Wallabies v France 3
-
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
Reality will greet them in a few weeks at Eden Park, unfortunately.
I'm overjoyed at the spirit but I'm resigned.
-
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
Reality will greet them in a few weeks at Eden Park, unfortunately.
I'm overjoyed at the spirit but I'm resigned.
Outcomes are irrelevant. Look for the things that work
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky lost to 14 men over 80.
This, 'oh its only our D team i wasnt even trying my hardest bro' is genuine schoolground nonsense.
They wont win the World Cup. When was the last time they even won thr 6N. They are flogs and will exit in the quarters.
What makes you say something like that ?
This is a third string French team. None of them are likely starters when the incumbents are back. Barlot must be ranked fifth or sixth in the pecking order behind Marchand,Chat,Bourgarit and Mauvaka. The same applies to the props and the locks. Couilloud is well behind Dupont and Serin, while today ´s 1st Five was not even cited among the top five players in his position..No one knew Jaminet before the series started.
And so on… -
Great watch
Great result -
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky 'would have won'. Go on, when was the last time they actually won something?
I think if you read carefully, he said they would have won - if they hadn't lost. Surely that's the kind of in depth analysis you're here for?
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@kirwan use your eyes mate, he only hit him in the jaw because the Frenchy was ducking. Needs to be some common sense here.
This is the sentiment that misses the point of the ruling altogether.
Sanctioning head contact is as much about getting players to change technique to reduce the amount of times it goes wrong unintentionally as it is to punish after the fact.
That's why they talk about a 'significant drop' i.e. you have to have been aiming below the nipple line or you were creating the dangerous situation.*I'm not judging this particular case just the way that some keep getting the basis behind the law wrong.
-
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim below the nipple line every tackle is all well and good, but it’s just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball into contact. Rennie summed it up perfectly post game.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim lower or at the legs every tackle sounds fine, but it is just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball.
As I said, not judging against this particular instance or the diving/face clutching etc
Players/coaches need to go with the change of the game. If we are going to have bigger, faster harder players then there is a point that becomes unsafe. Front on upright tackles is that point.
If that means more offloads or more spilled ball from carrying it high then that is the new game. Target the ball/area above the nipples and you may find yourself on the sideline if it goes wrong.
I just don't agree that the tackler isn't at fault when they aim for a shoulder to chest level shot with no chance of pulling out and a player changes direction to try and avoid.BTW I wasn't targeting you either. Just that your post best summed up the point I wanted to make
-
@crucial I get where you’re coming from, I just don’t want to see our game get to a point where the refs are blowing their whistle every two seconds. It ruins the game as a spectacle, and it prevents the game from flowing.
Yes we want to keep the players as safe as we can, and of course you never want to see a player end up like Steve Devine but I feel their needs to be more common sense by the refs when making such a big decision like the one last night. Instead of immediately giving out a red card because the law says so, they need to treat every situation differently and take into account mitigating factors.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial I get where you’re coming from, I just don’t want to see our game get to a point where the refs are blowing their whistle every two seconds. It ruins the game as a spectacle, and it prevents the game from flowing.
Yes we want to keep the players as safe as we can, and of course you never want to see a player end up like Steve Devine but I feel their needs to be more common sense by the refs when making such a big decision like the one last night. Instead of immediately giving out a red card because the law says so, they need to treat every situation differently and take into account mitigating factors.
They do though. They have a clear protocol and process. They may sometimes make mistakes in the decision but to say that they don't look at situations for what they are is plain incorrect.
The argument is that if they use these rules then players and coaches will adjust and they won't have to blow their whistle too much.
I'm not sure if you remember when rucking/ use of the boot was stopped but that changed a fundamental way that players and coaches operated. It took a little while for instinctive stuff to disappear but it has and the game lived on. (probably a poor example of a good law change but an example of how adjustments happen) -
@crucial well they made a right botch up last night then because they obviously didn’t take everything into account in my view. Pretty much everyone on that expert panel last night believed it wasn’t red. If they showed Koroibete a yellow then you could probably say fair enough, but a red was just ridiculous.
At the end of the day rugby isn’t tiddlywinks, players are always going to take knocks. I feel rugby has done a good job in bringing in HIA protocols etc to help deal with those knocks, but I feel they might now be going a little too far with some of these rulings.
Before you know it we will be watching touch rugby and you won’t be able to breath on someone without getting carded.
-
-
Jeez I hope Rennie wasn't 'bloody angry'!
-
Stuff
