Welcome to Hump Day fellow G&GRs. You’re getting two in a row from me as Yowie has other things on, so I’m doing today and he’ll be back next week. I must admit, like most of you, I’m still hurting from the last games and unfortunately we don’t have a game to look forward to this weekend to help take our mind off it all. Sometimes you just have to embrace the suck and move on and I think that’s where we are at the moment.
Referee Corner
The only real questionable decision this last weekend was the late YC to the Boks Willie Le Roux. The decisions around this are debated as much on referee forums as they are elsewhere, and because it’s so subjective it’s open to that debate. Now the laws on this are pretty clear and cover both the knock on and the penalty for the infraction. Escalation to a YC or RC depends on where the incident occurs and how much it affected an attacking play. If it stopped a possible try or a move that could have led to a try then YC and maybe a penalty try depending on what other defenders were close and also could have become involved in the play. If it disrupted what would have probably been a try then RC and a penalty try.
Law 11 covers the knock ons and the ones for this decision are Law 11.3 “A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.” Then Law 11.4 “It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.” This 2nd one is the bit that carries so much contention as “reasonable expectation” is so subjective and is based on what our bias is, and usually what team we are supporting. When I did my referee training for level 2 we covered this law quite a bit. The question we were told to ask ourselves was “If the player didn’t get possession of the ball, then did they really have a reasonable expectation of getting it?” This leads to the current process a lot of referees follow that is “The fact that they didn’t gain possession of the ball means that they didn’t really have a reasonable expectation of gaining possession” Now I know that sounds unfair, but I actually agree with it. While we might, as both players and supporters, believe that there actually was a reasonable expectation and argue that it just didn’t work out and so was a mistake and should just be ruled as a knock on. However, I think this is flawed and would open up a lot more debate, especially if the incident occurred twice in a game and one was penalised and the other wasn’t. That is just a recipe for disaster and another Erasmus video.
While I get the contention and how some of us feel hard done by, I actually agree with the premise that not getting possession of the ball is a good indication that there wasn’t a reasonable expectation that the player could have gained possession. For a start, it makes an easy line in the sand to adjudicate on that can be defended. Secondly, it still allows a referee to say “well actually in this case there was some mitigation’ (defender contacting the player, defender also connecting with the ball and changing its path etc.) and then not penalise the incident. In this case there wasn’t any mitigation and a one handed throw at the ball didn’t give Le Roux an ability to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that he could have regained possession, especially as he didn’t. So, for me, a fair call by the referee.
I’ve decided to go down a bit of a different path this week, looking at the teams and who we might want on and off the field. There are only two rules for this. Firstly, you can select anyone, but they must be eligible to play for the team. Secondly, if you bring someone in you have to take someone out so the team still has only 23 players. Let’s remember this is an opinion site and these changes are just my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it, in fact I’d be disappointed if you all did, but let’s keep the language moderate and not go each other. After all this isn’t the shouty site.
Wallaby Team changes
The rules are; you bring in an eligible player and you must also say who goes out.
Out – Koriobete. Sorry but too many mistakes. Still running out of the line and missing tackles and not offering a lot in attack. In – Toole. A genuine threat with the ball and has the speed and rugby knowledge to use his speed in defence as much as in attack.
Out – Jorgensen. Ineffective in attack and goes missing in defence. In – Ryan. Knows how to create tries, not just score them and is good in defence.
Out – Stewart. A bit harsh but he struggled in this last game. In – Flook but not like for like as I’d put Ikitau to 12 and Flook to 13. Ikitau is able to distribute better than Stewart and has been good in both attack and defence. Flook is a player who does the 13 job well creating space for the back 3 and organising the defence.
Out – Donaldson. Doesn’t offer any more than Lolesio and has as many, albeit slightly different weaknesses. In – Lynagh. He’s young but he makes good decisions and appears to just have more time than the other two. PS. either Lolesio or Donaldson on the bench though.
Out – Harry Wilson. A busy but ineffective player who hasn’t yet determined the role he wants to play. Can’t crash it up and struggles to link with the backs. In – Charlie Cale. Offers more in the role that Joe is trying to get HW to play and links well with the backs.
Out – Tupou. Sorry you need to get fitter and last longer. A good scrummager but his play never matches his hype and he creates pressure by not being able to play for longer. In – Nonggoor. Not as good as Tupou’s best, but much better than his worse.
Out – Slipper. Congratulations on the record, now retire and enjoy the credit you are due. Struggling to be effective now and I don’t want his legacy stuffed from trying to play on too long. In – Hodgman. Has the experience and abilities to help grow some of the younger props in the team.
All Black Team changes
Same rules as with the Wallaby changes.
Out – Reiko Ioane. No surprises here. Can’t play the 13 role and inhibits the back 3 in their game. Distribution is poor and while his individual skills are good in both attack and defence he is not a good 13. In – Proctor. A huge part of the Canes good play. Knows the role, is dangerous himself but has the vision to create what the back 3 need.
Out – DMac. A good 15 but struggles at 10 and doesn’t have the time to create the play that is needed. In – Love. Was a very good 10 who was played at 15 by the Canes because there weren’t other 15 options. He understands the game and has time to create something. Would also bring Cameron into the squad.
Out – Perenara. Too slow in his distribution. Takes too much time to release the ball and creates a bad atmosphere with the officials so the ABs miss out on the 50/50 calls. In – Ratima with Hotham on the bench (while Roigard is injured then Ratima to the bench and Hotham out) faster delivery and doesn’t mouth at the referee.
Out – Cane. Still playing ok but the loose trio is unbalanced and he’s not the best 7 we have. (on the bench though) In – Savea. Plays well at 8 but still more a 7 and we need the loose trio more balanced.
Out – Savea (from 8) as above. In – Sititi. Plays well, hits hard and can link well with the backs.
Out – Blackadder. A good player who has some good moves but not as dynamic as who I’d have at 6. On the bench as he covers all 3 loose forward positions. In – Finau. Has a good beast mode and while he lives a bit on the line has demonstrated he knows how to get this right. Hits hard and in both attack and defence.
I’m happy with the tight 5 the ABs are playing. I think that they can all change around quite easily without any of them bringing in too many weaknesses. I don’t agree with moving Barrett to the 6 position as I think he’s a better lock.
Happy reading and tell us why I’m wrong.
