Michael Cheika unimpressed by call to red-card Force flanker for this hit

You must mean the Stan commentators who can’t interpret a scrum and need to defer to Justin Harrison every single time. Mehrtens also makes me want to switch off though. Perhaps I’m just missing the Fox Sports commentary.

SBW would have been proud of that shoulder charge. Intent – didn’t see the arm raised to try to wrap around the ball carrier

Fair enough, I didn’t mean to mis-represent your doubling over comment. I’ve seen a lot more of a drop in height ignored previously, so going by that I assume they determined this wasn’t enough either. I went back to the guidelines as I wasn’t sure exactly what it listed as mitigation’s; and we’ve seen some referee license with what they have used, so... Who really knows though, some of these decisions have such little consistency.

Thanks for the direct quote from the guidelines, and your take on whether the tackled player was going down in trajectory or not. There's a big difference between "doubled over" and "doubling over", I did not say "doubled over" and do agree he was at the early stages of that movement. I observed movement downwards and by what the referee said, he did not. Maybe if he'd said there was something there but it was insignificant and can be discounted, fair enough. Of course I'm nowhere near being a qualified referee and the ref training is an eye-opener. As it should be.

I think the guidelines actually, in regard to BC head height - “ BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)” In this instance his head height doesn’t really drop from the contact of the tackle, and the shoulder to head impact happens very soon after initial contact, with the BCs position and posture largely unchanged. I don’t think this instance can have this mitigation applied. I couldn’t find any mention of being ‘doubled over’, and in this instance I don’t think that term would apply even if it was mentioned in the guidelines.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. What was Pulu trying to achieve? Where were his arms? No attempt to raise them, at all. Simone could have stayed higher, and fallen 30 seconds slower, and Pulu's arms would still be down by his waist. Any fall from Simone was because he has already been tackled - by two players - and was bracing for contact. So what does Pulu do? No arms, third man in, shoulder over the top to take him out. And he didn't miss. A tackled player is already in a "vulnerable position" and, if we're talking about intent, where was Pulu's intent to tackle Simone legally? Even put one arm toward chest height and pretend your tackling! Pretend to wrap your arms around as Simone falls. He couldn't even manage that. A shoulder charge to the head, with the defender's hands on his hips, can only ever end one way...

There's no reason to give the ref any benefit of the doubt. Nor Cheika. The Interpretive Guidelines have been on the World Rugby web site since May 2019 when the memo went to all Unions. It's taken me now just three web clicks to get to them to re-read them. There are example and explanatory videos too! On Satdee night I switched the TV off when Pulu was red carded. It wasn't the offence. Tackling above the line of the shoulders should be punished. It was the ref saying there were no mitigating circumstances. When tackled by Pulu, the Brumbies player was doubling over in the tackles made by the first two incoming Force tacklers. Pitching forward and down is a mitigating factor according to the Guideline.

i enjoy cheika's commentary..always look forward to his input..certainly better than the other 'expert' commentators..

His opinion has some merit as does Berry's. He explained his reasons articulately. To strike his head he was predicting it would whip forward as it did. For me Berry is not at fault as I don't think, like many refs, he has been told what are considered mitigating circumstances.

Cheika continues to be an embarrassment.

And Castle brought Scott Johnson back from Scotland to reign him in for anywhere from $400-700,000. I believe his contract runs out soon.

It’s got me buggered that he has a gig as an expert. No doubt he has significant expertise in a number of areas, but his public utterances to the rugby loving public show a profound inability to ‘read the room’. This is a man who had more than a World Cup cycle to develop a team and failed to select or develop a world class, 6, 10 or 15. (Scott Fardy to this day does not know why his Wallaby career ended). Big Mick acted like the Wallaby was his team. It wasn’t. It was our team. And it was his stubbornness that limited it. I don’t want to listen to him, even if he might know a thing or two. But I’d read a book he might write “The Mistakes I Made on a Million aYear”.

Cheika also said 1) Force were very unlucky to be behind on scoreboard at half time. 2) Continued to praise N White while conveniently forgetting that HE was responsible for Nick leaving Australia after he wouldn't pick him in WB squads. When Nick finally returned in 2019 after 6 yrs in Europe MC still wouldn't pick him in run-on teams even though he was by far best halfback in Aust. How MC became an international coach is beyond me and it's no surprise WBs slipped to no 7 in world with him running the show.

Michael Cheika 2019: “I don’t know the rules anymore.” Michael Cheika 2021: still doesn’t know the laws. I don’t appreciate his analysis one bit. It’s got me buggered that he managed to become our national coach.

The trouble withChieka’s comment is that he does not appear to understand that the intent of tough sanctions is to get the tackle height down reducing contact to the head. Looking for or inventing excuses for the offenders is counterproductive. It’s a shoulder charge to the head with force- if that’s not Red what is?