- Status
C
chief
Guest
B
BillyWebb
Guest
Palu's carding wasn't harsh.... it was simply an erroneous call.
He was completely legal in the tackle, but I think the fact that the hit was so brutal, and Kearney completely poleaxed made it look quite rough in real time.
Not the right call, but I can understand the refereeing error.
As for Kearney's shoulder charge - not sure it's automatically a yellow.... :nta:
Maybe it should be because it is foul play trying to prevent a try - so could be cynical...
I think what confuses the issue is that Elsom scored / they had to go to the TMO.
I would have gone with the try, and a penalty on halfway.
Apart from that, I thought Kaplan was ok... oh, except for the last scrum from which the Irish scored.
Was pretty sure the Irish dropped it when the pressure came on.
BUT - I was a pretty one-eyed spectator for this game wanting the Wobblies to win, so I have to admit to some bias in those statements.
He was completely legal in the tackle, but I think the fact that the hit was so brutal, and Kearney completely poleaxed made it look quite rough in real time.
Not the right call, but I can understand the refereeing error.
As for Kearney's shoulder charge - not sure it's automatically a yellow.... :nta:
Maybe it should be because it is foul play trying to prevent a try - so could be cynical...
I think what confuses the issue is that Elsom scored / they had to go to the TMO.
I would have gone with the try, and a penalty on halfway.
Apart from that, I thought Kaplan was ok... oh, except for the last scrum from which the Irish scored.
Was pretty sure the Irish dropped it when the pressure came on.
BUT - I was a pretty one-eyed spectator for this game wanting the Wobblies to win, so I have to admit to some bias in those statements.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
BillyWebb said:
It wasn't. Watch it again. Five seconds into the clip, that's Palu's left arm sticking over Kearney's shoulder and out behind his head. They're both standing up, so the problem is that Palu started with the arms low and the shoulder too high, into the head. The arm then rode up, beyond and over; look at it at 0:37 on the clip, and Palu actually brings his left arm up and over the top (he could easily just have kept it down and wrapped, and he'd have been fine).
No dispute that he went too high with the shoulder, as it was over the line of the tacklee's shoulder. Over the line of the shoulder = high. It was, at the least, a penalty. He's indicating no use of the arms, which he could have done as well. Six inches lower, and he'd have been fine; but he was those six inches too high.
Watched in real time, with the way that Palu cocked up going too high, it was always going to be a yellow.
Kaplan was erratic, and did neither side any favours. One penalty you missed that he gave against Heaslip, Heaslip was clearly on his feet. He also seemed to have no rhyme or reason to the timing of how long you had to place or indeed contest the ball at the breakdown; one ruck it'd be ages, next ruck, no time at all. The perfect example, for me, was the scrum where we got the free kick for the early push. Now, you did push before the ball, no question; your scrum was interesting because you were engaging and feeding all in one. But, clear push before the ball's in. If its'a free kick, it's a free kick there. He makes us put the ball in, while this is still going on; and then gives the free kick which it already was some five to ten seconds earlier, with no advantage. Why? Just random; not unfair, just very, very random... :nta:
Disagree with your first commend Thomo, but agree with your second. Thought Palu's hit was at the very worst a penalty for a high tackle. IMO it was just a great hit, and I think Kaplan overreacted massively upon hearing the crowd and seeing Kearney crumple limply to the floor. Luckily it wasn't that costly for us.
I do think Kaplan had some very odd interpretations at the ruck. Completely ignored players off their feet, but went hell for leather on hands in the ruck, but on other occasions let it go completely. Thought this went more or less both ways- Pocock got a couple of shockers, but so did the Irish.
I do think Kaplan had some very odd interpretations at the ruck. Completely ignored players off their feet, but went hell for leather on hands in the ruck, but on other occasions let it go completely. Thought this went more or less both ways- Pocock got a couple of shockers, but so did the Irish.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
The simple message is, Barbarian; there's no percentage in going those six inches too high, when six inches lower will do the job just as well and with no risk. If you run the risk of a penalty, you run the risk of a card; so don't run the risk of a penalty.
Kaplan didn't affect the result; but he did not ref well.
Kaplan didn't affect the result; but he did not ref well.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Thomo? It was - what the leaguies call - a dominant tackle. It was establishing physical dominance and making the ther player think twice, and giving our side a big lift. It was wonderful. A total CapTana specialty.
Just like Bakkies's clean-out, he only got penalised becuase it was so bloody good.
Justice #8.
Just like Bakkies's clean-out, he only got penalised becuase it was so bloody good.
Justice #8.
C
chief
Guest
Yes Australia lost themselves the game.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Thomond78 said:
The best example in the game of Kaplan being erratic at ruck time was a bit after Healy's great run right after the penalty to make it 13 - 6. Pocock on his feet, fighting for the ball - similar cases earlier Kaplan called a penalty. He calls play on, Pocock eventually forces the ball free, and is cleaned out. Obvious Irish player lying on top of Pocock forces the ball out of his arms and takes several attempts to paddle it back. Blatant penalty, Kaplan ignores, a few rucks later it's Ireland's first try. Although that run and restart steal deserved a try.
Kaplan's just inconsistent. Just frustrating to watch.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:
1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.
1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.
- Status