2012 Rugby Championship R5G1 Springbokke vs Wallabies @ the Bull Ring

[Knuckles]

For the record, I still felt we were in it 15mins into second half if we could get some possession, but we were rudderless. Continuing to play touch rugby league at training and during Captains Runs is a significant contributor to why we see one out plays or selfish, imagineless chip kicks in attacking positions.

ARU should ban the Wallabies from watching mungoes completely!

 

[Knuckles]

and whilst I'm in my ivory tower.............

another contributor?

making rockstars out of 15&16 year olds by including them in high performance programs and telling them they will be Wallabies.

Disband the NTS/JGS or whatever it's called these days

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Sorry - yeah, 3 of course. But see exception 2 to law 3.12 - it seems that you can exceed your permitted number of replacements for an injured front rower.

where is that bit written?

I'm not an expert on subs, but I don't think it says anywhere that you can exceed your allocated substitution limit. It might say that a player can be subbed and then come back on, which Robinson did. But that doesn't imply he can become an 8th sub.

 

[Alex]

where is that bit written?

I'm not an expert on subs, but I don't think it says anywhere that you can exceed your allocated substitution limit. It might say that a player can be subbed and then come back on, which Robinson did. But that doesn't imply he can become an 8th sub.

The only circumstance in which a substituted player is not permitted to "replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off" is when:

(a) the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the event which led to the front row player leaving the field of play; AND

(b) the team has used all the permitted replacements and substitutions.

(b) had occurred, (a) had not therefore a substituted player could "replace a front row player when injured". Having "used all the permitted replacements and substitutions" does not of itself prevent you from replacing an injured front rower

I accept that this does not expressly allow S. Finger to have come on - but there is no doubt that it allows Alexander to have come back on, which by necessity means that an injured front rower is an exception to any seven replacement rule (or 2+5 rule).

Just for the record - no excuses here. The boys were brave but got owned. Just genuinely puzzled by a ruling that I have never seen at any level before and can't find in the book.

 

[phatcows]

That coins it for me. Rudderless. We just did not know what to do when a Wallaby was holding the ball.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Boys and girls,
I am yet to see the game.
The judgment of most posters I respect.
I have read all the posts posted during the game.
The strong impression I got from those posts, notwithstanding missed goals and bombed tries, is of the Wobs being on the ropes for about 75 minutes but refusing to sky the towel despite a huge injury toll during the game.
The questions I have:
Is it fair to judge Deans in this context, unless he is the or a cause of team rehab?
Can we be told the theory/reasoning for the continued early substitution of fat cat? If he's not fit enough then hes not fit enough. If he's there to absorb the initial onslaught in the scrums then we have paid the price of our scrum shortcomings with the, arguable, humiliation of uncontested scrums. Looking back the 7 sub rule must be the reason Deans has not been clearing his bench - recall that Phipps got no game time prior to genias injury. Therefore this was a calculated risk, I suggests, that had paid off by keeping one of the 7 idle in case fat cat needed to go back on.
If we lose to the Argies is there an impact on our IRB ranking? The seedlings for RWC 2015 are based on the rankings in December, I think. If we miss top 4 then we will still be paying for this period in our rugby history in 2015 no matter what we do. Mind you we squandered our RWC 2011 seeding by losing in the pool rounds, so maybe it doesn't matter all that much.
I think JON owes it to the rugby supporting public to take us into the ARUs confidence and explain the thinking and outline a plan. He also needs to tell us about the injury toll what is thought to lie behind it, is it within the bounds of other major rugby playing nations and aw we seeing a depth issue and what is he going to do about that depth issue. I think we must have a full game day squad, maybe even a touring party, out injured.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[biggsy]

I'm with Cooper. . That team doesn't look happy, even worse when there behind.

Just Watching the reply, fucken crap. I'm frustred and over this deans/ARU.
I liked Sheehan once he come on, we started going forward. He is angry little scrum half and his age showed tonight with maturity of the game.

 

[Dan54]

To gobsmacked by all the injuries to get too harsh on Wallabies after this one, only things I will say after that test, are looking at positives, Hooper is definitely a keeper, and Beale looked bloody good in 10 tonight.

 

[randalf8]

I thought Beale played reasonably well. He certainly wasn't inferior to what we've seen from Cooper since (and including) the RWC. He can actually take a tackle without trying a panic in-contact offload, unlike Quade.

He seems to understand that rugby is game best played in the oppo half. He can kick to space rather than straight down Oppo throats.

I don't want to see Berrick Barnes in a jersey numbered 1 through 15 again, and I don't care how bad the injury toll becomes.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I am reminded of the Midnight Oil Song "The Power and The Passion".

That is what we saw from the Saffers last night. We had no answer. As ordinary as we were, I doffs me hat to the Saffers. That was an impressive performance from them that exposed many weaknesses in the Wobs.

Under pressure many of our boys were found wanting.

Hooper and Gilbert showed plenty of ticker.

Our backline positional play was very poor, not helped by the injury toll.

As much as I'd like to have a go at Dingo and the game plan, it wasn't him who was Yellow Carded. Dingo didn't miss tackles on the left wing where nearly all the Saffer tries were scored. Dingo didn't try to tackle a flying Saffer with his head.

Too many individual players had bad days at the office.

Dingo should take responsibility for the stuff up over the substitution blunder over Finger.S, but to an extent that was out of his hands due to the backline injury toll which exposed the strategy of an early replacement of a fatty.

Bottom line. Awesome performance from the Saffers. Thank goodness they left their kicking boots at home, and for a few TMO decisions that didn't go their way.

 

[Blue]

Finally the Springboks wake up and play with some intensity.

I was skeptical about Louw but jeez he is a lock on that jersey now. Goosen is the business.

Pienaar's kicking out of hand was sublime. It looked like Fourie du Preez was on the park.

Seems like Goosen tweaked his knee early on, the one he did in Super Rugby, so Pienaar took the kicks and missed a bunch. Not worried about that though between Pienaar, Lambie, Goosen, F Steyn and Jantjes someone will hit form.

We saw why Lambie needs to start next week. Seems to have ages when he has the ball.

Commiserations Wob fans. That was a bit ugly. Surely Deans cannot survive this although the injury toll is spectacular. That's not excuse for the bad defense though. Only thing worse than that was Kearns' commentary.

 

[Mr Doug]

firstly, what a brutal game that was.
secondly, even 10,000 kms away Quade contributed to the result
thirdly, we need to stop hiding behind the injury toll.

Even during the farce of the non-replacement the commentators were making excuses for the result and named 15 blokes who were out, including some who took the field tonight I might add.

The point of real concern for mine is that it appears, no-one is asking why they are getting injured? I would suggest it's because they spend too much time in the gym measuring skin folds than they do playing footy, getting the body used to taking knocks. We all know there's no fitness like match fitness. Yet we continually hold players back from playing the game.

Who's responsible for it? The two genuises who run the HPU. And ultimately, the two geniuses who run the ARU are the ones accountable for allowing the cotton wool approach to elite level rugby in this country. Until those 4 positions are changed, then we will continue to see performances like we saw tonight.

If my memory serves me correctly, when Jack Gibson imported the new (you beaut) Nautilus Machine to the Sydney Roosters, after many leg-extensions and the like, his players were still getting knee injuries, because (surprise, surprise), the tacklers were coming in from the side!

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Finally the Springboks wake up and play with some intensity.
/...snip.../.
That was a bit ugly.
/...snip.../.
the injury toll is spectacular.
/...snip.../.
That's not excuse for the bad defense though.
/...snip.../.
Only thing worse than that was Kearns' commentary.

Absolutely agree with the bolded bits.

Watching the Darkness v Pumas now, I am getting quite excited about the Saffer v Darkness game next week. If the Saffer can retain the power and intensity then it will be a spectacular game.

 

[Brumbieman]

firstly, what a brutal game that was.
secondly, even 10,000 kms away Quade contributed to the result
thirdly, we need to stop hiding behind the injury toll.

Even during the farce of the non-replacement the commentators were making excuses for the result and named 15 blokes who were out, including some who took the field tonight I might add.

The point of real concern for mine is that it appears, no-one is asking why they are getting injured? I would suggest it's because they spend too much time in the gym measuring skin folds than they do playing footy, getting the body used to taking knocks. We all know there's no fitness like match fitness. Yet we continually hold players back from playing the game.

Who's responsible for it? The two genuises who run the HPU. And ultimately, the two geniuses who run the ARU are the ones accountable for allowing the cotton wool approach to elite level rugby in this country. Until those 4 positions are changed, then we will continue to see performances like we saw tonight.

And yet Cooper i hated by everyone for saying exactly this?

 

[Schadenfreude]

But I dunno, I see that it has already been brought up on the refs forum and I will be interested to see what they have to say.

Can you link to the refs forum please?

 

[Dam0]

Can you link to the refs forum please?

I guess they aren't really in competition with this site, so sure:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forum.php

The post in question hasn't really got going yet, perhaps a reflection of the fact that Rolland was correct.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

And yet Cooper i hated by everyone for saying exactly this?

I think Cooper wants to spend more time in a Facility that facilitates a National Team, not less as Knuckles is suggesting.

I do not think Coopers nonsense contributed too much to the poor tackling and backline defence. Usually reliable players like Diggers simply didn't step up. The Saffers targeted them and they were found wanting. Is Diggers one of the Rat Pack?

 

[Dam0]

Sorry - yeah, 3 of course. But see exception 2 to law 3.12 - it seems that you can exceed your permitted number of replacements for an injured front rower. The exception to the exception only applies if the ref has previously called ucontested scrums, which he had not:

3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH
(a) If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match, even to replace
an injured player.
Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with an open or bleeding wound.
Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily
suspended or sent off unless the referee has ordered uncontested scrums prior to the event
which led to the front row player leaving the field of play and the team has used all the
permitted replacements and substitutions.
(b) If uncontested scrums have been ordered and there is an injury to a front row player which
requires that player to be replaced and there is a front row player available to replace that
player then the front row player replacement must be used rather than players other than
front row replacements.

My reading of 3.12 is that it provides a exceptions to the rule that a subsituted player may not come back on. I don't think it provides an exception to the number of substitutions allowed as per law 3.4.

 

[twenty seven]

Time for the Deans Wallabies era to end. I know we have a lot of injured players but we are going nowhere. Time for some fresh ideas. That effort was crap.

Makes you wonder about Quades comments about 'facilities' and injuries....

 

[flat_eric]

I think it's safe to say I've never been more embarrassed to be an Australian rugby supporter after the week that has just gone. I'd never thought I'd say it but this code has just about lost me.