Brumbies vs Highlanders, Sat 14 April 2018 - Dunedin

[zer0]

Brumbies had used all their subs. If someone had broken their leg the same rule would have applied but without the need for an assessment. It’s been that way forever.

Not according to these laws, which, as far as I can tell, are the two relevant laws (and assuming I'm reading them right):

TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT - HEAD INJURY ASSESSMENT (HIA)
3.26. In elite adult matches, which have been approved in advance by World Rugby (pursuant to Regulations 10.1.4 and 10.1.5) for use of the HIA process, a player who requires an HIA:

a. Leaves the field of play; and​

b. Is temporarily replaced (even if all the replacements have been used). If the player is not available to return to the field of play after 10 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent.​

TACTICAL REPLACEMENTS JOINING THE MATCH
3.32. Tactically replaced players may return to play only when replacing:

a. An injured front-row player.​

b. A player with a blood injury.​

c. A player undertaking an HIA.​

d. A player who has just been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the match officials).​

e. The nominated player described in Law 3.18 or 3.19.​

​

Nothing there says to me that a tactical replacement cannot return to the field for a who has failed a HIA. Though, equally, there's nothing to explicitly say he can, either, as 3.32c talks about returning for a player undertaking a HIA, but says nothing of what happens should that player fail it.

EDIT: Sorry. This only concerns HIA, not regular injuries, for which you are correct. I think 3.32b was at the core of that bloodgate scandal in England a few years ago.

 

[KOB1987]

Ok going by 3.26b he should have been able to stay on. However I’m not sure why a head injury should be treated differently to any other injury with regards to all the replacements being used up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

A very competitive game up to 60 minutes. Could say the Highlanders were rusty after the bye (as some have), but there really didn't seem to be a lot of rust whenever they had the ball. More to my eye that good defense mostly kept them at bay (except for Ben Smith's outrageous try of course). The intercept try by Naholo was the killer. The game was then lost to the Brumbies and unfortunately the floodgates opened.

Many lessons to be learnt from the loss, but imo the important ones are:

- when playing a side that doesn't commit numbers to the ruck, like the Highlanders yesterday, make more use of the pick and drive to get them to concentrate a few more defenders around the ruck area;

- do not try long, cut out passes with flat attacking lines. Just an invitation to the opposition to take the intercept. Put the ball through the hands when shallow, but use the cut out pass when standing deeper in attack (remember Hawera's pass to Sio against the Reds where he was able to hit the gap and set Rory Arnold up for his try);

- use your best players in the starting lineup. Matt Lucas again had some very ordinary moments which disrupted the Brumbies attack, most notably his knock on while not looking at the ball in the lead up to Pocock's no-try.

 

[Hawko]

As an independent (no skin in the game) observer I thought that the Brumbies played pretty well and didn't deserve to lose by that many. Less than 7 for a losing bonus point would have been a fair result. But the Clan scored off every half-chance they had and that is what the four good NZ Super teams will do to you. They are a class above everyone else, and until we lift our game to their level of skill, we will continue to lose by big margins.

The Highlanders kick a lot. Like just about every time. That's the way they play and it shits me to tears because they've got enough skills in that back line not to have to. But when you play them you have to match them in the contest in the air and you can NEVER let the ball bounce first.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Hawko, I agree the Brumbies played better than the scoreline indicates, but probably not good enough to earn a losing bonus point. You can see that they are trying to improve their attacking structures and at times were looking quite dangerous. There is a bit of NZ style about what they are attempting, with forwards running and passing in the backline. Rory Arnold looks to be most effective in this role atm. I am also liking the way Hawera is looking for options when picking out runners, but he needs to curb the long cut-out pass when the backline is so flat. Certainly, use it to get wide quickly when the attack is from the second line, but the risk of an intercept is too high when playing flat.

I also thought that they were trying to go wide too often against the Highlanders.The Highlanders' defense was able to set wide knowing where the ball was going. A few more pick and drives might have drawn a couple of defenders out of the line. From memory, the only pick and drive in the second half was one by Naisarani who made a good 10 metres or more but ended up injured unfortunately. Not sure where they'll go with the backrow for next week if Isi isn't fit to play. So many fans were looking forward to the Valetini, Pocock, Naisarani backrow this year, but it hasn't eventuated.

I agree the Brumbies also need to address the high ball. Not only when kicked by the opposition, but on their own kick/chase as well. At the moment, they seem to be content to allow the opposition a free catch looking to immediately take them to ground. Would be ok if they could then turn the ball back with a dominant ruck, but that just isn't happening.

Small signs I think, but hopefully going in the right direction.

 

[fatprop]

As an independent (no skin in the game) observer I thought that the Brumbies played pretty well and didn't deserve to lose by that many. Less than 7 for a losing bonus point would have been a fair result. But the Clan scored off every half-chance they had and that is what the four good NZ Super teams will do to you. They are a class above everyone else, and until we lift our game to their level of skill, we will continue to lose by big margins.

The Highlanders kick a lot. Like just about every time. That's the way they play and it shits me to tears because they've got enough skills in that back line not to have to. But when you play them you have to match them in the contest in the air and you can NEVER let the ball bounce first.

Reminded me a lot of a Wobs test matches of recent years.

In the game for large periods while we kept it tight.

Pressure mounts, they take their chances, we start to push the play and they run away with the game in the back end

 

[Tomikin]

A very competitive game up to 60 minutes. Could say the Highlanders were rusty after the bye (as some have), but there really didn't seem to be a lot of rust whenever they had the ball. More to my eye that good defense mostly kept them at bay (except for Ben Smith's outrageous try of course). The intercept try by Naholo was the killer. The game was then lost to the Brumbies and unfortunately the floodgates opened.

Many lessons to be learnt from the loss, but imo the important ones are:

- when playing a side that doesn't commit numbers to the ruck, like the Highlanders yesterday, make more use of the pick and drive to get them to concentrate a few more defenders around the ruck area;

- do not try long, cut out passes with flat attacking lines. Just an invitation to the opposition to take the intercept. Put the ball through the hands when shallow, but use the cut out pass when standing deeper in attack (remember Hawera's pass to Sio against the Reds where he was able to hit the gap and set Rory Arnold up for his try);

- use your best players in the starting lineup. Matt Lucas again had some very ordinary moments which disrupted the Brumbies attack, most notably his knock on while not looking at the ball in the lead up to Pocock's no-try.

Lucas didn't touch that Poey knocked that on all on his own..

Sent from my HTC 2PS6200 using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

But in the past two weeks Lucas' casual approach to the ruck has seen him lose the ball way too many times..........

And what really annoyed me last week was when it happened for the second time in that match, he stood their protesting to the ref while play went on around him.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Too true Slim. Lucas has been caught with the ball at the back of the ruck far too many times. And I will have to disagree with Tomikin - I believe Lucas did knock on at that particular ruck whether it was called or not.

 

[KOB1987]

Isn't someone going to start a Brumbies v Jaguares thread?? I was just wanting to see what the sides were for my fantasy team but there isn't even a thread!

 

[Slim 293]

Isn't someone going to start a Brumbies v Jaguares thread?? I was just wanting to see what the sides were for my fantasy team but there isn't even a thread!

They haven't even announced a team yet..........

 

[KOB1987]

Maybe not but most other threads are well under way before the teams are announced! Us dedicated Tahs fans can't wait to start talking about the next game as soon as the current one ends!

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Pity they don't stream rugby on Qantas - I'll be in the air and miss this.

It was the last we heard from Cyclo.

**DISGRACEFUL** behaviour.

In Australian rugby's hour of need, he goes and abandons them.

List of possible fates that befell Cyclo:

• he hijacked the plane and redirected it to Wellington where he is now pretending to be a NZer and a Canes fan.
• that's his plane that's been circling above me here on the Pitcairns for the last week
• option C
• on the lam after the death of MiniMe.

 

[Gnostic]

LOL - the horror of imagining the Minime version of the Cyclo.

 

[Slim 293]

I missed this during the week, but the ref got it wrong and Cusack should've been allowed to stay on the field:

Super Rugby's governing body has apologised to the ACT Brumbies and moved to clarify concussion confusion after a farcical end to a game in Dunedin last week.

The Brumbies were forced to finish their game against the Otago Highlanders with 14 players after match officials refused to allow them to replace Isi Naisarani, who had failed a head injury assessment test.

The Brumbies asked for clarification on the ruling and were told Cusack should have been allowed to stay on the field.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...er-farcical-brumbies-end-20180421-p4zawc.html

 

[Brumby Runner]

Why is it that farcical decisions often involve NZ sides (eg, 8 players on the field in a 7s final; three halves of trial matches being counted towards SBW's suspension time) and the rub of the green goes their way each time?

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Why is it that farcical decisions often involve NZ sides (eg, 8 players on the field in a 7s final; three halves of trial matches being counted towards SBW's suspension time) and the rub of the green goes their way each time?

a lot of this issues are with how the rule/law is written. It will say (a) can cover (b) during the HIA but then not talk about if the (a) can remained cover if (b) cannot return. The AR4 & AR5 then either leave run or say ahh that now becomes and injury replacement so can't stay on (like blood bin)

 

[Derpus]

Why is it that farcical decisions often involve NZ sides (eg, 8 players on the field in a 7s final; three halves of trial matches being counted towards SBW's suspension time) and the rub of the green goes their way each time?

Confirmation bias.