New Zealand v Australia - Auckland - 23 August 2014

[Redsman]

2 yellow cards to the AIG in their 22 for foul play - do you think this is a new precedent set..?

I certainly hope so the AIG have been using the ol' 3 to stop 7 for many a season now... lets hope the officials have caught on and continue to stamp this out...

 

[Braveheart81]

One of the NZ journos pointed out that the All Blacks have had 7 yellow cards in their last 10 tests and they need to improve their discipline.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Great news. Better discipline means less defensive pressure.

 

[Grant NZ]

2 yellow cards to the AIG in their 22 for foul play - do you think this is a new precedent set..?

I certainly hope so the AIG have been using the ol' 3 to stop 7 for many a season now. lets hope the officials have caught on and continue to stamp this out.

I don't really think the 3 to stop 7 applies to either of the yellow card offences to be honest.

 

[Grant NZ]

I love it how some NZ press has called Barrett running back through a ruck from an offside position and kicking the ball away a 50/50 yellow card.

That's cause it wasn't a ruck, it was a tackle - no offside. If the ball is out of the tackle, it doesn't matter where you come from.

The ball was about 1m away from Folau when Barrett kicked it which is right on about the margins of when refs tend to call in or out of the tackle hence the 50/50 call. I'm not saying it was a wrong call, but it's not unreasonable to call it a 50/50.

 

[BPC]

It's the whole... if I stick my hands up in the air whilst I'm commiting a professional foul it might seem like it's accidental. I'm just trying to get back on onside. How was I to know there was a ruck there?

Backs just can't manage the innocent 'who, me?' expression that props master as they climb out of the wreckage of yet another collapsed scrum.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dctarget]

Well, Slipper was a 10 in junior rugby so he's a converted 10 - OMG

I was joking, but if you're being truthful that's awesome. Explains some of his silky skills.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ACT Crusader]

2 yellow cards to the AIG in their 22 for foul play - do you think this is a new precedent set..?

I certainly hope so the AIG have been using the ol' 3 to stop 7 for many a season now. lets hope the officials have caught on and continue to stamp this out.

I'm definitely not against the use of cards to help the game or punish proper foul play, but the two on the weekend were not for foul play.

The first one was a penalty at worst, because on normal time viewing it looked as if White had hands all over the ball. The second was one of those grey areas of rugby where there was uncertainty about whether a ruck had been formed and therefore if there was an offside line. But it just didn't look right (whether it was legal or not is another point) so I didn't have too much of an issue given OZ were on attack.

 

[ACT Crusader]

There was no ruck formed.
Apparently.
It was general play.
Apparently.

Apparently you are right. Apparently that is

 

[Braveheart81]

Barrett certainly wasn't acting like a player who thought that there wasn't a ruck formed and he was free to play the ball.

Maybe if he had, he'd have got away with it.

 

[Grant NZ]

Barrett certainly wasn't acting like a player who thought that there wasn't a ruck formed and he was free to play the ball.

Maybe if he had, he'd have got away with it.

Peyper didn't think there was a ruck formed either. He says 'If you approach the tackle, you have do so through the gate' so obviously his opinion is that ball/Barrett is close enough to be 'near the tackle' as defined in the laws.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Barrett certainly wasn't acting like a player who thought that there wasn't a ruck formed and he was free to play the ball.

Maybe if he had, he'd have got away with it.

what am I missing?
Why isn't this a 15.6(d) as its called in the trade?

At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

 

[KOB1987]

Peyper didn't think there was a ruck formed either. He says 'If you approach the tackle, you have do so through the gate' so obviously his opinion is that ball/Barrett is close enough to be 'near the tackle' as defined in the laws.

I don't think there is a law that refers to 'approaching the tackle', so if that is what he said I'd say he merely had his words mixed up and meant either 'if you approach the ruck', or 'if you approach the tackled player', and in the case of the latter (as he said you must go through the gate) it would imply he was saying there was a ruck formed..you can approach a tackled player from any direction you like, not a ruck or a maul though..

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't think there is a law that refers to 'approaching the tackle', so if that is what he said I'd say he merely had his words mixed up and meant either 'if you approach the ruck', or 'if you approach the tackled player', and in the case of the latter (as he said you must go through the gate) it would imply he was saying there was a ruck formed..you can approach a tackled player from any direction you like, not a ruck or a maul though..

Check the post above: Law 15.6(d) stipulates that to play the ball at or near a tackle you must approach the tackle from behind the ball.
Having just watched some footage of the incident there is simply no doubt there was a tackle and he was near it and he played the ball.

 

[Grant NZ]

I don't think there is a law that refers to 'approaching the tackle', so if that is what he said I'd say he merely had his words mixed up and meant either 'if you approach the ruck', or 'if you approach the tackled player', and in the case of the latter it would imply he was saying there was a ruck formed..you can approach a tackled player from any direction you like, not a ruck or a maul though..

Tackle entry - can't remember the exact wording but it's something like Players at or near the tackle who play the ball have to come from directly behind the hindmost foot.

Ah, I see Inside Shoulder has posted it above.

Basically it comes down to whether Barrett is 'near to' a tackle, given the ball has left Folau's hands and is about 1m away from him. I think it's right on the margins of where ref's tend to rule, so I wouldn't be surprised either way. As for the card, even though Peyper didn't say it, NZ had conceded a fair few by that point so there was probably an element of repeat offending. Not that big a deal IMO, it's the sort of call that teams tend to get at home.

 

[Grant NZ]

Check the post above: Law 15.6(d) stipulates that to play the ball at or near a tackle you must approach the tackle from behind the ball.
Having just watched some footage of the incident there is simply no doubt there was a tackle and he was near it and he played the ball.

I think there is some doubt it was near enough - there was a still posted on the Roar that showed the ball was a decent way clear of the tackle. Like I said above, I reckon it's a 50/50 call.

 

[Braveheart81]

Peyper didn't think there was a ruck formed either. He says 'If you approach the tackle, you have do so through the gate' so obviously his opinion is that ball/Barrett is close enough to be 'near the tackle' as defined in the laws.

what am I missing?
Why isn't this a 15.6(d) as its called in the trade?

Sorry, I should have just said "Barrett didn't act like he was thinking it was general play and he was free to play at the ball."

Whether it was just a tackle area or a ruck Barrett knew he was offside but still played at the ball.

 

[KOB1987]

yeah I get all that, I'm just mixing words up! It's the ball and it's location that's the relevant item, not the tackled player or the tackle itself..

don't worry, moving on!

 

[Scrubber2050]

The AB's got pinged for a change, rightfully or wrongly in those 2 instances. BUT OF COURSE they infringe all the time and if the Refs got it right they probably should only end up having 6 or 7 on the field.

Have fun twith this post guys !!!!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think there is some doubt it was near enough - there was a still posted on the Roar that showed the ball was a decent way clear of the tackle. Like I said above, I reckon it's a 50/50 call.