The Roar
The Roar

Spew_81

Roar Rookie

Joined December 2020

8.2k

Views

5

Published

128

Comments

Published

Comments

Yes the assistant referee and TMO have similar roles but only the TMO has the benefit of replays. The assistant referee goes off their assessment of one viewing. If an action on the field was not blatant enough for the assistant referee to put their flag up then play on. The TMO can view something 10 times then radio the referee. That is the difference.
The TMO is not always correct (or sees things differently from the judiciary). Just look at the Koriobete example. It should’ve been a yellow card (a soft technical one at that, maybe just a penalty), on the technicality that the tackle bounced off the chest/shoulder and contacted the head. Not a red card.
Rugby officiating will never be perfect. The TMO could reply every phase of play (once the whistle had blown), take their time, and they would make incorrect calls. Even if the TMO was correct all the time how many stoppages do you want to see? Is 20 minutes of replays per game what you want to see? A line has to be drawn at some stage. Many fans would agree that the TMO has too much input at the moment and wastes too much time.
The counterintuitive thing is a lot of the replays are to spot high tackles, to make the game safer. But stopping the game, so often, allows the big units to have a breather, then they can hit harder for the next few minutes; making more heavy contacts.

What more evidence do World Rugby need for the 20-minute red card to be introduced?

Jelonch did drop a bit, but not a ridiculous amount. It is normal to drop your body height when bracing for contact; maybe Jelonch dropped his head a bit extra. I definitely think Jelonch’s theatrics after the tackle were unnecessary and have led people to believe that the whole thing was a hollywood. Though people have been doing hollywoods for years. How often does the first five eight get hit slightly late, writhe in agony, then casually get up and kick for goal like nothing had happened?
The issue seems to be that tacklers are getting set early and trying to hit the ball carrier in the pectoral area with full force. While that does result in a devastating tackle when it comes off as planned, when it goes slightly wrong head contact is likely. Tacklers willingly take that risk when they aim to make contact above the solar plexus area; and they need to factor in the ball carrier dropping, sometimes significantly. Tacklers need to decide whether a devastating hit is worth a yellow or red card. A ball and all tackle can still be made, but to make sure the tacker does not contact the head they probably can’t attempt to do so at full speed.
Perhaps tackles will mostly be aimed at the stomach area in future. That will result in more offloads, a faster game and more tries; and less head knocks. Probably better all round. We had to say goodbye to rucking, losing the ‘bit hit’ is not as big of a loss.

What more evidence do World Rugby need for the 20-minute red card to be introduced?

The TMO should go back to deciding whether the ball was grounded in the in goal. Maybe going one phase back.

What more evidence do World Rugby need for the 20-minute red card to be introduced?

An intermediate step would be giving referees the option to decide whether a red card is for 20 minutes or the rest of the game e.g. a high tackle – 20 minutes then a replacement can be made, punching – the rest of the game.
The other issue is the replays available. The cameras need to be better to provide more shots, so the actual moment of contact can be viewed; often the replays show just before and just after. Ideally the camera should provide a ‘super slow mo’ of the incident. They also need graphics/animations, like the DRS in cricket, to show where the tackler would’ve hit before the ball carrier dropped etc. A infrared camera would be useful too, to show exactly where the initial contact was made. Though I realize that it is easier to show replays in cricket at the area, under review, is relatively fixed compared to rugby; and this technology would be expensive.
Also I’m unsure whether the TMO should be able to raise issues to the referee (maybe punching, eye gouges etc.); if the referee sees something and wants a replay that’s what the TMO is there for. If the TMO sees it and the referee doesn’t the incident should go on report and dealt with after the game.

What more evidence do World Rugby need for the 20-minute red card to be introduced?

My favourite was the second Lions test in 2005. Carter was awesome.

1973 or 2000: What was the greatest game of rugby ever?

I remember being angry with the All Blacks when it looked like we were going to lose. Great try by Jonah.

1973 or 2000: What was the greatest game of rugby ever?

All Blacks 38-27 win against South Africa in Ellis Park on 5 October was a great game.

1973 or 2000: What was the greatest game of rugby ever?

The All Blacks vs Springboks 38-27 win against South Africa in Ellis Park on 5 October was a great game.

1973 or 2000: What was the greatest game of rugby ever?

The 38-27 win against South Africa in Ellis Park on 5 October? That was a great game.

1973 or 2000: What was the greatest game of rugby ever?

I think that Robinson should be looked at as replacement lock/blindside. Perhaps a more mobile version of Scott Barrett; though Scott Barrett was very good in the lineout on Saturday.

All Blacks a few steps closer to their Bledisloe XV

Agree not in the short term. But maybe by 2023. Papalii has similar capabilities, just needs game time to develop.

How will the All Blacks line up against Fiji?

I would like to see Robertson coach the Possibles vs Foster’s preferred 15 in an All Black trial.

How will the All Blacks line up against Fiji?

I agree that Selby-Rickett should be looked at as an option. He represented the Maori All Blacks well this year. He never lets his side down and is always in the thick of it. He didn’t get as much game time this year due to Hall and Parkinson being favored at the Highlanders. I would much rather have Selby-Rickett than Tuipulotu (who should be a beast, he just doesn’t seem to look for opportunities to get involved – maybe he needs to stop thinking about is an just smash the opposition).

How will the All Blacks line up against Fiji?

I think that Cane will still be the incumbent openside. He was anointed in 2012 as the future openside and captain. Unless Foster is removed then Cane will remain. I’m unsure what Robertson thinks regarding who is the best openside and who is the best captain.
I think that the last test showed the value of having at least one player who is primarily focused on the ruck and tackling; especially as the All Blacks require fast, clean ruck ball. There is the argument that Savea, with adequate game time at openside, could fill this roll. But Savea is 27, doesn’t regularly play openside in Super Rugby, and the time to develop would only come at the expense of Cane.
This leaves Savea in a precarious position. Though he is very good carrying the ball and is ok in the lineout he lacks some of the size and height that a blindside or 8 normally has. When the idea that the All Black pack lacks grunt is prevalent this lack of size and height could become a problem for Savea; especially with Blackadder and Jacobson are developing nicely. The 6,7,8 reserve is normally more of a 6/8 than a genuine openside. I think that Papalii could take this role as he can cover all three roles well. Papalii also fits into the mould of a 6 and half; allowing the All Blacks to have three ball runners in the loose trio.
One issue for the future is – is it better to play Cane for 80 minutes? Or is it better to play Cane for 60 odd minutes, allowing the All Blacks to increase the tempo in the last 20 minutes; especially with three ball runners in the loose trio. Whitelock or Smith could cover the captaincy.

How will the All Blacks line up against Fiji?

I agree that Cane is better at the breakdown than Savea; and that Cane has a decent running game, I wasn’t saying he didn’t have one. He took a try well in Eden park last year.
But I think that Ardie Savea is faster; and clearly a better running option, either: after contact leg drive or running like a back. Often the difference between a penalty and super fast ruck ball is a split second. Savea can get to that wide ruck faster.
If Savea had been given the opportunity in the All Black jersey that Cane has, Savea would’ve developed much further. Given more time in the black jersey Savea will continue to develop. I think his games’ relative strengths, compared to Canes’ relative strengths, more closely suit the type of game that the All Blacks are trying to play.
The interest the selectors are showing in Papalii and Blackadder at open side show they are seeing the value in an openside that is more of a six and a half than a genuine New Zealand style openside; that could be the reason why Lachlan Boshier did it get a look in. Of Cane and Savea, Savea seems that he fits the six and a half mould better.
The deciding issue is that Cane is the captain. It is not a change to expect to see.I don’t think either player would let the side down.

What concerns me most about Ian Foster

Both are good opensides.

Cane is a better defensive openside e.g. a better tackler, who because he is a better tackler, gets more turnorvers. Having someone who can regularly make spot tackles is a useful person to have in any team.

Savea is a better offensive openside e.g. a genuine running option and has the pace to be in close support and finish the try, also his pace makes Savea more suited to securing the wide ruck. Savea’s better running game will provide some of the ‘go forward’ that has been missing.

Ultimately it depends what you want from an openside. The All Blacks play an: open, attacking, semi structured game. Savea’s skill set suits that type of game better than Cane’s skill set does. The All Blacks aren’t a team that looks to smother the opposition. They are a team that looks to dominate the offence.

What concerns me most about Ian Foster

I have nothing against schools giving sporting scholarships to people from the pacific islands. Or those players going on to play NPC or Super Rugby.
But I don’t think that those players should be selected for the All Blacks. Some nations e.g. Japan need overseas imports to be competitive, and that will grow the game there locally; hopefully, eventually, negating the need for overseas imports. But for tier one nations to do so: All Blacks, Wallabies, England, Ireland to do so is unnecessary and counter productive.
The way forward is allowing more players from tier two nations, who aren’t eligible for the All Blacks, to play NPC and Super Rugby etc. Moana Pasifika and Fijian Drua is the model we should be looking for. Developing local talent, not putting New Zealand citizens in other nation’s jersey and calling it progress. Though until those systems are developed it is inevitable that citizens from tier one nations will need to play for tier two nations.
Residency qualification should only apply if the player: moved before they were 18, and they moved with their family (not just a scholarship), and the family became a permanent residents/citizens. If reflagging is allowed (under the current criteria) many more tier two players will play for a tier one nation first, then reflag. It will gut the respective national sides. Also will the reflagging go both ways? Will it be used to get international exposure e.g. playing for a pacific island side, then the player reflags to play for the All Blacks? Hopefully not.
Also grandparenting should be removed from tier one nations.

Random observations from the first full weekend of mid-year rugby internationals

I agree with drop kicks for conversions.

For penalties I would still allow the place kick but make the points variable depending on where they were taken: 1) between the opposition goal line an 22 – three points, as normal. 2) between the opposition 22 and halfway, two points. 3) From your own half, one point.

To combat offending get the yellow card out early, or maybe bring in additional cards with lesser time penalties e.g. five minute and or two minute cards. As well as other stuff: https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/03/01/my-solution-to-rugbys-card-issue/.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

I agree if rugby went back to injury only replacements there would need to be some sort of neutral official to make that call. It could be a logical extension of the head injury protocol. But this would only really work at top level were there was access to qualified personnel and the money to pay them.
It would definitely bring fatigue back into the equation. One additional benefit is that teams with less depth won’t get blown off the park when the, team with greater depth, brings on fresh players with 20 minutes to go.
I’m unsure if World Rugby will go down that road. One thing I would like to see is that the game is extended to 90 minutes. That would make the end of each half a lot more interesting; but that creates issues with tv timeslots.
A similar thing that could be done is stopping the clock when the ball is not in play. At the moment as soon as one side is down to 14 there are even more scrum resets, the hooker ‘confirming’ the lineout call etc.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

I would like to see a shot clock for goal kicks. Not one minute, 30 seconds. Referees give too much time to take goal kicks.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

Either have a time limit to set a lineout, or else a free kick, then penalty for continued infringement. Same with scrums.

A radical option could be that a lineout could be thrown in, say five seconds after the throwing side is set no matter if the opposition is ready, similar to a quick lineout. I bet that would get the opposition numbering up.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

I think it will be hard to stop the number of replacements unless they reduce the number of injury replacements available.

Remember before they had tactical replacements players would just pretend to pull a muscle: the trainer would come on, use the magic water, stretch the muscle, the player would get up and ‘try’ the muscle, no better, repeat the cycle (if they want to put on a good show).

So unless they reduce the number of injury replacements the tactical replacements will continue at the same rate, but with more rest stops in the game/rest breaks.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

It will be interesting if the return to fast ruck ball will also effect the international pecking order.
The teams which did well in the last World Cup cycle e.g. Springboks, England and Ireland favor a slower ruck which allows them to set their defense; they also favor phase play which is slower and less risky, grinding down their opponents. While sides which favor fast ruck ball and the ball beating the man e.g. All Blacks and Wallabies did not do so well; especially the Wallabies who tend to not have a forward pack that suits ‘trench warfare’ rugby. Hopefully rugby returns to rapid movement, with the ball beating the man.
I think this could also make the game safer. The bigger units, hopefully will get puffed out, with a faster game and less rest periods (at the slow ruck), resulting in less epic collisions. Look how the faster game in Japan made Retallick lose weight and get fitter and faster. The next key will be for referees to stop teams wasting time, to get a rest: at scrum and lineout sets ups, and constant ‘injuries’ that don’t result in a player being replaced.
Rugby is definitely moving in the right direction with this change. A fast, skillful game is far more likely to entice the casual, or new spectator and grow the game.

The ruck directives have made halfback the most key role in the new rugby XV

Thanks for replying. Have a good one.

Taking the three: The imperfect science of rugby captaincy

Geoff what do you think of Sam Cane as an All Blacks captain? In a few games last year the All Blacks seemed like they were rudderless; especially the loss to Argentina.
Is it interesting that Cane was co captain of the Chiefs, rather than just the captain; I think over multiple coaches?
New Zealand has many extremely talented opensides and most offer a wider range of skills than Cane, who is probably the best tackler (which opens up turnover opportunities for him).
The coaches have stated that the All Blacks need more ‘go forward’. Making use of a more balanced openside, like Ardie Savea or the developing Dalton Papalii, would defiantly give more ‘go forward’; probably increasing the ‘go forward’ by more than they would lose defensively.
Do you think that it was decided, when Cane first came on the scene, that he would the the captain and the continuity of the coaching set up has kept that plan with no real reevaluation?
Not saying Cane is a poor openside or captain. It just seems that an openside who has an all round game would suit the expansive style that the All Blacks want to play.

Taking the three: The imperfect science of rugby captaincy

close