Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas
-
I was reading the ref review on the42
Re: the disallowed try.
Van der Westhuizen has awarded the try to Israel Folau but Skeen calls in, “Marius, I want to show you… the situation is foul play, a tackle on a Green player by Gold 5 when Green is not in possession.”
Van der Westhuizen views the footage above and replies, “Ben, it’s pretty clear to me there that it’s back on the 10-metre line, a player not in possession of the ball being tackled. My decision at the moment is to overturn the try and go back for a penalty against number 5.”
I've taken some stills from the gif.
What do you guys think?
I think if a dummy runner, in front of the ball gets tackled, then that is not the defence's fault.Calling back for tackling the player without the ball 5 phases back, for a dummy run. is horseshit. Technically it's penalty to Australia for obstruction.
However. If they decided the foul play was what 5 Gold was doing to the player on the ground and how long he pinned him down for then fair enough IMO. But that wasn't what they communicated.
-
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@rapido The ball actually went in front of the Irish player that got tackled though, not behind him. He just chose not to catch it. Does that still make him a dummy runner?
Yes, it did go in front of the Irish player.
What I'm saying is that technically there is a moment (in the first screenshot) when the Irish runner is in front of the ball and is moving directly at the Australian defender. He is now basically offside and shouldn't interfere with a defender.
I'm not saying this should be blown up as a penalty every time, it is not a blatant act of obstruction. There is on really centimetres and seconds in the timing of this.
My hunch is Skeen only inspected this incident because of the silly business that happened on the ground.
But I'm wondering, if not worried, if this tackle off the ball had occurred without the pinning down - would there have been cause enough to over-turn a try? That's a dangerous precendent that's going to encourage attacking dummy runners to run full tit into contact with the opposition.
-
Coleman has time not to go on with that tackle. Stick a shoulder in? by all means. But to hit, drive and dump? That's just dumb, and asking to involve the ref. And once you involve the ref...
-
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@rapido The ball actually went in front of the Irish player that got tackled though, not behind him. He just chose not to catch it. Does that still make him a dummy runner?
That's a dangerous precendent that's going to encourage attacking dummy runners to run full tit into contact with the opposition.
I see what you are saying but on the flip side Coleman has just lined this bloke up and smashed him - look at the first screenshot you posted - the ball is well past.
Basically what @mariner4life has said above.
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
Coleman has time not to go on with that tackle. Stick a shoulder in? by all means. But to hit, drive and dump? That's just dumb, and asking to involve the ref. And once you involve the ref...
Yes, I agree.
I think Coleman doubled down and saw it as an opportunity to put in a sly hit, rather than being actually fooled by the dummy.
I would have like a bit more communication about that part by the 2 officials to ease my paranoia.
In a sliding door moment: If Coleman had attempted to pull out of the actual tackle before impact - and just brace himself, what would have happened I wonder ..... no arms, shoulder, cards etc etc, christ, now I'm talking myself back round to favouring Coleman because offside player shouldn't run at defenders ......
-
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
Coleman has time not to go on with that tackle. Stick a shoulder in? by all means. But to hit, drive and dump? That's just dumb, and asking to involve the ref. And once you involve the ref...
Yes, I agree.
I think Coleman doubled down and saw it as an opportunity to put in a sly hit, rather than being actually fooled by the dummy.
I would have like a bit more communication about that part by the 2 officials to ease my paranoia.
In a sliding door moment: If Coleman had attempted to pull out of the actual tackle before impact - and just brace himself, what would have happened I wonder ..... no arms, shoulder, cards etc etc, christ, now I'm talking myself back round to favouring Coleman because offside player shouldn't run at defenders ......
again, depends. hold your position and stop him with a "solid" shoulder? no worries. Lean in Sonny Bill style and lay him out? In the hands of the ref. If you are going to play on the edge, be a bit sneaky about it. Don't be a big, dumb target
-
I don't like the try being overturned and a penalty awarded to Ireland simply because I'm sick of seeing dummy runners impeding defenders.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I don't like the try being overturned and a penalty awarded to Ireland simply because I'm sick of seeing dummy runners impeding defenders.
an attitude i have a lot of sympathy for, but the instances that get me pissed off aren't like this one.
I really hate the front pod of forwards being in front of the ball when the team go wide behind them, and they magically get themselves in the defensive line and stop the defense sliding.
I don't see so much obstruction these days now that i think about it.
-
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I was reading the ref review on the42
Re: the disallowed try.
Van der Westhuizen has awarded the try to Israel Folau but Skeen calls in, “Marius, I want to show you… the situation is foul play, a tackle on a Green player by Gold 5 when Green is not in possession.”
Van der Westhuizen views the footage above and replies, “Ben, it’s pretty clear to me there that it’s back on the 10-metre line, a player not in possession of the ball being tackled. My decision at the moment is to overturn the try and go back for a penalty against number 5.”
I've taken some stills from the gif.
What do you guys think?
I think if a dummy runner, in front of the ball gets tackled, then that is not the defence's fault.Calling back for tackling the player without the ball 5 phases back, for a dummy run. is horseshit. Technically it's penalty to Australia for obstruction.
However. If they decided the foul play was what 5 Gold was doing to the player on the ground and how long he pinned him down for then fair enough IMO. But that wasn't what they communicated.
Rubbish, if we allow any player without the ball to be tackled just because they were skipped with a pass and are now infront of the ball carrier you will have open season for cheap shots on players not expecting to be tackled. Its a pretty simple concept. If someone doesn't have the ball don't follow through with a tackle on them. Just like if you have lined up a big tackle on the 10 but he gets his pass or kick away you are entitled to a free late hit.
I don't really care that it disallowed a try. The fact is it should have been picked up at the time and play probably would have been restarted with ireland kicking for the corner or goal not Australia scoring at the other end.
-
I have no issues with the penalty - he tackled a man without the ball.
I think the better discussion is if it warranted disallowing a try that was scored 5+ phases later. The ref didn't pick it up at the time, it wasn't particularly dirty, nor did it have a tangible impact on the ensuing play.
Technically it's 'foul play' and under the current guidelines it's fair to pull it back. So I have no problems with the officials, per se. But the guidelines? Hmmm.
I reckon the criteria should be tightened a bit, so it only allows you to pull up acts that meet the yellow card threshold.
I know many people watching at the game or at home saw that incident as 'everything wrong with rugby', ie excessive officialdom and pedantry cancelling out a good, fair try.
Now I don't think non-rugby fans should dictate how we officiate our game, but in this instance I think they had a point.
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I have no issues with the penalty - he tackled a man without the ball.
I think the better discussion is if it warranted disallowing a try that was scored 5+ phases later. The ref didn't pick it up at the time, it wasn't particularly dirty, nor did it have a tangible impact on the ensuing play.
Technically it's 'foul play' and under the current guidelines it's fair to pull it back. So I have no problems with the officials, per se. But the guidelines? Hmmm.
I reckon the criteria should be tightened a bit, so it only allows you to pull up acts that meet the yellow card threshold.
I know many people watching at the game or at home saw that incident as 'everything wrong with rugby', ie excessive officialdom and pedantry cancelling out a good, fair try.
Now I don't think non-rugby fans should dictate how we officiate our game, but in this instance I think they had a point.
i agree with a lot of this.
is this the try where the turnover was the ball hitting a wallaby in a strange position?
-
@pukunui said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I was reading the ref review on the42
Re: the disallowed try.
Van der Westhuizen has awarded the try to Israel Folau but Skeen calls in, “Marius, I want to show you… the situation is foul play, a tackle on a Green player by Gold 5 when Green is not in possession.”
Van der Westhuizen views the footage above and replies, “Ben, it’s pretty clear to me there that it’s back on the 10-metre line, a player not in possession of the ball being tackled. My decision at the moment is to overturn the try and go back for a penalty against number 5.”
I've taken some stills from the gif.
What do you guys think?
I think if a dummy runner, in front of the ball gets tackled, then that is not the defence's fault.Calling back for tackling the player without the ball 5 phases back, for a dummy run. is horseshit. Technically it's penalty to Australia for obstruction.
However. If they decided the foul play was what 5 Gold was doing to the player on the ground and how long he pinned him down for then fair enough IMO. But that wasn't what they communicated.
Rubbish, if we allow any player without the ball to be tackled just because they were skipped with a pass and are now infront of the ball carrier you will have open season for cheap shots on players not expecting to be tackled. Its a pretty simple concept. If someone doesn't have the ball don't follow through with a tackle on them. Just like if you have lined up a big tackle on the 10 but he gets his pass or kick away you are entitled to a free late hit.
I don't really care that it disallowed a try. The fact is it should have been picked up at the time and play probably would have been restarted with ireland kicking for the corner or goal not Australia scoring at the other end.
It's also a simple concept, if the pass skips you, to not continue your run into an opponent. Slow, stop or change direction to a supporting line. That's what used to happen for a hundred odd years.
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I really hate the front pod of forwards being in front of the ball when the team go wide behind them, and they magically get themselves in the defensive line and stop the defense sliding.
That's precisely what I'm talking about. When they do it, they're in front of the ball carrier, continue moving forward and get in the way. The openside AR should be able to point this out to the ref.
Coleman in this instance deserves to be penalised. He's simply gone for a cheap shot.
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
is this the try where the turnover was the ball hitting a wallaby in a strange position?
No, the Irish went wide and were caught behind the gainline, and we drove through for the turnover. Genia found Beale deep who put Foley in space.
-
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@pukunui said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
@rapido said in Wallabies v Ireland #1 - Brisvegas:
I was reading the ref review on the42
Re: the disallowed try.
Van der Westhuizen has awarded the try to Israel Folau but Skeen calls in, “Marius, I want to show you… the situation is foul play, a tackle on a Green player by Gold 5 when Green is not in possession.”
Van der Westhuizen views the footage above and replies, “Ben, it’s pretty clear to me there that it’s back on the 10-metre line, a player not in possession of the ball being tackled. My decision at the moment is to overturn the try and go back for a penalty against number 5.”
I've taken some stills from the gif.
What do you guys think?
I think if a dummy runner, in front of the ball gets tackled, then that is not the defence's fault.Calling back for tackling the player without the ball 5 phases back, for a dummy run. is horseshit. Technically it's penalty to Australia for obstruction.
However. If they decided the foul play was what 5 Gold was doing to the player on the ground and how long he pinned him down for then fair enough IMO. But that wasn't what they communicated.
Rubbish, if we allow any player without the ball to be tackled just because they were skipped with a pass and are now infront of the ball carrier you will have open season for cheap shots on players not expecting to be tackled. Its a pretty simple concept. If someone doesn't have the ball don't follow through with a tackle on them. Just like if you have lined up a big tackle on the 10 but he gets his pass or kick away you are entitled to a free late hit.
I don't really care that it disallowed a try. The fact is it should have been picked up at the time and play probably would have been restarted with ireland kicking for the corner or goal not Australia scoring at the other end.
It's also a simple concept, if the pass skips you, to not continue your run into an opponent. Slow, stop or change direction to a supporting line. That's what used to happen for a hundred odd years.
I know you've posted some stills, but seriously how long would that ball have been past him, barely a second? How quickly do you think a runner can stop? Coleman was in the wrong because he committed himself to the tackle no matter what.
