Rugby News: RA checks with Eddie over return after Cup, Foster shielded by media manager, Irish prop avoids ban

Yes, I suspect there are a range of conversations in before and after reviews of series in which the reffing panel discusses interpretations with refs. I can understand why it's unrealistic to capture all that in formal publications. My guess is that the whole active/passive thing has emerged from this process rather than formal World Rugby diktats.

They can be found here and are pretty formal but don’t address the question we are discussing. https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/24

Yeah, I get the point. My impression, is that the 'guidelines' are something of a movable feast and get updated and tweaked fairly regularly. Certainly, far more regularly than the 'laws' and not necessarily written down as formally.

If Eddie is as smart as i think he is, he’ll wait until McLennan and crew shuffle off stage left.

Thanks. My issue is that there isn't any reference to "absorbing tackle" in the Laws or Guidelines so am a bit perplexed how that phrase can be used as a basis for mitigation. If what they mean is that the tackler isn't moving forward, I agree that this could differentiate circumstances. However we have a myriad of examples over the last 2 years where that wasn't considered a mitigation and that hasn't publicly been used as a reference point in this particular circumstance. I can forgive the cynicism this lack of clarity and consistency breeds.

Well Faith Iv'e noticed Foster's new nickname, being ' Foster the imposter'. Funny , as it does suit him!!

From what I can see of Kiwi rugby fans, the comments on Stuff seem indicative and par for the course - whiny, entitled, with a significant proportion, unhinged. :happy:

told u last week nothing will happen to Barnes - WR want him to ref the world cup final no way their blue eyed boy doesnt know red from yellow. check my posts last week = ii said Branes bottles it when it comes to reds. he did it in the gallagher final - sareis 9 shud have seen but didnot. and many moons ago when Farrell came back from like 3 months injury lay off - Barnes didnot red card him for a head shot. at least commentators on the day had guts to say " seriosly - ur not going to send off the England captain on hisreturn to premiership after three months!!" BUT FORGET BARNES the worrying fact for all shud be the complete nonsensical head contact ruling happening every other day. despite all the rubbish WR media throw out to the masses - there is little consistency among all the head contact issues that happens every match. perhaps a few more legal actions against the WR for concussion related issues will make them take a serios look at their pathetic rhetoric. just as eg - Barret hit on Mahaony , Aki hit on Ofa - teo cases that merited far more closer inspections than the cursory dismissla.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Yep, you would feel a bit of a prat if you sacrificed all the tournaments in the years leading up to it and then got knocked out in the RWC QFs.

I think you're right but it's a huge risk. How do you know you can peak? Surely you need to see the team playing how you'd like well before so you know how it looks and who it needs. The makings of a very good England team are there. Get back all of the injured players and they will be a handful

My reading was that under the laws and 'guidance' the AB prop incident was that it was a certain red with no mitigating factors, regardless of the fact that there was clearly no intention. The conversation between the refs and TMOs is always worth listening to. When I first saw the Porter one in real time, I thought red card. On subsequent viewings and listening to both the conversation between Barnes and the TMO/assistants and the statements from the citing board you can see a difference. The ABs prop is going forward into the collision. The Irish prop is not. This is the 'passive/active' distinction. Having watched both incidents again that difference is significant. Both Barnes, his TMO/assistants team and the citing panel referenced this difference as part of the guidelines. There seems only two possible explanations, then. 1. There is a mass conspiracy against the blameless ABs, probably led by poms, but supported by everyone in World Rugby including the various Aussies and Saffas in the reffing crew and on the citing panel, and they're lying about the nature of the guidance. Therefore, every wild-eyed loony in a tinfoil hat who has written into Stuff (and a couple on this site) are correct, and we're witnessing the biggest scandal in the history of international sport. 2. In both cases the officials and citing panels diligently reviewed all the evidence and concluded that there were differences in the two incidents that, given guidance, meant one was a red card and the other a yellow card. I suppose we'll just have to pick the one we find most persuasive.

Well I am a Kiwi and I can see both sides of it. I just don't know where to find a definition of an "absorbing tackle" and how that is treated as a mitigating defence in a contact where one players head is so damaged that he can't ply his trade for several weeks. If you can show me in the Laws or the Guidelines where the definition of this mythical "absorbing" beast is then I would appreciate it because I can't see this listed as a mitigation anywhere?

Didn’t do a great job with the French winger who had to have a plate inserted in his face after YET another AB prop rammed his shoulder into it, a while back, did they? The fact that AB tight forwards seem too thick to get the message isn’t really World Rugby’s faults – despite the whining from the land of the great white moan. Then again, as the ‘modern’ AB prop looks like he’s just been kicked out of the Kebab House after 15 pints of lager, perhaps it’s the old joke told by footballers red carded for late tackles – ‘I got there as quick as I could.’ :happy:

Unless they've set-up hundreds of spoof accounts to impersonate 'simpletons' writing in with their views, then it seems a reasonable gauge of NZ rugby fan opinion. As the world would expect, the impression is that they're whiny, entitled and unhinged.

The thing with Eddie is that he's clearly decided that the ONLY thing that matters is the RWC - to the extent that I'm not sure he's even bothered about the 6 Nations. Whether being rubbish in the 6 Nations (or RC if he takes over the Wallabies) and then 'peaking' at the RWC is worth it is another matter.

Oh ' biased view' why don't you jump back in your row boat, & not the Thailand bars that you possibly did get kicked out of. Swede, you know absolutely nothing, as usual, as with that response just shows your utter ignorance, and contempt of those that have passed on. Your parents must be so proud, its a pity, they didn't overlook what they'd produced. See you still abusing others, but that's always been your form.

Unfortunately he has not given the ABs an identity the same when he coached the Chiefs. He understood the magnitude when accepting the role, and then recommitted and has not changed his coaching.

I feel sorry for Foz. Hope he gets to see it thru to the WC!

I cannot honestly seeing them working together, the way Foster is going Razor will be waiting to see what happen.