Welcome to this weeks instalment of the Top 5! This week its all about the Super Rugby. How did your team rate? How did the referees go? And generally what did we think about it all?
Super Rugby … The Return
So was it all we had hoped? How did round 1 of the 2017 Super Rugby season fare, did it live up to expectations or fall somewhat short? What are some of the talking points?
The Sunwolves match was pretty much as expected, an absolute whipping. But I must say, I think the Japanese side has got the best fans in the comp. Not only did they stay until the bitter end but they cheered their hearts out the whole time. It’s such a shame that nearly half of the home games are being played elsewhere, this is a crowd that deserves all the games they can get!
The less said about the Rebels/Blues game the better. I know the Rebels were hit by injury, but still, it really was a poor performance (with the exception of the first 20 minutes when they actually looked ok). Rieko Ioane though … 19 years old!!! I am so glad that they just don’t have any depth in NZ rugby.
With the exception of Scott Higginbotham, the “experienced” (old?) signings for the Reds were a little disappointing. Smith was there but didn’t have the huge impact he could have, Quade showed some good signs, but looks like he is still finding his rhythm with the players around him and Moore barely made an impact. The young guys however were the difference. Ready and Tuttle by far outplayed Moore and Frisby.
Speaking of Frisby, his place as second string Wallabies scrummie could be in danger if Joe Powell continues the way he started. It’s no secret Cheika is a fan of Powell, and after Saturday more people may be starting to see why. While we’re talking about the Brumbies, they by far exceeded the expectations of many (c’mon, honestly how many of you were expecting a cricket score?) in their loss to the Crusaders, and there were some really good performances from both the experienced and new players.
The Waratahs/Force match was a pretty dire affair. Some good glimpses of play, Latu is stamping his name on a Wallabies spot methinks. Skelton is starting to look like a bit of a threat too … even if he is shrinking. Seriously, he has really slimmed down!
So, have your predictions about who will finish top changed after one round? Are the Reds still the Waratahs only competition for finishing top of the Aussie conference, and do we still think the Brumbies will be on the bottom?
High Tackles
So the referees have vowed to get tough on high tackles this season.
Well it would be nice if they were consistent about it. In the Rebels/Blues, Highlanders/Chiefs and Crusaders/Brumbies games alone there were a number of high hits that were not even penalised. Then there was the Meakes hit on Hooper that was penalised, though it looked to be deliberate and could easily have been given a card.
And then there was the Reds/Sharks match. Two players were shown yellow for high tackles and personally I don’t have a problem with either of them.
Kane Douglas’ effort was just dumb and an obvious yellow.
Karmichael Hunt’s yellow has caused some debate. But again, by the laws of the game it was a fair yellow, he made contact with the player’s head (I anticipate there will be a differing of opinion on this one).
However in that same match, this was not even looked at or penalised.
It is obvious that Etienne Oosthuizen has an arm around Samu Kerevi’s neck. Clearly high. Some suggested that the other arm being around the chest might have saved him, but that shouldn’t change the fact that he has one arm wrapped around the neck.
So is there a reason this was not called? Or was it just plain old poor/inconsistent refereeing?
Report Card
Rebels: D Where to start? The Rebels got off to a great start and had many thinking ahead to a finals berth. Then reality and Rieko Ioane hit and the Blues ran riot. The Rebels had no answer to their attack and no serious attack of their own. In the second half they looked to have little idea of a game plan and appeared lost. The first 20 minutes showed they have the potential, but will need to do much better.
Reds: B- A big build up (mostly from Fox Sports pre-game), plenty of big names on the roster, heaps of experience and they only just scraped home for the win. Granted, the Reds of past seasons would have crumpled in a heap after the Sharks scored the early try. Some of the big names were under-whelming and they looked a lot more dangerous when the substitutions were made. Tuttle in particular made a huge impact. Lots to like and lots to improve on.
Brumbies: B- Not only did the Brumbies hold their own against a dangerous Crusaders team at home, but they actually pushed them and had a chance for the win. Their defence was solid and their attack looked threatening (when they didn’t stupidly kick the ball back to one of the most dangerous running sides in the comp, this did lower their grade from a B+). Marred by some errors and defensive lapses but lots to be positive about.
Force: C I thought the Force were going to be more threatening than they were. They went well in the first half, getting on the front foot and forcing the Waratahs to make errors. But they fell away in the second half and were held scoreless. Some good kicking from Jono Lance kept the grade from falling lower.
Waratahs: B- The Tahs bombed a few chances and there was plenty of poor kicking. They came back well in the second half, but should never have let the Force get the start they did. Robinson’s kicking from the tee lifted the grade, while Hegarty’s kicking in play brought it back down. Too many pointless kicks.
TMO protocols
We saw the new TMO protocols used a number of times this round and most of the decisions looked pretty straight forward, just a case of the ref checking to make sure he had it right.
The one time that it looked as though the referee actually wanted the TMO to make a decision for him (but obviously couldn’t) was during the Reds v Sharks match. In the 60th minute the Sharks mauled the ball over the line and it was really hard to see if the ball was grounded. Even the referee, Nick Briant, looked unsure. But rather than asking the TMO try yes or no, he was required to give his decision. To say there was some uncertainty is an understatement. Even when talking to the TMO he didn’t seem willing to make a call, finally saying he thinks it was a try. The TMO could find no compelling evidence to the contrary and the try was awarded.
Interestingly though, if Briant had given the on-field decision of no try, it looks like that decision might have stood too, as there didn’t look to be “compelling evidence” that a try had been scored.
Up in the air … Rebooted
There is nothing worse than why you are asked a question and you know the answers highlights the stupidly of something. So, I would like to thank Mrs Mst for doing exactly that while discussing Top 5 items as she was watching the Women’s AFL.
“Why don’t women AFL players need to same rules as Rugby players to protect them in the air?”
It’s a damn good question. AFL not only have far more contests for the ball in the air, they actually market off it.
So let’s go back to what prompted this; Dargaville’s ridiculous yellow card.
Now, don’t misunderstand me, I believe that player welfare is paramount, but there are inherent risks in all sports, especially when elements such as a contest and the possibility of physical contact play a huge part in the sport.
We saw on the weekend James Dargaville receive a yellow card for contact with Israel Dagg while Dagg was playing at the ball (note the omission of the word contest!).
Based on the available evidence it appears that Dargaville was punished for attempting to take part in a contest and failing to take responsibility for the actions of another player who is willing, and knowingly undertaking a high risk manoeuvre and placing himself and those around him in a position of high risk.
Dargaville failed to have regard for the key principals of the Law and their application and failed to understand his role and the requirement of participating in the contest.
In attempting to contest the ball in the air, Dargaville failed on many fronts. Firstly he needed to take responsibility for the player who is going to put himself in danger, Dargaville should have anticipated that Dagg would do this. Dargaville then made the mistake of using a low risk (safe) strategy of positioning himself to catch the ball with his feet grounded. In attempting to participate in the contest Dargaville also failed to take due care and attention to what Dagg was doing by not taking his eyes off the ball; irrespective of the law being explicit that he must keep his eyes on the ball. Players must also be aware, prior to contesting the ball, if they will jump higher or lower than their opponent as this is a determining factor in the precautions they must take in abiding by the laws. Dargaville’s main error seemed to be that he did not jump, despite being in a very good position to be able to take the ball if Dagg had not jumped over the top of him.
Which does lead us back to one valid question asked by Mrs Mst while I was writing this and she was watching the womens AFL. Why don’t the womens AFL, or any AFL player, need the same ridiculous rules around a contest that is more prevalent in their game?
Note – even if the player/s going for the ball landed on their back, the player on the ground would not be penalised. Play on!
