Wallabies v Georgia 20 July - Allianz Stadium 3.45PM

[Tomthumb]

What are your thoughts on penalised teams walking back with ball or throwing it away to prevent a quick tap? Often right in front of touchline referees along with match referee? Surely not in spirit of the game and can be stamped out very quickly by marching the offending team 10m. It pisses me off this tactic.

I don't like it, but it's a tactic employed by all the best teams in the World

 

[Yoda]

I don't like it, but it's a tactic employed by all the best teams in the World

Agreed. However could be stamped out overnight if the referees and assistants policed it. The quick tap is exciting play and puts massive pressure on defences not set plus makes for better entertainment. Hello….. World Rugby? Do you have a clue?

 

[stillmissit]

Agreed. However could be stamped out overnight if the referees and assistants policed it. The quick tap is exciting play and puts massive pressure on defences not set plus makes for better entertainment. Hello….. World Rugby? Do you have a clue?

I always penalised this behaviour as it seriously disadvantages the attacking team. A 10m walk backwards, plus another 10m if they backchat.

 

[Yoda]

I always penalised this behaviour as it seriously disadvantages the attacking team. A 10m walk backwards, plus another 10m if they backchat.

Why can’t our referees do this in big matches?

 

[LeCheese]

I agree it's gotten worse recently, but to play devil's advocate, the quick tap isn't really going to be an (effective) option regardless if the ball is in the hands of the opposition. By the time the ball has changed hands and taken back to the mark and gotten to the mark, a quick tap it really isn't.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Lots of support for the quick tap and the need for referees to police the offside in defence when the tap is taken, but so much criticism of Tom Wright when he takes it and wins a penalty while the Wallabies almost, and should have, scored from the move. I know Tom often threatens to take the tap but mostly doesn't when the situation doesn't invite it. Tate seems to be the only other player to take this action in a game. Are we suggesting they are both dickheads when they do it? That it shouldn't be a Wallaby tactic?

 

[LeCheese]

Lots of support for the quick tap and the need for referees to police the offside in defence when the tap is taken, but so much criticism of Tom Wright when he takes it and wins a penalty while the Wallabies almost, and should have, scored from the move. I know Tom often threatens to take the tap but mostly doesn't when the situation doesn't invite it. Tate seems to be the only other player to take this action in a game. Are we suggesting they are both dickheads when they do it? That it shouldn't be a Wallaby tactic?

Your ability to turn every topic of discussion into one about Tom Wright cannot be described as anything other than impressive.

 

[Rob42]

I always penalised this behaviour as it seriously disadvantages the attacking team. A 10m walk backwards, plus another 10m if they backchat.

It's routinely policed in 7's, where the quick tap is more valuable. I think it's an example of World Rugby's bigger problem - the test referees across the world aren't confident about what needs to be enforced strongly, and not.

Doleman was (correctly) hard on the "use it" call against Georgia, but that same infringement will probably not be enforced in many other matches. I think referees worry that if they jump on something like time-wasting too hard, there might be blowback - especially if (heaven forbid) they have to penalise one of the top teams in an important match. It seems World Rugby can only give guidance on one or two areas at a time, and even those drift after a few weeks of enforcement.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Just on a never-ending quest for consistency, Cheese.

 

[LeCheese]

Just on a never-ending quest for consistency, Cheese.

You're not going to find consistency by creating false equivalence through straw man arguments, unfortunately.

The criticism of Wright's quick tap was around it being perceived as a poor decision in that specific context, not the existence and benefit of the quick tap more broadly. But you're aware of this, I'm sure.

 

[TSR]

Lots of support for the quick tap and the need for referees to police the offside in defence when the tap is taken, but so much criticism of Tom Wright when he takes it and wins a penalty while the Wallabies almost, and should have, scored from the move. I know Tom often threatens to take the tap but mostly doesn't when the situation doesn't invite it. Tate seems to be the only other player to take this action in a game. Are we suggesting they are both dickheads when they do it? That it shouldn't be a Wallaby tactic?

I think most of the comments on that came from me BR and, based on reading this comment I obviously didn’t make it clearly enough.

I think a quick tap is a great option and I think we should do it more.

The issue I had last week with the tap was that it was a very kickable goal which virtually secured the win (and, to be fair, which we did eventually kick in the ensuing play).

I didn’t refer to Tom as a DH and nor do I think he is one.

 

[TSR]

On quick taps - I wish they would change the rule that you just have to be behind the mark and within say a 2 metre distance. I hate when they call a quick tap back because the player was not on the exact right blade of grass.

 

[Italophile]

They solved the problem of kicking the ball away as a delaying tactic in football (soccer) by making it a YC offence. End of.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You're not going to find consistency by creating false equivalence through straw man arguments, unfortunately.

The criticism of Wright's quick tap was around it being perceived as a poor decision in that specific context, not the existence and benefit of the quick tap more broadly. But you're aware of this, I'm sure.

The context being that he had the ball in his hands, not having to wait for it to be reluctantly handed over by the other side, and that most of the Georgian side was offside and in no hurry to get back onside and actively participate in a quick restart to the game. Clearly, the referee had the same view of context that both Wright and I had. It was manifestly a correct decision to make, and had the other Wallabies involved in the subsequent play performed their part as well, a try would have been the reward.

If you so disagree, what was your view of the context?

 

[Strewthcobber]

On quick taps - I wish they would change the rule that you just have to be behind the mark and within say a 2 metre distance. I hate when they call a quick tap back because the player was not on the exact right blade of grass.

The problem is usually that the ref hasn't made the mark at all

Law 20.2
A penalty or free-kick is taken from where it is awarded or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark and parallel to the touchlines. When a penalty or free-kick is taken at the wrong place, it must be re-taken.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think most of the comments on that came from me BR and, based on reading this comment I obviously didn’t make it clearly enough.

I think a quick tap is a great option and I think we should do it more.

The issue I had last week with the tap was that it was a very kickable goal which virtually secured the win (and, to be fair, which we did eventually kick in the ensuing play).

I didn’t refer to Tom as a DH and nor do I think he is one.

Thanks TSR. While I accept your argument as being legitimate, the subsequent penalty was in a much more favourable position for our kicker. There is no certainty that Ben Donaldson, in the wind, would have kicked the penalty from the original spot, and probably more certainty that he would have fluffed it. Nevertheless, the quick play on almost resulted in a game winning try, and at worst earned another penalty in a much better position for BD. I really can't see any downside in the decision at all.

 

[dru]

The context being that he had the ball in his hands, not having to wait for it to be reluctantly handed over by the other side, and that most of the Georgian side was offside and in no hurry to get back onside and actively participate in a quick restart to the game. Clearly, the referee had the same view of context that both Wright and I had. It was manifestly a correct decision to make, and had the other Wallabies involved in the subsequent play performed their part as well, a try would have been the reward.

If you so disagree, what was your view of the context?

FFS Rule 10 already.

10. If another poster does not understand or agree with your point after 3 or 4 attempts, LET IT GO, WALK AWAY. It is very boring for other posters when the thread gets hijacked by two people having an argument.

 

[Yoda]

I agree it's gotten worse recently, but to play devil's advocate, the quick tap isn't really going to be an (effective) option regardless if the ball is in the hands of the opposition. By the time the ball has changed hands and taken back to the mark and gotten to the mark, a quick tap it really isn't.

If the penalised team does not immediately put the ball on the ground so ball can be retrieved by non penalised side they are marched 10m and another 10m for any back chat. Pretty sure the practice would stop overnight. Simple. Just bloody enforce it.

 

[TSR]

The problem is usually that the ref hasn't made the mark at all

Yeah. I think they should remove that part of the rule.

 

[barbarian]

If the penalised team does not immediately put the ball on the ground so ball can be retrieved by non penalised side they are marched 10m and another 10m for any back chat. Pretty sure the practice would stop overnight. Simple. Just bloody enforce it.

AFL has plenty of issues with it's rules, but I do like their rule that makes players quickly hand/kick the ball back to the player who is awarded a free kick, otherwise be marched 50m.

I think when the whistle blows the ball should be put down. Would be very easy to enforce.