waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Looks like they've decided Farrell's hit at the end of November's Ringinland v SA Test meets the shoulder charge threshold:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...rrells-ugly-hit-as-example-of-shoulder-charge
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Looks like they've decided Farrell's hit at the end of November's Ringinland v SA Test meets the shoulder charge threshold:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...rrells-ugly-hit-as-example-of-shoulder-charge
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
SANZAAR won't be adopting the new guidelines until next season:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ld-on-implementing-new-high-tackle-guidelines
Fair enough, too, pretty hard for refs etc to get up to speed with new stuff when many are clearly struggling to get their heads around the existing guidelines, protocols, etc. :-/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ld-on-implementing-new-high-tackle-guidelines
Fair enough, too, pretty hard for refs etc to get up to speed with new stuff when many are clearly struggling to get their heads around the existing guidelines, protocols, etc. :-/
This is pretty dumb considering nothing has actually changed. It's just a decision making tool to help you make the correct decision.
Ultimately these are the conversations that the referee, assistants and TMO should be having in their head already when determining what the outcome should be for a high tackle.
It will be interesting to see if the under 20s experiment with expanded benches gets translated to test rugby etc. in the near future. You would think there is a reasonable chance it will.
Will it change much in terms of coaching and substitutions? Certainly it removes any tactical selections of a 6:2 bench and any risks you take in not having great cover for certain positions. On that basis it simplifies the coaching job in team selections.
What will change in terms of in game substitutions? Coaches will still probably keep one replacement up their sleeve until very late in the game in case there is an injury but how about the other 7?
Presumably the front row and halfback will remain as four of the eight subs used in most circumstances due to their workrate/physical nature.
Will we see more instances where 7 out of the 8 forwards end up getting replaced or could it even swing the other way with more tactical backline subs?
Will it change much in terms of coaching and substitutions? Certainly it removes any tactical selections of a 6:2 bench and any risks you take in not having great cover for certain positions. On that basis it simplifies the coaching job in team selections.
What will change in terms of in game substitutions? Coaches will still probably keep one replacement up their sleeve until very late in the game in case there is an injury but how about the other 7?
Presumably the front row and halfback will remain as four of the eight subs used in most circumstances due to their workrate/physical nature.
Will we see more instances where 7 out of the 8 forwards end up getting replaced or could it even swing the other way with more tactical backline subs?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Is it just a game every 4/5 days thing that the tournament is using?
Jimmy_Crouch
Ken Catchpole (46)
Surely it is just in place because of the tournament format. The boys played 5 games in 18 days. Mens RWC2019 if Australia make the final will play 7 games over 43 days.
I've been trying to find more background on it but it would be rare for an experimental law to be brought in for a tournament like this without the intention that it is to be trialled further with the potential to be rolled out at all levels.
You still only get to use 23 players in a matchday squad. I'm not sure it was trialled on the basis of the short turnarounds.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
I'm hoping it's just an exemption to account for the U20's condensed schedule, and certainly don't want to see it expanded. If anything they should be cutting back on the number of substitutes. Make those fat bastards up front play for longer and open up the late-game for the backs.
This was in the NRL last night and I expect the suspension will be substantial but still less than half of what you'd get in rugby.
Surely this would be 12+ weeks in rugby. Absolutely disgraceful.
Surely this would be 12+ weeks in rugby. Absolutely disgraceful.
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
Can they review that sort of stuff in NRL? Why isn't that just a straight red card?
It's insane. He clearly should have been sent off. The fact that it only goes on report and that the benefit the Tigers got out of it was 2 points from the penalty is ridiculous.
The video referees in the bunker should clearly interject in that sort of situation and suggest to the referee that further action needs to be taken. It's not like it was dubious. Also, that same player, George Burgess got a 4 week suspension last season for eye gouging.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
They can, but they are very reluctant to send people from the field in the NRL.
Ref is coping lots of criticism for this decision though
And should. Cannot even vaguely see an argument for that not being a straight red card.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
That is insane
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Question about the TJ Perenara knock on call late in the Crusaders v Hurricanes semi: was Sam Whitelock entitled to reach through the formed ruck and 'contest' the ball as TJP went to clear it? Which was the correct call:
1. Knock on TJP
2. Knock on SW
3. Penalty against SW
?
1. Knock on TJP
2. Knock on SW
3. Penalty against SW
?
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Was talking about that with the old man. If you're an International Coach I'd like to publicly seek clarification on that. Because if what was paid is the correct interpretation, we're in for a messy ruck time at World Cup. If it isn't, then its just Crusaders doing Crusader things and Crusaders officiating happening to enable it.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
The only way Whitelock is ok is if the referee is suggesting that he still has rights at the ball due to a ruck not being formed. It's touch and go here. Whitelock is the first to arrive, the Hurricanes player has not cleaned him out, but Whitelock doesn't have his hands on the ball at the time that the Hurricanes player arrives so he shouldn't then have a right to go for it.
Otherwise he needs to come from behind the last feet from the point in time when Perenara picks up the ball to be onside to play at it.
Otherwise he needs to come from behind the last feet from the point in time when Perenara picks up the ball to be onside to play at it.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Whitelock is onside at the ruck. Doesn't he remain onside once the ruck is over?
Was it a TJP knock-on or did he ping the other Hurricane for accidental offside (I don't have audio so ref might explain this?)
Was it a TJP knock-on or did he ping the other Hurricane for accidental offside (I don't have audio so ref might explain this?)