Reds vs Brumbies - Rd9 2014

[qwerty51]

You want to debate the legality of what Quirk did but claim that Moore was within his rights to throw a punch? Are we applying the rules to both sides or just the Reds?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Moore did isn't relevant to the try being awarded or not. Sure we can discuss his proper punishment but the fact is Quirk has undeniably committed an offence before the try so it clearly cannot be given.

 

[cyclopath]

Was Quirk originally pinged for the breakdown offence when they went upstairs? To my knowledge the tmo can't rule there has been a breakdown offence. grabbing a player's arm is a ruck infringement so unless Steve Walsh expressly said he had seen it before the TMO ruling then that's void.

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether Quirk gets in the way when he rolls away for two reasons:

i) attempted tackler didn't even get close so wasn't impeded
ii) even if you argue he is impeded, Quirk moves there for his safety as a result of FOUL play. With this in mind a try 'probably' would have been scored even if he isn't there and he only is because of foul play therefore penalty try + yellow card.

There needed to be a YC in that sequence there was 3+ infringements 5m out

Just wrong, I think. Walsh asked the TMO to look at the preamble to the try, so yes, the TMO can look at all of it. It matters not a bit whether Walsh called the Quirk infringement or not. The AR definitely saw it, as he said so when Walsh asked him, so your point would be moot anyway, but it's irrelevant.
With Quirk / Moore, Moore/Quirk I don't think he could give a try.
Now he could have given a YC to Moore for the hit. I think Moore was very lucky on that count.

 

[Set piece magic]

Fair enough I'm not expert

 

[Set piece magic]

Might be time to move that stuff over to the refs thread, pretty interesting case none the less. (not being critical just interesting to see how the laws apply)

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

Infringement was Quirk held Moore (maybe prevented defence of try, maybe), Moore hit Quirk in return, couldn't award try because might have been aided by Quirk, went back to ongoing advantage to Reds for Mowen collapsing maul on other side of field. The sequence was logical, but the finer points will be debated (mainly as to whether Quirk impeded anything).

I don't think Walsh said anything about impeding or affecting the try scored. His ruling was that an illegality/infraction had occurred prior to the try so he was obliged to pull it back. It was irrelevant whether it had an influence on the try being scored. It was a bit of a harsh ruling in that the infraction was pretty mild, it wasn't / wouldn't have been pulled up otherwise, but he was justifiable in his decision.

 

[cyclopath]

I don't think Walsh said anything about impeding or affecting the try scored. His ruling was that an illegality/infraction had occurred prior to the try so had was obliged to pull it back. It was irrelevant whether it had an influence on the try being scored. It was a bit of a harsh ruling in that the infraction was pretty mild, it wasn't / wouldn't have been pulled up otherwise, but he was justifiable in his decision.

Yeah, but the holding of the player (Moore) by Quirk is an offence because it prevents him being free to play, so that is sort of the nub of it. But you're right, it is the fact that it was an infraction that matters.

 

[Pedrolicus]

I don't think Walsh said anything about impeding or affecting the try scored. His ruling was that an illegality/infraction had occurred prior to the try so had was obliged to pull it back. It was irrelevant whether it had an influence on the try being scored. It was a bit of a harsh ruling in that the infraction was pretty mild, it wasn't / wouldn't have been pulled up otherwise, but he was justifiable in his decision.

He asked if there was holding or something that happened in the ruck before the try. Unless my memory is wrong.

 

[tranquility]

Moore should have been given yellow. Disappointing really, if you looked at his face he just assumed he was gone.

 

[Juan Cote]

What a waste the last few years have been for the Reds. Too hard to know exactly what the problem is with the team, but what is clear is that there is very little direction.

Something is well off.

Last year the team was in a holding pattern with Link positioning himself for the Wallaby job and this year, under Richard Graham, the team has failed to launch.

2014 is a write-off already so it's time for some hard decisions. Jim Carmichael hinted at it in the press last week so let's hope he follows through.

Sadly though, after the complacency of the last few years, I suspect he won't.

 

[cyclopath]

Moore should have been given yellow. Disappointing really, if you looked at his face he just assumed he was gone.

Agree. The comms were going on about a change in the focus by refs on that holding / hitting thing at breakdowns from earlier in the season. I would find it odd if the refs were told not to YC players in Moore's situation, as it would be condoning retaliation, which has never been the go. I think he just copped a lucky break.

 

[Set piece magic]

Reds have to get back the ball in hand mojo they had in 2010 and to a lesser extent 2011. Teams that are that good to watch attract fans.

 

[biggsy]

Fuck Walsh, even a Barclays football ref knows that was a blatant penalty from more. Besides that, even Walsh new that the reds are fucked.

 

[Epi]

Fuck Walsh, even a Barclays football ref knows that was a blatant penalty from more. Besides that, even Walsh new that the reds are fucked.

So rugby can be like soccer. How excellent that would be.

It was a slap in the ribs. HTFU.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bairdy]

An observation I've made of the Reds in previous games is that they're using that fan-out defence a la the Stormers employ, and are not putting in any numbers into defensive breakdowns. I think as a result, their work in offensive breakdowns when hot on attack is, to an extent, ineffective.

I know Gill is out injured, but the Reds backrowers Schatz, Quirk and Robinson are workhorses and usually hit a great deal of them, as well as make themselves pests.

 

[biggsy]

Sorry mate, but to a 37 year old ex prop cranky with the shit I watched LIVE TONIGHT.... HTFU means fuck all,but a SLAP in my day, most never got away with a Vagina move like that. BUT it is QLD, a HIT like that is now a illegal under the one punch rule kill law. But on the Footy field in front on many many kids and family it's fine. Weak prick in book

 

[Brumby Runner]

There were two incidents in earlier games where a lot of debate ensued on this site about the rights and wrongs of players retaliating to the deliberate ploy of being held in the ruck area. One incident involved Schalk Burger who escaped any sanction iirc, and while I can't at this moment recall the details of the earlier incident the player who retaliated was yellow carded.

The sides of the debate are largely irrelevant because SANZAR or the Referees' panel later issued some clarification to the effect that holding a player in the ruck was an offence and was to be adjudicated as such by the refs. That was precisely what Steve Walshe did in this instance. The sooner all players realise they can be penalised for this action, and losing a potential try is a huge penalty, the sooner the game will open up more in attack when the defending team is under pressure.

 

[gel]

The reds did enough to win the game, but bottled it far too often, so lost the game.

The referee did no favours for the reds, but he wasn't forcing any of the reds to drop the ball, throw forward passes or tackle players without the ball gifting the brumbies easy field position and possession again and again and again.

 

[Tangawizi]

I'm unconvinced Quade didn't ground part of the ball before Tomane rolled him. Unbelievable that Walsh didn't even go upstairs to check it. Must have been a millimetre in it if that.

 

[I like to watch]

QC (Quade Cooper) played at it again urgently.
He didn't think it was grounded either.

 

[ChargerWA]

I'm unconvinced Quade didn't ground part of the ball before Tomane rolled him. Unbelievable that Walsh didn't even go upstairs to check it. Must have been a millimetre in it if that.

Replay showed it clearly. No grounding.