RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2)
-
I'm perplexed about the Todd ruling as well. It wasn't a tackle and he came from onside. As for obstruction? That's for non ball carriers. The whole aim is to obstruct the ball carrier (legally).
This is the only section that comes close
The game is played only by players who are on their feet.
..............
A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
Not play the ball.
Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty.Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it. Sanction: Penalty.
-
@Machpants said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@taniwharugby said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan also they used the off load just prior to contact alot more than normal too, just got that extra metre or so but bent the line forcing Ireland to adjust again and again.
ABs have stepped up a gear, adapted to the rush defence they had struggled with since 2017, England will now need to look at thier game and look at where to exploit the ABs.
Lamour probably the only Irish backline threat and he wasnt there form the start.
Pretty hard to formulate and execute a plan to combat something that just became immediately apparent, in 1 week. Safe to say the powder was kept dry for a reason
There will still be some powder left to trickle out, like 2011 teabag
They tried to run that, but with TJ screaming through the middle - pretty sure he got gobbled up by the Irish forwards, but we did win a 5m scrum by driving him over the line.
-
@junior said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Machpants said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@taniwharugby said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan also they used the off load just prior to contact alot more than normal too, just got that extra metre or so but bent the line forcing Ireland to adjust again and again.
ABs have stepped up a gear, adapted to the rush defence they had struggled with since 2017, England will now need to look at thier game and look at where to exploit the ABs.
Lamour probably the only Irish backline threat and he wasnt there form the start.
Pretty hard to formulate and execute a plan to combat something that just became immediately apparent, in 1 week. Safe to say the powder was kept dry for a reason
There will still be some powder left to trickle out, like 2011 teabag
They tried to run that, but with TJ screaming through the middle - pretty sure he got gobbled up by the Irish forwards, but we did win a 5m scrum by driving him over the line.
Yeah like the Teabag. Was used only in final after a successful test a few years before - then it was put in the dry powder storage ready for the final when needed. The ABs will have a few of those still up their sleeves for the Semi and Final
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@NTA said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
I'm loving the post match banter.
6 days to get back into shit-your-pants-about-England mode.
Beware the Eddie Jones factor , in 2003 we did a similar job on South Africa in a quarter final. Eddie masterminded tactics to beat us in a one off game a week later with an inferior lineup of players .
I reckon he has known for some time to win a World Cup he will probably need to beat us, and this game has been in his planning .
Yes, much like 2003, he has enough talent (potentially more in fact) to get to a semi final against us without showing his full hand. Absolutely, he's been planning for this since the draw came out. His comment about wanting to play the ABs was a dead giveaway and, surely, was delivered with the intention of dredging up some 2003 demons (although, in reality, I'm not sure Mortlock's intercept was part of his grand plans).
The good thing for us is obviously that our powder has been significantly dryer in the lead up to this tournament than it was in 2003, so hopefully his plan is less foolproof than it was back then.
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
Poor decision which he made worse by inventing weirder call.
When you're in a hole stop digging. Should have had the guts to reverse his initial call.
The player who is going to place the ball at the foot of the posts.
Todd prevented that by throwing himself in the way.
Illegal act which prevented a try being scored.
Penalty try, YC.
Pretty easy to work out.
Please be more specific - what was the illegal act, other than stopping the ball being placed against the post?
-
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
The failure in your argument is the presumption that because an option might have been available to the attacker ('to a team mate'), this removes the infringement. He made no attempt to tackle the opponent, turning his back to him and flopping down onto the ground in front. Having done so he's also prevented the attacker from playing the ball, for which the attacker has options. A central tenet of the game is that you have to be on your feet to participate in the field of play.
-
@KiwiMurph said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
A no arms tackle that prevented a try from being scored.
Yellow card.
Simple.
I’m genuinely interested in understanding this better, because I don’t think Todd was tackling rather than just putting his body in the way to prevent the try.
If I am wrong on the first point then okay. But if I’m right and he just put his body in the way to stop the try, then what is the problem given there have been plenty of attempts By a player to use their body (eg arms, legs) to prevent a try from scoring that aren’t in a tackle situation.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@KiwiMurph said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
A no arms tackle that prevented a try from being scored.
Yellow card.
Simple.
I’m genuinely interested in understanding this better, because I don’t think Todd was tackling rather than just putting his body in the way to prevent the try.
If I am wrong on the first point then okay. But if I’m right and he just put his body in the way to stop the try, then what is the problem given there have been plenty of attempts By a player to use their body (eg arms, legs) to prevent a try from scoring that aren’t in a tackle situation.
Yeah, when a player, who is on the gound slides a body part under the ball over the line to prevent a try, it's great play. Todd, wih a broken wing, did the same with his back. On his side of the ball, the Irish have to remove him just as the would all the bodies that pile up at every ruck near the line.
-
I've just finished the replay. Re Todd, I feel for him cos his wing was well and truly broken as noted above. And he just kind of fell into that spot.
BUT, he did just throw his back/shoulder into a tackle attempt . No use of arms, broken or not.
Isn't that a penalty? And if so, given the try would have been scored if not for him, them isn't it a PT?
Maybe there are arguments against this, but to me it's sailing close enough to the wind to not be worth getting fired up over.
-
@voodoo def not worth gettign wound up about, but still interesting how people see the same incident differently.
-
@taniwharugby guess it'd be a boring world otherwise!
-
@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
His team peaked some time ago , and he was powerless to bring it back ,
powderless
-
@KiwiMurph said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
A no arms tackle that prevented a try from being scored.
Yellow card.
Simple.
Tackle of... the post?
-
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
The failure in your argument is the presumption that because an option might have been available to the attacker ('to a team mate'), this removes the infringement. He made no attempt to tackle the opponent, turning his back to him and flopping down onto the ground in front. Having done so he's also prevented the attacker from playing the ball, for which the attacker has options. A central tenet of the game is that you have to be on your feet to participate in the field of play.
Can’t see where you are going with this. He didn’t tackle. All he did was get in front of the player trying to score. He managed to do before the Irish player thus preventing the attempted try. After he did so he did not try to prevent the player playing the ball. The player was free to place the ball behind him. You aren’t required to get out of the way and let him place the ball over the line. If you were every tackle or ruck on the line would be a penalty.
-
@jegga It's noticeable when having all the squads open at the same time - the only Wing/FB to play 3 WCs for NZ as a Wing/FB is Muliaina. The only Wing/FB from 2015 still in this squad is Ben Smith.
The 10 Wings/FBs to play more than one WC:
Kirwan (87-91)
Wright (87-91)
Crowley (87-91)
Lomu (95-99)
Wilson (95-99)
Osborne (95-99)
Rokocoko (03-07)
Howlett (03-07)
Muliaina (03-07-11)
B Smith (15-19)This is based on Wikipedia squads and position stated there (so Umaga is not included as he was not selected at Wing in multiple WCs), not that there are many backs selected as Wing/FB at 1 WC and elsewhere at another WC.
Total number of players selected as Wings/FB in WC squads is 34. 10/34 suggest something of a shelf life for these positions, possibly just due to aging out, or possibly to make it harder for opposing teams to work them out (or a bit of both).
-
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
The failure in your argument is the presumption that because an option might have been available to the attacker ('to a team mate'), this removes the infringement. He made no attempt to tackle the opponent, turning his back to him and flopping down onto the ground in front. Having done so he's also prevented the attacker from playing the ball, for which the attacker has options. A central tenet of the game is that you have to be on your feet to participate in the field of play.
The failure of your argument is in persisting with the narrative that there was an infringement. There wasn’t. He didn’t violate 13.3 because he didn’t tackle the player, didn’t play the ball, didn’t stop the ball carrier from playing the ball.
And he didn’t violate 13.4 because he didn’t fall on or over the ball carrier, he fell on the ground. And by doing so and staying where he was on the defenders’ side of the breakdown, and not interfering with anybody, he was, as you say, out of the game. He never prevented the player from doing anything.
We both know that 13.3 is intended to make sure tackling players release the tackled player, and 13.4 is to stop people flopping on rucks. It is disingenuous to suggest that they were intended for the purpose Owens used them for, but then again... he didn’t did he? He said Todd was never onside, which is clearly false, then apparently said he used no arms in the tackle when there was no tackle. That being the case, any post facto justification is just smelly bullshit.
-
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@JC said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@booboo said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@canefan said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@antipodean said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@Luigi said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
@sparky said in RWC: All Blacks v Ireland (QF2):
Not really sure what Matt Todd could do there?
Tackle?
Exactly. It ain’t about intent anymore. Or even it being an accident. If you’re in the way, flailing around like a epileptic squid you’re gonna get pinged. Todd got sent off for being a muppet. Can’t even claim cynicism, just rubbishness.
He's directly responsible for both of Ireland's tries. His YC was deserved - you're supposed to tackle.
Please explain to me the rule that Todd broke? He was inside, the vision clearly showed that. He did not make shoulder or arm contact with the irish player's head. It was at best a collision I would have thought? Honest question
I'd go with foul play obstruction. He made no attempt to tackle and simply plopped himself in the way.
Who is he obstructing. Isn't obstruction preventing someone from playing?
The ball carrier, from playing the ball. I suggest you watch a replay. It's obvious and uncontroversial. Ignore that he got flustered in his explanation, the penalty and card are justified.
I had to go and watch again after reading this. He did not prevent the ball carrier from playing the ball. The ball could have been made available to a team mate at any time and Todd didn’t stop him from trying to do that. He was, for the record, behind the try line when the ball carrier picked up the ball and only moved forward after that. He flopped clownishly at the base of the posts but was onside when he did it. If you called it a tackle or a breakdown then he was on the NZ side of it. If you called it open play then he can be wherever the fuck he likes.
The failure in your argument is the presumption that because an option might have been available to the attacker ('to a team mate'), this removes the infringement. He made no attempt to tackle the opponent, turning his back to him and flopping down onto the ground in front. Having done so he's also prevented the attacker from playing the ball, for which the attacker has options. A central tenet of the game is that you have to be on your feet to participate in the field of play.
The failure of your argument is in persisting with the narrative that there was an infringement. There wasn’t. He didn’t violate 13.3 because he didn’t tackle the player, didn’t play the ball, didn’t stop the ball carrier from playing the ball.
There was. Just because you've left one option for a player doesn't mean you haven't illegally restricted other options. He flopped in front in the field of play without attempting a legal tackle and preventing the attacker from playing the ball against the posts. Had he remained on his feet in the way, that would've been fine. Had he made a legal tackle and released the player he was under no obligation to move and that would have been fine.
He did neither. It's perfectly simple.
And he didn’t violate 13.4
I said 13.3
We both know that 13.3 is intended to make sure tackling players release the tackled player, and 13.4 is to stop people flopping on rucks.
Nonsense - those laws are covered in Law 15
