Roar Rookie
Joined October 2019
1.6k
Views
1
Published
687
Comments
Published
Comments
I love my dad. He is a man of great personal and physical strength. He is an intellectual who thinks deeply about the world…
The Reds/Crusaders match was such an outlier in a great weekend of rugby. Neither team matched the intensity of any other game. Historically the Crusaders will bounce back to their ruthless best next week. The Reds, I fear, will deliver the same aimless kicking dross. Only McDermott and McReight seem to have any will at the moment. What’s going on?
The Wrap: Super Rugby's final eight confirmed after crazy, topsy-turvy weekend
And his head hit the ground 1/100 of a second later. The distinction they’re trying to make is analogous to whether the oncoming truck hits you square on or only the driver’s side. Either way, their is serious risk of injury and the driver who drifted across lanes is just as culpable. For me, as a Reds fan, this took the gloss off an otherwise enthralling weekend of rugby.
The Wrap: Super Rugby's final eight confirmed after crazy, topsy-turvy weekend
And therein lies the problem. I imagine that would have been different had Petaia suffered an injury, even though the act was the same. I just think rugby is too inconsistent with these matters. Player safety is ostensibly the reason for the harsher sanctions, but these frame by frame reviews make big distinctions on the severity of punishments based on unsupported criteria. I’ve seen a broken neck when someone landed shoulder first and conversely players get up unharmed after landing on their head. Matera’s action was just as risky as the previous week
The Wrap: Super Rugby's final eight confirmed after crazy, topsy-turvy weekend
Trying really hard to be on board with all these cards for foul play. But it’s hard when you see the same incident treated differently in different weeks. I accept that O’Keefe applied the protocols correctly in the Petaia incident. But the protocols are wrong. He was dumped on his head and neck pure and simple. That a frame by frame analysis showed that his shoulder made contact one of two frames earlier (1/100 of a second perhaps) should be immaterial. That split second of shoulder contact would in no way cushion the compression of the neck. If player safety is paramount, has an assessment of neck injuries in the tackle properly determined that a scintilla of shoulder contact makes all the difference to injury outcomes? I doubt it. And so these frame by frame distinctions are made and they have big impacts on game outcomes. Matera’s action was foul and risky. He should have a bit of time on the side line
The Wrap: Super Rugby's final eight confirmed after crazy, topsy-turvy weekend
It’s not a question of whether advantage is played. It is a matter of whether the referee perceives an infringement has occurred. Another example is tackler not rolling away. Some referees recognise rugby is dynamic and players can get pinned in a ruck on the wrong side. They let play go on if the ball can be retrieved by the attacking half. They are biased towards rugby being played. Others ping the player for not rolling away even though the half has hands on ball and clearing it (saw this happen against to the Brumbies). Was it the correct decision? Well, yes according to the laws that seem not to have accommodations for the realities of rugby (ie: a player can get pinned, held down on the ground). But it is pedantic and spoils the game for all
The Wrap: Finals footy arrives two weeks early as Blues and Brumbies slug it out in Canberra
The easy example I make is scrum penalties. The ball is at the back of the scrum available to the halfback and the scrum collapses. One referee pulls it up and penalises a team, who then kick to the corner and win another penalty from the ensuing lineout maul…. The other referee lets the ball clear from the scrum and play continues. Which of these scenarios is “correct”? Well both are, but one wants to see rugby played. The other wants to enforce the laws.
The Wrap: Finals footy arrives two weeks early as Blues and Brumbies slug it out in Canberra
Yes, people say the Brumbies infringed because they lost the possession and breakdown battle. From what I saw they lost the possession and breakdown battle because they were penalised repeatedly and inconsistently. When the pressure is caused by pedantic refereeing, not a superior opponent, something has gone wrong
The Wrap: Finals footy arrives two weeks early as Blues and Brumbies slug it out in Canberra
Re: Murphy. There is a problem with a ref when you can predict before the game that he will penalise one team off the park and become the big talking point. He has a bias to penalising team by looking for fault. Good referees are biased towards letting a game of rugby unfold.
The Wrap: Finals footy arrives two weeks early as Blues and Brumbies slug it out in Canberra
😂
Wallabies great says officials are 'killing the game' amidst 'ridiculous' Tupou circus
Any finding of this panel must be taken with a grain of salt. De Wet Barry adjudicating on foul play???
Wallabies great says officials are 'killing the game' amidst 'ridiculous' Tupou circus
“S&it sandwich?” You can’t print that!
FLEM'S VERDICT: Pat's captaincy the 'biggest triumph of all' as England finish 's--t sandwich' tour
And that’s why selecting Beale, O’Connor and others past their used by date at test level is wrong. The younger players should be able to emulate the game plan. It’s not as though you are set in your ways for life at 25
'No answers': Only questions and confusion left lingering from Wallabies' loss to England
Spot on Hooter. You can generate front foot ball in different ways, not just with a battering ram. Good angles, constantly changing spacing and depth in the alignment, pick and go, rolling maul. None were seen last weekend
'No answers': Only questions and confusion left lingering from Wallabies' loss to England
I guess I don’t see why they need to have changed. To be successful, the team should be able to play the same way even if some players change in and out.
'No answers': Only questions and confusion left lingering from Wallabies' loss to England
Nice article Brett. But I don’t agree with “what worked a month ago now doesn’t”. The fact is the Wallabies aren’t playing the same way as they did against the Boks. They reverted to trying width too early, aimless kicking of the ball and speculative passes and kicks. It was a Cheika-era performance against England. The infusion of the overseas players has been a mistake: who would have thought Beale was still is brittle but no longer had any zip; Skeleton is an overrated lump who offers little against test standard teams. And similarly, O’Connor is not a test 10. Never was and never will be. The Wallabies showed this year that a simple, direct game plan is their best way to go. They can do it without Kerevi and Cooper
'No answers': Only questions and confusion left lingering from Wallabies' loss to England
The second observation was the aimless kicking, which we saw a lot of. Profligate waste of ball time and time again
The Wrap: Familiar themes emerge as Wallabies and All Blacks are pasted by England and Ireland
Makes you wonder what Dangunu has done to be on the outer. He would, in my view, provide the spark that is missing. Wright continues to underwhelm
The Wrap: Familiar themes emerge as Wallabies and All Blacks are pasted by England and Ireland
The Wallabies opening gambit- spreading it wide and running from the kick off- was reminiscent of the Cheika era. Indeed, the rest of the match followed in a similar vein. I have said this after Japan and Scotland, and will say it again. Why aren’t they reinforcing the tighter, more direct gameplan that defeated the Boks twice? Getting better at that should be the priority, not this addiction to run at all costs or kick the ball away aimlessly, of which we saw both on display. I understand Kerevi isn’t here, but he is not the only player in Australia who can run a hard line over the gain line.
The Wrap: Familiar themes emerge as Wallabies and All Blacks are pasted by England and Ireland
Aside from being ridiculously soft (swinging arm? Please!!!), the most enervating thing about the Alaalatoa card was that it was preceded by a high tackle and followed by an eye gouge. Neither were looked at. It gives the impression that the ref and TMO were looking for reasons not to award a try, not to stamp out foul play. The eye gouge, especially, was egregious and obvious. Unlike head contact that occurs as a consequence of a dynamic contact sport (which pretty much all head contact is these days), the eye gouge was deliberate and occurring after a try was scored. If that isn’t foul play worthy of a long stint on the sidelines, what is?
You aren't imagining it... proof the Wallabies were hard done by
But why were they happy to kick when they selected a big running pack. Doesn’t make sense to me. The tactics didn’t match the selections
Wallabies vs Scotland: Did I see what I needed to see?
The lack of midfield punch was a big problem. And surprising as they chose a team that should have provided it (Valentini, Leota, Paisami, Skelton). Instead, they either kicked aimlessly or flung the ball around willy nilly. I don’t understand why they have abandoned the more direct game plan that worked against the Boks. I understand Kerevi is missing, but his absence doesn’t mean the only option is to play like headless chooks
Wallabies vs Scotland: Did I see what I needed to see?
Yes, largely in agreement. But the “potentially injurious” is where I balk. If the play is not foul enough to injure and the six eyes on the field miss it, I say move on and pick it up in the video review.
And maybe only ping the professional fouls if they occur in the phase leading up to a try being scored.
The Wrap: Why the long face? Wallabies availability issue is just par for the course
Geoff, we don’t know each other but I do disagree with TMO interjecting for foul play. Unless the play is immediately injurious (eg: eye gouge, play requiring medical attention or HIA) or causing an immediate incorrect ruling by the referee (eg: halfback knock on actually caused by errant hand or defender held in a ruck and unable to prevent a try), then the TMO should remain silent, log it and look after the match to determine if judicial action is required. If other foul play is not immediately obvious to the ref and two touchies, it likely isn’t that bad
The Wrap: Why the long face? Wallabies availability issue is just par for the course
A team can be woeful, even in victory PK. I am pleased they won, of course, but the performance was a regression from the standards set in the two games against the Boks. Having watched the Wallabies for 35 years, I think it is woeful that they consistently oscillate between a focused performance then next week throw the ball around and go missing in the forwards as they did on the weekend. This is not to diminish the Japanese effort. Indeed, the Wallabies could learn a lot from the consistent determination from the Japanese.
The Wrap: Wallabies shake off the rust while All Blacks raise the ton
My apologies. I know a bit about rugby but very little about sports broadcast camera technology. I do, however, know a fair bit about neck injury. 1/100 versus 1/30 of a second makes no difference to the likelihood and consequences of neck injury when you’re dumped upside down in a ruck or tackle. But thanks for steering me in the right direction. Glad to learn something new
The Wrap: Super Rugby's final eight confirmed after crazy, topsy-turvy weekend