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

[Braveheart81]

That's a pointless hypothetical though, because if he is given the yellow for challenge #1 it's fair to assume we change our tactic, or at least Folau is more cautious with his challenges.

I don't disagree that the first challenge deserved a yellow, but to then say in hindsight it should have ended in a red isn't necessarily correct.
.

We did change our tactics. After Folau's yellow card we didn't do another kick off where he competed for it until the dying minutes after Ireland went ahead by 4 points and we were going for our last roll of the dice.

 

[Strewthcobber]

^^^^^^^^ I don't think your hypothetical re: Folau being more cautious having been sin-binned is any less pointless than mine: double-Yellow is rare but far from unheard of.



I'd be horrified if he INTENDED to bring O'M down even once & I think the ban being only a week strongly suggests the tribunal don't think it was intentional, either. But the Laws are generally framed & almost always applied in terms of verifiable outcome not subjective intent.

Yep, was found to be reckless, not intentional

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

At the end of the day, probably the right result.
As I have posted earlier, however, the implications of this will be significant. As the details of the ruling state quite clearly, in this situation it is "inevitable" that contact will occur. I would suggest that it is also almost inevitable that any contact by a player running and jumping, i.e. with lateral momentum, with a player being raised by a lifter will occur above the fulcrum point and therefore be highly likely to create or increase risk of the lifted player tipping in some way, no matter how awesome the lifter may be. There would be less inherent risk with 2 players jumping under their own power as the lateral forces would, to some degree, cancel each other out. Of course, wilfully "playing" the opponent in either situation is problematic.
It will be very risky for teams kicking off to attack the short kick, and teams receiving would be idiots if they don't lift every time. It would be interesting if a lifter got yellow carded for a bad lift and dropping their own player (yeah, I know it won't happen)!

 

[Derpus]

Right, so WR (World Rugby) have effectively taken that out of our arsenal? cool beanzos

 

[barbarian]

There is one more factor that makes this particular situation different from other aerial challenges.

In general play, both players are looking to catch the ball cleanly with both hands. However on kick-offs, players are now looking to bat the ball back to their own team.

It's a one-armed action, meaning they have a spare arm to brace and steady themselves. It seems the best place to do this is on the chest or upper body of the defending player.

This situation doesn't fit with the current Laws as I read them, as there are only two criteria - is it a fair contest, and if not, how does the player land? Clearly Folau is challenging fairly, but also creating a dangerous situation by simultaneously propping himself on the jumping player.

And it's not just Folau, as Drew Mitchell pointed out on twitter:


What this shows to me is a gap in the current Laws which may need clarification, because it's a unique scenario.

 

[Derpus]

If they actually are ruling on outcome then it's ridiculous beyond words.

I think the above was probably just missed?

 

[formerflanker]

I’m fine with all that Barb, but I still think it is essential to remove the one man lift. Rather than provide support to the man in the air, which is what a lifted is supposed to do, the one man lift puts the player in a more vulnerable position as it increases the likelihood they will end up in an unsafe position.

Agreed. Especially when the catcher thinks the ball is going over their head, arches back, and is now in a position to be dropped or nudged further back and down to the ground. The catcher can't do that when jumping unassisted which is much safer.

 

[Dan54]

Well, all I can say to any team out there is start practicing your single man lifts.

What?? You don't think every team does one man lifts? Do you watch what happens when teams kick off, the opposition always had a a couple of pods where there is one man preparing to do a one man lift if the ball is kicked to them, and that happens in club rugby through to test rugby!

 

[Derpus]

What?? You don't think every team does one man lifts? Do you watch what happens when teams kick off, the opposition always had a a couple of pods where there is one man preparing to do a one man lift if the ball is kicked to them, and that happens in club rugby through to test rugby!

It's ironic that WRs abortive attempts at making an inherently dangerous game safer has resulted in gamesmanship that is more dangerous than what preceded the new rules.

 

[Brumby Runner]

What like he was in a realistic position to compete for the ball and didn't play the man and so is therefore in compliance with the law? radical.

Granted it's a change of tack from 'oi that Pocock bloke is real good at jackalling, we better change the laws'

to

'Oi that Folau bloke is real good at jumping we better randomly misinterpret this law to discourage him from doing that bouncy shit anymore'.

What a load of tangy ass cheese.

I did have the same train of thought about WR (World Rugby)'s response to Jackalling and Jumping Derpus. It seems when one player has a skill so much more developed than most others, WR (World Rugby) are only too anxious to adjust their laws or interpretations to level the playing field. On jumping, I think it should be simply a one on one contest without the aid of others trying to get an advantage.

 

[Up the Guts]

What?? You don't think every team does one man lifts? Do you watch what happens when teams kick off, the opposition always had a a couple of pods where there is one man preparing to do a one man lift if the ball is kicked to them, and that happens in club rugby through to test rugby!

Yeah there’s usually one pod on either side of the field off the kickoff often with two lifters. Now we’ll see multiple pods all over the field for the kickoff and teams will employ them under high balls when they can.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Nah Derpus it's cos we're Taaahhhs fans mate. We've just got those blue tinted glasses on, unlike the other enlightened scholars on this board, those noble paragons of impartiality.

It seems to me that most of the arguments justifying Izzy's actions are coming from Tahs' supporters, just as the predominant support for the likes of Hanigan, Foley, Phipps, the Pooper etc comes from the Tahs corner as well. Most posters with other teams' symbols have taken a more balanced view of these matters.

For example, I think if you were to go over the threads for the Ireland/Wallabies tests this year, there are few posters who have had a grizzle about the very low number of Brumbies in the test team. Apart from one outstanding example of Reds bias, most posters from other franchises lament the form of Bernard Foley but recognise there is little in the way of options otherwise, perhaps due to the way Cheika has selected his teams over the years. Most also advocate the end of the Pooper and in the main see the alternatives to be a mix of Reds players (Tui, Timu) pending Jack Dempsey's return to the equation as well. It is pretty well confined to Tahs supporters to defend the selection of Hanigan and the Pooper in the Wallabies sides.

Clearly, there is a lot of Tahs love on this site and it tends to come across as bias. So, impartiality does not disappear just because people are supporters of the Tahs.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What?? You don't think every team does one man lifts? Do you watch what happens when teams kick off, the opposition always had a a couple of pods where there is one man preparing to do a one man lift if the ball is kicked to them, and that happens in club rugby through to test rugby!

There were at least 4 X 2 man pods on the very kickoff which got Izzy in trouble!

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Derpus]

This is a sad old picture, Couldn't score with a huge overlap against a tired defense.

Edit: I mean, just fling it to Kerevi with a few metres of space and let him do his thing. You back him to finish from their 9/10 even without two outside runners.

 

[barbarian]

It seems to me that most of the arguments justifying Izzy's actions are coming from Tahs' supporters, just as the predominant support for the likes of Hanigan, Foley, Phipps, the Pooper etc comes from the Tahs corner as well. Most posters with other teams' symbols have taken a more balanced view of these matters.
.

I think that's a really odd and sad way to view things, and I don't agree at all.

But I don't want to get into a back and forth about it.
.

 

[gel]

It seems to me that most of the arguments justifying Izzy's actions are coming from Tahs' supporters, just as the predominant support for the likes of Hanigan, Foley, Phipps, the Pooper etc comes from the Tahs corner as well. Most posters with other teams' symbols have taken a more balanced view of these matters.

For example, I think if you were to go over the threads for the Ireland/Wallabies tests this year, there are few posters who have had a grizzle about the very low number of Brumbies in the test team. Apart from one outstanding example of Reds bias, most posters from other franchises lament the form of Bernard Foley but recognise there is little in the way of options otherwise, perhaps due to the way Cheika has selected his teams over the years. Most also advocate the end of the Pooper and in the main see the alternatives to be a mix of Reds players (Tui, Timu) pending Jack Dempsey's return to the equation as well. It is pretty well confined to Tahs supporters to defend the selection of Hanigan and the Pooper in the Wallabies sides.

Clearly, there is a lot of Tahs love on this site and it tends to come across as bias. So, impartiality does not disappear just because people are supporters of the Tahs.

I disagree with the yellow card (or even penalty), and disagree with the suspension.

I reckon it's pretty clear which I think about the tahs players in general.

I can't recall the biased post I made in those threads though. It had to be me, for sure though. smh

 

[gel]

I did have the same train of thought about WR (World Rugby)'s response to Jackalling and Jumping Derpus. It seems when one player has a skill so much more developed than most others, WR (World Rugby) are only too anxious to adjust their laws or interpretations to level the playing field. On jumping, I think it should be simply a one on one contest without the aid of others trying to get an advantage.

I would very much like this -

I think no lifting outside of the line outs would be best.

 

[Sully]

They banned lifting to stop penalty kicks after John Eales blocked a couple. Can't see much difference with kick offs.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

They banned lifting to stop penalty kicks after John Eales blocked a couple. Can't see much difference with kick offs.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

They've put the house on the lifted player, not the jumper. It'll be interesting to see how it plays in coming weeks / months.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^ I think we're into that period pre-RWC where the Laws don't get tweaked but I'd expect to see (as a minimum) the one-man lift outlawed post-RWC & possibly even no lifting whatsoever allowed other than at lineouts.