2012 Rugby Championship R5G1 Springbokke vs Wallabies @ the Bull Ring

[Schadenfreude]

Law 3.12 says " a substituted player may replace a front row player " but FTS wasn't a substituted player.

So the ref was right. Right?

 

[Dam0]

Law 3.12 says "a substituted player may replace a front row player " but FTS wasn't a substituted player.

So the ref was right. Right?

I thought so. I think 3.12 is a red herring. It seems nobody knows for sure.

 

[Torn Hammy]

While on refs, was there anyone else who htougth that the Slipper yellow was a tad harsh? Watched the match again and just about every ruck where we had the ball, the ref was yelling at the SAs to get their hands off and the two consecutive and blatant Strauss ruck penalties were pretty cynical.

 

[Dam0]

While on refs, was there anyone else who htougth that the Slipper yellow was a tad harsh? Watched the match again and just about every ruck where we had the ball, the ref was yelling at the SAs to get their hands off and the two consecutive and blatant Strauss ruck penalties were pretty cynical.

I thought it was OK, because I think Slipper wasn't holding his body weight almost immediately once he arrived and basically killed the ball. I have conversed with refs who thought the first offence was holding on against the green player. There's an argument to be made that way, but I do think that once Slipper has failed to gain the ball, (even if he green is holding on illegally) the prudent course of action for him is to get away from the ball and stop holding on to it.

I don't think it can be disputed however that IF it was a penalty, it had to be a YC. Rolland was already playing advantage for not being back 10m after a quick tap for a penalty less than 30 seconds before.

 

[meatsack]

Law 3.12 says "a substituted player may replace a front row player " but FTS wasn't a substituted player.

So the ref was right. Right?

No, I think its saying Fat Cat could come back on for Alexander as Alexander was 'injured' and this kind of substitution doesn't count towards the 7 'tactical' replacements you're allowed in a match. Therefore Australia had 1 normal substitution remaining after that which they could use on the TPN/Saia sub. This all relies on Alexander actually being injured and not feigning it, otherwise we could be in a 2009 Harlequin situation.

 

[Braveheart81]

The IRB has had another think about it and decided that the Wallabies were in the right and could have legally brought Saia Fainga'a onto the field to replace TPN.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-as-rugby-board-backflips-20121004-270i1.html

“The area of substitution management is a team effort,” said IRB match official selection committee chairman John Jeffrey in a released statement. “This was an unfortunate case of human error by the match official team, who fully recognise and accept that they made a mistake in the application of the substitution law.”

 

[Torn Hammy]

I thought it was OK, because I think Slipper wasn't holding his body weight almost immediately once he arrived and basically killed the ball. I have conversed with refs who thought the first offence was holding on against the green player. There's an argument to be made that way, but I do think that once Slipper has failed to gain the ball, (even if he green is holding on illegally) the prudent course of action for him is to get away from the ball and stop holding on to it.

I don't think it can be disputed however that IF it was a penalty, it had to be a YC. Rolland was already playing advantage for not being back 10m after a quick tap for a penalty less than 30 seconds before.

Cheers Dam0.

The video also shows the first two Saffas going off their feet and both trying to collapse the ruck, the 2nd succeeding by pulling slipper over the ball.

My main point however, queries the consistency of decisions. The constant "hands off green" that went unpunished, and then an isolated offence being punished with a yellow card. Even the SA commentators remarked on how the Saffas were allowed to slow the Wobs ball. This is how I saw it as a bit harsh.

Also in using the existing advantage for not being back ten metres to justify the YC you also highlight the inconsistency that Phipps didn't get a penalty when he took a quick tap and lost the ball to players not back 10 metres.

 

[Brisbok]

Cheers Dam0.

The video also shows the first two Saffas going off their feet and both trying to collapse the ruck, the 2nd succeeding by pulling slipper over the ball.

Collapsing the ruck? That's the first time I've heard that phrase. Isn't that the objective of attacking players arriving at a tackle situation? Attempt to clear out or get defensive players off their feet so that they are no longer able to compete for the ball?

Even the SA commentators remarked on how the Saffas were allowed to slow the Wobs ball.

Just consider yourself lucky you didn't have to sit through a whinge fest from Kearns et. al. Although credit to Kafe, who on numerous occassions made a point of disagreeing with Kearns.

Also in using the existing advantage for not being back ten metres to justify the YC you also highlight the inconsistency that Phipps didn't get a penalty when he took a quick tap and lost the ball to players not back 10 metres.

I thought the yellow card was slightly harsh at the time and a penalty may have been sufficient. However, it was in the "red zone". If you commit offences in this area be prepared to be punished harshly. Slipper was barely supporting his own weight as soon as he arrived at the breakdown. He continued to hang onto and attempt to turnover the ball while balancing on his head/shoulders. He successfully slowed down the ball enough for his fellow defenders to arrive and form the defensive line and in doing so, prevented a possible try scoring opportunity.

I can't remember the Phipps incident off the top of my head, so I can't comment on the comparison. Was he in a try scoring position or approx. 5 - 10m out from the try line when it happened?

 

[PaarlBok]

Just consider yourself lucky you didn't have to sit through a whinge fest from Kearns et. al. Although credit to Kafe, who on numerous occassions made a point of disagreeing with Kearns.

Pretty sure they comment diffirently in our WC exit match last year. Farked Hammy agreed with their stand after that match.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Wallabies vindicated as rugby board backflips

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-as-rugby-board-backflips-20121004-270i1.html

Typically superficial article: leaves the reader with absolutely no idea of the reasoning.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Here is the IRB link: http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063781.html

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's hope the additional IRB ranking points we lost by losing by 15+ don't prove to be too costly!

 

[Dam0]

Here is the IRB link: http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063781.html

Not every one is totally convinced.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-australian-substitute/2829712/

I think this opinion came out before the IRB one. They avoid giving a definitive answer but I do think the implication is that they aren't convinced there is a distinction between replacements and substitutions for the purposes of 3.4.

One thing is for certain; this time next year the law will be rewritten to be unambiguous.

 

[Knuckles]

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

BM, can't speak for everyone but for me, Cooper is hated for 2 reasons

1. He should have not aired the dirty laundry publicly
2. He said he wouldn't have played if chosen. He needs to meet me in a dark alley after that comment!!!

 

[BPC]

Not every one is totally convinced.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-australian-substitute/2829712/

I think this opinion came out before the IRB one. They avoid giving a definitive answer but I do think the implication is that they aren't convinced there is a distinction between replacements and substitutions for the purposes of 3.4.

One thing is for certain; this time next year the law will be rewritten to be even more unambiguous.

Fixed that for you

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Fixed that for you

Very good BPC - took me a while!

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I thought it was OK, because I think Slipper wasn't holding his body weight almost immediately once he arrived and basically killed the ball. I have conversed with refs who thought the first offence was holding on against the green player. There's an argument to be made that way, but I do think that once Slipper has failed to gain the ball, (even if he green is holding on illegally) the prudent course of action for him is to get away from the ball and stop holding on to it.

I don't think it can be disputed however that IF it was a penalty, it had to be a YC. Rolland was already playing advantage for not being back 10m after a quick tap for a penalty less than 30 seconds before.

Of late, the referees seem to be favouring the tackled player more than the pilferer.

If the Tackled player can get to a situation where they can do a "Long Place", then the only way for a turnover appears to be to wait for a ruck to form and then counter ruck to drive over the ball. The Long Place" seems to defeat the "Tackled Player not releasing the Ball" turnover penalty. More leniency seems to be granted to the Tackled player with the Tackler needing to do a more deliberate and obvious release of the Tackled Player before recontesting for the ball.

This will cause the coaches to rethink aspects of the job descriptions of the 6 and 7's.

 

[ChargerWA]

Of late, the referees seem to be favouring the tackled player more than the pilferer.

If the Tackled player can get to a situation where they can do a "Long Place", then the only way for a turnover appears to be to wait for a ruck to form and then counter ruck to drive over the ball. The Long Place" seems to defeat the "Tackled Player not releasing the Ball" turnover penalty. More leniency seems to be granted to the Tackled player with the Tackler needing to do a more deliberate and obvious release of the Tackled Player before recontesting for the ball.

This will cause the coaches to rethink aspects of the job descriptions of the 6 and 7's.

Do you think this is more of an issue because of the way the NH refs are reffing the breakdown?

Interesting to here the SA commentators just say at the start of the AB V Boks that Rolland got it wrong last week and allowed to much leeway at the breakdowns.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The evolving breakdown laws and tactics/countertactics may be worthy of its own thread.

 

[Alex]

Of late, the referees seem to be favouring the tackled player more than the pilferer.

If the Tackled player can get to a situation where they can do a "Long Place", then the only way for a turnover appears to be to wait for a ruck to form and then counter ruck to drive over the ball. The Long Place" seems to defeat the "Tackled Player not releasing the Ball" turnover penalty. More leniency seems to be granted to the Tackled player with the Tackler needing to do a more deliberate and obvious release of the Tackled Player before recontesting for the ball.

This will cause the coaches to rethink aspects of the job descriptions of the 6 and 7's.

I would love to be able to post screen grabs to show this but at nine seconds into that clip there is one springbok player on the ground - two wallaby players released him and going in for the pilfer. At ten seconds someone has tried to clean out slipper but has bounced off an on the ground to the side - still no ruck formed - still ball not released - but ref screaming hands off gold??? Even if Slipper wasn't supporting his weight, Phipps was perfectly entitled to play for the ball. No excuse for the ball carrier not to have been penalised in that situation - should have gone back for the earlier infringement n front of the posts. It was in marked contrast to today when steals were allowed well after the ruck had formed and defenders were being permitted to fish it out with impunity.

This was actually very similar to the Dagg card today where in each case the player probably genuinely believed they were acting within rights - and on replay probably were. Some refs miss things - a few ref what they think probably happened even if they didn't see it - Rolland fits into this category (Bryce and Nigel do as well). Carding someone over a what at best amounts to the finest of differences of opinion is pretty poor irrespective of what part of the field it is in.