Wallabies v Springboks 1
-
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
Tremendous win for Australia
Quite frankly any match reffed by Williams is a hard watch
True dat. Not one of our better exports.
The things being complained about though could be made a bit more quiet by better communication though. The tackle in the corner if he clearly explained that he saw enough use of the arm to be consistent with the rest of the game.
Personally I didn’t think that the timing was right with the arm and if timing is so very important in things like head contact or aerial contests then it should be in this case. The whole point in union of having to use the arms in a tackle is to lessen the impact of a pointed shoulder. If you arm hasn’t come around enough because of late timing then you’ve got it wrong IMO.There's no attempt to make a legal tackle because his arm is down against the side of his own body, not raised to grab the attacker. The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
Blaming Williams is crazy though.
Agreed - they were the architects of their own demise in the first 50mins. The worrying aspect for the Wallabies is how the score line ended up being as close as it was in the end.
-
@Rapido you've told us this over and over. Glad you enjoyed it.
Personally I think it was worth a closer look. This isn't league. Flying at players like a missile with your arm trailing shouldn't be part of union.
Yes, it was an awesome piece of effort up to the contact but also something we see far too often. Yes it was also spectacular. -
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
What's that got to do with anything? He cant hurdle and everyone goes off their feet diving for the corner.
As you can see from that photo he still has feet on the ground at contact. His jumping only made his landing more spectacular. -
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
What's that got to do with anything?
Because they're both penalizable. So to me the Wallabies end up with the ball anyway with the leap being the second offence.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
What's that got to do with anything?
Because they're both penalizable. So to me the Wallabies end up with the ball anyway with the leap being the second offence.
Just as debatable that he jumped into the tackle. He had transferred his weight by the evidence of what happened but his feet were on the ground at the moment of contact.
-
-
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
What's that got to do with anything?
Because they're both penalizable. So to me the Wallabies end up with the ball anyway with the leap being the second offence.
Just as debatable that he jumped into the tackle.
I thought that and then checked the footage, he definitely propels himself into the air. His unsafe landing is a result of both actions IMO.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The only reason I'd ignore it in review is Mapimpi trying to dive over Koroibete.
What's that got to do with anything?
Because they're both penalizable. So to me the Wallabies end up with the ball anyway with the leap being the second offence.
Just as debatable that he jumped into the tackle.
I thought that and then checked the footage, he definitely propels himself into the air. His unsafe landing is a result of both actions IMO.
I dont care about his landing just the possibly illegal acts. For me the tackler has a trailing arm and the ball carrier has feet on the ground. That he is about to dive up and over doesn't negate the illegal (no arms) tackle. If he had dived there are two penalisable offences so fucked if I know what happens then.
-
@Machpants said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Rapido said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
P.s. highlights package didnt even show the Korobiete tackle everyone on here is talking about. Sounds like a fantastic piece of rugby action that should make any highlights package.
Regardless of whether it is then slowed down to a hundredth of its real speed while amateur physiologists try to compare arm wrapping speeds to shoulder rimpact speeds. That part sounds like real fun, I'm so sad I haven't been able to join in with this must-see part of being a rugby fan.
There's a saffa whine fest about it already, just search you tube for worst ref performance ever lol
Easily fixed. Pact and armbands for next test.
-
@Rapido said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
That still above isnt the moment of contact. Daylight (or rather, a different wallabies jersey) between them.
I have checked and there is contact before the ball carrier leaves the ground.
As I said, he is certainly trying to leap but if his feet are still on the ground he hasn't leaped yet (despite shifting body weight) IMO.
Even if he is deemed to be leaping into the tackle that doesn't make the tackle legal though.
-
-
@Derpus said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial Except you can clearly see an attempt from Koroibete's right hand - in your own still (a fucking stupid way to assess this shit) - to wrap.
Bit hard when the dude jumps into you and you are moving at the speed of sound.
Attempt, yes. Did he wrap? No. (not in my opinion). Yes, it is hard when things change in front of you faster than you can react but that's the game and probably loads of penalties. Timing is important.
However the ref was at least consistent in his rulings as he also allowed no arms dives at the lower legs with late attempts to wrap.
-
-
@Derpus said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@Crucial yeah because Mapimpi turned and jumped into contact. The only person endangering Mapimpi was Mapimpi.
Are Mapimpi's feet on the ground when the contact is made? Yes.
Are we talking about danger from him flying in the air? No.
Do the laws state this "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."? Yes.I am happy that it is all in a split second and my view is not definitive. All I am saying is that it is a tight interpretative decision that wasn't looked at in that respect.
Shoulder charges and flying missile 'tackles' are not part of Union. Watch league if you want those.
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
It's not a shoulder charge. He attempted to wrap.
In an Owen Farrell kind of way.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
It's not a shoulder charge. He attempted to wrap.
Surely there is a difference in "wrapping" and "attempted/attempting to wrap"?
-
@Higgins said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
It's not a shoulder charge. He attempted to wrap.
Surely there is a difference in "wrapping" and "attempted/attempting to wrap"?
Shall we call the latter the Vanilla Ice tackle method?
