The Wallabies have beaten every team they’ve played against this year except for the All Blacks. They may have won if not for Mathieu Raynal’s call in the dying minutes of the game.
The Wallabies have the gameplan, skill and players to win consistently, so what is missing?
Dave Rennie often speaks about mentality and the changes he wants to see around effort areas and mental toughness. But the emotional capacity of the team appears to only last for the first game against their opposition. Whatever Dave Rennie is drawing on, it must change.
Mini-series like the England series and the Rugby Championship will continue to be part of the calendar and the Wallabies can’t go into them being happy with a single win. Gameplans shouldn’t change week-to-week, but you do have to expect a smart opposition to adapt and target weaknesses they see.
Rennie is very good at staying his course in terms of strategy, but it would be fair to question whether he has been outcoached and outmanoeuvred by the likes of Eddie Jones, Michael Cheika and Jacques Nienaber. Then again it could be argued he outmanoeuvred all those coaches in their initial clash.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
However, this comes down to the headspace the players are bringing to the second test against these teams, and it does not bode well for the Eden Park test looming over the Wallabies. If this is a motivation and headspace issue Rennie must fix it and quickly.
Now, to the controversies this far in the rugby championship:
Marika Koroibete’s tackles on Makazole Mapimpi and Caleb Clarke
In both instances, Koroibete hit low, made no contact with the head and wrapped his arms. The controversy surrounding either of these hits baffles me. Clarke bounced out of the initial hit too fast for Koroibete to affect a complete wrap, but arms were used. In the case of Mapimpi, Rugby Law 9.17 says a player cannot tackle ‘an opponent whose feet are off the ground.’ Mapimpi was in the act of jumping therefore putting himself in an illegal position.
Furthermore, if it was ruled he was in the action of diving for a try then the law about tackling in the air is usually voided by referees as players are understandably allowed to do most things to prevent a try. There is no situation where Mapimpi scores that try or Koroibete attracts a sanction. This precedent was set in the Chiefs v Highlanders game in this year’s Super Rugby Pacific when Peta Gus Sowakula jumped over Aaron Smith.
Makazole Mapimpi of the Springboks is tackled by Marika Koroibete (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Faf de Klerk strike on Nic White
When de Klerk hit White right in front of the referee’s eyes, he contravened Rugby Law 9.12 which sanctions any player that physically abuses another player. The poor acting that happened afterwards by White could have been avoided if the referee had sanctioned de Klerk right there and then.
The referees are focusing so much on head-high tackles as per the directive of World Rugby but are turning a blind eye to deliberate “foul play” as Law 9 is labelled. There is an argument the same could be said for the Darcy Swain/Johnny Hill incident during the first England test. Hill should have been sanctioned for his initial double-handed push to Swain’s face right in front of the referee.
Referee Mathieu Raynal speaks to Nic White and Bernard Foley (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Mathieu Raynal
The call was legal under Rugby Law 9.7(d) “unfair play” under the heading foul play. The sanction is a free kick. Therefore, although this was within Raynal’s powers, he awarded the wrong sanction and in the words of Dave Rennie the call “lacked feel for the occasion.”
Darcy Swain’s clean-out on Quinn Tupaea
Swain contravened Rugby Law 9.20(d) which states you can clear the “jackler out of the contest at the ruck but must not drop their weight onto them or target the lower limbs.” The sanction for this is a penalty. Raynal took this a step further and awarded Swain a yellow card. This is a fair interpretation as Raynal has elevated the sanction at his discretion and the sanction is reasonable for the offence.
It is not a part of the game and should be stamped out, hence a card was awarded. You do the crime; you do the time, but you can’t rule on the outcome.
Two Cents
Guest
Let me preface this by saying that I personally thought Raynal made the right call and it was entirely consistent with how he had managed the entire game up to that point. But, since you are relying on a strawman as a means to belittle Australian fans and have chosen to hide behind the smugness of being right in the laws of the game to achieve this, let me raise this crucial point that has obviously escaped you: while the laws say many things, the actual meaning of the laws is left entirely up to the discretion of the referee and this directly affects its application. The law you quote says what it says but you have totally failed to assert any greater understanding or insight that you yourself possess about what "must be taken without delay" means in the context of an actual discrete time i.e. how many seconds constitutes an unreasonable delay. "Must be taken without delay" is ambiguous because what exactly constitutes the specified "delay"? How long is too long? Is there any categorical definition for this in the laws? No, there isn't. This is left entirely up to the mind of the referee instead, some of whom will be the policeman-style referee that makes calls according to the letter of the law, which I'm guessing a person like you prefers, or they will be more of a facilitator, tempering the need to interfere with the play to address ill-discipline with their desire to sustain the flow of the game, which is the style of refereeing I prefer. In fact, because the laws are all discretionary, a referee can call every single infringement in a game (assuming they see it), they can focus on a narrow range of infringements (as most usually do including Monsieur Raynal) or they can choose to never blow their whistle at all (the last referee to truly perform this way was Peter Marshall during the 2003 RWC). You like many others who want to derisively belittle Australians falsely use this narrative of the letter of the law serving somehow as the justification for the referee's actions rather than pointing to his earlier decisions in the game and prior warnings to the Wallabies' players as the actual source of justification for the eventual time-wasting decision. The latter is definitely the legally-stronger argument to make.
Grobu
Roar Rookie
Just another rabid australian fan foaming at the mouth and totally ignorant of rugby laws. Law 21-4 provides that "the kick must be taken without delay" and that "any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball."
Passit2me
Roar Rookie
I’d love to see a Tier 1 rugby champions cup, with TRC winner playing the 6 Nations winner in a single game. TRC on it’s own seems old to me and needs more meaning. It may help the players maintain their intensity if they were competing in a Tier 1 WC each year.
Passit2me
Roar Rookie
"But the emotional capacity of the team appears to only last for the first game against their opposition". Maybe after retaining the Mandela Plate and Puma Trophy with their first win, the Wallaby forwards decide to lose their edge and intensity, instead of doing their fans a solid.
Tim
Roar Rookie
Great read! Good work legend!
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Flies aren't dropping here Harry!
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Yeah me too!
John Ferguson
Expert
Diving for a try makes you airborne which anywhere else on the pitch means you aren't allowed to be tackled. But the law does not apply to diving for a try.
Guess
Roar Rookie
DR needs to stop focusing on the fluff (who gives a damn about disrespect Journos give a damn. They asked him
Steven Harris
I'm a fan of Robinson as well
Two Cents
Guest
That's a semantical issue. He meant that because the player has left the ground for the purpose scoring a try, the laws do not protect that player from any contact from a defender trying to prevent that try from being scored despite them being airborne. It's a clumsy short-handed way of saying basically that.
Harry Jones
Expert
All four teams faced the usual (and some unusual) trials and tribulations. The All Blacks’ coach had his head on the block. The Boks are down to their fourth choice 10 and have had media storms. The Pumas have a new coach and their players are flogged. Cards are flowing like water. The Wallabies have had 10s and 15s dropping like flies.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Diving for the line puts you in an illegal position? Am I missing something?
Noodles
Roar Rookie
The key points here are in the hardening up of WBs mindsets. My sense is that when they turn up, it’s all about focus and energy. When they fold up it’s often inexperience and simply not handling the Test match intensity. Players like Swain have to become much more hard headed and clear about their intentions and accuracy. The other Point is the laws. We’re getting too many cards and too many intrusions that are law based. The game needs to get a focus on the playing and help refs to push the game along - promoting fair reward.
Jim
Guest
I'm not really interested in "using the hurt" as motivation; wearing the jersey should be enough. All I want to see is the basics done right over and over again. That is enough for me. I want the Wallabies so many points ahead with ten to go that the ref can dance around naked, giving the opposition penalty after penalty, and it doesn't matter. If we get the basics right, all other issues will disappear. DR needs to stop focusing on the fluff (who gives a damn about disrespect) and put all his attention on getting the team firing on all cylinders all the time. All I hear nowadays is a commentary that is more akin to reality tv.
John Ferguson
Expert
Thanks for this loosy! Looks like it could have been done under a wide range of laws. Therefore as a Aussie I hate saying this, but it was a legal decision.
Bobby
Roar Rookie
Good read Fergo. Thanks !
Filstrup
Roar Rookie
Good reading, clean, neat writing with no bile or wallabies bashing as the usual suspects, much appreciated. No wonder after reading some pamphlets published immediately after the Foley incident. One, pretending to be a legal pretentious court prosecution, charging Foley with first degree murder -btw, charges that any fair minded judge would had quash on the facts of lack of precedent and only circumstantial evidence; the other one ‘bravo, bravo Mathieu” praising Monsieur Raynal for his zealous application of the Rugby Laws. Both missing the white elephant in the room : Rugby Officiating poisoning the game. La La land is defined as ” an euphoric, dreamlike mental state detached from the harsher realities of life”. As per Fairfax rugby writer Georgina Robinson – one of the few unbiased rugby voices – couple of months ago, just some headers says it all :“Why World Rugby doesn’t care about your referee frustrations” and, “Australia doesn’t matter in the rugby universe. World Rugby, the opaque governing body in charge of the sport’s direction globally, cares not for your armchair agony” But wait, there is more, check the WR’s mob designated for NZ game. fast your armchair belts and pray, no hope, we are the wallabies few fans Referee: Andrew Brace (IRFU) (yes, grilled the WBS , England 2nd test ) Assistant Referee 1: Mathieu Raynal (FFR) Assistant Referee 2: Pierre Brousset (FFR) TMO: Ben Whitehouse (WRU)
Loosey
Roar Rookie
I’m pretty sure Reynal got him under Law 20.5 A penalty shall be taken without delay. Sanction: Scrum. I think wasting time under 9.7 would be things like feigning injury, throwing the ball away, ambling up to the line out throw.
WINSTON
Roar Rookie
Totally unrelated: Happy Birthday Bakkies Botha. Veels Geluk Meneer Botha, n legende 85 Tests 7 Tries Vodacom Cup x1 Currie Cups x4 Super Rugby titles x3 Champions Cups x3 Top 14 Title x1 Mandela Challenge Plate x2 Freedom Cups x2 Prince William Cups x3 Tri Nations x2 RWC x1 Lions Series win x1