Derpus
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Absolute loser talk.
Wallabies v Lions Game 2 MCG 26 July
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
What’s the point? We use to do that when Rennie was coach and world rugby would concede during the week they got it wrong yet we would still get stitched up the next week
Omar Comin'
Peter Fenwicke (45)
It's not about his entry, or arms it's about the shoulder contact to the back of the head/neck. Tizzano arrives first and is in a perfect position to pilfer the ball, he can't be hit above the shoulders. If it was on the back or shoulder his neck wouldn't fold in dangerously like that.
The referee didn't even mention the height of the contact by the way. He said it wasn't foul play because he claimed Morgan arrived at the same time and it was essentially an unlucky incident. But this is clearly false, Tizzano had his hands on the ball before Morgan gets there.
Strewthcobber
Michael Lynagh (62)
He's not saying the wrap is mitigation for high contact. He's following a process to decide if 9.20a applies
Last edited:
Tomthumb
Peter Johnson (47)
The law contravened was 9.20b though
Micheal
Dick Tooth (41)
As someone who was getting quite negative myself last night, it might be time to put the keyboard away Derpus.
It doesn’t add to the conversation.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Except he was saying that as he said “there is no foul play because he attempts to wrap”
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
It won't get us the series back but I think it's important to get clarification either way. In this instance if it were shown to be wrong there would be intense media interest in that and it would place a huge focus on the Sydney test - not only is that a good thing in terms of viewership, but if we were to win that we could then claim a moral 'series victory' of sorts. Actually, it would be critical we win if WR (World Rugby) find in our favour.
Tomthumb
Peter Johnson (47)
Moral victory is just another loss at the end of the day. The patronising pat on the head comments from other nations fans is also tiring
The silver lining would be hopefully they can build from there to be a real contender in 2027. Problem is in 12 months time we have a new coach and it all starts over again
The silver lining would be hopefully they can build from there to be a real contender in 2027. Problem is in 12 months time we have a new coach and it all starts over again
TSR
Steve Williams (59)
Sadly the first thing that makes me think of is the English cricket team.
I do think we have a genuine cause to be miffed with that decision - and I would like whatever small satisfaction might come from a WR (World Rugby) apology. I don’t expect to get it though - more likely another social media clip from Nigel Owen defending the decision. In any case, it is one incident over the course of a game. In some ways an apology from WR (World Rugby) might actually make me more annoyed.
I do think we have a genuine cause to be miffed with that decision - and I would like whatever small satisfaction might come from a WR (World Rugby) apology. I don’t expect to get it though - more likely another social media clip from Nigel Owen defending the decision. In any case, it is one incident over the course of a game. In some ways an apology from WR (World Rugby) might actually make me more annoyed.
TSR
Steve Williams (59)
It will be a far less disruptive changeover then the last 3 thought - and, hopefully, with a much more developed core playing group than the last 3 as well.
Omar Comin'
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Yeah I think it helps build interest going into the 3rd test. If WR (World Rugby) clarify that the Lions were essentially awarded 5 or 10 points by mistake then our media can go absolutely feral about it and go toe to toe with the British media. Talk it up as a hollow victory, call for the Lions to do the honourable thing and put the trophy on the line in the final game and call them cowards if they don't etc. Make the game feel a bit like a decider even though it's not. Then if we smash them in the 3rd game claim to have been the better team throughout, the true champions, winners by knockout etc.
notdeadyet
Allen Oxlade (6)
whitefalcon
Bill McLean (32)
I agree, I am not convinced Kiss is the right choice but I'm really hoping to be proven wrong
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I agree with that, I was meaning more from a supporters' perspective, not the players.
notdeadyet
Allen Oxlade (6)
they certainly were but that does not mean it was a 'fair win'. no way that wasn't a penalty, an illegal clearout.
Shiggins
Michael Lynagh (62)
During the game I could understand 50/50. That still for me makes it even more likely that it's a penalty as it looks more like head contact than neck
Micheal
Dick Tooth (41)
Ultimately, the decision tree for the final decision boils down to something like the below:
1. Had a ruck formed by the time that Tizzano attempted a jackal?
No -- he was the first to arrive after the tackle. They did not arrive simultaneously as claimed by the referee -- he was evidently knocked off the ball by the Lion's player, which suggests he was there first.
This means that he wasn't engaged by any opposing player prior to competing for the ball, and therefore no ruck had formed.
Given that, the law which suggests that his head has to remain above his hips isn't relevant and he is allowed to compete for the ball as long as he supports his own body weight.
2. Did the Lions player strike above the shoulder line?
Yes -- this is abundantly clear, both in real time viewing and even clearer when you slow the footage down (or consider it frame by frame).
The contact was to the back of the neck, and then slides up to head contact as Tizzano is knocked backwards.
By the letter of the law, this is a penalty infringement at the very least.
3. Is this ruling this a penalty consistent with previous interpretations of the law or previous rulings?
Yes -- at the very least, both Bundee Aki and Brodie Retallick have received red cards for the same infringement relatively recently (e.g. within the last 3 years).
Countless other examples can be found.
(speaking to a common Lion's talking point)
4. How is the Lion's player supposed to clear Tizzano out legally?
It is indeed difficult to clean him out legally, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to use illegal means to clean him out - it might simply mean that you have been outplayed in that moment and that you are unable to win back possession legally.
The Lion's player has to get lower than Tizzano to blast him off the ball, which indeed would've been very difficult in this situation given how well Tizzano was competing for the ball.
This is the key point -- it's the Lion's responsibility to arrive to the ball before Tizzano to secure their possession. If they did, his arrival would constitute a ruck and he would be unable to compete for the ball. In this situation, the Lion's player arrived second and Tizzano was set up sufficiently low to secure possession.
This means that Tizzano had rights to the ball and the Lion's player didn't have the means to legally knock him off the ball.
5. Did Tizzano dive?
Maybe, maybe not.
It seems to me that he put on a bit of a performance to draw attention to the illegal play, but this does not mean that the Lion's cleanout was not illegal in and of itself.
I've never had a 110kg forward throw himself off his feet, smashing the back of my neck with his shoulder. I imagine it hurts, and I imagine that you'd potentially want to make that as clear as possible to the referee, particularly in the context of a game winning moment that will keep a once-every-12-year series alive.
The worst part of all of this is that World Rugby will defend the decision here -- they simply refuse to ever admit that they are wrong. The fact that this is a penalty is black-and-white, and it's impossible to not feel deeply wronged here, particularly in the context of previous seasons (e.g. Foley being penalised for time wasting against the All Blacks).
It would be nice if a call went our way every now and then. God knows we need it.
1. Had a ruck formed by the time that Tizzano attempted a jackal?
No -- he was the first to arrive after the tackle. They did not arrive simultaneously as claimed by the referee -- he was evidently knocked off the ball by the Lion's player, which suggests he was there first.
This means that he wasn't engaged by any opposing player prior to competing for the ball, and therefore no ruck had formed.
Given that, the law which suggests that his head has to remain above his hips isn't relevant and he is allowed to compete for the ball as long as he supports his own body weight.
2. Did the Lions player strike above the shoulder line?
Yes -- this is abundantly clear, both in real time viewing and even clearer when you slow the footage down (or consider it frame by frame).
The contact was to the back of the neck, and then slides up to head contact as Tizzano is knocked backwards.
By the letter of the law, this is a penalty infringement at the very least.
3. Is this ruling this a penalty consistent with previous interpretations of the law or previous rulings?
Yes -- at the very least, both Bundee Aki and Brodie Retallick have received red cards for the same infringement relatively recently (e.g. within the last 3 years).
Countless other examples can be found.
(speaking to a common Lion's talking point)
4. How is the Lion's player supposed to clear Tizzano out legally?
It is indeed difficult to clean him out legally, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to use illegal means to clean him out - it might simply mean that you have been outplayed in that moment and that you are unable to win back possession legally.
The Lion's player has to get lower than Tizzano to blast him off the ball, which indeed would've been very difficult in this situation given how well Tizzano was competing for the ball.
This is the key point -- it's the Lion's responsibility to arrive to the ball before Tizzano to secure their possession. If they did, his arrival would constitute a ruck and he would be unable to compete for the ball. In this situation, the Lion's player arrived second and Tizzano was set up sufficiently low to secure possession.
This means that Tizzano had rights to the ball and the Lion's player didn't have the means to legally knock him off the ball.
5. Did Tizzano dive?
Maybe, maybe not.
It seems to me that he put on a bit of a performance to draw attention to the illegal play, but this does not mean that the Lion's cleanout was not illegal in and of itself.
I've never had a 110kg forward throw himself off his feet, smashing the back of my neck with his shoulder. I imagine it hurts, and I imagine that you'd potentially want to make that as clear as possible to the referee, particularly in the context of a game winning moment that will keep a once-every-12-year series alive.
The worst part of all of this is that World Rugby will defend the decision here -- they simply refuse to ever admit that they are wrong. The fact that this is a penalty is black-and-white, and it's impossible to not feel deeply wronged here, particularly in the context of previous seasons (e.g. Foley being penalised for time wasting against the All Blacks).
It would be nice if a call went our way every now and then. God knows we need it.