Wallabies vs Ireland - 3rd test - Saturday 23rd June 2018 - Sydney Football Stadium

[Grant NZ]

Love kiwis trolling for Aus bights on a game thread not involving NZ.

We will see how the judiciary views it. FWIW, for me, Izzy wins the contest for the ball, the lifter over-reaches trying to beat Izzy and loses control. Izzy puts his hands out as an automatic reaction to try and help. But it's not enough to stop the lifter from dropping the bloke on his head. Lifter deserves a RC.

I dont doubt though Izzy will be suspended.

1. Bites.

2. Folau puts his arm around the guy before the ball is won. The lifter doesn't over-reach, he gets pulled backwards by Folau. In fact, it's hard to see if the ball comes back off Folau or POM.

 

[Braveheart81]

This is prior to any contact. O'Mahony is being hoisted up and backwards, the ball is ending up behind him and even without contact from Folau it's going to be difficult for Stander to bring him to ground safely.

A couple of frames later and Folau's left arm has made contact under the left armpit of O'Mahony as he competes for the ball. At this stage though O'Mahony's position in the air is entirely due to Stander and the fact that the position he has jumped from was in front of the ball and he has to go over backwards to be in a position to catch it.

Folau is about to be the one that wins the contest by slapping the ball back towards the Wallabies side.

Folau's right hand never grabs or pulls at O'Mahony. Without the reverse angle it is impossible to tell how much force his left arm has put on O'Mahony.

Here, Stander is still propelling O'Mahony up and backwards and has no control over him.

Folau's left arm has made contact and even slight contact in an uncontrolled single man lift is going to be enough force to make things dangerous.

We need that reverse angle to see whether Folau has grabbed or how much contact has been made. I agree that he is in trouble but I think a major part of the problem here is that I think there is nothing more than incidental contact between two players competing for the ball in the air but the problem is that they are both travelling in the same direction whereas the forces tend to get balanced out when they are both heading towards the ball.

Clearly Folau was in a realistic position to contest because he is the one that slapped the ball back. This type of lift where the player is uncontrolled and going backwards means that even the slightest incidental contact will create a dangerous situation.

 

[Derpus]

So here is an interesting stat, points scored over the three tests are even.

 

[KOB1987]

I think the focus of Izzy's defence will be and should be a) that he was competing for the ball, and b) the reason POM fell the way he did in both cases was because of the lifter. As alluded to above if they get an SC involved he will get off. WR (World Rugby) should immediately outlaw lifting players in any scenario other than lineouts. Problem solved.

 

[Quick Hands]

That's the key phrase isn't it? Given that he in fact won the ball back for his team.

Get the Senior Council involved and he'll get off (much like Horwill against the lions)

This issue has slowly crept up on rugby. Back when I was playing, nobody ever jumped off the ground to catch the ball. On the contrary we were taught to have both beet firmly on the ground and be side on to the advancing opposition. Players began to jump for the ball and the then IRB decided to protect the jumper from being tackled, as tackling a player off the ground is dangerous. Now it's often the case that one or more players from either team are all leaping off the ground for the ball, but in the rugby context the players are usually moving towards each other at least one at speed. In the Aussie rules context, players leaping for the ball are usually moving in the same direction as their opponents.

Back to rugby (and I don't envy the lawmakers here because I can't see a way out which will be both safe and spectacular).

1 Do nothing, keep the laws as they are and eventually there will be a catastrophic spinal injury (we weren't far from that on Saturday night)

2 Ban players leaping for the ball (would be difficult to define a leap as opposed to a player in full flight taking a kick on the full)

3 Protect the defending player attepting to field the kick by sanctioning attacking players (like Folau) who knock the defenders off balance

4 Ban lifting in general play (which will at least reduce the height to which players reach)

Nothing that WR (World Rugby) can do will change Newton's laws of motion or the laws of physics. If players leap from the ground competing for the ball, forces are exerted over which they have no control and little foresight into the consequences. It all comes down to angles, force, the fulcram point etc.

 

[KOB1987]

So here is an interesting stat, points scored over the three tests are even.

Doesn't matter anyway because the Irish apparently sent out a third string side in the first test and a second string side for the other two

 

[Strewthcobber]

So here is an interesting stat, points scored over the three tests even.

6 tries to 3 to the Wobs as well. That tells a bit of a story (much like it did in the English whitewash a couple of years ago).

In fact Ireland hasn't scored more tries than Australia in a match since 2006, with a 22 tries to 12 aggregate and yet we have won 4 matches from 10

 

[Quick Hands]

6 tries though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No contests for possession in 80 minutes. That's the difference. If we want a game in which every phase is a contest for possession, then the game will be slower and there will be more need for the referee to intervene. You'll find that nearly every penalty in the test on Saturday night was at a contest for possession. The nature of the two games are different.

 

[Braveheart81]

4 Ban lifting in general play (which will at least reduce the height to which players reach)

At least in terms of a single man lift, this seems to be the most common sense approach to reducing these dangerous incidents and have the least impact on the game.

The problem arises most when the player being lifted wasn't in an ideal position to go for the ball and is being propelled backwards and almost out of control without any interaction from the opposition.

With the force of both players going in the same direction, a dangerous situation arises.

With zero contact from Folau, Stander is still going to have trouble bringing O'Mahony to ground safely.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This issue has slowly crept up on rugby. Back when I was playing, nobody ever jumped off the ground to catch the ball. On the contrary we were taught to have both beet firmly on the ground and be side on to the advancing opposition. Players began to jump for the ball and the then IRB decided to protect the jumper from being tackled, as tackling a player off the ground is dangerous. Now it's often the case that one or more players from either team are all leaping off the ground for the ball, but in the rugby context the players are usually moving towards each other at least one at speed. In the Aussie rules context, players leaping for the ball are usually moving in the same direction as their opponents.

Back to rugby (and I don't envy the lawmakers here because I can't see a way out which will be both safe and spectacular).

1 Do nothing, keep the laws as they are and eventually there will be a catastrophic spinal injury (we weren't far from that on Saturday night)

2 Ban players leaping for the ball (would be difficult to define a leap as opposed to a player in full flight taking a kick on the full)

3 Protect the defending player attepting to field the kick by sanctioning attacking players (like Folau) who knock the defenders off balance

4 Ban lifting in general play (which will at least reduce the height to which players reach)

Nothing that WR (World Rugby) can do will change Newton's laws of motion or the laws of physics. If players leap from the ground competing for the ball, forces are exerted over which they have no control and little foresight into the consequences. It all comes down to angles, force, the fulcram point etc.

5 Go back to allowing a mark for a defender anywhere on the field - which will make the aerial kick much less desirable for attackers.

 

[Braveheart81]

5 Go back to allowing a mark for a defender anywhere on the field - which will make the aerial kick much less desirable for attackers.

Hard to call mark though when there is a genuine competition for the ball in the air though.

E.g. I've never heard a defender call mark when trying to field an accurate cross field kick and prevent a try. Everything they're focused on is just trying to make the catch.

 

[Quick Hands]

Hard to call mark though when there is a genuine competition for the ball in the air though.

E.g. I've never heard a defender call mark when trying to field an accurate cross field kick and prevent a try. Everything they're focused on is just trying to make the catch.

Coaches take note. Great way to diffuse kicks.

 

[Grant NZ]

I think there is nothing more than incidental contact between two players competing for the ball in the air but the problem is that they are both travelling in the same direction whereas the forces tend to get balanced out when they are both heading towards the ball.

Clearly Folau was in a realistic position to contest because he is the one that slapped the ball back. This type of lift where the player is uncontrolled and going backwards means that even the slightest incidental contact will create a dangerous situation.

I'd disagree that there's nothing more than incidental contact, but I actually agree that lifting in this instance should probably be removed. It creates situations with razor thin margins.

But in this case, there's two actions that resulted in POM coming down badly - the lift and the playing the man in the air (inadvertently, I'm sure, but still playing in the air). One of those is legal and one isn't, so I don't think arguing that the legal one is at fault is gonna be a winning argument.

 

[Braveheart81]

Coaches take note. Great way to diffuse kicks.

The question is how to do it though. Generally the kick is aimed for someone who is good in the air and has the advantage of a running leap for the ball whereas the defender can't make the ideal run and leap at the ball as they are under it to begin with.

Trying to call mark in a situation where you are already struggling to compete just makes your situation more difficult.

Maybe make it so the defender can call mark the moment the ball comes off the foot so it has least impact on their attempt to catch it but still gives them a mark if they are successful.

I'd disagree that there's nothing more than incidental contact

We'll see. It is pretty minor contact in the scheme of things. The problem is that the momentum of both players is going in the same direction. We see far greater incidental contact between two competing players when they are travelling in opposite directions and it is play on and not dangerous.

It will be interesting to see what world rugby does here and how strongly RA defend it.

 

[Derpus]

It will be interesting to see what world rugby does here and how strongly RA defend it.

Will it though? It'll probably just be another unclear and unsatisfactory outcome.

At what point do players just have to accept the inherent risk of playing professional rugby?

 

[Quick Hands]

Because people have become disengaged as players became deskilled and the game in Australia became based on statistics and structures, on the back of the ultimate structure games of Rod Macqueen and Eddie Jones. They perpetrated the myth of running rugby and whilst Macqueen was in particular very successful with the constant recycle game and the strict structures it was a short lived episode of dominace like the Saffas kick and chase game a few years ago.

Now when the two strongholds of Australian Rugby collapse because of the constant politicking, unethical behaviour and infighting couple to poor playing results and skills people turn off and walk away. The best example is the total collapse Waratahs support from the mid Mackenzie years through Hickey/Foley despite the win/loss ratios being perhaps higher than a most times through their history. When the coaches and players tell you they are winning games and it is just luck without any real skill execution or improvements in such people get the shits. That could be accepted when nobody got paid for it, but when they are getting paid and trot out worse skills than the amateur forebears it grates and the fans walked. Yes some came in for the big games like the finals in 2014, but look at the membership sales in 2015 and you will see an average sized uptick followed by an almost complete collapse. Gone are the rusted on fans that fill the European stadiums week in week out. We used to have that, but those factors above scraped away the rust to try and find the shiny metal beneath, which simply did not exist.

I'd also add Gnostic that there has been a cultural war on kicking in Australian rugby for a generation at all levels of the game to the extent that the art of tactical kicking has almost disappeared. The only form of tactical kicking deemed acceptable to many of those who follow the game is the cross kick for the winger to score. Long kicks for territory are deemed unAustralian. This was reinforced to me a couple of years ago when I watched Joeys play Newington in a game played in heavy rain and a howling gale. Joeys ran with the wind in the first half and didn't kick the ball once and tried to run the ball out of their own half unsuccessfully - they were behind at half time and subsequently lost the game.

As I've repeatedly observed, the whole running rugby obsession is based on the myth that Randwick (in particular) never kicked the ball. Guys like Mark Ella, David Knox and David Campese had brilliant tactical kicking games - yes their first option was to run, but if it wasn't the option they booted the ball long for touch and made 50 easy metres. Ella and Knox were also masters at potting field goals when nothing else was on.

 

[cyclopath]

I'd also add Gnostic that there has been a cultural war on kicking in Australian rugby for a generation at all levels of the game to the extent that the art of tactical kicking has almost disappeared. The only form of tactical kicking deemed acceptable to many of those who follow the game is the cross kick for the winger to score. Long kicks for territory are deemed unAustralian. This was reinforced to me a couple of years ago when I watched Joeys play Newington in a game played in heavy rain and a howling gale. Joeys ran with the wind in the first half and didn't kick the ball once and tried to run the ball out of their own half unsuccessfully - they were behind at half time and subsequently lost the game.

As I've repeatedly observed, the whole running rugby obsession is based on the myth that Randwick (in particular) never kicked the ball. Guys like Mark Ella, David Knox and David Campese had brilliant tactical kicking games - yes their first option was to run, but if it wasn't the option they booted the ball long for touch and made 50 easy metres. Ella and Knox were also masters at potting field goals when nothing else was on.

In particular. I remember joking with my brother when we were young about the Ella-Boot reflex, he kicked so much at times. History tends to mark guys like these as mercurial in their play, but apart from Campese's occasional moments of brilliance (and despair) they were all quite orthodox players in many ways - very good all-round skills of draw and pass, backing up and kicking.

 

[Rock Lobster]

Re. the Folau incidents. The issue I have is how he puts himself behind POM. It could be argued, by doing this, he is not in a realistic position to catch the ball. By getting behind the player in the air while travelling forward, any contact with that player in the air is going to be potentially dangerous. If he leaps in front of POM he eliminates a lot of risk. Sure POM could end up on his back via the contact with Folau in front of him but it would much more difficult to argue Folau put POM in a dangerous position if Folau had 2 hands on the ball IN FRONT of POM.

 

[Braveheart81]

Re. the Folau incidents. The issue I have is how he puts himself behind POM. It could be argued, by doing this, he is not in a realistic position to catch the ball. By getting behind the player in the air while travelling forward, any contact with that player in the air is going to be potentially dangerous. If he leaps in front of POM he eliminates a lot of risk. Sure POM could end up on his back via the contact with Folau in front of him but it would much more difficult to argue Folau put POM in a dangerous position if Folau had 2 hands on the ball IN FRONT of POM.

He did get the ball though.

O'Mahony went up in front of where the ball was coming down and had to jump and be lifted backwards to get close to it.

If Folau jumps in front of O'Mahony he's nowhere near the ball. He's going to crash straight into O'Mahony and Stander well before getting to the ball.

 

[SOLE334]

Clearly Folau was in a realistic position to contest because he is the one that slapped the ball back. This type of lift where the player is uncontrolled and going backwards means that even the slightest incidental contact will create a dangerous situation.

Change the rule.!! We already have a Giteau eligibility clause. Now we can have a Folau MOU. Concerning contesting high balls, one on one aerial contest without assistance(from other players lifting or loitering around contest ball area) is permitted, for kick offs and in open play.