New Zealand v Australia - Auckland - 23 August 2014

[Braveheart81]

Look at the picture I posted above, he's considerably more than a foot away. The tv picture flattens the image, so you can't really tell from the side on, but the end on view shows he's well to the side.

He's still moving towards Folau in the picture you posted. He's not even close to being level with him.

 

[qwerty51]

Watch Dismal Pillock's animated gif above. Barrett is about a foot away from Folau's head. How is that not through the tackle area?

@qwerty51 - what are we looking at besides your Toshiba television?

Not mine! I was at the game. But Retallick appears offside and this was in the last 5 mins near the posts. Anyway I think one frame per picture shots are stupid.

 

[Grant NZ]

He shouldn't be anywhere near it!

Do you really think players are allowed to run back into an onside position that close to the play without risking their play being considered cynical and getting yellow carded?

It's a tackle, there is no onside/offside. If Barrett had run that exact line but the ball hadn't skewed out, no ref in the world would have penalised him.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not mine! I was at the game. But Retallick appears offside and this was in the last 5 mins near the posts. Anyway I think one frame per picture shots are stupid.

Hard to say because Peyper is obscuring where the last feet actually are.

He certainly doesn't look obviously offside from that still.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Look at the picture I posted above, he's considerably more than a foot away. The tv picture flattens the image, so you can't really tell from the side on, but the end on view shows he's well to the side.

Can you get an agreement from your country men and women that we can do this all night on Saturday night? If you can I'll accept you're right if you can't then its either one rule for you and another for us or you're wrong.

 

[Grant NZ]

He's still moving towards Folau in the picture you posted. He's not even close to being level with him.

Well he's kicked/kicking the ball in that pic, so if he's doing that while about a metre away laterally and 'not even close to level' can he really be said to be playing the ball at the tackle?

Look, I'm not trying to argue Beauden was 100% in the right, I can fully understand why it was pinged. I'm just trying to say that the comments on here that he was blatantly offside, cynical or coming through the tackle area aren't really accurate. It was marginal and Peyper decided to make the call.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

It's a tackle, there is no onside/offside. If Barrett had run that exact line but the ball hadn't skewed out, no ref in the world would have penalised him.

He can possibly run that line to get back onside but no way can he play at the ball or otherwise get involved in the play until he's back onside. Penalty every time & given how many we'd given away in the few minutes prior, deserving of a YC.

Likewise Crockett may have gotten away with just a penalty for being marginally offside had he not previously given away a dumb-as penalty for playing at an AB knock-on in order to prevent a Wob turnover. Also YC-worthy IMO. The 2nd one I mean, 1st is a penalty & a warning.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well he's kicked/kicking the ball in that pic, so if he's doing that while about a metre away laterally and 'not even close to level' can he really be said to be playing the ball at the tackle?

Look, I'm not trying to argue Beauden was 100% in the right, I can fully understand why it was pinged. I'm just trying to say that the comments on here that he was blatantly offside, cynical or coming through the tackle area aren't really accurate. It was marginal and Peyper decided to make the call.

Barrett makes contact with Palu who is legitimately trying to join the tackle (and make it a ruck) from through the gate.

I don't know how you can say that defender returning to an onside position who makes contact with an attacking player joining the ruck through the gate is not near the tackle area.

As I said, if this happened on the other side of halfway I think it would probably just be a penalty. Given the location on the field though, I'd be surprised if Barrett wasn't yellow carded 9 times out of 10. It is absolutely cynical in my view. He chose to run a line that was clearly going to get in the way of the Wallaby attackers.

 

[Grant NZ]

Oldboy & Braveheart - he's not returning to an onside position cause he's not offside. There is no offside line in a tackle situation.

Also Palu isn't making any attempt to join the tackle or make it a ruck because by the time he gets there the ball has skewed out to the side due to Folau attempting to offload it. Palu is moving laterally to get the loose ball, not attempting to form a ruck.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oldboy & Braveheart - he's not returning to an onside position cause he's not offside. There is no offside line in a tackle situation.

Are you arguing that he can legally play the ball from where he is or that if Palu had picked up the ball he could legally tackle him?

 

[Grant NZ]

Are you arguing that he can legally play the ball from where he is or that if Palu had picked up the ball he could legally tackle him?

I'm saying it's a marginal call on the first one (because the ball is on the margins of 'near to' the tackle). I'm not sure where you got the second bit from, I don't think I was saying anything like that (but btw, yes - if Palu picks the ball up after a tackle then it's open play and Barrett could tackle him). I was just responding to your statement that Barrett made contact with Palu who was trying to form a ruck. I don't think he was trying to form a ruck, I think he was trying to secure a loose ball.

 

[Redsman]

seems like pretty pointless debate... Barrett was carded for foul play -

something (foul play) the kiwis have refined to an art over the years and it seems the refs are finally catching on. FOR THE LOVE OF RUGBY GOOD I SAY.

I was discussing with premiere grade ref recently and yes things happen quickly and ABs are very good at playing the innocent but repeatedly infringing in their 22 warrants yellow - McCaw too was lucky not to get carded too IMO for very cynical offside play...

Lets just hope Poite is onto it as much.

BTW another kiwi favourite is the ol' NFL blocker / support player running line to impede defenders... this is another one from their 'how to cheat and get away with it' guide book..

 

[Grant NZ]

Yeah, I'm just gonna bow out of this one for now. I'm not trying to play the "We wuz robbed" card, just trying to say it's not always as cut and dried as people seem to think.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Pretty pointless post Redsman.

It just so happened that the I was talking to the brother of the postman that lives down the road that the Wallabies weren't good enough to beat the ABs in their backyard even with cards, penalties, weight of possession and territory.

The brother of the postman who lives down the road agreed.

Let's hope Poite is on to Hooper's "cynical" "cheating" "blatant" "foul" play at the breakdown where he got a lucky break on Saturday.

Fun game this

 

[Pfitzy]

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

Nope - as I espoused (spat, verily) over on the Fern when asked for my opinion:

Does it matter? If I agree with the ref, it'll be "you would because you got the advantage". If I agree with you, its a big "AHA!" moment. Should I go find footage of every incident Richie DIDN'T get a yellow card when he clearly should have and we run through that frame-by-frame?

Fuck, I'll humour you; but only because I'm working from home today:

1) It is definitely a tackle. Therefore there is a gate established. We're within the bounds of Law 15: Tackle.

2) From this point, anyone not coming in through the gate is going to be a problem as far as the tackle area goes. There is no ruck.

3) Barrett is moving back onside near the tackle, and as the ball bounces loose, he looks directly at it, then decides to kick it back towards his team mates. Its interesting that at a previous tackle (maybe 2 or 3 rucks before), he also pulls out of the contact, but does his best to land on the Aussie side of the ruck.

4) Law 15.6 Other Players (d) clearly states "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." Sanction is penalty kick.

There is NO definition of what "near to a tackle" entails in terms of distance, because its simply not practical.

For the pedants, who think that a minimum of 4 warnings is a requirement from the referee before any serious punishment is handed out: there was no warning from Peyper - nor was there any need for one given the entire AB side was running interference on the ruck throughout the game, as evidenced by the previous yellow card.

So fuck him: yellow. Cynical, deliberate, and on the back of a lot other cynical play by the defending side. No argument.

 

[ACT Crusader]

3) Barrett is moving back onside near the tackle, and as the ball bounces loose, he looks directly at it, then decides to kick it back towards his team mates. Its interesting that at a previous tackle (maybe 2 or 3 rucks before), he also pulls out of the contact, but does his best to land on the Aussie side of the ruck.

I've actually renamed this tactic "the Fardy" because he was doing his best at it on Saturday also. Even after he was penalised he kept at it for the rest of the game

 

[KOB1987]

Pretty pointless post Redsman.

It just so happened that the I was talking to the brother of the postman that lives down the road that the Wallabies weren't good enough to beat the ABs in their backyard even with cards, penalties, weight of possession and territory.

The brother of the postman who lives down the road agreed.

Let's hope Poite is on to Hooper's "cynical" "cheating" "blatant" "foul" play at the breakdown where he got a lucky break on Saturday.

Fun game this

Are we allowed to ask the qualifications of this individual?

 

[Redsman]

Let's hope Poite is on to Hooper's "cynical" "cheating" "blatant" "foul" play at the breakdown where he got a lucky break on Saturday.

Come on - Hooper's just starting out and Richie has been at it for years...

If you think Peyper favoured the aussies go back and check the first line out penalty against fardy for 'playing the man in the air' - what a crock...

BTW Hooper different style of 7 to Richie - Just Richies getting a bit slower in his old age... so his indiscretions are becoming more obvious...

 

[Train Without a Station]

Cool the jets Redsman. he's only joking.

 

[Set piece magic]

Made my own fan video to gee this up. Bored on a Wednesday and doing uni accounting work didn't really take my fancy.

up the boys