RugbyRebels

That is ridiculous! I know he broke his arm twice so has a weakness to protect, but wow.

Much better refereeing there in the Samoa game. Samoan player slides in with his knees on Maitland, dislodges the ball and prevents a certain try. Yellow card and penalty try. But begs the question how Tonga didn't benefit from the same against Argentina

Peej wrote:Also, just seen a neck roll punished - but the question has to be asked; if referees actually enforced the rule regarding players supporting their own bodyweight at the ruck, would players have to smash in so hard to dislodge 18 stone blokes lying 6 inches off the ground?

Again, it's just about enforcing the laws as they exist.

This has got completely out of hand.
Players with their elbows on the floor going past the ball, or having most of their weight on top of the grounded player/s is now commonplace.
They may be "on their feet" but supporting their own bodyweight? Not a chance.
The tackle area is now virtually impossible to referee as almost everyone is off their feet in sealing off, off their feet rolling someone out of the way or off their feet in contesting. The sight of a proper ruck, with players binding on to a team mate and driving over the ball staying on their feet is a long distant spectacle.

Peej wrote:Much better refereeing there in the Samoa game. Samoan player slides in with his knees on Maitland, dislodges the ball and prevents a certain try. Yellow card and penalty try. But begs the question how Tonga didn't benefit from the same against Argentina

Completely agree but it got me wondering how one legally stops a try in that situation. Maitland was sliding from quite a way out. The only think i could think of was 'make the tackke earlier'.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Peej wrote:Much better refereeing there in the Samoa game. Samoan player slides in with his knees on Maitland, dislodges the ball and prevents a certain try. Yellow card and penalty try. But begs the question how Tonga didn't benefit from the same against Argentina

Completely agree but it got me wondering how one legally stops a try in that situation. Maitland was sliding from quite a way out. The only think i could think of was 'make the tackke earlier'.

To be honest, the fact that it's almost impossible to stop is not really relevant - some tries can't be prevented legally because of the excellence of the set-up play and finish. That's a feature, not a bug.

Puja

Underhill wouldn't have had to make the tackle if a) some players attempted to tackle & b) if those who did went high rather than around the waist and legs

Similarly think Robinson in the 2003 final - uses a wet pitch to slide in and beat the cover. Some tries just cannot be prevented.

fivepointer wrote: This has got completely out of hand.
Players with their elbows on the floor going past the ball, or having most of their weight on top of the grounded player/s is now commonplace.
They may be "on their feet" but supporting their own bodyweight? Not a chance.
The tackle area is now virtually impossible to referee as almost everyone is off their feet in sealing off, off their feet rolling someone out of the way or off their feet in contesting. The sight of a proper ruck, with players binding on to a team mate and driving over the ball staying on their feet is a long distant spectacle.

Do you mean the ruck?

What you've described there are all against the laws and yet the refs do not ping them. Rather than handwring about what we can do to stop the unsafe and reckless collisions at the ruck, maybe we should just apply the laws as they stand and then cut the problem off at the source.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Peej wrote:Much better refereeing there in the Samoa game. Samoan player slides in with his knees on Maitland, dislodges the ball and prevents a certain try. Yellow card and penalty try. But begs the question how Tonga didn't benefit from the same against Argentina

Completely agree but it got me wondering how one legally stops a try in that situation. Maitland was sliding from quite a way out. The only think i could think of was 'make the tackke earlier'.

He could have slid in arms first and tried to push him out. Still a long shot.

Completely agree on rucks. Locks in particular can just lie on the tackled player. I think refs don't mind it and it has traditionally been tolerated because it makes a game look neater in sum ways as the defence can't come through with feet etc. I'd rather embrace a bit more chaos.

fivepointer wrote:

Peej wrote:Also, just seen a neck roll punished - but the question has to be asked; if referees actually enforced the rule regarding players supporting their own bodyweight at the ruck, would players have to smash in so hard to dislodge 18 stone blokes lying 6 inches off the ground?

Again, it's just about enforcing the laws as they exist.

This has got completely out of hand.
Players with their elbows on the floor going past the ball, or having most of their weight on top of the grounded player/s is now commonplace.
They may be "on their feet" but supporting their own bodyweight? Not a chance.
The tackle area is now virtually impossible to referee as almost everyone is off their feet in sealing off, off their feet rolling someone out of the way or off their feet in contesting. The sight of a proper ruck, with players binding on to a team mate and driving over the ball staying on their feet is a long distant spectacle.

Spot on. Most turnover balls now awarded are not real turnovers at all. For many refs a defender just has to touch the ball with two hands, and he gets the call, whether or not he can control it, pick it up, present it to his team or support his own weight.

Have advantages got longer too over the last year? Another example just now where Ireland got a pen on the 10 metre line, made a break and a few more good carries up to the 22, had a few phases there and then lost it. They then get to come back to a penalty 20 metres back.

I just think it makes too much play boring to watch as there is no jeopardy.

Cameo wrote:Have advantages for longer too over the last year? Another example just now where Ireland got a pen on the 10 metre line, made a break and a few more good carries up to the 22, had a few phases there and then lost it. They then get to come back to a penalty 20 metres back.

I just think it makes too much play boring to watch as there is no jeopardy.

They also had a penalty advantage which they lost after 1 phase of going backwards.

It’s just Garces randomness, I wouldn’t read anything in to it.

Cameo wrote:Have advantages got longer too over the last year? Another example just now where Ireland got a pen on the 10 metre line, made a break and a few more good carries up to the 22, had a few phases there and then lost it. They then get to come back to a penalty 20 metres back.

I just think it makes too much play boring to watch as there is no jeopardy.

should also be advantage over once the cross field kick is initiated. Help stop most 10's aimlessly kicking away good ball.

p/d wrote:

Cameo wrote:Have advantages got longer too over the last year? Another example just now where Ireland got a pen on the 10 metre line, made a break and a few more good carries up to the 22, had a few phases there and then lost it. They then get to come back to a penalty 20 metres back.

I just think it makes too much play boring to watch as there is no jeopardy.

should also be advantage over once the cross field kick is initiated. Help stop most 10's aimlessly kicking away good ball.

Frankly any kick should be advantage over, whether cross field, up and under, dink, grubber, drop or cross field

Barnes is going to be a huge loss.

Mellsblue wrote:Barnes is going to be a huge loss.

He is doing very well

Mellsblue wrote:Barnes is going to be a huge loss.

Has he left Sky?



Oh....

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Barnes is going to be a huge loss.

Has he left Sky?



Oh....

That made me lol.

Wayne Barnes is Simon Pegg!!

Just reached the second half - Italy (very) lucky to have any props left - IMO that shoulda been 2 reds.

Unless either of them is a good Christian who wouldn't do such a thing, of course

Gloskarlos wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Barnes is going to be a huge loss.

He is doing very well

My problem with Barnes is I like him and think his communication is absolutely great. I just disagree with a lot of his decisions.

Today he had a good game but:

1. For the red card, it was at least a yellow card for the number 17 as well

2. Someone might be able to correct me but I think that Italy should have been down to 14 (then 13) most of the game. I thought the normal rule is that if a team have to take off a second prop and therefore go to uncontested scrums, that player cannot be replaced. The rule is modified for HIA assessments (presumably so as not to discourage or rush them) so he was right to allow a sub then. However once it was confirmed that he was permanently off, Italy should not have been able to replace him and the existing replacement should have had to come off.

I thought the same, but I'm also confident that Barnes knows the laws better than either of us.
I have seen there being some debate about it in the past if the team is already down a man though.

Of course, it that that made any difference at all to the match

If Italy weren't allowed to keep on the replacement player after the prop failed his HIA that would create more incentive to ignore the possible head injury, so it's not ideal, but there doesn't seem an easy answer

They did bring on a replacement prop. It may be as long as you're replacing them with front row, even if uncontested, it's allowed?

Raggs wrote:They did bring on a replacement prop. It may be as long as you're replacing them with front row, even if uncontested, it's allowed?

Something I didn't initially realise owing to some Zani Vs Zanni confusion on my part, and perhaps there's something in that, but it doesn't seem to meet the spirit of the rule

Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.