England v South Africa
-
I don't understand the fuss about the tackle, so he led with the shoulder, but trying to make a dominant tackle you have to lead with the shoulder otherwise you'll break you arm. No way is it a shoulder charge. Seemingly the problem is not the tackle, but how messed up refereeing has become. Nowadays hard tackle on the chest is yellow cards
-
@rebound Even if you don't judge it wasn't a shoulder charge and that no contact was made with the opponent's head, it was clearly a high tackle. Penalty at the least. Under World Rugby's directives, right or wrongly, it should have been a straight red card.
-
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
-
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
No debate that it was good offensuve defence. However by the letter of the law currently, which is what is being debated here, that was a no arms tackle, clearly above the nipple line which at least deserved a penalty.
-
@rebound said in England v South Africa:
I don't understand the fuss about the tackle, so he led with the shoulder, but trying to make a dominant tackle you have to lead with the shoulder otherwise you'll break you arm. No way is it a shoulder charge. Seemingly the problem is not the tackle, but how messed up refereeing has become. Nowadays hard tackle on the chest is yellow cards
Nah.
Forget talk of a YC. The bit Gardner bottled was the penalty call.
By letter of the law the ref was correct because he determined that OF attempted to grasp the ball carrier.
However if you go slightly beyond the letter of the law to the reason for the law it is simply a penalisable offence unless he caused great danger to the ball carrier's wellbeing.
This foul play law is for safety reasons and is there to stop shoulder charges in a tackle. The 'grasp' is intended to be from the arm/shoulder making contact, not the other arm (otherwise SBW could do a huge shoulder smash with his right while bringing his left arm around the back).
Of course the shoulder is first point of impact in many tackles but (try this at home), bring your left hand down hard on your right shoulder with your right arm by your side (pretty solid) then do the same but as you make contact, lift the right arm. Instantly some of the force is transferred and 'softened'. Not important when hitting soft tissue but very important when hitting on bone. (remember that regulations do not allow chest padding)
The reason I have explained it this way is because that is how it is explained to players, coaches and refs in SmartRugby training.
OF reckons he was always going for a textbook tackle but the contact came too fast and he couldn't get his arm up quickly enough. Well sorry but that is another reason why it should be a penalty. An illegal act was done to stop progress because you couldn't get in position (albeit split second) to do it legally. Just like an offside where you haven't quite got back behind the hindmost before coming forward.
Forget all talk of softness or 'what's the game coming to'. SA were on attack. OF decided he needed to go hard and 'high' to stop them, got his timing out and hit with the shoulder well before wrapping that arm. Easy penalty, no drama. Would have been called without controversy in the 10th minute.
IF that had slid up a touch more and made hard contact with the head it would have been a RC and minimum 6 weeks off. How does it go from being OK to that in the space of an inch? Surely 'man that was close' means there was enough danger that a penalty warning was warranted? Again the point/time/consequence in the match played a big part and it shouldn't have.
Gardner bottled it. -
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100%
-
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
-
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
Put it this way. If Sam Cane got carded for that tackle in a test this place would go into meltdown.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
No. I would, as i consistently do, rage against world rugby and their farcical high tackle directives
-
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
No. I would, as i consistently do, rage against world rugby and their farcical high tackle directives
Nothing to do with high tackle. Just on the basis of a shoulder charge penalty level offense that would have caused no controversy at the 10 minute mark
-
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
-
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
Put it this way. If Sam Cane got carded for that tackle in a test this place would go into meltdown.
Again, forget the card red herring. Simple no arms penalty. It was a league tackle in a union game.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it. -
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it.Who knows? To say he would have called it differently would suggest he bottled the call and I don't think that was the case as there would have been just as much controversy if he'd called it the other way and the Boks had scored.
God tackle or not though, it was a close call and Farrell should not have put himself in that position.
