the next english offside penalty. hmmmm

      Beales knock on was not a penalty. He was too far away from the pass for it to be considered a deliberate knock down. He was going for the intercept. And if that was yellow card offence why was mark itoje not yellow carded when he slapped down a ball out of genias hand? i’ve seen that yellow carded before.

      This is off the back of too many examples of officials favouring other sides than australia. Its getting ridiculous.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 7:30am
        Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:30am | ! Report

        Stopping on a dime is one thing, but Hooper ran about 10m and changed direction before he was put onside.

        As for Daly’s try, I looked at all those angles in HD and there was no clear evidence of the ball touching the line. It was unquestionably close to the line and PROBABLY did touch a white blade of grass but there wasn’t a shot of it doing so. Extremely luck for England, but that’s rugby.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 7:42am
          Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:42am | ! Report

          How about the offside Jerry?

          • November 20th 2017 @ 7:53am
            Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:53am | ! Report

            Robshaw wasn’t offside.

            And having looked at it just now in frame by frame, I’m not even sure Farrell is. The English offside line is the hindmost foot, the question is whether the English player at the rear in this pic


            is part of the ruck. I’m not sure he is – he’s on the ground behind the ruck and gets up to bind, but only does so after Genia has cleared the ball. If he’s NOT the hindmost foot then Farrell is onside. It’s pretty marginal. And of course, even if Farrell is offside, it’s an Aussie penalty and not a try. Who knows what would have happened after that – points, scrum?

            • November 20th 2017 @ 8:28am
              Jameswm said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:28am | ! Report

              Robshaw was miles off side and stopped a try. He came from the Australian side., he was running backwards from an offside position.

              The question is this – why is it the ref said he wanted to check off side, then didn’t?

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:33am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:33am | ! Report

                He was in an offside position retreated till he was behind where the ruck was by which time Genia had run 5m and then passed the ball.


                Any one of those 3 things would have been sufficient for him to be played onside. He was fine. By the time he attempts the tackle he’s 2m from his line (from a ruck with an offside line 3m from the try line at best) and the ball has been moved 10m from the ruck.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 8:48am
                PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:48am | ! Report

                I think the opponent has to run forwards 5 metres not sideways.

                Direction is important.

                Otherwise a player running backwards 5 metres (say to get clear to kick) can be tackled by an offside player who is 5 metres behind him.

                Agree he ran himself onside.

                Of more doubt is Farrell than Robshaw IMO.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:57am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:57am | ! Report

                Yeah, I’m not sure on that one.

                The diagram on the World Rugby laws site


                Shows a guy running on an angle, but there’s nothing explicit.

                See above for my analysis re Farrell. I’m not sure if he was or wasn’t, it depends on whether an English player was or wasn’t involved in the ruck pre clearance (if he was, the offside line is shifted about 1m towards England’s line and Farrell is offside).

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:56pm
                ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:56pm | ! Report

                My question is …how is it that those that say he was clearly offside can not see that he has clearly retired to an onside position before he became involved in the play.

              • Columnist

                November 21st 2017 @ 6:38am
                Geoff Parkes said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:38am | ! Report

                Many of them Clarke are looking at Robshaw behind the play earlier in the movement and incorrectly assuming that he is offside/out of play from there on.

                They don’t understand that a player can get back onside and get involved in the play again – as Robshaw did.

                Not knowing the laws doesn’t seem to be any impediment to having an opinion and bagging the referee however….

            • November 20th 2017 @ 2:41pm
              ThugbyFan said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:41pm | ! Report

              Jerry, you are looking at the wrong bloke. Its ROBSHAW, the supposedly obstructed tackler, who is offside. He came from behind the players and never ever got back into the England defence line. Farrell was onside and not obstructed at all as he attempted a pathetic tackle.

              It was a penalty try.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 11:45pm
              ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:45pm | ! Report

              The player on the ground is Lawes I think and he has slipped as he retired and could not reasonably be included as part of the ruck.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 8:22am
          YeahRight said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:22am | ! Report

          Jerry, you must be legally blind. He wasn’t offside, he was moving forward towards kick (according to charge). He was allowed to move forward once he was passed by onside players, which was within 1 stride.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 8:29am
            Jameswm said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:29am | ! Report

            Nah he moved forward before that. You can’t expect him to stop dead, but he should have made more of an effort.

            The question is – why didn’t the ref and TMP check this? All they saw was him in front of the kicker. They should have checked him being put onside (which he was) and advancing (which he did a bit too much).

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 4:30pm
              jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:30pm | ! Report

              Agree – Hooper needed to make an active effor to slow down – putting your arms out and stopping accelerating isn’t enough, even if he was put back on side a stride or two later.

              I got frustrated by the next kick in general play by England. An offside player continued running through the Aussie line bumping a couple of Wallabies as he went through. Never got anywhere near the ball but should have equally been penalised for advancing while in an offside position. He ran further and harder than Hooper did so it should have been a penalty.

            • November 21st 2017 @ 6:30am
              soapit said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:30am | ! Report

              for mine he actually was running across field and then straightens and starts to chase when the kick goes in before realising and throwing his arms up. pretty far from trying to stop if you ask me.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am
            Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am | ! Report


            Look at these pictures. He moves 10m and changes direction (running more toward the goal line rather than the lateral line he’d been running) before being passed by Koroibete. He might slow down a little but he doesn’t make any real effort to stop or retreat as required.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 9:44am
          Handles said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:44am | ! Report

          But Jerry, he put his hands in the air! Doesn’t that automatically put you back onside?

          • November 20th 2017 @ 9:49am
            Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:49am | ! Report

            No, but it is the international symbol for signaling that you just don’t care.

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 4:31pm
              jeznez said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:31pm | ! Report

              I thought you had to wave them for that! 😀

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:48pm
                Cuw said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:48pm | ! Report

                ” OUtcast??”

                “Throw your hands in the air / And wave ’em like you just don’t care,”

              • Roar Guru

                November 21st 2017 @ 7:15pm
                jeznez said | November 21st 2017 @ 7:15pm | ! Report

                Ha ha, it’s been used many many times – was more thinking something a bit older. Maybe Rockmaster Scott?

        • November 20th 2017 @ 1:31pm
          Curl said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:31pm | ! Report

          Re. the ball hitting the line, not true. The shot up the line, only shown once or twice early on the the review, clearly showed the ball coming down on the edge of the line. The TMO focused the bulk of the review on the other angle, which I agree was not clear. Go back and check the footage.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 4:12pm
            JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:12pm | ! Report

            By not clear, you mean clearly inside the line.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 8:46pm
              Curl said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:46pm | ! Report

              Its irrelevant, as the camera angle up the line clearly shows the ball touching the line. This been the case, the play should have been called back.

              O’Keefe and the TMO spent little time looking at that footage, rather focussing on the other footage which was from an angle, and was inclusive. Even the English commentators conceded early on that the ball had touched the line, only to change their tune when the other footage from the angle was introduced and became the sole focus of the review.

              I don’t think the TMOs should pick and choose what footage they make a call on, they should look at all the footage and make a correct call based on this.

              This was a poor decision in a game where there were many poor decisions made by the ref and the TMO, and unfortunately most of them against the Wallabies, which ended up spoiling what would have been a great and memorable game.

              Personally, I never want to see a game decided by the officials ineptitude.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:50pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:50pm | ! Report

                Err, no it didn’t.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:52pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:52pm | ! Report

                How about the players and coaches ineptitude then?

      • November 20th 2017 @ 7:33am
        rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:33am | ! Report

        Sorry but that interpretation of Robshaw being offside is massively incorrect. Yes he was offside but did not get involved until behind the offside line. The laws do not wirk as you insinuate.
        All players don’t have to stop on a dime, but they have to make an effort. Hooper didn’t.
        Was a good match between evenly matched sides. Howeber the ref has copped unfair and incorrect criticism.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 7:45am
          Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:45am | ! Report

          He was “lazy running”. He interfered with the ability for the pass to be thrown.

          You are are happy to have Hooper sanctioned for a lazy effort but not Robshaw?

          “Yes he was offside” !!! And then prevented a try!!


            • November 20th 2017 @ 8:26am
              YeahRight said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:26am | ! Report

              Clearly didn’t get back behind last man’s feet in ruck thetefore offside.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:32am
                Jameswm said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:32am | ! Report

                5-10m offside, And stopped a try.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am
                Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am | ! Report

                Thanks for posting evidence of your bias Jerry

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:37am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:37am | ! Report

                Where he is when he attempts the tackle.



                Look at the hindmost part of that ruck. It’s about 3.5 to 3m from the English tryline. Robshaw is about 2m from the line. He’s onside.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:45am
                Gary said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:45am | ! Report

                Jerry you have to go back to the ruck. when genia picks up the ball from the base of the ruck Robshaw is 5-10m offisde. penalty advamtage to Australia

                He can’t get involved in the play until the next breakdown

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:42am
                rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:42am | ! Report

                Thats not the law. He just has to get on side before getting involved.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:46am
                YeahRight said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:46am | ! Report

                Agreed rebel. But same should apply to Hooper. Well and truly put onside before any involvement.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:44am
                rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:44am | ! Report

                Not the same at all. Laws clearly address advancing in front of a kick. Can not do it no matter what team is playing.
                Two seperate issues.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:54am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:54am | ! Report

                “He can’t get involved in the play until the next breakdown”

                Thanks for coming, bye.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:00am
                Wolman said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:00am | ! Report


                With the new laws the preceding ruck was a ruck as soon as one of our players arrived. Which they did, therefore Robshaw and a number of others were offside. That’s a penalty advantage to Australia.

                Moore having accidentally got between an attacker and a player coming from an offside position should not have been penalised.

                However even if we say Moore acted illegally, Jerry you are saying Robshaw returned onside then you are admitting he was originally offside, so it is still a penalty advantage to Australia.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:14am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:14am | ! Report

                No, because you’re only liable to penalised if you interfere while offside.

                (b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.

                Robshaw was in an offside position but didn’t attempt to do anything till he’d gotten into an onside postion.

                If your analysis was accurate almost every linebreak would result in a penalty advantage if there was a quick ruck. Every box kick from a halfback, clearing kick from a defensive lineout or scrum or any kick from a wing or FB at the back would result in a penalty advantage to the receiving team.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:52am
                YeahRight said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:52am | ! Report

                Jerry you can’t have it both ways. Robshaw ran across and was involed and didn’t go straight back and get onside. His coming from the offside position is why he found Moore (who was beside and not in front) in his way. Clearly Hoopers disallowed try was involvement well after he was put onside.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:48am
                rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:48am | ! Report

                I suggest you rewatch the Moore one as you are taking liberties on what actually happened.
                On the Hooper one, he can only be put on side if he is not advancing, which he was.
                I don’t know how many times people have to be corrected on this law.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 11:47am
                Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:47am | ! Report

              • November 20th 2017 @ 4:00pm
                soapit said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:00pm | ! Report

                yeahright they are two separate laws hence it naturally goes two different ways

              • November 20th 2017 @ 9:09pm
                Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:09pm | ! Report

                Jerry – he is running at 45 degrees to the goal line when you claim he isn’t running across!

                Smoke and mirrors don’t work.

                Just admit your kiwi mate got it wrong!

          • November 20th 2017 @ 10:39am
            rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:39am | ! Report

            I suggest you learn the laws.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 12:49pm
            Perthstayer said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:49pm | ! Report


            I don’t follow. Are you suggesting Hooper should have been let off because Robshaw was?

            As an aside I wonder if any of this would have mattered if Beale had been bothered to shepherd the ball into touch.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 9:07pm
              Internal Fixation said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:07pm | ! Report

              I don’t think Hooper should have been let off.

              I think all the calls against the Wallabies are completely understandable with the glaring exception of Robshaw.

              Ignore Jerry and his smoke and mirrors.

              At 69.02 Robshaw is clearly behind the ruck.

              He then runs at 45 degrees towards the play from an offside position.

              He then involves himself by tackling MK.

              So It should be a penalty try.

              Wallabies could have still lost from there but that was a terrible error by the kiwi rookie ref and TMO.

              Up there with Joubert and what happened to him!

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:50pm
                rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:50pm | ! Report

                Sorry but the match was played under rugby laws, not whatever you are talking about.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 7:10am
                Internal Fixation said | November 21st 2017 @ 7:10am | ! Report

                You have no idea rebel. Explain how a player who is never inside can be involved that close to the line when he is still a meter offside after the ball is cleared??

              • November 21st 2017 @ 8:08am
                rebel said | November 21st 2017 @ 8:08am | ! Report

                Because he got involved after the ball went over the advantage line. You know, under the laws of rugby.

      • Roar Guru

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:39am
        Jokerman said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:39am | ! Report

        Moore looked as if an overweight, excited dog had jumped on the pitch and then was getting in the way of players ! ‘ Get the mongrel off the pitch!’

        Or an old truck heading to traffic with no brakes…

        Clumsy. Unfortunate. When something like this goes to the TMO it generally gets picked up, and effectively it was the correct call. Moore had to try and adjust his running angle once he realised he was not going to receive the ball.

        But like a happy dog he wanted to play with his new friends. Silly.

        Front rowers with the line in sight do strange things.

        Cheika: I rest my case. Though he was showing some change huh?! Then old patterns crept in, and old memories get triggered. Bummerz.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 10:25pm
        ClarkeG said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:25pm | ! Report

        Why was Robshaw not penalised for being offside (by no less than 5m)??

        Probably because that never happened would be my wild guess.

        • November 21st 2017 @ 6:34am
          Jerry said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:34am | ! Report

          No, it’s cause of the reverse vampires.

    • November 20th 2017 @ 7:12am
      Viking said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:12am | ! Report

      Hi Geoff, well balanced article and I agree totally with your view on Michael Cheika’s reactions. They’re bound to rub off on the players; hopefully in the sober light of day they don’t colour the post-match analysis of where the Wallabies have to improve. In addition Cheika reinforces the view that he’s the boy who cried wolf – in future, even legitimate concerns will be looked on as more Cheika ranting. One or two pointed remarks per season might carry some gravitas whereas constant complaining will only be seen as sore-loser whinging. Maybe the solution for Cheika would be to ban the cameras in the coach’s box if that’s possible?

      I don’t agree though that Ben O’Keefe had a great match. Two major inconsistencies come to mind – (1) not sinbinning Robshaw for a penalty immediately after warning England about repeated infringements and that the next would lead to a card vs the no-warning binning of Hooper for multiple infringements and (2) not binning Itoje for a deliberate knock-down around halfway vs. binning Beale for the same offence also around halfway. Perhaps the rub of the green that goes to home teams, perhaps a biased view from a frustrated Wallaby supporter.

      Look forward to your next article.

      • Roar Guru

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:23am
        PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:23am | ! Report

        IMO O’Keefe got the try no try calls correct or perhaps the TMO did since they were all referred to him.

        The YC on Beale was correct.

        Yes most of the big calls he made he got right.

        What he got wrong was the big calls he didn’t make.

        The main issue is his lack of consistency. Can you say a ref had a good game if he is not consistent?

        Hoopers YC was wrong since it was doubtful he was offside in even 1 instance. No warning had been given for team infringements.

        England were given a warning yet gave away 2 more penalties at the breakdown and not carded.

        He didn’t penalise teams in general play for advancing in front of the a kick whilst offside which was done by forwards often.

        In the scrum England engaged early 4 times. On the 3rd he gave a penalty and another on the 4th, not once a warning. He should have escalated to a penalty on the second and a YC or at least a warning on the 3rd.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 8:40am
          stillmissit said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:40am | ! Report

          Correct Pete and the offside inconsistencies were very poor in a game where offside pays bigger dividends in the rain than on a dry track.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 8:52am
            PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:52am | ! Report

            I forgot about maul inconsistencies especially close to the line.

            Wallabies pinged for collapsing (it looked like a sack) England collapsed well after it started then also went in on the side and it was play on.

            O’Keefe was poor at reffing in real time, he did well with a TMO helping him review with slo mo.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 10:24am
              taylorman said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:24am | ! Report

              Pete you’re always going to find any inconsistencies with any Refs performance, you just prattle on about them more when its your side that gets beaten. If its not specific its generalised.

              Otherwise, how is it possible that Refs never seem to favour your sides, when the chances of that must be 50/50 excluding watergate conspiracies.

              At least 90% of the time your teams are disadvantaged more in some way…go figure…whats worse is you’re a Ref, and you constantly call other Refs the c word. You should be defending them far more than you do, which is rarely.

              Somethings not right there.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 10:30am
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:30am | ! Report

                Gee Taylorman, I knew it would happen one day and I do feel a bit icky saying it but…I agree with you.

              • Roar Guru

                November 20th 2017 @ 10:38am
                PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:38am | ! Report

                more hot wind from auckland I see

              • November 20th 2017 @ 12:17pm
                taylorman said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:17pm | ! Report

                Well, Wellington actually. More wind to circulate here. 🙂

              • November 20th 2017 @ 12:55pm
                Perthstayer said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:55pm | ! Report

                TM –

                Some interesting points. But no surprise, you received a curt reply that answered none of them.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 1:56pm
                The Delta said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:56pm | ! Report

                Spot on T-man.

                Imagine PK’s posts if the ABs had lost to England under identical conditions: referee would be 100% correct and AB fans ridiculously deluded. Choosing Einstein as your moniker speaks volumes for self awareness.

                Oz was dreadfully unlucky but tactically naïve. Popgun Foley should not be kicking.

                England have some magnificent forwards but overall not as good as some portray.

                Scotland probably the biggest improvers of the lot. Georgia too.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:10am
          LMS2701 said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:10am | ! Report

          Hooper’s YC appeared to be a team card came after 4 consectutive offences in the same passage of play in the 22 (the ref said tackling player in the lineout, collapsing maul, and 2 offsides).
          Surely thats fair?

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:23am
            PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:23am | ! Report

            He never mentioned tackling player in the lineout, and he specifically said Hooper was offside twice when he wasn’t even once.

            At halftime there was a good analysis done and they couldn’t point out any offsides, every players feet were on the line, they just moved up as soon as the ball was picked up.

            I suspect they had confirmation bias, suspecting / expecting offside and calling it when they moved so fast.

            • November 21st 2017 @ 10:20am
              ClarkeG said | November 21st 2017 @ 10:20am | ! Report

              The referee did mention the contact in the lineout.

              At least one of Hoopers offsides was called by one of the ARs.

              But I agree on many offside calls. I feel the referees are guessing at times.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 10:42am
          Mapu said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:42am | ! Report

          Could of penalised australian prop for consistently putting hand on the ground

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 10:49am
            PeterK said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:49am | ! Report

            that is a different matter, not one of consistency.

            He could have penalised players for not supporting weight at the breakdown, or sealing off, for side entry into rucks , for not straight scrum feeds.

            Many things he could penalise for but didn’t at least he was consistent.

            The ones I pointed out were selective , that he penalised some instances but not others.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 1:36pm
              Mapu said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:36pm | ! Report

              True but i thought that was more blatant than Englands hitting early which for the life of me I could not pick up

        • November 20th 2017 @ 12:44pm
          Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:44pm | ! Report

          ‘Hoopers YC was wrong since it was doubtful he was offside in even 1 instance. No warning had been given for team infringements.’

          The referee played at least three separate penalty advantages. One for coming in the side of the maul and the other two for being offside.

          ‘He should have escalated to a penalty on the second’

          A penalty was given the second time that occurred. It’s hard to hear his scrum calls watching the game.

          • Roar Guru

            November 20th 2017 @ 1:23pm
            Handles said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:23pm | ! Report

            The referee ‘played at least three separate penalty advantages’… yes, that is the point that Peter is making. Not one of them stood up to video examination. If your feet are behind the tryline, you are not offside. If your feet are behind the tryline, you can enter the ruck from any angle you see fit.

            • November 21st 2017 @ 10:39am
              ClarkeG said | November 21st 2017 @ 10:39am | ! Report

              If the hindmost foot is on or behind the goal line then the offside line is the goal line. If you have your feet behind the line but your body in front then that would not be onside.

            • November 21st 2017 @ 2:52pm
              Cuw said | November 21st 2017 @ 2:52pm | ! Report

              its not just the feet. the whole body has to be behind the try line.

              i have seen Nigel Owens – considered the best by many – tell players to get their hands behind the try line .

              but in many instances , players go into the NFL crouch with their feet behind try line and the hands infront of the try line, which is not strictly monitored or stopped.

              some refs like Owens insist at least the guys near the ball / breakdown have their hands also behind the line.

              however i think it is impossible for human eyes to get this right at any time. if all is stopped and looked at thru freeze- frames , there will be at least one ( and in most cases many ) player offside.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 2:15pm
          sheek said | November 20th 2017 @ 2:15pm | ! Report

          Well said PK.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 5:19pm
          FunBus said | November 20th 2017 @ 5:19pm | ! Report

          The ref DID NOT give England a ‘general warning’. He told the England captain that Robshaw had committed two penalties in quick succession and that if HE carried on the way he was going he might be YC’d. The next penalty for not rolling away was Simmonds not Robshaw.
          What team has ever been given a general warning for committing two penalties in two minutes in the opposition 22 and on half-way?

        • November 20th 2017 @ 8:48pm
          Jcr said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:48pm | ! Report

          Have a look at this re 5m runs etc in relation to offside etc CUW posted it earlier

        • November 20th 2017 @ 8:49pm
          Jcr said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:49pm | ! Report

          PeterK and anyone else have a look at this re 5m runs etc in relation to offside etc CUW posted it earlier

      • Columnist

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:27am
        Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:27am | ! Report

        Hi Viking

        Yes we can argue the toss all we like about certain decisions, but what is more important is how well placed the Wallabies are to continue their improvement. For as long as the leaders carry a victim mentality this improvement will surely be impeded.

        For what it’s worth I agree that Hooper was hard done by with his YC.
        Should Robshaw have been given a YC? Maybe.
        Itoje? No, that was in a static, neutral situation and he even had a case that he knocked the ball back towards him.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:11am
          JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:11am | ! Report

          He had a case because he did Geoff, quite clearly, he also came straight through the maul, but he didn’t question the decision in any way or laugh at the referee.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 10:02am
            Jerry said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:02am | ! Report

            Itoje wasn’t property bound to the maul was the reason for the penalty.

            Besides which, I’ve never understood why it’s remotely legal for a player who is part of a ruck/maul to play the halfback/ball from what would be an offside position otherwise. It’s not something that comes up that much, but it’s a spoiling negative play and I don’t’ see any real reason for allowing it.

            • November 20th 2017 @ 10:33am
              JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:33am | ! Report

              Not properly bound. Mmmh

            • November 20th 2017 @ 12:50pm
              Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

              ‘Itoje wasn’t property bound to the maul was the reason for the penalty.’

              And slapped it out of the scrumhalf’s hands

              • November 20th 2017 @ 4:16pm
                JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:16pm | ! Report

                It was given for a deliberate knock on, just watched it back. Curious decision.

            • November 21st 2017 @ 11:16am
              ClarkeG said | November 21st 2017 @ 11:16am | ! Report

              The penalty was for an intentional knock on Jerry however when it was suggested to the referee that the ball went backwards and not forward he qualified the penalty by saying that Itoje was offside anyhow in that he was unbound.

              I take the opposite view to you in that why should a player, who is legally part of a ruck/maul , not be able to play the player in the halfback position if that player has the ball, as was the case in the Itoje penalty. He was caught up in the maul and legally part of it in my opinion.

              There is of course the law that no player can pull an opponent into a ruck which is fair enough but this contrived concept that the half back can’t be played has got out of hand.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 1:11pm
                JimmyB said | November 21st 2017 @ 1:11pm | ! Report

                Agreed, although if you believe many on here. Itoje warranted a yellow card and a public flogging.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 12:52pm
          Bakkies said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:52pm | ! Report

          ‘Yes we can argue the toss all we like about certain decisions, but what is more important is how well placed the Wallabies are to continue their improvement. For as long as the leaders carry a victim mentality this improvement will surely be impeded.’

          They Wallabies hadn’t learnt from the previous four defeats to England. I would like to see the amount of tries England have scored from turnovers, poor passes, knock ons and kick chases.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 1:09pm
          Viking said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:09pm | ! Report

          Thanks Geoff.

          On Michael Cheika and the referees, what do you think of Cheika declining to meet with Ben O’ Keefe prior to the match when Eddie Jones did? Doesn’t seem like the right approach – we potentially give up an advantage to England who get an insight into the ref’s approach to the game and maybe even possibly leaves a subconscious element in the ref’s mind about the team that didn’t show up:

          Doesn’t cost much to make the effort to attend I would have thought…

          • Columnist

            November 20th 2017 @ 1:26pm
            Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 1:26pm | ! Report

            Hi Viking

            It does seem strange that anyone would decline the opportunity to develop a relationship with the referee – any referee.

            I don’t subscribe to referee bias or influence from coaches or media at this level, but I can’t see what harm it would do to get on friendly speaking terms with all of the officials – it can only be positive can’t it?

            • November 20th 2017 @ 4:04pm
              soapit said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:04pm | ! Report

              forget bias/influence, at least have an idea how that particular ref sees the game

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:24pm
                Bing said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:24pm | ! Report

                Of course he is bias. It’s a kiwi official refereeing a game that involves Australia.

              • November 21st 2017 @ 8:26pm
                Debz said | November 21st 2017 @ 8:26pm | ! Report

                Dont you realise that most kiwi fans hate England more than they hate Australia??? This is getting ridiculous.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 8:30pm
                soapit said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:30pm | ! Report

                id like to think he can put aside his admiration for his big brother nation in the name of professionalism.

              • November 20th 2017 @ 9:04pm
                Cuw said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:04pm | ! Report

                @ soapit

                ” forget bias/influence, at least have an idea how that particular ref sees the game ”

                i dont think u need to meet the guy to see how he refs.

                after all refs like players , also do repeat and stick to patterns.

                this can be seen / analysed by watching a ref in action in say last 3-5 games.

                of course i admit , things become a little complicated with the constant changes to Laws and other seasonal directives rugger seems to be fond of.

                remember the time” neck roll ” was the fad?? noone seems to care now….

              • November 21st 2017 @ 6:24am
                soapit said | November 21st 2017 @ 6:24am | ! Report

                cuw i think it would help. refs are human and can change and even a subtle shift can see significant change in a game like rugby so i dont see why youd risk not being fully up to date with where he’s at

                itd be like a lawyer passing up an opportunity to talk to a judge beforehand how he sees a case (a little anyway)

          • November 20th 2017 @ 4:18pm
            JimmyB said | November 20th 2017 @ 4:18pm | ! Report

            The irony of it all is that Chieka appears to have an issue with the media, yet chooses the media as his vehicle to complain about the oppositions likely shenanigans instead of actually talking to the referee. It might also explain the Wallabies poor disciplinary record of late.

    • Roar Guru

      November 20th 2017 @ 7:15am
      Harry Jones said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:15am | ! Report

      Love Fargo.

      Yes,the ball was in play at Stade de France a staggering 45 minutes (contrast this with 35 minutes in the Bok calamity at Dublin).

      On Cheika’s relationship with referees and the media; I immediately remember his weird defence of Folau’s hairpull. A decent defence would’ve been: “It was a mistake; just reached out by instinct and got it wrong.” But instead he claimed it never happened (ignoring video) and attacked the questioner (who was just doing his job).

      How maddening is this English juggernaut? Great team. Ominous…

      • Columnist

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:34am
        Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:34am | ! Report

        Hi Harry

        Yes the ‘hair pull’ matter is another good example. Cheika is a successful businessman, surely he understands that strong businesses are grounded in reality? Why deny something that actually happened?

        No question the 30-6 score was hugely flattering to England. But yes, it’s ominous when a side not operating on all cylinders keeps winning like that.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 11:18am
          Ralph said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:18am | ! Report

          I am in two minds with Mr Cheika.

          It is wise to rant like he does in these press meetings – of course not.

          Will he change anytime soon – highly unlikely.

          But – for me it is a step too far when a media who knows he swears in the coaches box during a match choose to take close up shots of him doing so and then offer crocodile cries like, “Somebody please think of the children.” afterwards.

          If the media had *any* real interest in the children they wouldn’t film him in such a way in the first place. Mr Cheika’s character is well known. I suggest to you the media are only interested in their wind-ups of Mr Cheika for their articles.

          • Columnist

            November 20th 2017 @ 11:44am
            Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:44am | ! Report

            A couple of things there Ralph. Cheika has the option not to be filmed during the match. He has yet to take this up. Further, I have no idea why Rugby AU doesn’t insist he take this up!

            Secondly, while not all in the media manufacture things, there is much in the media that is distasteful/manipulative/insert your own. But we all know this is how things work.

            How do you think it went for the reporter/interviewer at beIN Sports after the Cheika interview? Was she told off for upsetting the Australian coach? Or was she slapped on the back for sparking a huge news story?

            I’d prefer she didn’t goad and bait him. But given that Cheika made the bed by saying what he said, she did nothing more than provoke a response. Sure, there’s an argument to ignore what Cheika said, but I think there’s a stronger argument to report it. It’s not every day that a national coach calls the match officials “f***ing cheats”

            • Roar Guru

              November 20th 2017 @ 12:32pm
              Ralph said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:32pm | ! Report

              I didn’t know there was a no filming option, it does seem very odd the ARU hasn’t stepped in there.

              I am no Cheika fan but do feel quite some sympathy here. The media are by no means a clean vessel by which truth is obtained and I can’t quite conjure the stronger argument for reporting it.

              Given what I know about the human heart I would guess national coaches make such comments about match officials more often than we might think. Perhaps what doesn’t happen every day is the capturing of it on TV and drawing everybody’s attention to it.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 3:38pm
          Charlie Turner said | November 20th 2017 @ 3:38pm | ! Report

          I’m not really familiar with Cheikas business but from a quick Google search Live Fashion is hardly YSL, Polo, or Boss. Is it possible Cheikas manic behaviour may have been a limiting factor in his own business? His stubborn selections and embarrassing antics are traits of a self defeating personality. Alternatively he may have had a few lucky breaks and is just plain dumb.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 12:30pm
        Noodles said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:30pm | ! Report

        Cheika should have been angry: with his team. They butchered good opportunities, gave away two yellow cards, two tries and a lot of composure at the end. As they imprive it’s very clear that they still don’t have the skills at key moments that win the tight games.
        This was a game the wallabies should have won and they let themselves down.

    • November 20th 2017 @ 7:16am
      rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:16am | ! Report

      Can’t see this attracting a glowing response from your biggest fan.

      • Columnist

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am
        Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:35am | ! Report

        Drongo didn’t disappoint rebel, he got in early.

        Unsurprisingly, he’s deduced that this is an Australia v New Zealand matter… 🙂

        • November 20th 2017 @ 9:33pm
          Drongo said | November 20th 2017 @ 9:33pm | ! Report

          No I didn’t. My comment was clearly directed at your bias. You are the one making it an Australian v New Zealand issue. I am commenting on YOUR writing.

          • November 20th 2017 @ 10:53pm
            rebel said | November 20th 2017 @ 10:53pm | ! Report

            Yeah nah

          • November 20th 2017 @ 11:42pm
            Rugby Tragic said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:42pm | ! Report

            Umm Drongo… what’s wrong with the author’s writing? I think that most who read his articles and comment here are appreciative.

    • Roar Guru

      November 20th 2017 @ 7:18am
      Wally James said | November 20th 2017 @ 7:18am | ! Report

      Thank-you Geoff. A well rounded observation.

      I thought that Michael Cheika did handle himself well at the beginning of the interview with his line of “We have to own it”, when decisions go against his side. A solid, no nonsense approach. However his actions both during the game and later in the presser belied his words.

      He does not seem to have the temperament for his job. Having said that, I think the Wallabies are vastly improved from where they were at the beginning of the Rugby Championship. Generally, I thought the Wallaby play was better than the English, marginally. That can only be put down to the coaching staff.

      Unfortunately, if he continues to make such vile allegations as he did during the course of this game, he will find himself subject to disciplinary proceedings. That he has not done so already, surprises me. The Code of Conduct is quite clear that his behaviour is unwanted in Rugby.

      • Roar Guru

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:31am
        stillmissit said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:31am | ! Report

        Wally, I am getting further and further from the idea that Hooper should be captain. His decision not to kick for points and go for the line in those conditions was bizarre and then offering a 45m kick to Hodge which he converted. As captain, he has watched Foley fail in the kicking department but not changed him and this shows his lack of awareness and decision making on field.

        I do not think Pocock is captain mterial either, McMahon would make a great captain after return from OS play.

        I really enjoyed Geoff’s article and I thought he was pretty much on the money. The ref did not lose that game for us and we have had much worse ref’s than him and not squealed as much.

        Simmonds MUST go and Phipps after THAT pass, that gifted them a try, should be beyond selection. The ‘stranger things’ that happen with this rapidly improving team may mean that they don’t go as far as we should do in the world cup.

        We need a 5/8 urgently who can kick in general play. Hodge to centre (not fast enough for wing) and Beale to start with him at I/C bring on Kerevi to finish them off replacing Hodge or move Hodge to 5/8 and take off Foley.

        Enjoyable game but very frustrating.

        • November 20th 2017 @ 12:42pm
          Cassandra said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

          His decision not to kick for points and go for the line in those conditions was bizarre

          Agree completely. He seemed to have gotten over this fault of turning down the points recently, but it was back on display in this game. What made it even worse, if memory serves, was that if they got the kick it brought England lead back to less than 7.

      • Columnist

        November 20th 2017 @ 8:40am
        Geoff Parkes said | November 20th 2017 @ 8:40am | ! Report

        Hi Wally

        No question that the Wallabies have improved vastly this year, and full credit to Cheika and his staff for that. Also, Cheika has shown much more consistency in selection, which the players are benefitting from.

        None of which excuses his behaviour off the field.

        • Roar Guru

          November 20th 2017 @ 12:36pm
          Wally James said | November 20th 2017 @ 12:36pm | ! Report

          Agreed. Nothing excuses that sort of behaviour.

          It was evident from the reaction of Kurtley Beale that he, too, has caught the « let’s disrespect the refs bug ». I thought he Could justifiably received another yellow for that carry-on, thus turning it into a red.

          Perhaps a bit harsh but something has to be done to teach players that it is not on.

      • November 20th 2017 @ 11:40pm
        Philip O'Donovan said | November 20th 2017 @ 11:40pm | ! Report

        Cheika has a long record of both physical ( a changing room after a game against Ireland) and innumerable verbal abusive issues.The ARU are llooking more and more inept in their inability to deal with these issues..Of course he is entitled to an opinion but does he think the public are that stupid that that they do not know his vile comment was not directed at the officials.The ARU and Australia may accept this loutish behaviour but the overall game should not.

    , , ,