Wallabies v France 3
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
Ah yeah, you're right that fans and media are one-eyed and biased the whole world over. Didn't mean to imply this was an exclusively Aussie trait. But I reckon that the lack of balance and intelligence in the TV coverage is worse here than other places I've seen. And combined with the fact that people, generally, don't have as in depth knowledge - which is understandable since union is not the major sport here - makes the problem bigger and self-perpetuating.
Have you been to England…?
-
@no-quarter said in Wallabies v France 3:
The NZ coverage is diabolical as well as you'd note reading the AB game threads. The comms, who don't even seem to have a basic understanding of the laws, are constantly bitching about them and disagreeing with the ref decisions etc. It's really tiresome to listen to - rugby is a dynamic, fluid game that is an absolute spectacle to watch if you take it for what it is and don't constantly sweat the small stuff. It's nearly impossible to ref - the best refs like Owen's aren't the best because they apply the law to the letter, they are the best because they have a great, undefinable, "feel" for the game and allow it to flow.
I do wish comms and the media would stop bitching about micro decisions and spend more time celebrating the game and the insane skill levels and commitment of the players on display.
I wish the comms would take the approach to refereeing decisions of only criticising bad calls instead of wrong calls - that is, some calls are wrong but because of the nature of the game you can see why the ref got it technically wrong (marginal forward pass, marginal offside, etc) and those should be left to slide. Genuinely bad calls - those that were obviously wrong even without the benefit of video replays - should totally be fair game. I don’t think MK’s red falls into this latter category
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
It's one of the key indicators in good tackles or high tackles.
Head moves forward first = primary contact is to the body of the player (head keeps going relative to body)
Head moves backwards first = primary contact is to the head of the player (body keeps going relative to the head).
So, go back to the SRTT final, and check out the 'no malice' late hit on Black; head goes backwards first ... how you get a yellow card out of that astounds me (well, it doesn't because refs and finals and stuff, but it should)
-
Maybe the judiciary had better views that confirmed initial point of contact although given the track record of decisions like this the better lawyer usually gets the rub.
Plenty of us with the same view as the ref called it as contact to the neck so he can't be blamed for the wrong start point.
Interesting though is the question of benefit of doubt which will always be subjective but I guess that if 4 refs see it the same way then that's the way you go.
What the ruling does confirm though is that it was merely a few centimetres that differentiated between red and yellow. It is still an illegal hit just doesn't fit the framework for red by that small margin.
It definitely isn't 'just a good hard hit' as many were making out.
Although he is freed from a ban I hope that they don't take from this that everything else is ka pai. Onus is on the tackler to be careful and this tackler clearly wasn't. You roll that dice you go into the refs hands without a QC by your side. -
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
-
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
Yeah good one mate. Thumbs up.
-
I'd like to see some clarification from World Rugby about what happened on the field, and in the judiciary.
I don't fully understand the statement. Under the process that Crucial posted earlier in the thread, there was at least a case to be made that it was a red card.
Did this just come down to the first point of contact being the shoulder and not the head/neck?
I don't want BOK to be hauled over the coals, I just want some clarity.
-
-
“The player Marika Koroibete admitted to technically committing an act of foul play worthy of a red card. Having reviewed all the evidence, the committee deemed that Marika Koroibete’s tackle on French loose-forward Anthony Jelonch initially made shoulder to shoulder contact," the statement read.
“Subsequently, through the impact, any contact to the chest and neck was incidental by Koroibete.
"Therefore, World Rugby’s Head Contact Process was not met due to mitigating factors, and the act of the foul play was secondary.
"On that basis, the committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately."
Cam anyone make sense of this? He appealed his red card, he admitted he committed a red card offence, they overturned the red card. WTF?
-
So you think they concluded that
1 - there was head contact
2 - there was foul play
3 - the degree of danger was high (because MK admitted a technical red card offence?)
4 - there was mitigation (first contact was shoulder to shoulder?) so it should have been reduced to yellow? -
@bones
I'm also confused.
Any head contact was "incidental"? What's that mean? It was negligible / irrelevant from a disciplinary point of view? Or a player safety point of view?[Edit: just realised that the quote above says "any chest / neck contact was incidental". Which frankly makes even less sense. ]
Also curious about how they reached that conclusion. None of the replays on the night were conclusive.
Maybe a good lawyer trumps clear video evidence.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
So you think they concluded that
1 - there was head contact
2 - there was foul play
3 - the degree of danger was high (because MK admitted a technical red card offence?)
4 - there was mitigation (first contact was shoulder to shoulder?) so it should have been reduced to yellow?Yeah that's my reading of it. Essentially shoulder to shoulder first which mitigates the red to a yellow.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies v France 3:
Cully's tweets don't make sense. It doesn't clear up if the judiciary agreed there was head contact or not. If it was "incidental" then that would be the only mitigation available to reduce the card to yellow.
-
I wonder if "chest and neck" in that statement was an error, and it should have said "head and neck"?
Still wildly confusing. They really need to clarify how they worked through the process, what the correct outcome should have been, an what evidence they used to get there. Right now we're not sure if that kind of tackle is perfectly legal, or a yellow card offence.
-
There is a delay of a few days between the decision and the media releases being sent to media, and the decision being published on World Rugby's website. It will be there in the next few days.
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@bones
I'm also confused.
Any head contact was "incidental"? What's that mean? It was negligible / irrelevant from a disciplinary point of view? Or a player safety point of view?[Edit: just realised that the quote above says "any chest / neck contact was incidental". Which frankly makes even less sense. ]
Also curious about how they reached that conclusion. None of the replays on the night were conclusive.
Maybe a good lawyer trumps clear video evidence.
That's because the TMO, citing commissioner, judiciary and the lawyers have access to many more camera angles than are shown on tv. The difference between the TMO and the rest is time to have a close look at all the footage, so that's where some of the differences in outcome already come from. Obviously, it's possible that camera angles are not 100% clear, and then having a good lawyer will definitely make a big difference.
