Wallabies v Springboks, Sat 17th August 2024 Perth

[Shiggins]

I wi

Blyth and Tizzano absolutely useless as ball carriers:

i would say this is tactical. How many tackles did tizano make ?

 

[PaarlBok]

Great performance from the Springboks. PSdT is a rugby freak. Uncontested scrum should be banned from rugby.

 

[Adam84]

Was Kellaway not Hooper.

Nope

 

[KOB1987]

The Boks made 10 changes from last week's team. We rolledmon what all the pundits said was our best team and we got done 30-12.

The modern international game entails a squad approach. 14 of the 23 players in their team last night won a World Cup final less than a year ago. They have crazy depth and rolled out some players in the first half who aren’t well known now but will be part of the main squad in 2027, supported by some world class veterans who won’t be. In the meantime we have several injured players in key positions, haven’t worked out who our best options are in other positions, and haven’t really called on any foreign options yet except MK.

Both teams are in rebuild mode, they are several stages ahead of us, it’s nothing to do with A and B teams or the like.

 

[KOB1987]

Great performance from the Springboks. PSdT is a rugby freak. Uncontested scrum should be banned from rugby.

PSDT has been the best all round player in the world for the last 2 World Cup cycles.

Re the uncontested scrums, there isn’t really much they can do about it - the options were to ignore the concussion protocols, bring Bell back on injured, or borrow one of your players. Beyond that the only other option is to allow unlimited subs in the front row. The rule book caters for the rare scenario that it happens in a test match for a reason, it’s unfortunate that it did but it’s not the first time and it won’t be the last time. I don’t really think it made much difference TBH, you still got a maximum points win, and maybe it was disadvantageous for us as well.

 

[Dan54]

I know the reasons for uncontested scrum etc, but just abhor watching a game with uncontested scrums.
I genuinely was pleased when the Boks scored from maul after they came into play as it then becomes one of only places you can use your dominant pack. That is in no way a criticism of Wallabies and as I said I understand the reasons, and don't think there anyway around it. Just brings a quaetion to mind , if you can go uncontesting scrums with HIAs, if the 2 props etc break their legs , your team can lose player? I think it opens door to abuse, I think teams use HIA now, as you see players in games limping off with sore legs, that see medic tap head to indicate it's a HIA.

But apart from that I thought the first half was a good enjoyable contest etc, and Wallabies looked improved ,if perhaps still behind the Boks?

 

[TSR]

I don’t think anyone wanted uncontested scrums. But player health is paramount.

You can’t fully address the later without allowing the possibility of the former so I don’t see any point complaining about it. Maybe we should accept that player health is an extremely serious issue and be prepared to applaud the game for taking that position.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Two contact injuries and you lose a player. If one of the substitutions is HIA, blood or from foul play, then you don't.

 

[liquor box]

Was Bell injured or just not wanting to go back out onto the field?

 

[Dan54]

People are blowing up about the uncontested scrums saying we cheated.

What's the law actually say ?

If there is a hia and no replacement prop any available player can be used in the row and team not penalised to 14 ?

No way were Wallabies cheating on it that I saw, but as I posted before if ever there a rule/law that can be abused it is the HIA one.

 

[molman]

Great performance from the Springboks. PSdT is a rugby freak. Uncontested scrum should be banned from rugby.

Was it? I don't actually think that was a great performance from them. Concerningly for where we are at I actually thought they were much more error prone and off their best in various areas.

And ban uncontested scrums? You rather think untrained player should risk injury?

I do agree that PSdT is class and would make any international team.

 

[molman]

I think it opens door to abuse, I think teams use HIA now, as you see players in games limping off with sore legs, that see medic tap head to indicate it's a HIA.

This has been a concern since HIA has come in. It's where WorldRugby need clear protocols around this. Been a few games where a weaker bench player got replaced by the world class one towards the end of the game. Maybe someone else can answer how it's actually working behind the scenes in games like this.


Ideally any HIA's should be going through the impartial medical staff who really should be attached to the refereeing team to my mind, or at the very least teams should have to submit the evidence used to call the HIA after the game following some clear protocols of what can be used to make the call (maybe that do, do this already?). You'd imagine that they are probably hoping that something like the smart mouthguards or other such technologies will help clean it up, though I suspect they might get some readings in other parts of the game that they might not wish to illuminate.

 

[TSR]

No way were Wallabies cheating on it that I saw, but as I posted before if ever there a rule/law that can be abused it is the HIA one.

Previously both the injury law regarding front rowers then the blood bin rule were used by teams to get an advantage. So I’m not going to say it won’t happen. Rugby is rife with teams abusing the laws for their own advantage.

But I really can’t see a high degree of risk that we are suddenly going to see widespread abuse of this law. How many games have we actually seen go to uncontested scrums? It would be less than 1%. And yes, I get that there is a difference in whether or not you lose a player. But still - it’s not something anyone wants. For starters imagine going up to James Slipper and saying - look mate, we have a plan …..

 

[Drew]

I know the reasons for uncontested scrum etc, but just abhor watching a game with uncontested scrums.
I genuinely was pleased when the Boks scored from maul after they came into play as it then becomes one of only places you can use your dominant pack. That is in no way a criticism of Wallabies and as I said I understand the reasons, and don't think there anyway around it. Just brings a quaetion to mind , if you can go uncontesting scrums with HIAs, if the 2 props etc break their legs , your team can lose player? I think it opens door to abuse, I think teams use HIA now, as you see players in games limping off with sore legs, that see medic tap head to indicate it's a HIA.

But apart from that I thought the first half was a good enjoyable contest etc, and Wallabies looked improved ,if perhaps still behind the Boks?

Isn’t HIA dictated by independent doctor? I agree that it would be ridiculous in the scenario of broken legs/serious injuries meaning a team loses a player. Only way I can think of around uncontested scrums is to have a 24th player who can play both sides of the scrum if we have a scenario like yesterday

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Boks whinging about cheating? FUCK ME BLIND. Try looking at your own house.

Corpulent front rankers taking turns sitting their fat awses on the grass every 10 minutes or so with a fake injury/"bootlace issue" so the other 2 sumotori can catch their breath.

Or that water/physio woman running around the ingoal screaming instructions on the fly as to which direction her charges should go next.

Or Rassie lying through his teeth with a politicians aplomb about god knows what

FFS

 

[Ignoto]

Yeah I have little sympathy here for the Boks. The fact that Brendan had to consistently tell their trainers to stop coming on the field demonstrates the Boks willingness to flirt with bending the rules to suit their larger bodied forward pack.

The uncontested scrum didn't really give Australia any larger advantage. The Wallabies were holding their scrum and uncontested scrums allowed the fatties to get their breath back which we saw was a priority for the Boks.

Perhaps Rassie can publish another half hour manifesto complaining. Hopefully he's learnt how to lock down a video from the public.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yeh that's it. Some people are saying you don't lose a player but have to replace the thp with a front rower. The scenario says this though.

1. The injured TH prop can be temporarily replaced by any available player - the uncontested scrums is caused by the TH prop that was called for HIA. The team does not lose a player.

Not very clear is it? Why the THP? Not the LHP? Our problems were that three props were off the field, AAA with what looked like head knock (I assume HIA), Slipper who could hardly walk and Bell who was probably exhausted. The uncontested scrums I think occurred after AAA went off. If that was for HIA as I suspect then why did we lose another player to allow for uncontested scrums?

In any event, why discriminate between HIA and any legitimate injury?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Ideally any HIA's should be going through the impartial medical staff who really should be attached to the refereeing team to my mind, or at the very least teams should have to submit the evidence used to call the HIA after the game following some clear protocols of what can be used to make the call (maybe that do, do this already?).

The priority is always to remove players who may have a concussion. WR (World Rugby) don't want any system in place that discourages removal of players who may have one.

The Team Doctor follows WR (World Rugby) protocols and works with the independent Match Day doctor to identify players who have Cat 1 symptoms and have to be replaced immediately, or who need to come off for an HIA.

Every step of every assesment is documented and recorded. The doctors have their own liability to worry about

 

[Strewthcobber]

Article on rugby.com.au today says AAA, Bell (cut eye) and Slipper all came off for HIAs.

Bell passed his but was tactically replaced and then they didn't want to put him back on after he'd cooled down due to risks to his toe

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

66-17 over 2 weeks

That’s great but they are not nearly as hopeless as the dog days of
Eddie