Wales v Australia
-
@act-crusader said in Wales v Australia:
Does anyone have this TMO ‘angle’ to watch again, because that didn’t look as definitive as being made out.
Starting about 13s into this clip
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in Wales v Australia:
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
Not like Rennie to have a moan.
He needs someone to blame and the referees, who go unarmed, will do.
Rennie has been given everything he has asked for, plus some - nice five star digs in Queensland, a 2021 squad of 63 or 100 or something - plus visiting old boys; spine coaches, edge coaches, channel, clutch and scone coaches (monitoring the kiddies for nightmares and such) and upright tackling technique coaches - he has a half dozen of them and doesn't it show! His lineout-chucking coach is Polota-Nau by the looks of it.
Warnie himself would note that they "cannot catch, cannot throw" still.
This is an odd post. Rennie's coaching entourage is no bigger than previous coaches - an attack/backs coach (Wisemantl) a defence coach (Taylor) a forwards coach (McKellar) and a set piece coach (du Plessis). That's really about it. I'd suggest that's about standard for international rugby.
And our lineout throwing was great last night, as was our general handling. Actually our lineout has been pretty good all season.
Don't get me wrong, the team has flaws, but I don't think there's anyone in Aussie rugby who wouldn't give Rennie at least a pass mark for 2021.
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
This is an odd post.
You're making the mistake of engaging the boomer who thinks he's funny.
I've blocked him so he might see this, or not.
He probably thinks we should bring back Alan Jones 🤷♂️
-
Oh dear, hyperbole / poetic licence for the fun of it, not to be read literally and taken terribly seriously - I prefer that to the earnest pursuit here of solutions to flaws that have been evident for years, limited to too little explanation in a forum such as this.
My neighbour over the back was Parramatta / Eastwood / Penrith coach Peter Fenton, an enthusiastic teacher and disciple of rugby. The animated conversations with him were a joy - "Where did you play again? ... loose head, yes, I remember!" and out would come salt shakers, knives and chopsticks to demonstrate where the feet should be to attain optimum stability. He intoned me to watch the game from end on, and why. It was good advice.
I imagine you, barbarian, as a student of the game, would have enjoyed those exchanges just as much.
"Line out throwing"? Read that as my camouflaged wry criticism of the failure of the players - the players - in the fundamental skills that their job demands. If you pretend to the top echelon you do not need an international coach to teach you how to pass equally well from right to left and from left to right. You master that before you apply for the job.
An aspiring first five knows when and how to dribble the ball, put it over the top or to go long. I am reminded Dan Carter's father built goal posts on the vacant block they owned next door, so he practiced and practiced and ...
There are good people there, yes. Scott Wisemantel was ahead of my son at Oakhill, and they were all part of Eastwood during some excellent years.
I am still not sure about Rennie - the Christchurch connection in Club rugby here were not
ebullient (?)enthused by his appointment and I trust their judgement.He has somehow crafted financial support for many fellows to have a go and many of them have been mediocre. I do not listen in when he speaks because I think it is likely standard clichéd marketing talk. I did listen to Deans because he was less cautious, particularly in person, articulate, intelligent and successful. I liked Cheika because of positive reports via family, I admired his rugby pedigree, his drive and his achievements not limited to rugby.
A final thought: It occurred to me today that our circumstances are truly dire in rugby. You will have seen the sudden disappearance of Waratah supporters attending games when the results are poor; and their reluctance to return a couple of years later. That has happened several times over during the 30 year life of Super Rugby.
League is going through a resurgence and, like AFL, it has the resources to fuel that. Rugby does not.
We are about to enter a return to pre-COVID life routines and habits with all manner of as yet unknown marginal changes. In the competition to rebuild supporter and spectator attention rugby does not now have a lot to offer. My affection for the game makes it difficult to admit that.
-
OK, I don't know how to make animated GIFs, but here's a couple of screen grabs which I think show the ball went backwards fairly clearly (as much as a couple of still images can).
Tompkins is standing with his back to the sideline - Wales are attacking to the left of the picture. He reaches out and hits the ball with his left hand, it travels back and lands right by his left foot. (He doesn't move his foot between the two pictures.
This angle is shown at 1:47:00 on the Stan replay
-
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
-
@tordah should players be penalised for negative, disruptive play like tackling opponents too?
-
-
@bones said in Wales v Australia:
So we've got no explanation as to why a swinging arm to the head is a YC when compared to Valetini's fuck up? At least Valetini was attempting a tackle. What was the Welsh player doing?
That is the one big decision that I think the ref didwrong. Thomas was lucky to get away with a yellow.
At least Valetini was attempting a valid tackle, he just got it badly wrong. Thomas' clean out was just reckless and ridiculously stupid
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah should players be penalised for negative, disruptive play like tackling opponents too?
You know what I mean. Negative as in "against the spirit of the game"
-
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
-
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah should players be penalised for negative, disruptive play like tackling opponents too?
You know what I mean. Negative as in "against the spirit of the game"
No, i genuinely don't. Why is knocking a ball down & backwards any more against the spirit of the game than, say, stealing a lineout?
-
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
You can do it, but when you do you do it obviously backwards. Doing it in a very ambiguous way, where you need the TMO to see whether it went backwards or straight or forwards, usually results in a penalty as a deliberate knock-on. Same as in if a player drops the ball and it falls straight down or the tiniest bit backwards, it is usually given as a knock on because you punish the inability to handle the ball.
@gibbon rib: sorry, can't be bothered if you pretend you don't understand the difference between contesting a lineout and knocking the ball down (he clearly wasn't trying to knock it backwards, it just happened to fall backwards by an inch, otherwise he wouldn't have stopped playing - he knew what he did was wrong, everyone on the pitch knew it, why else was it such a farcical situation with the ref having to tell them to play on?).
-
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
-
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
Ask yourself how many tryline tackles are with contact against the head, because the attacking player is as low as possible, diving towards the tryline and then think about how many of these get penalised. There are laws and there are law interpretations and if you want to have a playable game, you need interpreters of the laws as they're written.
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@bones said in Wales v Australia:
So we've got no explanation as to why a swinging arm to the head is a YC when compared to Valetini's fuck up? At least Valetini was attempting a tackle. What was the Welsh player doing?
That is the one big decision that I think the ref didwrong. Thomas was lucky to get away with a yellow.
At least Valetini was attempting a valid tackle, he just got it badly wrong. Thomas' clean out was just reckless and ridiculously stupid
Yeah exactly and it's pretty much reaching to call it a clear out even - the player wasn't even part of the breakdown, so he was just attacking someone really.
When the ref says no mitigation for Valetini and then throws up a yellow for that (was the wrapping mitigation he discussed for this or the Aussie high shot just before it) it's hard not to think he's being blatantly biased.
