Do you mean the situation where Scotland were penalised after driving the French player into touch? I thought that was harsh - the ref called "tackle" a split-second before the French player went into touch, I don't think the tacklers could have been expected to stop quickly enough after that call.
Yeah that one, I've seen it called the other way more often than not.
Northern refs are experts at preventing a game of rugby from breaking out.
Sorry, must have missed this? Who and what did they get canned for?
"The Super Rugby Pacific Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) has found Motikiai Murray (Fijian Drua) guilty of committing a dangerous tackle in contravention of Law 9.13."
Oh right,
It was upgraded to a red at the game (might have happened after the final whistle though, given how close it was to the end).
I think he was probably pretty lucky to come in at the 6 week entry point to be honest, even though it's become the default.
That's specifically dangerous play under a ruck or maul
Maybe, but I don't know how far that will move the needle with world rugby - there have been a few season enders from hip drop or hip drop adjacent tackles in the last few years already at super or equivalent level. I get the feeling that unless it happens in a big test match they're unlikely to engage with it. There could be more movement locally though, but that really should've happened not long after the NRL made them illegal.
The one on Grant? I think Grant was arguing he got his knee down before maul was called, but Murphy said it was still hovering. I think any controversy there is just a question of the knee timing. It looked weird live (partially because Grant is very long) but I do think Murphy got it right.