Nine times out of ten, Australian sides go to New Zealand and get beaten, belted even, by a better team. A much better team.
The Reds loss against the Highlanders was not one of those 9 times.
If you love rugby as opposed to just New Zealand Rugby, you’ll recognise questions need to be asked about the performance of the referee, touch judges and TMO.
In an age where yellow cards are handed out like candy and suspensions are seemingly quadruple the length they used to be, it is difficult to understand how the Highlanders played the full game with 15 men.
It is even harder to understand how it is that senior officials on both sides of the Tasman have remained silent so far.
Did the officials get it right on the night or not?
Forget the outcome of the game for a moment, forget that it was probably a match played between two ‘also rans’ scrapping for the 7th or 8th finals spot in a 12 team competition.
If Rugby is to convince anyone that it’s serious about player welfare, you can’t have no armed shoulder tackles to the neck region go unsanctioned when we now regularly see the most innocuous high contact result in cards and even appearances at the judiciary.
Harry Wilson’s comments yesterday should be just the start:
“For us as a playing group we hope so [it will be looked at further] because rugby’s been really big on the player welfare and there wasn’t much player welfare there with a no-arms tackle to the head,” Wilson told reporters on Monday.
The referee, admittedly following ‘guidance’ from the TMO was relatively swift to blurt out “There’s no foul play. There’s no foul play,”. The rationale seemed to be that Vest had low body height when contact was made.
What absolute rubbish. Negligence doesn’t cover it.
We’ve all heard the three stage deliberation that officials are meant to follow 1001 times by now.
Was it high, was there force are there mitigating factors?
Connor Vest of the Reds charges forward during the round 14 Super Rugby Pacific match between Highlanders and Queensland Reds at Forsyth Barr Stadium, on May 26, 2023, in Dunedin, New Zealand. (Photo by Joe Allison/Getty Images)
The only mitigating factor was Vest’s body height. Other than that, it was a no arms, shoulder charge to the head and neck region with force.
Paul Cully writing for Kiwi papers earlier this week had this to say:
“The first thing to note is that Makalio’s attempted tackle was illegal. He led with his shoulder, there’s no wrapping motion with his arms, and he effectively falls off his feet to get underneath Vest.
“In terms of Frizell’s action… he gets low – in fact he’s crouching – but there’s no real attempt to wrap his arms in the tackle, and his shoulder makes contact with Vest’s head.”
In other words there was not one but two illegal tackles on Vest at the same time, one worthy of a penalty and the other at least a yellow card.
There is no doubt at all that, even in New Zealand, the crowd has a significant influence on the TMO process and therefore the onfield decision making of referees.
This influence is growing and the subsequent skewing of decisions and pressure on referees to ‘downgrade’ offences is a clear and present danger to the fabric of the game.
What was incredible about last Friday is that the officials had every opportunity to examine the high contact hit on Vest and a later one on James O’Connor but got both wrong.
Earlier this week, Christy Doran noted that:
“The incident [armless tackles on Vest] wasn’t the only one that went unpunished, with Freddie Burns escaping sanction for a high shot on James O’Connor as the experienced Test utility back ran down the touchline.”
Given that the hit on JOC was right in the middle of what many believe may be Super Rugby’s try of the year, you’d expect it might have been looked at more closely. It was another shoulder to the head, catching O’Connor flush on the chin.
But there was nothing.
The other aspect to all this is that crowds and the general rugby public are already frustrated with the stop start nature of games as well as the over-use of cards.
But when armless, high tackles resulting in broken necks go unpunished, it heightens the frustration. People become even more disillusioned.
It also feeds a narrative that sides need to be 10 points better to win in New Zealand because home teams always get the rub of the green.
It’s a narrative that’s been around long before last weekend and is popularly held in South Africa for instance. They’ll still, rightly, complain about Bismarck Du Plessis yellow card for a completely legal tackle on Dan Carter in September 2013!
This narrative is fed when even the commentary team is noting knock-ons and forward passes in the lead up to tries but the four officials involved are repeatedly blind to them.
The officiating team in question needs to front a public panel to adequately explain the positions it took. At the very least, the competition needs to address these matters.
Did the officiating team last Friday get it wrong or not?
Again, 9 times out of 10 Kiwi sides at provincial and Test level are just far too good for their opposition. The Reds vs Highlanders was not one of those times.
piru
Roar Rookie
The tackle was legal, the confusion (if I remember rightly) was that Poite (interesting that the French refs are in on it too) thought he was offside. He did in fact appear to be, except that the previous 'ruck' wasn't really one hence there was no offside line formed.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Nothing to defend.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
Absolutely. All due to the execution of the tip tackle. This article is trying to say that because a person broke his neck then there must have been a red card offence. I disagree strongly with that call. In the Bell situation it was the exact reverse. No injury, a red card, then an inexplicable rescinding of the red card. In the Cane broken neck no one did a red card worthy action and no punishment was handed out. Same in this situation. I do note today that Wilson has been reprimanded.
Cannonball
Roar Rookie
I recall you getting plenty of mileage out of the Angus Bell tip tackle… :laughing:
ShaghaiDoc
Roar Rookie
The referee was right and has been proven right by the tribunal. It was not a high tackle and it is time that runners diving at the tackler was outlawed. The tackler clearly tried to go low but the runner went lower preventing the arm from encircling him. Why do we stand out as a country of whingers? Leave that to the STOPs, (Slave Trading Opium Pushers), and their remaining Celtic colonies, who respectively invented and perfected the art of whingeing. QueeNZlanders should never question the integrity of their motherland or we may end up without enough Kiwis to make a team in Union or league. PS The only Australian Super Rugby winners, apart from the Bumblies, were due to referee errors. No whingeing from the Crusaders but both referees apologised to them. The scorebord at the MCG used to carry the slogan, "The men in white are always right" and they weren't referring to the STOPs. As for the rub of the green, I find it ridiculous that South Africans complain when their referees made the use of neutral referees a must. My Bokke friend does not need to go back to 1949 when the Wallabies beat the All Blacks "C" team. O.K. Geffin won a series that year against the All Blacks who outscored the Bokke with tries in every game as every game in Super Rugby with a South African home town referee has been farcical.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
I don't mind these articles being posted but it does drag on and positions are entrenched as you say Paulo.
Locke
Roar Rookie
'It also feeds a narrative that sides need to be 10 points better to win in New Zealand because home teams always get the rub of the green' At least have the intellectual honesty to apply this argument to home sides everywhere, not single out NZ as somehow being unique in what is obviously a fallibility universal to all. Interestingly, a study was done by Green and Gold rugby a few years back which showed NZ refs were the least likely to reward the home side with penalties (actually favouring the away side). SA refs were the worst culprits, ironic that you bring up opinions in SA to back your claim. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/119581827/study-shows-huge-bias-by-home-refs-towards-south-african-teams
Paulo
Roar Rookie
OM - valiant effort, but you were never going to win. People have picked a position and will refuse to budge. The same people vilifying Frizzell are some of the same people who were trying to exonerate Swain. The Roars very own editor amongst them. This is a no win fight on this site these days. The fact they deemed this article worthy of posting says it all about the type of conversation they want.
W Evans
Roar Rookie
Hugh thanks for your comment. To be clear, I’m not suggesting the referees should be forced to front the media. What I am saying is that there should be a review after the game, that is released to the public either by video or transcript where the referees can clarify why a high tackle with no arms that resulted in a neck injury didn’t meet a yellow card threshold. I fully agree on the JOC hit too. Very obviously high, replayed 100 times but not one comment on it by the referees…
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Did you see how far Vest's head was down? Caused by his angled run and Makalio's tackle. That is what made his injury. This is starting to get endless.
Wrecked 'em
Roar Rookie
Unless the ball carrier leads with an elbow or forearm, the onus of responsibility is entirely on the defender.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
No, but I see that someone must give a pound of flesh for an incident that does not meet the card threshold. We will see what happens in the future with players from teams you support and what reactions you will give as you have seen fit to judge what my prejudices might be.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I’d suggest he expected Makalio to actually make a proper tackle and was poised for a jackal attempt. If that first tackle is made properly he is in perfect position. Arms are pulled back so he doesn’t become part of tackle and can show clear air before reaching for the ball. It’s the Makalio ‘attempt’ that screws it all up. With his arms pulled back out the way, there’s nothing to stop head-meets-shoulder.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Geez you’d defend anything if it’s one of your players
Paulo
Roar Rookie
*A New Zealand article reporting what the independent match review committee/citing commissioner ruled. If you want to suggest the committee or commissioner are corrupt, go for it. Just clarifying the article wasn’t the one making the determination, which you seemed to be confused about.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Man trips on the pavement hits a brick wall, blame the wall?
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Also, when I was a drinker I regarded Speight's as good but once I tasted Emerson's that was it.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Honestly Dean I would, I might be reactive initially but if circumstances are the same then yes.
Jacko
Roar Rookie
What about the Lions series where the ref admits he was wrong to reverse his penalty or the Irish series where the IRB admits Savea should have been allowed back on. You are only remembering very selectively. Id say that every country's fans remember things that they feel went against them.
Colin Fenwick
Roar Rookie
No, your point in relation to this was NZ sides get the rub of the green at home. I suggested, in terms of cards at least, they don't. As to the Bismarck tackle, it was fine and the ref got it wrong but bringing up a single example from 10 years ago doesn't, in my opinion, offer much support.