Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th
-
Oh and where is Hodge's best position? Fullback? When he is at 10 the teams looks pleasantly worklike but Hodge-Podgy.
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@voodoo Rennie isn't coach of the year but I think he's been dealt a horrible hand and played it pretty well.
For the first time in ages there is evidence of tactical thought in the way we play. Even last night there were really clever ideas and set plays that we just couldn't quite nail. But the idea was right.
This is a very green Wallaby team with some players who are frankly not up to international class. The young guys will improve, and I hope when they do Rennie will be able to get the team into really good shape.
It was certainly very green on Saturday.
-
@pukunui said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@ACT-Crusader said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@pukunui heading into the tests I certainly didn’t think Jordan was the answer for the right wing. He was exposed defensively on the wing for the Saders. He’s got time to keep developing though.
It’s not about him being “the answer” from the start. It is about giving the best outside back in Super rugby a decent opportunity earlier in the series. Having Jordie as the undroppable/unrotatable selection at 14 meant Jordan never got the chance to show that maybe he WAS “the answer”.
Im yet to see any evidence of the whole getting exposed on the wing thing. Especially when compared to any other option for the outside back. They all had defensive lapses in Super rugby. BB probably the worst.
Wrong thread for this discussion really.
Cue people moaning about a player proving himself in the team rather than elsewhere 🙄
Still baffled by people seeing Hooper's card as anything more than yellow (and even then only because the bed had been made).
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
That said, it doesn't make a game for the viewer when so many game affecting decisions get made
Ignoring the yellows for a minute: the red card was entirely justified and while AFG has many, MANY faults, it wasn't his decision to try and smack a bloke around the chops.
-
-
-
On the yellow cards ... looks around somewhat nervously
... actually, I'm in favour of cutting down this element of dangerous play i.e. guys flying into rucks with wild abandon.
That said, we can't just be throwing cards around willy nilly, when refs and TMOs seem to have completely forgotten about neck rolls at the same time. This isn't Greyling launching into McCaw with a forearm, after all.
The Laws state clearly that you must bind to a ruck, so in these situations where the first player is over the ball, the second player must try to grasp and THEN remove them. That means approaching the ruck in a (relatively) safe manner and grabbing a guy around the torso to either push or roll him off the ball.
A few of the ref videos I watched as part of the course show good examples of this, particularly guys flying in from a distance to try cleaning out and getting it wrong. The speed difference between one metre and five metres when you're in danger of losing the ball is significant.
Players are going to get it wrong, and I always go back to intent: is Kremer trying to secure the ball or cripple a bloke?
Tho the question must be asked: can a 2m, 115kg bloke take any action at ruck NOT designed to cripple a bloke? 
I think if we want to have a fair contest for the ball, and a faster, safer game, then we have to acknowledge that shifting guys at ruck time needs to be looked at.
I go back to the point that World Rugby has looked at the CTE evidence coming out of NFL, and the corresponding lawsuits, and said "yeah, nah".
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
P.S. Once again, a match thread about NOT The Fucking ABs has turned into a knitting circle about The Fucking ABs
on an NZ sports forum! Who woulda thunk it
Exactly - a hundred other fucking threads to get frothy about your lot, and here you are, talking about which second-rate wingers should fix "the problem"....
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
That said, it doesn't make a game for the viewer when so many game affecting decisions get made
Ignoring the yellows for a minute: the red card was entirely justified and while AFG has many, MANY faults, it wasn't his decision to try and smack a bloke around the chops.
I agree on the Red, too.
I guess I was generally reflecting on rugby in general, and the AB season in particular. Maybe this needs another thread.
There are a lot of yellow and reds dished out now, and they really do affect games. You just have to look back at 2015 RWC final - we dominated Australia, except where Ben Smith got binned for a tip tackle and we shipped 14 points. Looking at the Reds over the last few seasons, there are a heap where there are a bunch of mitigating factors or clumsiness going on. For clarity, in the current framework they all appear to be reds, and not re-litigating them.
I am just wondering about where the threshold is set I guess, as there are a heap of clumsy/accidental cards these days. I see the Ofa red three weeks ago as more of a passive hit (propped, didn't drop enough) and quite different to the LSL from the weekend (ran through the player leading with the shoulder). Should both be Red? Damned if I know, but the level of risk seemed quite different.
I suppose I'm worrying about how we keep players heads sacrosanct when we're watching a sport that has pileups, cleanouts and bodies in weird angles. Right now, players dropping their heads into these zones raise the risk significantly - but only one side will be pinged for any contact. That, and slow mo replays means plenty of cards.
I'm all over the place in this post, but I suppose I'm seeing a bunch of game altering cards dished out for rugby that doesn't look horribly cynical, and genuinely wondering where we go with that. Do we need to redesign the breakdown laws completely I wonder, to reflect the new focus and keep people on their feet? Hell, I don't know...
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
P.S. Once again, a match thread about NOT The Fucking ABs has turned into a knitting circle about The Fucking ABs
on an NZ sports forum! Who woulda thunk it
Exactly - a hundred other fucking threads to get frothy about your lot, and here you are, talking about which second-rate wingers should fix "the problem"....
not George Bridge.
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I'm all over the place in this post, but I suppose I'm seeing a bunch of game altering cards dished out for rugby that doesn't look horribly cynical, and genuinely wondering where we go with that. Do we need to redesign the breakdown laws completely I wonder, to reflect the new focus and keep people on their feet? Hell, I don't know...
I thought Hooper was unlucky. When a player has their head over the ball like that, I'm not quite sure how you can clean them out without either making front-on contact with the head/neck/shoulders, or coming from the side. Hooper made what I would call a copybook cleanout, wrapped his arm and lifted the leg, drove through with the shoulder. It just happened the shoulder hit the Argie player's head a fraction before his arms made contact.
I would wager that type of cleanout would occur at least 10 times each game but with TMO bingo and super slow-mo we pick up the odd one or two when it is a bit more obvious.
I agree the head/neck should be protected but for me the LSL type incident (a clear red) is much easier to understand than looking at ruck cleanouts which previously would be taught in schools as how to do it.
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I'm all over the place in this post, but I suppose I'm seeing a bunch of game altering cards dished out for rugby that doesn't look horribly cynical, and genuinely wondering where we go with that. Do we need to redesign the breakdown laws completely I wonder, to reflect the new focus and keep people on their feet? Hell, I don't know...
I think we first need a way of rewarding players for quality low tackles - and that might just be refs going easier on them for rolling away. The direction we get in Suburban Rugby is "below the armpits" or you put yourself at the mercy of the ref.
The breakdown Laws aren't written that badly, but like all the Laws are interpretation-based because it is a fluid game.
At pro level we have guys who are big, strong, and fast, and generally putting themselves in positions over the ball that make it very difficult to avoid their head. Crack right down on neck rolls for anything that (like the tackle) isn't below the armpits - and I'm saying first one penalty and warning, second one bin, as a minimum. If the first one is a serious fuckup, then it goes to the bin straight away.
I'm not certain what the actual answer is, but I think if you mitigate it elsewhere then cleanouts fix themselves.
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I thought Hooper was unlucky. When a player has their head over the ball like that, I'm not quite sure how you can clean them out without either making front-on contact with the head/neck/shoulders, or coming from the side.
I saw a good video from McCaw on a Kiwi Rugby show - he was talking about winning the shoulder battle i.e. if you're first there and low enough, the opponent can't take that space and you either set on defence or go for the ball on attack. If you are second in, then you need to change your height, and roll them off.
Hooper arrived too late (a hallmark of the Wallabies ruck work) and had already lost the battle for shoulder space. The subsequent contact went wrong because there was nothing he could do that was NOT illegal (either head contact or from the side) unless he managed to crocodile roll Sanchez off, and we probably would have conceded the penalty anyway for our player holding on.
Fact is, we'd lost that ruck in purely legal terms, but as per your comment below:
I would wager that type of cleanout would occur at least 10 times each game but with TMO bingo and super slow-mo we pick up the odd one or two when it is a bit more obvious.
-
@barbarian I agree he was a touch unlucky but can see why the YC was given. I think it was more on the harsh side.
On the test itself, this one appeared to go backwards to the first draw.
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I am just wondering about where the threshold is set I guess, as there are a heap of clumsy/accidental cards these days. I see the Ofa red three weeks ago as more of a passive hit (propped, didn't drop enough) and quite different to the LSL from the weekend (ran through the player leading with the shoulder). Should both be Red? Damned if I know, but the level of risk seemed quite different.
See the thing with the Ofa one is - that would have been one helluva hit if he planted it right at the bottom of his sternum. So, what's the reason for going high? Iirc he looked away before contact too. That's a sign of a style that really needs to change.
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
P.S. Once again, a match thread about NOT The Fucking ABs has turned into a knitting circle about The Fucking ABs
Even knitting circles have purls of wisdom.
-
The clean outs are super dangerous. Could be penalized if anyone leave their feet jumping into or rolling over a ruck? Or too draconian?
-
If Gardner had been reffing the Irish vs Welsh test on the weekend, there wouldn't been a player left on the field. Hitting the rucks like missiles at times and on occasions nobody keeping their feet!
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I'm all over the place in this post, but I suppose I'm seeing a bunch of game altering cards dished out for rugby that doesn't look horribly cynical, and genuinely wondering where we go with that. Do we need to redesign the breakdown laws completely I wonder, to reflect the new focus and keep people on their feet? Hell, I don't know...
I think we first need a way of rewarding players for quality low tackles - and that might just be refs going easier on them for rolling away. The direction we get in Suburban Rugby is "below the armpits" or you put yourself at the mercy of the ref.
The breakdown Laws aren't written that badly, but like all the Laws are interpretation-based because it is a fluid game.
At pro level we have guys who are big, strong, and fast, and generally putting themselves in positions over the ball that make it very difficult to avoid their head. Crack right down on neck rolls for anything that (like the tackle) isn't below the armpits - and I'm saying first one penalty and warning, second one bin, as a minimum. If the first one is a serious fuckup, then it goes to the bin straight away.
I'm not certain what the actual answer is, but I think if you mitigate it elsewhere then cleanouts fix themselves.
The Argies showed that tackles below the armpit can have 'plenty' of bite.
-
@Bones said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
@nzzp said in Wallabies v Argentina Take 2, Dec 5th:
I am just wondering about where the threshold is set I guess, as there are a heap of clumsy/accidental cards these days. I see the Ofa red three weeks ago as more of a passive hit (propped, didn't drop enough) and quite different to the LSL from the weekend (ran through the player leading with the shoulder). Should both be Red? Damned if I know, but the level of risk seemed quite different.
See the thing with the Ofa one is - that would have been one helluva hit if he planted it right at the bottom of his sternum. So, what's the reason for going high? Iirc he looked away before contact too. That's a sign of a style that really needs to change.
Double upvote!
