Pumas vs Wallabies - Sunday 9th October @ Twickenham

[emuarse]

Exactly. A 7 is meant to push the envelope. Always use McCaw as the model. Guy was eternally offside - best bloody 7 there has ever been.

Yet both Cooper and Hooper (Ying and yang), (Twiddle Dee & Twiddle Dum) received their most recent YC's for high above the shoulder tackles. And don't say one tackle was less deserving of a YC than the other, 'cause rules is rules.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yet both Cooper and Hooper (Ying and yang), (Twiddle Dee & Twiddle Dum) received their most recent YC's for high above the shoulder tackles. And don't say one tackle was less deserving of a YC than the other, 'cause rules is rules.

Hooper has certainly received too many yellow cards in the last two years.

To address some other posts on this issue where people were wanting an analysis of Hooper's yellow card problem for balance, I'd guess the percentage of games where he has been yellow carded in recent years is way lower than Cooper due to matches played in that time.

I don't think whether a player is deserving or not really matters. The referee's decision is what matters and I certainly think players can get a reputation. Hooper needs to be careful he doesn't end up with that sort of reputation otherwise he might start getting more cards.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Emu it was actually either no arms, or tackling the player without the ball for Cooper's last one so definitely a different situation.

BH, I think that some people are just more capable of forming a balanced view on Hooper's cards. As you said it's not good but at the same time, Hooper made an error, and a lot of it because he was working hard to cover up for a mistake from somebody else.

The response to Hooper's card is perfectly reasonable. A bit of "Geez he's got a few now, better be careful about that". Mostly because like on Saturday, whilst he is certainly 100% at fault for the execution, he was put in the position of executing under pressure due to an error by somebody else.

You'd have to admit that the reaction is a stark contrast to vitriol Cooper received from Auckland last year, when that probably was a similar situation. Both were covering after misses/misreads by others, Cooper had to go high to prevent a try and Hooper was going high as part of a whole team strategy to prevent offloads.

 

[barbarian]

Hooper tears around the field like a madman. It helps us more often than it hurts us, but it still hurts us too frequently.

You add in his brainless cleanout on Mike Brown in the RWC (no card at the time but a one game ban), and his punch/slap/thing on Sanchez against Argentina (again no card at the time, but dive or no dive it was reckless) and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

He's in a similar situation to Quade I reckon. It's all OK for now, but one more card and hard questions will start to be asked.
.

 

[dru]

@TWAS - that is what I was getting at. Probably should have left it quiet, but hey, it's an opinion and discussion forum after all.

@Braveheart FWIW I haven't got any great concern over Hooper (any more than I do for Quade). He'd be one of my first picked, even with Gill and Pocock available.

 

[A mutterer]

Why?
He's still the 2nd best 7 in Australia regardless of his versatility.
Which means those who don't support the two 7s concept and feel it leaves too many deficiencies exposed elsewhere still have justification.
Perhaps more so with Timanis game on the w/e.

i think your reasoning is completely flawed.

he is the #1 flanker because he is fit and there playing. pocock is out for potentially the remainder of this year and all of next.

 

[Jagman]

I believe the question in the corresponding podcast was framed as to whether Cooper's up side made up for his propensity to get carded which is a legitimate question and is now also a legitimate question for Hooper. I think the answer in both cases is yes but in Hoopers case it is a much clearer and easier yes as his up side is way more UP than Cooper's. Hooper is a World Class player who plays virtually every game at a very high level.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[tragic]

i think your reasoning is completely flawed.

he is the #1 flanker because he is fit and there playing. pocock is out for potentially the remainder of this year and all of next.

The discussion referred to the period when both players were fit, and was revisited when someone posted that Hoopers game on the w/e made calls for his omission earlier in the year ill considered.
I and several others feel the pooper has run its course, which, when both are fit leaves one in the team and one on the bench.
But I agree the discussion is now largely irrelevant and of historical interest only as pocock is injured and then on sabbatical.
So I agree from now Hooper is the obvious choice.
But you need to take the comment in context.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's not the same as the Grey incident. The medic on the field had zero effect on the game (until Phipps pushed him and was penalised) because the ball was dead. It wasn't in play.

Grey deliberately went out of his way to played the ball so that England could not have a quick line-out - so although the ball is over the side-line it is still in play IMO. Grey got what he deserved.

So IMO there's a big difference between an official/medic going to retrieve a dead ball and Grey attacking a ball still in play.

This Phipp incident it just comical all-round, everyone was in the wrong.

Absolutely agree. It looked to me as the medic saw the ball being kicked onto the field and was going to move it on to where the scrum was. If you look at the footage, the was no possibility of play resuming/the scrum packing at all.

It really was thoughtless play by Phipps as were were only up by 7 points at the time and it made the margin 4.

 

[Braveheart81]

It looked to me as the medic saw the ball being kicked onto the field and was going to move it on to where the scrum was. ]

Phipps did the wrong thing but I disagree with this.

The medic shouldn't be going anywhere near the ball. If the ball goes near them they should try and avoid it.

This was apparently a former test player. I don't think they can plead ignorance or they were just trying to help. It was gamesmanship in my view.

 

[Micheal]

I thought it was fucking stupid and completely uncalled for from Phipps.

That being said, after the Argentine winger runs in and gives Phipps a shove, the normally psychopathic Phipps is quite placid and the look on his face seems to communicate a look of instant apology / regret. It screams "oh come on mate" or something to that effect.

I think Phipps saw the guy go for it and reacted as he would a player. He instantly realised he fucked up and didn't push the incident any further.

Regardless, I think its unexplainable and Phipps needs to be the bigger man here and wear it. I think the physio was clearly trying to move the ball on to the scrum and I don't understand the defence of Phipps' actions.

 

[Quick Hands]

Phipps did the wrong thing but I disagree with this.

The medic shouldn't be going anywhere near the ball. If the ball goes near them they should try and avoid it.

This was apparently a former test player. I don't think they can plead ignorance or they were just trying to help. It was gamesmanship in my view.

Well what do you think that the medic was trying to do? Couldn't be to slow the play because play was stopped and everyone is standing around with their hands on their hips.

I think you're trying to find a conspiracy where none exists. I don't see anything in the actions of the medic at all.

 

[TSR]

Phipps did the wrong thing but I disagree with this.

The medic shouldn't be going anywhere near the ball. If the ball goes near them they should try and avoid it.

This was apparently a former test player. I don't think they can plead ignorance or they were just trying to help. It was gamesmanship in my view.

I agree that the Medic shouldn't have touched the ball and that he should have been sanctioned by World Rugby.

I don't see how that exonerates Phipps though. Edit : sorry - I know you weren't suggesting it does. Personally I have focused my comments on Phipps given he is the one in the Wallabies 23 and therefore of more interest to me.

Look, I love the guys passion but it is a fine line and he has to be better at maintaining the enthusiasm and energy but reigning in the dumb shit.

 

[formerflanker]

There is a simple explanation for the interference scandal.
Phipps, Grey, and the Argentinan medic all suffered from brain explosions. Grey and the medic are both former elite players still wishing they had their youth and reacted instinctively to a test match rugby ball which unexpectedly came their way. Instantaneously they went for the ball - as they had trained to do over a 20 year period, some of which was in the glare of international spotlight. There was no unsportsmanlike reasoning - just that of a sportsman who had spent too long wishing the spotlight still shone on them and had an unexpected opportunity to be part of the action once again. A hardwired response that on sober, longer reflection they wouldn't do in a million years.
Phipp's brain explosion was one of revenge, a momentary flare up caused by feeling the unfairness of a non-combatant interfering with the game.
No conspiracies or game-related rationale. Normally we'd call them "schoolboy errors".

 

[Twoilms]

Hooper tears around the field like a madman. It helps us more often than it hurts us, but it still hurts us too frequently.

You add in his brainless cleanout on Mike Brown in the RWC (no card at the time but a one game ban), and his punch/slap/thing on Sanchez against Argentina (again no card at the time, but dive or no dive it was reckless) and it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

He's in a similar situation to Quade I reckon. It's all OK for now, but one more card and hard questions will start to be asked.
.

Nah they won't.

 

[KAOPointman]

Nah, the penalty was warranted, players can't go pushing officials not involved in the game regardless of touching a ball or not.

He was penalised for "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship", misconduct or foul play, take your pick

Meh...rubbish. If it's unsporting conduct then it's dealt with after the game with fines and so on. Not penalties that are foe professional infringements. Precedents now been set I spose......