Reds v Tahs : Opening game of the season
- Thread starter TheRiddler
- Start date
- Status
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
@ TOCC: Cleaning out a player is cleaning out a player. It doesn't matter if I hit him back, front, or sideways. If I prop a scrum against someone who I can see has his shoulder in the wrong spot, I'm going to engage just the same way. That is HIS fault, not mine.
@ Bruce: Force is irrelevant. Intent is. The intent was to get him onside, not injure him. Happened earlier in the game - same two players, similar situation next to a breakdown (see below). If we start taking Hollywooding into account we'll be no better than soccer in 5 years.
@ Scotty - I never claimed my comments weren't biased. Perhaps it was only a penalty and a stern talking to for the Reds about their ceaseless foul play. However, you're dreaming if you think your scrum isn't in serious trouble. I too hate technical decisions that don't affect outcomes, but they were few and far between.
There were two scrums that I counted where you got solid hit and good, clean ball. Every other scrum Joubert was either too stupid to penalise you for not pushing straight or you were losing the ball. You should have played at least 20 minutes of that game with 14 players as Daley and then most likely Slipper got sent to the bin.
With that, here is the second half pertinent bits from my POV:
40:41 Joubert says Blue ripped the ball in the tackle and therefore carried it over - 5m Reds scrum. Yet earlier in the game Genia ripped it off TPN and he called that a knock-on advantage. Does not compute and that is one of my personal bugbears of the "rip" rulings refs hand out. Its not EVER a knock-on IMHO - if a guy rips it out, it can't be by definition because someone else has played the ball. If you lose it in direct contact, fair enough.
42:53 Well-worked Reds try to Big Kev but jeez the Tahs' defence is ordinary in terms of mobility. Reds stepping around the corner at scrum time again doesn't help if the ref doesn't know his scrums.
44:48 Perfect example of why Carter shouldn't be at 13 and maybe not even in the team. Ponderous as he gets cleaned up by 4 Reds cover defenders with the line in sight. Lateral movement from the inside backs doesn't help.
46:30 Interestingly, Saia F is standing on the wrong side of a breakdown here and Mumm hits him in the back from a similar position as the one later in the game. No card though. Consistency? Not here...
50:30 Gawd Mitchell is an awful tackler. Has Cooper at his mercy and gets palmed.
51:27 Lineout Reds - but no-one jumped? Easily picked off by Mowen.
54:02 Reds pick off another restart... Worrying and I hope Axel was taking notes.
Interesting to note at this point that the Reds are starting to get a bit lazy in defence and attack, leading to some pushed passes and sloppy hands. Three home games in the humidity will not help them. The Tahs look like they have all game: disinterested. Too much so to take advantage of the Reds' inaccuracies
54:20 Burgess pulls off a couple of real hard hits in this passage - cleans out well and then bumps Weekes too.
56:48 Bad call by the TJ on Reds played in touch as they counter, but it was split-second stuff
58:15 Daley finally gets done for stepping around.
59:10 Off the subsequent lineout the Tahs attack, but they're all bunched up around the next ruck. No-one wants to run wide... Then Burgess is forced to dither because no-one wants to run the ball at all!
61:09 Reds are still more enthused at the breakdown and their 1 is worth our 2 at this point.
61:20 Great tackle by Burgess on Genia. Looking at the game overall he's one of the most effective tacklers for the Tahs. Its a short list however...
62:11 Reds scrum with a list of infringements to pick on (Daley hand on ground, Daley not binding, Daley shoulders below hips, Daley packing crooked, Genia offside, Shaw not staying bound, Higginbotham not staying bound, neither Reds second rower remaining bound). Should have been a yellow card for Daley as its about his third or fourth offence. Joubert, like an idiot, picks on Shaw for not binding back row instead, not realising that's just a consequence, not a cause.
64:41 Burgess dithers at the scrum base then goes himself. Its clear why - Hangers is standing in the pocket and not imposing himself upon the game.
65:28 I take Phil Waugh's point here about the shoulder charge on Beale - there have been repeated foul play infringements by the Reds, including dangerous play at scrum time, and the ref has failed to card them for it. It sets a standard and then later in the game look what happens to their discipline ... Joubert's explanation doesn't hold water: why just count ruck infringements as professional fouls and not a team's overall infringement rate?
66:47 A.Fainga'a gets caught standing on the wrong side of a kick taken by Turner. He is trapped there on his feet but instead of standing still he's allowed by the ref to interfere with the ball. If players on the ground are a penalty, then players on their feet are a penalty. Simple.
67:55 Reds done for fading on the hit. That's about 6 scrum infringements now.
68:57 On review, the penalty try for the Genia/Mowen incident is still the right decision for the right reason.
71:43 At the other end, Joubert doesn't ask about the foul play on Turner, just whether its going to be lineout or 22. Inconsistent again.
71:58 In the leadup to Sidey's try, Burgess makes the perfect decisions each play. Lineout ball drops at the end of his reach so he dive passes to Hangers (who should have given it), then turns it back for Baxter to suck the Reds defence in. That is the key moment for the try - just thankful that our cleanout finally showed some commitment.
75:02 Worst yellow card decision in the game so far on Mumm, including those that SHOULD have been awarded. Reds' decision making processes are now starting to fray.
77:04 At this point the discipline of the Reds is starting to let them down. Its not all their fault; Joubert let them get away with bullshit right up until the 75th minute mark.
77:26 Phil Waugh is still barking at the troops. He's not giving up. Love it.
77:41 Carter finally runs straight with a bit of conviction, in what is the Tahs' best passage of play all night.
77:48 Holmes gets isolated and 2-3 Reds pile in on him. The only guy holding them off is Waugh - that's the measure of the bloke right there.
79th minute The post-try melee was actually started by Kepu who can just be seen in a corner of screen in-goal. Carter joins in and then somewhere along the line Waugh is involved. Its great to see: Waugh right in the middle, pointing at the scoreboard and giving Higginbotham and Byrnes the verbal
Its sad to see the look on Big Kev's face. To knock a team off their game and still come up short must be giving them horrors for the rest of the season... Adam Byrnes however can fuck off.
Waugh is my man of the match for the Tahs, but it would have to be Hynes otherwise.
@ Bruce: Force is irrelevant. Intent is. The intent was to get him onside, not injure him. Happened earlier in the game - same two players, similar situation next to a breakdown (see below). If we start taking Hollywooding into account we'll be no better than soccer in 5 years.
@ Scotty - I never claimed my comments weren't biased. Perhaps it was only a penalty and a stern talking to for the Reds about their ceaseless foul play. However, you're dreaming if you think your scrum isn't in serious trouble. I too hate technical decisions that don't affect outcomes, but they were few and far between.
There were two scrums that I counted where you got solid hit and good, clean ball. Every other scrum Joubert was either too stupid to penalise you for not pushing straight or you were losing the ball. You should have played at least 20 minutes of that game with 14 players as Daley and then most likely Slipper got sent to the bin.
With that, here is the second half pertinent bits from my POV:
40:41 Joubert says Blue ripped the ball in the tackle and therefore carried it over - 5m Reds scrum. Yet earlier in the game Genia ripped it off TPN and he called that a knock-on advantage. Does not compute and that is one of my personal bugbears of the "rip" rulings refs hand out. Its not EVER a knock-on IMHO - if a guy rips it out, it can't be by definition because someone else has played the ball. If you lose it in direct contact, fair enough.
42:53 Well-worked Reds try to Big Kev but jeez the Tahs' defence is ordinary in terms of mobility. Reds stepping around the corner at scrum time again doesn't help if the ref doesn't know his scrums.
44:48 Perfect example of why Carter shouldn't be at 13 and maybe not even in the team. Ponderous as he gets cleaned up by 4 Reds cover defenders with the line in sight. Lateral movement from the inside backs doesn't help.
46:30 Interestingly, Saia F is standing on the wrong side of a breakdown here and Mumm hits him in the back from a similar position as the one later in the game. No card though. Consistency? Not here...
50:30 Gawd Mitchell is an awful tackler. Has Cooper at his mercy and gets palmed.
51:27 Lineout Reds - but no-one jumped? Easily picked off by Mowen.
54:02 Reds pick off another restart... Worrying and I hope Axel was taking notes.
Interesting to note at this point that the Reds are starting to get a bit lazy in defence and attack, leading to some pushed passes and sloppy hands. Three home games in the humidity will not help them. The Tahs look like they have all game: disinterested. Too much so to take advantage of the Reds' inaccuracies
54:20 Burgess pulls off a couple of real hard hits in this passage - cleans out well and then bumps Weekes too.
56:48 Bad call by the TJ on Reds played in touch as they counter, but it was split-second stuff
58:15 Daley finally gets done for stepping around.
59:10 Off the subsequent lineout the Tahs attack, but they're all bunched up around the next ruck. No-one wants to run wide... Then Burgess is forced to dither because no-one wants to run the ball at all!
61:09 Reds are still more enthused at the breakdown and their 1 is worth our 2 at this point.
61:20 Great tackle by Burgess on Genia. Looking at the game overall he's one of the most effective tacklers for the Tahs. Its a short list however...
62:11 Reds scrum with a list of infringements to pick on (Daley hand on ground, Daley not binding, Daley shoulders below hips, Daley packing crooked, Genia offside, Shaw not staying bound, Higginbotham not staying bound, neither Reds second rower remaining bound). Should have been a yellow card for Daley as its about his third or fourth offence. Joubert, like an idiot, picks on Shaw for not binding back row instead, not realising that's just a consequence, not a cause.
64:41 Burgess dithers at the scrum base then goes himself. Its clear why - Hangers is standing in the pocket and not imposing himself upon the game.
65:28 I take Phil Waugh's point here about the shoulder charge on Beale - there have been repeated foul play infringements by the Reds, including dangerous play at scrum time, and the ref has failed to card them for it. It sets a standard and then later in the game look what happens to their discipline ... Joubert's explanation doesn't hold water: why just count ruck infringements as professional fouls and not a team's overall infringement rate?
66:47 A.Fainga'a gets caught standing on the wrong side of a kick taken by Turner. He is trapped there on his feet but instead of standing still he's allowed by the ref to interfere with the ball. If players on the ground are a penalty, then players on their feet are a penalty. Simple.
67:55 Reds done for fading on the hit. That's about 6 scrum infringements now.
68:57 On review, the penalty try for the Genia/Mowen incident is still the right decision for the right reason.
71:43 At the other end, Joubert doesn't ask about the foul play on Turner, just whether its going to be lineout or 22. Inconsistent again.
71:58 In the leadup to Sidey's try, Burgess makes the perfect decisions each play. Lineout ball drops at the end of his reach so he dive passes to Hangers (who should have given it), then turns it back for Baxter to suck the Reds defence in. That is the key moment for the try - just thankful that our cleanout finally showed some commitment.
75:02 Worst yellow card decision in the game so far on Mumm, including those that SHOULD have been awarded. Reds' decision making processes are now starting to fray.
77:04 At this point the discipline of the Reds is starting to let them down. Its not all their fault; Joubert let them get away with bullshit right up until the 75th minute mark.
77:26 Phil Waugh is still barking at the troops. He's not giving up. Love it.
77:41 Carter finally runs straight with a bit of conviction, in what is the Tahs' best passage of play all night.
77:48 Holmes gets isolated and 2-3 Reds pile in on him. The only guy holding them off is Waugh - that's the measure of the bloke right there.
79th minute The post-try melee was actually started by Kepu who can just be seen in a corner of screen in-goal. Carter joins in and then somewhere along the line Waugh is involved. Its great to see: Waugh right in the middle, pointing at the scoreboard and giving Higginbotham and Byrnes the verbal
Its sad to see the look on Big Kev's face. To knock a team off their game and still come up short must be giving them horrors for the rest of the season... Adam Byrnes however can fuck off.
Waugh is my man of the match for the Tahs, but it would have to be Hynes otherwise.
T
TOCC
Guest
NTA said:
thats fine if thats your opinion, my opinion is that shoulder barging someone in the back is a cowards act
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
I'm having one of those mornings.Twice I've posted tongue in cheek comments and been taken literally:
To which NTA responds:
Bruce Ross said:
To which NTA responds:
I naively thought that the exaggeration would have given a clue that the comment was not meant literally.NTA said:
naza
Alan Cameron (40)
NTA said:
40:41 just shows what a muppet Joubert is. He misses half the game and contradicts himself constantly. That was a huge call that he completely muffed.
Well spotted on 46:30. Just goes to show that Queenslanders are slow learners. Anybody lingering offside at ruck is fair game. You could take a chainsaw to their head and I'd say that's ok to let go.
I only ever notice Waugh when the Fox hype machine thrashwank about his 'leadership'. Otherwise he is deadset nowhere to be seen.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Scotty said:
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make my remarks invalid. That is pure eye patch, not a cogent argument. I have seen it a couple of times, one of them even at the ground at Manly Oval. It is rare though, I grant you, and it's no wonder you hadn't seen it. Both occasions were when tackled players had hit the deck in big puddle and were aquaplaning towards the goal line and fallen upon before it. IIRR once the ball was dislodged by the shock of the illegal tackle and the second time it was ripped out by the tackler aquaplaning with him.
It's the law. If a player is on the ground you can't leave your feet and fall on a tackled player. In the forbidden practices section of the Law 15 it says:
Law 15 Tackle: Ball Carrier Brought to Ground
7 (c) No player may fall on or over the tackled player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
It's pretty clear and there are no if's and buts for whether or not the tackled player is sliding to score a try and the tackler is trying to force him into touch to prevent it No blame would have attached to Fainga'a had a penalty try been awarded as it should have been. Any defender worth his salt would have done the same thing as Fainga'a did and got a kick up the date from the coach if he hadn't. He probably would have got a couple of pages of posts from irate fans had he not, also.
It just happened to be and illegal act under law 15. It was thus at least a penalty kick to the Tahs. But the illegal incident happened 1 metre from the goal line and the tackled player was sliding towards it. If the referee had asked the TMO to examine the possibility of the Genia penalty try he should have been consistent and asked him to examine the Turner situation.
If the referee was somehow unsighted, or was obviously ignoring it, the AR, who had heard all the discussion about the Mowen infringement on the other side of the field could have mentioned the matter to the ref, but not being part of the TMO protocol, he didn't. Don't forget it was not the AR on the other side who initiated the Genia penalty try discussion, it was the ref.
Joubert failed in consistency for not instructing the TMO a second time, to examine an incident which at the very least may have been a penalty, and if it was, ipso facto worthy of examination to see if a try would probably have been scored.
He didn't, but it was not the only time his consistency faltered during the match.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
chief said:
Spot on there Chief. And the same in the other games though I have yet to see the last one a half games from the RSA last night as I fell asleep and haven't watched my recording yet.
Dickinson was the best in consistency of the refs in regard to enforcing the tackle/ruck laws as they are written (including outlawing pillars - shock horror) though not so good in other areas, but even he waited too long for the yellow card he gave.
This disturbs me just as I was disturbed in 2008 when the S14 referees didn't use them enough, yet they were the cornerstone of the Free kick ELV. Bray mentioned that yellow cards would be invoked more when necessary this year, but they weren't.
Let's hope that he has the balls to give the refs a rocket.
Talking about Dickinson: I bet he would have done the same thing as Joubert did in the Genia/Mowen incident. But unlike Joubert, I bet he would have asked for a second TMO examination 3 minutes later - for the Turner/Fainga'a incident.
I agree with you Chief and Lee. These new interpretations, or whatever we should call them, need to be backed up by early, harsh discipline from the refs. Otherwise it will descend into the mess at the breakdowns that we see every year, but with a slightly different flavour.
Joubert last night was a bit too much in the "Now, it's a repeated offence, next time I will think about warning you that I might officially warn you to not do it again, or I might then escalate to officially threaten the yellow card". The scrums were the perfect example.
Whilst not condoning Mumm in the way he tried to dislocate the Fainga'a, had Joubert been policing the offside loitering better, the incident may not have happened. As others mentioned, it wasn't the first breakdown where it happened.
Joubert last night was a bit too much in the "Now, it's a repeated offence, next time I will think about warning you that I might officially warn you to not do it again, or I might then escalate to officially threaten the yellow card". The scrums were the perfect example.
Whilst not condoning Mumm in the way he tried to dislocate the Fainga'a, had Joubert been policing the offside loitering better, the incident may not have happened. As others mentioned, it wasn't the first breakdown where it happened.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Oh come on NTA, I could watch the whole game again and find 50/50 things that went against the Reds. If you want to believe Joubert has a problem with the Tahs, get over it, build a bridge, spank your inner moppet, do something. No offence, but watching the whole game again to find 50/50 calls to whine over is a waste of time.
The Tahs were flat, very so. Their backline play still has issues. You have to think it's more a coaching issue than cattle at this stage. And Anesi - I will stand by my comment that he's mainly a dud buy. Look at how afraid of contact he is - I've posted this elsewhere, but he's been like that ever since he broke his neck.
In the end, I think FP put it best. The Reds replacements gave up too many penalties and the better Tahs bench showed. Reds played themselves out of a win, effectively.
Mumm's cleanout was a shoulder charge, cheap, and he deserves a suspension. Yes, Fainga'a was on the wrong side and deserved to get cleaned out. But he wasn't that close to the ball, and he doesn't deserve a shoulder - with a run up - to his lower back. If that happened to TPN by Byrnes many of you here would be crying foul and calling for a suspension.
BTW, I agree with Lee. I thought that Turner should get a penalty try, but mostly expected he wouldn't. Why? Refs allow tackling a player on the ground as he's going to the line for some reason. Consistency here would be nice, and really, under the rule book it should've been a penalty try.
I was also completely confused by the TMO thinking that sticking a hand over another player's should does not effect their run.
Anyway, I was a bit disappointed with the niggle. It's one thing to be fiery and hard, but that niggle is silly and ultimately does more harm than good.
The Tahs were flat, very so. Their backline play still has issues. You have to think it's more a coaching issue than cattle at this stage. And Anesi - I will stand by my comment that he's mainly a dud buy. Look at how afraid of contact he is - I've posted this elsewhere, but he's been like that ever since he broke his neck.
In the end, I think FP put it best. The Reds replacements gave up too many penalties and the better Tahs bench showed. Reds played themselves out of a win, effectively.
Mumm's cleanout was a shoulder charge, cheap, and he deserves a suspension. Yes, Fainga'a was on the wrong side and deserved to get cleaned out. But he wasn't that close to the ball, and he doesn't deserve a shoulder - with a run up - to his lower back. If that happened to TPN by Byrnes many of you here would be crying foul and calling for a suspension.
BTW, I agree with Lee. I thought that Turner should get a penalty try, but mostly expected he wouldn't. Why? Refs allow tackling a player on the ground as he's going to the line for some reason. Consistency here would be nice, and really, under the rule book it should've been a penalty try.
I was also completely confused by the TMO thinking that sticking a hand over another player's should does not effect their run.
Anyway, I was a bit disappointed with the niggle. It's one thing to be fiery and hard, but that niggle is silly and ultimately does more harm than good.
C
chief
Guest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NbP0EMhfoY
As seen in this clip here, check out what is done for the Penalty Try. For the Turner incident any referee in there right mind would have
a) ask for evidence of any infringements in that act of play
b) ask if there is any reason that a penalty try cannot be awarded
As seen in this clip here, check out what is done for the Penalty Try. For the Turner incident any referee in there right mind would have
a) ask for evidence of any infringements in that act of play
b) ask if there is any reason that a penalty try cannot be awarded
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
Good game I thought, bit like the tahs V reds games of old, except the the jerseys seemed to be reversed as it was usually the boys in blue that ended up in a deficit on the scoreboard. Lots of feeling in the game and I disagree with all the calls for more yellow cards. Games like this are rarely pretty.
I thought Mumm's clean out was a penalty at most, but I don't mind if the refs want to crack down on "careless" cleaning out at the ruck. Mumm is far from the the worst offender of this so we would be happy if this was applied consistently over time.
For the tahs, its look to me like their game plan was to win the game 15-14. I didn't think they really tested the reds too much until the last 20 and so its hrad to get a good gauage as to what sort of season we are in for. Is that coaching or captaincy or just credit to the reds defence (or all of the above). As Fatprop says, the benches were the difference between the teams in the end, and there were a few players missing from the tahs 22 who also could have performed admirably.
Its pretty hard to draw any conclusions about either team from that game, and you can make this same comment after almost every Qld NSW game. The reds had some good performances early last year before fading. I do suspect though if they can keep their starting 15 on the field, they will start earning respect this year and should be mid table or better at the end of the year.
I thought Mumm's clean out was a penalty at most, but I don't mind if the refs want to crack down on "careless" cleaning out at the ruck. Mumm is far from the the worst offender of this so we would be happy if this was applied consistently over time.
For the tahs, its look to me like their game plan was to win the game 15-14. I didn't think they really tested the reds too much until the last 20 and so its hrad to get a good gauage as to what sort of season we are in for. Is that coaching or captaincy or just credit to the reds defence (or all of the above). As Fatprop says, the benches were the difference between the teams in the end, and there were a few players missing from the tahs 22 who also could have performed admirably.
Its pretty hard to draw any conclusions about either team from that game, and you can make this same comment after almost every Qld NSW game. The reds had some good performances early last year before fading. I do suspect though if they can keep their starting 15 on the field, they will start earning respect this year and should be mid table or better at the end of the year.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Thanks for quoting the law applying to a tackled player, Lee, but IMO if the referees decided to interpret the law the way you expect them to it would open a huge can of worms. Just think of how many times a player that has gone to his knees in a tackle, while driving for the line gets smashed by another defender to stop him from getting there. You are only concentrating on this incident because it is more obvious out on the wing, when only one or two players are involved, very different near a ruck from a pick and drive or such.
Notwithstanding the above there are a couple of major issues with this being considered a penalty try:
1. Can we consider Turner as actually 'tackled' considering he was still moving forward at a reasonable rate?
2. Did A Fainga actually fall on or over him? It appaeared to me that he actually pushed him from the side and into touch.
3. If we start using your interpretation, the game will change significantly and the balance will move too far towards the attacking team.
C
chief
Guest
Was meant to be an example of what Joubert should have done. As it's not like it hasn't been done. As you saw in the Genia PT incident, it really doesn't take much to query about it. The AR should have done a lot more about it.Scotty said:
On the positive it was a bloody good game of rugby. It wasn't a dull kick-a-thon, it was attacking rugby. And Scarf, I'm really not sure about Cooper's kicking style either looks like he can't kick it straight to save his life. Mind you he actually did kick it straight.
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
Scotty said:
Here we go again, with the "interpretation" thing. There is no need for anyone to "interpret" the Laws; they are very clear. All that is needed is for rugby enthusiasts to read and understand the Laws.
How do we know if a player is tackled? Look at the definitions in Law 15:
"A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground".
Easy, isn't it?
Ahhh, perhaps you'd be wanting to know what "brought to ground" means? Perhaps you'd even be wanting to interpret it? Don't bother, the Laws cover it:
"Brought to the Ground Defined
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball
carrier has been ‘brought to ground’."
I don't want referees, or anyone else, "interpreting" the Laws. I want others to know and understand them. I want referees to apply them.
As KISS as you can get.
PS, the Law does not distinguish between out on the wing and close to the ruck.
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
Byrnes is so promising but he will never reach his potential if little incidents like this keep happening. Even if proved wrong they still impact public option.
The commentators didn't help either, they seemed out to get the poor bloke.
The commentators didn't help either, they seemed out to get the poor bloke.
- Status