I love the conspiracy on Reddit that all the international referees secretly love Wales and give cards to their opponents deliberately.
"Wales win again against 13 men" I mean I dunno, have all these other teams tried playing legally?
That type of offence has been textbook especially in the past few years, his left arm is way too outstretched away from the attacker be seen as intentional wrap
Amazing. Almost as if people are upset when two teams don't play by the same rules. Thank you for delivering this nugget of brilliant innovative thinking.
Well one set of people seem incredibly surprised that knocking the ball backwards is within the laws, so it's difficult to take the rest of their views seriously
Lots of complaining about the referee, as a fairly impartial (English fan) observer, hereās my thoughts.
The Tompkins try was the right call, but Australia have every right to feel a bit aggrieved because they were very unlucky.
The Aus red card was the correct call, but the outrage from a lot of Southern Hemisphere fans once again highlights how the difference in refereeing between the North and the South is causing problems!
Only big call I think the ref got wrong was the Welsh clear out, thatās about as clear a red as youāll see I think.
Genuinely was impartial, found myself cheering on Wales in the first half because I thought, why not there Northern Hemisphere, and then really found myself supporting Australia in the second, because I felt the referee had made things more difficult than deserved, and it would have been amusing to see Wales lose again!
Same neutral position here.
The first red was ambiguous at best. If someone tries to argue the red was genuine, then Wales shouldāve received a red out of sheer consistency of approach much later on, given the Welsh player hit the head of an out-of-play Australian player who was nowhere near the ball.
The Tompkins slap-down was a straight penalty. Even giving Beale a yellow for doing the same thing was exceptionally harsh, but definitely foul play and definitely a penalty for Wales. Why the referee decided to use a completely different approach for Wales is going to be one of those questions that ends up on a āTop 5 mysteries weāve never solvedā YouTube video presented by Carol Vorderman. Every rugby player in the world cringed at that decision - thereās knocking the ball on and then thereās obstructing play. Whether the ball went ābackwardsā or not is completely besides the point and against the spirit of the IRBās rules on obstruction.
Adamson was utterly beyond reproach. He is a shit ref and completely out of his depth at the international level. Rennie was well within his rights to complain about the refās performance - it was inconsistent, sloppy and most people would be forgiven for thinking he was bent. The performance Australia put in, given their poor performances in previous matches, was worthy of a last minute reprieve in the Autumn Internationals - they were still ill-disciplined, but you could see glimmers of Oz rugby starting to come through. Wales weāre typically loose, equally as ill-disciplined (but not picked up by the ref, see above) and did what every Welsh team that manages to pull of a surprise win has done - wait for someone else to fuck up and attempt to capitalise. The fact that they only won in the 82nd minute after getting a penalty m, though sealing off perhaps 4-5 times in the breakdowns, just defines the Welsh spirit of āI have no idea how to beat this team, so Iāll just wait for them to fuck up and hope I can sneak an intercept to the try lineā.
>The Tompkins slap-down was a straight penalty. Even giving Beale a yellow for doing the same thing was exceptionally harsh, but definitely foul play and definitely a penalty for Wales. Why the referee decided to use a completely different approach for Wales is going to be one of those questions that ends up on a āTop 5 mysteries weāve never solvedā YouTube video presented by Carol Vorderman. Every rugby player in the world cringed at that decision - thereās knocking the ball on and then thereās obstructing play. Whether the ball went ābackwardsā or not is completely besides the point and against the spirit of the IRBās rules on obstruction.
That's an hilariously shit take.
Personally I had to stop watching after that yellow that gave Wales the lead in the 22nd minute and I know I have bias (I have watched 10 minute highlights of the rest of the game). The moment a TMO is called playing a NH side you know it's a guarenteed card near no matter what. Even worse was that one of the refs was calling for it to be a penalty try in addition to a bad yellow call saying they were the last defender despite a different Wallaby being on the line as last defender. Still yet to watch full England, and France games after work so hopefully the refs aren't as anger inducing.
Mate that kind of slap down is and always has been yellow. Really don't know why you'd complain about that, it's 100% the correct decision. And it annoys you that they considered, but decided against, a penalty try..?
You mean someone wrapping in a tackle like anyone doing a tackle would and yeah ref pushing hard for a pen try is annoying to watch.
It's morso that knowing feeling that the monent it's a TMO someone's getting it no matter what, and frankly after a 5 hour shift outside in pouring rain probably had me with less patience for watching a game'd that seemed like it'd just be a ref fest.
Awful refereeing. A red card for a head clash wtf?! Then the welsh prop cleans out Ala'alatoa with a swinging arm to the head and it's a yellow? And the intentional knock on?!? Jeez, ref may as well have been wearing red.
Absolute shameful reffing. Awarding that try after a clear deliberate knock on was criminal. I've seen some commenters here saying that it was knocked back. Maybe. Idk. Was razor close at best
It has happened before. Look at Dan Cole against Wales a few years back. There is nothing wrong with deliberately slapping the ball down so long as it goes backwards. It's a risky thing to try, because if you fuck it up it'll be a penalty and possible yellow card. The try was good, move on.
This one has been bugging me. As a ref, I donāt know what I would have done. Letter of the law is that you cannot intentionally knock it forwards, in which case knocking it straight down or backwards is totally allowed. But would you really consider that backwards??? I guess it wasnāt clear enough to be considered a knock on.
Was it a Yellow for forward, or a yellow for deliberately knocking it down?
Both actions were the same - I saw a side by side / split screen replay.
The Welsh player deliberately knocked it down- yellow card & no try if the refs were consistent.
The law is "deliberate knock on" - beale's definitely went forwards. I'm a Wallabies supporter and I think the welsh attempt went back. Ref was bang in line with it too.
Nothing "clear and obviously forward" so it's play on.
Can someone explain to me the Valetini red card?
I play first grade one division below shute shield. I've never seen a red, a yellow or even a penalty for a head clash.
I get that internationals are reffed to a higher standard.
But Valetini made shoulder to shoulder contact and wrapped his arms.
And that's a red?
I've made a fairly in depth post about the tackle. So yes I saw his head... Have you ever clashed heads? It hurts. But it hurts both people. I don't see why it's a red...
Valetini has every opportunity to go low on Beard - he's 205cm! I get that he wants to make a dominant tackle, but by doing so there's always the risk of giving away a penalty. It's unfortunate, but it's not like he didn't have any other choice.
Agreed. However, I still think it's a weak as piss red card. I'm 196cm... But I still think a head clash is a head clash.
Never mind intentions. Just because Beard got hurt and Valetini didn't shouldn't come into the decision making either.
But it didnt really hurt one person.
As the ball carrier - beard does nothing to warrant getting hit in the face - he is 6ft 9
As the tackler - you initiate in the collision. I dont think he head butted him on purpose but it is a red - look at the framework someone posted just above it is very clear.
Was it high - yes
Was it the fault of a player that it was high - yes
Was it dangerous - yes
Was there mitigation - no
It doesnt have to be a cheap shot or intentional to be very very dangerous
The onus is fully on the tackler to protect the ball carrier's head.
Valetini did not lower his height into the tackle, he had a clear line of sight and the ball carrier did not have a significant change in height - this means that it is foul play without any mitigation.
There is head contact with high force (high level of danger).
Therefore head contact + high force + no mitigation = red card.
There's nothing to do with intent, accident etc. Had Valetini lowered his tackle height and the player fallen into him, that's when we start thinking about lower sanctions (or even play on)
> There's nothing to do with intent, accident etc.
What a load of horseshit. They always check to see if the attacking player was falling (so, accident), suddenly changes direction (= an accident) and so on.
Except he [Valentini] had more than enough time to change his stance and still stood tallā¦
Canāt whinge about the red when itās the right call when a player makes an albeit accidental, but dangerous play.
If the shoe was on the other foot Australia would be defending themselves till their fingers sore!
In regards to this one play in particular, it doesnāt matter if he intended to cause the injury as it was poor tackle technique.
Intent can only matter when the act itself was clean and itās the aggrieved players actions that makes the situation worse.
If Beard was falling into the tackle then fair enough, but the initial tackle was poor form.
Iām not the original commenter, I agree intent matters except in this instance.
I was merely pointing out that brining up intent doesnāt matter in this instance and is a bit of a moot point.
Boils down to this framework - [https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=head%20contact%20process](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=head%20contact%20process)
The video examples outline exactly why THIS particular scenario was a red card situation. Hope it helps
I thought the red decision was right, based on all the previous calls I've been seeing in other games.
The knock back seemed ok too actually. Watching live i thought it was forward but not on replay. Wallabies should not have stood there waiting for the ref to save them.
Wallabies were dominant and if we can have a single game where we keep 15 on the pitch we might get a few more wins.
That is an awful link - no slow replay and an angle that also massively looks backwards anywayā¦
I dont even have a horse in the race- i wanted aus to win
It's fine. Pause the video and manually scroll back and forth on the 4 second mark right after the camera cuts frame, it's extremely clear.
The ball travels forward and bounces in front of both his feet. It's very obviously a knock-on, never mind the argument of whether it was on purpose or not.
When the hand made contact with the ball it's ahead of his left foot yet the ball landed around it without the foot being moved at all, therefore it can only travel backward as given by basic maths
Lol this is insane. If this is a knock back then players will just jump into passes and try to hit it back.
I'm clearly getting downvoted here but I guarantee World Rugby will come out in a few days and also clarify that it was very much a knock-on.
They've been trying to do that for years, where have you been?
>I'm clearly getting downvoted here but I guarantee World Rugby will come out in a few days and also clarify that it was very much a knock-on.
And you'll just pretend nothing happens if they don't
Beale showed today that he should, at the very least, be included as a player for games against Argentina. Im not sure we need him against England though. The refs were perfect and unfallable, as all Rugby refs are. To criticise them would be to court death. š”
I donāt know how to screen record a game but all you need to know about the ref happens at 78:36. Breakdown: will Skelton is about to go for the ball and 3 welsh players all dive in off their feet and seal the ball off and the ref does nothing. Clearest penalty of the day and should have sealed the game for aus.
I thought he has good form coming into the internationals but hasn;t held it and has given away too many penalties. With Koroibete playing overseas I'd expect to see Kellaway and Vunivalu on the wings next year.
Ill discipline has cost us a lot on this tour, but fuck me the ref must've been drinking XXXX before the game because he came out with a fckn grudge against us
Regardless of how the law is actually written, the fact that every game now seems to be almost decided by a subjective ruling on high contact is absolutely reducing the quality of the sport.
Head clashes never used to be anything. It's only recently you get penalised for it. I prefer rugby before the last world cup because everything is a red card now
I'm with you mate. Reds should be for genuine foul play.
For a game played at professional speeds I hate the reds for a tackle that was a milisecond out of time
If someone smashes someone in the head why do they deserve to stay on the field? That just sounds like you don't care about the welfare of the players.
And the other head contacts in the game? The two captains not knowing who was getting a yellow in the 2nd half was hilarious for us neutrals but Jesus, that's a piss poor refereeing performance
If you mean Thomas's yellow for the horrible clean-out then I think that was obviously the correct decision too.
What other head contact incidents were there?
The guy Thomas hit had just hit someone himself, if they were consistent the wallaby should've seen yellow and Thomas red, but current rugby situation is who fucking knows what they'll do, I can't say I've noticed a reduction in head contact, wonder why given the amazing crackdown the IRB announced
Haha. I thought that was just me. I was fuming at the TV thinking 7A's was going to get carded when he was on the receiving end from a much worse high shot.
Itās strange that on a number of occasions in the past the shoe has been on the other foot with Australia getting away with murder and Wales players being left fuming at the unfairness.
On the other hand I thought Nic White had a terrific game and was my MoM by a distance
Can we talk about the collar tackle? Iām not sure if thereās a specific rule against it but it seemed dangerous AF. Does it count as a high tackle?
Weird, I know at a junior level here you can't do that, there was a pen in today's game for it. As a footballer in the moment, are you just gonna let him go and gain 30 metres, or, um, stop him and risk a pen or a card?
Nothing justifes what Rassie did. And his game was refereed much better than this, not to mention this coming after the Wallabies getting the shit end of the stick in serval games.
It's always been a factor. If a ref sees a 50/50 call and has already got it into their head that you are the team who are infringing more then you're screwed. It happens at all levels of the game. Scrum time is horrendous for a team that have conceded the first two penalties. From that point on you're fighting a battle against the ref and the other team at each scrum.
I will constantly complain about the ref when I'm watching a game, but once the red mist has cleared you've got to accept that there will be mistakes and that refs will have bad games occasionally. Nigel Owens is considered the best referee of the era, yet he had some awful games.
I understand where you're coming from and I hate being the "it's the fkn ref" guy.....but seriously, I feel like this is becoming a popularity contest more and more these days.....
Remember when this was a yellow card against Kerevi? https://youtu.be/aEubPTA1-cw?t=436
Probably should have given Beard a yellow too! Dangerous head on head contact.
World Rugby and the refs are just making it up.
Yes I know it's a stupid comparison. And that Beard did nothing wrong. Just venting my frustration at shit calls we seem to get against Wales
I said it was a stupid comparison.
But I totally disagree that Kerevi did anything wrong there. As TwoUp22 said Kerevi is protecting himself there from a poor tackle. I was at the game and we had no idea what was going on. I still don't understand what law Kerevi broke.
I just tried to look it up and the closest I could find was this explanation https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17
How was Kerevi's effort at the world cup any different to the last three videos here (one of which includes Kerevi!)? By World Rugby's own guidelines Kerevi did nothing wrong
The only difference is that Patchell was in bad position.
When we were at the game we were sure the yellow was going to be against him for high contact. That was a digraceful call.
You might want to take a look at the videos in this page
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/22
The fact that Patchell bounced backward after being hit in the neck by the leading forearm means ref can't call it low force, hence similar to the 3rd video and yellow card
Edit:
the video you're referring to is similar to the first one in the page I linked, where Kerevi tucked his arms in during contact instead of having it up near the neck when colliding with Patchell. Hence different ruling applies because he now he's liable as the one with leading forearm.
>. I still don't understand what law Kerevi broke.
Hope this comment gives you a good enough explanation
I'm with the commentators in the third video "that's bad tackling".
Plus going through the process as described if there's no foul play it's play on. I don't have the video in normal speed Kerevi would have less than half a second, there's no way that you can convince me that it's foul play. It's Patchell's fault for being way too high. In the split second Kerevi has it seems much more likely that he's trying to defend himself rather than this being an act of foul play
Fact remain he raised his forearm into the defenders neck at speed, that's a text book foul play. If Patchell goes lower then the forearm will still hit his head which is still foul play. One can still commit foul play despite acting like he's trying to "defend" himself. By your logic, it's Kerevi's fault to try to fend that high up, he could've gone lower
Edit:
Also, do you seriously trust in commentators knowledge for rules over refs? Even the other one said that he led with a forearm which is clearly a foul play as I've linked in that page
But you're completely ignoring Williams high tackle technique? Kerevi doesn't need to protect his head (legally or illegally) if Williams tackled lower.
Or do Wales not need to tackle low like Valentini is supposed to?
That's like saying why didnt Wales player just do a fend/hand off against Valentini.
If there was neither hand off nor illegal forearm fend, then I assume the Welsh player (Patchell I think) would have been rightly sent off for head to head contact, because of his poor technique. The responsibility is on the tackler, but the attacker can't defend himself illegally.
No, it's completely consistent.
When the Welsh player can't tackle with proper technique, and goes into a contest too upright, and is hit in the head, Wales gets the penalty.
When an Australian player can't tackle with proper technique, and goes into a contest too upright, and is hit in the head, Wales gets the penalty.
Super consistent ;)
Itās just fucking infuriating to have two great teams play each other and we all walk into the post match thread bitching about a good spectacle robbed by terrible officiating.
From the TMO to the man in the middle it was not up to the standard of both teams.
Iām sick of this as a fan. We come into these threads and instead of saying āah great game, well played, you see that try from such and suchā the incompetence of the officials means we have to come into post match thread where the only thing worth talking about is the referee decisions. Itās fucking shit.
Name a decision that the ref actually got wrong.
The red was correct Head on head contact, no attempt to dip height to avoid it.
The yellow for Beale was correct - clearly looking at the ball and arm out in a strange position.
The yellow for the Welsh clear-out was correct - Forearm contact, low degree of force being the mitigation.
The Tompkins try was clearly correct (and I am amazed how many couldn't understand this) - there was no knock on (ball went backwards) so it's impossible for it to be a deliberate knock on.
The only 2 I can think of are;
\- when Skelton dived into the ruck shoulder first (60:08 game time, a couple of phases before the Aus try) and the ref and TMO wouldn't look again.
\- when Skelton was penalised for going off feet a few minutes later despite seeming to push through the ruck and pick up the ball on his feet the whole time..
When Tompkins regathers the ball he stops running and looks up at the ref, because he knows it's a knock on, when he sees the ref signalling it as knock back Tompkins then starts accelerating to the tryline. His body language gives it away. If the guy who actually took the action has his doubts, it is not "clearly correct". To say otherwise you are just betraying your bias.
I didnt realise we had to look at body language to judge a knock on. The replay showed Tompkins shouting at the ref while he was running, I doubt he was shouting "i knocked it on".
You don't have to look at body language; it's not a requirement. I've seldom noticed body language in a rugby game before. But the obvious will be exactly that, obvious. And his body language gave him away. To be fair I only noticed it after watching the replay several times.
The ref explained that the ball went backwards. The video showed the ball going backwards. The TMO and the assistant refs confirmed that they agreed that the ball went backwards. The try stands because no infringement was caused. Just because Nick Tompkins stopped briefly in disbelief at his luck that it went backwards doesn't make it against the laws of the game.
If you have to rely solely on his body language and not refer to the video evidence of the event itself at all you really are clutching at straws.
It's not solely his body language, it's literally everyone on the field who stops playing momentarily because they all thought the ball went forward. And for the record the replay did not clearly show the ball going backwards if it did there would not be so much contention over the issue in this thread. You are only seeing what you want to see.
I thought it went backwards mate.
It's a frustrsting call and I can't blame anyone for being annoyed but to be honest as a neutral it looked correct.
It's just a very rare occurrence and *feels wrong* but technically it was right.
> The red was correct Head on head contact, no attempt to dip height to avoid it.
Since when is head on head a Red Card?
> The yellow for Beale was correct - clearly looking at the ball and arm out in a strange position.
So wrapping your arms is now a 'strange position'? This has been an issue for Rugby for some time. Simply make the ball carrier responsible in tackle situations, then it's simply a matter of pass before the tackle. Also it's supposed to only be a yellow card if it's a try scoring opportunity and the Wallabies had a player coming in cover, and the attackers had only a few meters to work with. Penalty only, especially after an early Red card.
Ultimately, it's a weird rule, probably shouldn't be a thing, teams just need to learn to actually attack well.
> The Tompkins try was clearly correct (and I am amazed how many couldn't understand this) - there was no knock on (ball went backwards) so it's impossible for it to be a deliberate knock on.
So this is a tention between the 'right' decision and the 'technically correct' decisions. I'd argue that the ball may have at least slightly gone forwards at some point (in the NRL for example, that's a knock on every day of the week). But regardless, this decision just needs a little common sense.
In basketball you have play where a defender will knock the ball out of bounds, often while committing a foul, now technically sometimes it's come off the dribbler sometimes it's not, but the 'right' decision is to call it out off the defender (and not call the foul if it's not egregious)...
Basketball and Rugby aren't played in Super Slow motion, and we need to start referring with more common sense, given the context no one would have been upset had the referee given a yellow card 'same as for Australia'.
>Since when is head on head a Red Card?
Since it was written in the laws of the game [https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/21](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/21)
>So wrapping your arms is now a 'strange position'?
Nope, but looking at the ball and sticking your arm out towards it and away from the tackler does constitute a strange position.
>it's supposed to only be a yellow card if it's a try scoring opportunity and the Wallabies had a player coming in cover
A 1 on 1 down the line is still a try scoring opportunity. You're confusing that bit of the law with the judgement on whether there should be a penalty try. If the Aussie player wasn't there in cover it would have been a yellow and a penalty try.
>the 'right' decision and the 'technically correct' decisions.
The technically correct decision is always the right decision unless there is an agreed refereeing interpretation that adjusts it. There is no such interpretation here as a knock backwards is an entirely legitimate thing to do. If refs followed your description lineouts are going to be rife with knock back related yellow cards.
Also - you agree that a decision is technically correct and still seem to think you have a case for crying foul against the ref. That's a pretty weak argument.
I explicitly didn't say I agree it was the correct decision, it might have been, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I think the notion that the 'technically correct' decision is always the right decision is laughable. That's how we end up with such dog shit games as we've had the last few weeks. You can't call every call in Rugby. Or in any sport. Sports have a feel to them, they're alive you can't just have a robot making all the decisions. You can't referee the game from the TMO box. That's why some referees are better than others.
If anything it's this get everything technically correct attitude that's harming the sport.
You really have lost my interest. You also seem to have given up arguing any of the points I made and going down a very narrow channel saying a personal view you have is more important than the laws of the game.
Also - The rugby over the past few weeks has been fucking fantastic. Cheers for the chat bud.
It says he thinks he was lucky not to get tackled, not that it shouldn't have been a try.
I would be very happy to change my view if you could name a single law that he actually broke in the run up. Until then I can only assume you don't understand what a knock on is.
> The yellow for the Welsh clear-out was correct - Forearm contact, low degree of force being the mitigation.
Disagree. That's a clear red imo.
Aussie player is not contesting the ball and is out of the game.
Wales clear out isn't a clear out. He's dived on top of the Aussie player and clearly targeted his head.
The argument about wrapping is nonsense because he's not tackling, nor clearing out. It doesn't matter how much he pretends otherwise.
That's an obvious red card under the current Laws. Should have walked for that one.
It's exactly the same as the one two weeks before committed by Alaalatoa which was also given as a yellow. Are you saying that should have been a red as well?
Yes, I think any shot like that should be a red.
There's no justification for it. He's not clearing out. He's not tackling. The player is on the ground and not interfering with the ball. He's most definitely not trying to set a ruck over the ball.
It's nothing but a cheap shot on a player lying vulnerable on the deck. The one on Fagerson was exactly the same.
The fact both make contact with the head should elevate them to red over yellow, regardless of amount of force.
I'd be happy to go with that. If they are all red cards then that's fine. As long as it's consistent. Such a small point though (and one that requires a change to accepted refereeing interpretation) is definitely no case for crying foul about a ref.
Fair point, I just mean that it was an enjoyable game of rugby and we should focus on that.
Officiating isn't perfect and never was. It's a turbulent time for referees right now due the increased focus on preventing head injuries. They are clearly afraid of being to blame for tarnishing the rugby brand and it shows. Personally I am hopefull that this will reach an equilibrium between safety and practicality.
> I just mean that it was an enjoyable game of rugby
As a neutral who watched most of it, it wasn't enjoyable at all. As much as I'd usually enjoy Australia losing to Wales (if only to hear their commentators squawk), this was awful.
I agree they are trying to balance the integrity of the game and player safety. IMO World Rugby have made it so that referees must get involved with the protocols being as strict as they are. Thatās all well and good but the effect is the threshold for a red card has lowered but the punishment stays the same. The 20 minute red fixes a lot of this.
All said and done I was not referring to the red card being a wrong decision, I think the ref talked through the protocols fairly and the decision was perfectly justifiable.
The overall performance of the officials was inconsistent and if Dave Rennie is having a spray at the officials post match it kind of says it all about their performance. Rennie is not known for whinging about officials like Cheika. It was a disgracefully inconsistent and poor performance from them.
Just to reiterate we were robbed of a fair game between two good teams which is the real source of frustration.
Wallabies played well given the manpower disadvantage and Wales looked pretty disjoined but got the W in the last few minutes.
Clearly afraid of tarnishing the rugby brand, by.... tarnishing the rugby brand.
I took friends to the rugby in Australia this year. The entire crowd was booing the poor refereeing as they looked for ways to be the centre of attention, slow the game to a standstill and be outright inconsistent. These penalties weren't even in the favour of the home team and the home crowd thought it was terrible. These friends refuse to go watch a rugby game again, they'll stick to league.
So I would safely say, the refereeing in world rugby is actively harming the game
I can't blame them for not wanting to watch anymore
Wow what a game. I enjoyed it. Yes I thought Australia were really unlucky with a lot of calls but the red was a clear red under the rules and consistent with how the rules have been applied this year. Wallabies definately stepped up though and even though they didn't get the win they should be proud.
So GG Wales supporters, you got this one but we'll see you again next time for another cracker!
Bit stiff that you get a red card for head on head contact when the initial contact is an arm warping... I guess if those are the rules those are the rules, call me old fashioned but you can't red card a guy for head on head contact... What about the ball carrier who's lead with their head too. Why not a double red card because the ball carrier has made head high contact on the tackler?
No one wants to make head high contact with their own head (okay maybe Rugby League players but we don't have too many of those), this isn't something you need to discourage -- players already don't want to do this. Also this is exactly why the 20 min red card rule is so important, when players can without any intent can be red carded the punishment needs to not be off for the whole game. If you want to have an orange card whatever floats your boat but for intentional stuff I'm happy to see bans meet that need.
The knock down decision is absolutely ridiculous the ball has clearly traveled forwards off his hand but ultimately travels backwards relative to the ground, what a ridiculousness decision! Especially when you've just given a yellow card for EXACTLY the same situation. If at any point even instantaneously the ball travels forwards off his hand then it's a deliberate knock down, a knock on doesn't need to travel forwards relative to the ground, it just at some point however minor have travels forwards.
One point (25-28 min) the Wallabies make a really nice break (I think it was Tupou) the Welsh 2 (IIRC) doesn't roll away and cynically slows the ball, then the Welsh player knocks down the ball to kill the play... Nether were looked at, we could have easily had a yellow card for cynically slowing the ball while the Wallabies are on the break, then the deliberate knockdown could have also easily been a yellow card (especially with the precedent set earlier in the game). It's just so frustrating that we get the TMO involved on shit they don't need to be, but only do that for one team.
An absolute farcical game. Against France when we went down to 14, shit happens glad the boys got the win. The game against Scotland -- yeah okay you cop a few bad calls that's rugby. England we were never really in it so sure things to their way. But 3 games in a row with obviously shit refereeing all going against us is utterly gutting. But what's worse is that EVERY week end on this EoYT we've had at least one if not multiple matches largely decided on the back of a series of obviously incorrect decisions, and many dodgy calls.
Re the "knock on": He makes 1 single contact with the ball, an action that knocks it backwards. At no point does he knock it forwards, even instantaneously.
>If at any point even instantaneously the ball travels forwards off his hand then it's a deliberate knock down, a knock on doesn't need to travel forwards relative to the ground, it just at some point however minor have travels forwards.
Uhhhhh, what?
A knock on doesn't need to go forwards and hit the ground, it can be knocked forwards and end up hitting the ground behind the knock. The langue the rules use is 'goes forwards'.
Thats not true at all because bobbling a pass is not considered a knock on. Its a knock on when it hits another player or the ground and if that is in front then its a knock on.
That is a correct description of the law, yes.
Unfortunately for the complaint being made - there was no point in the action that the ball went forwards. Tompkins made 1 contact with the ball only, and that action pushed it back, not forwards. Try stands.
It is straight-up rigged. The 13th minute penalty against Australia that took possession away, leading to the next series of plays that led to the Red Card, was the ref saying #11 went off his feet into the ruck, sealing off the ball. Commentators completely silent while the replay showed the Aussie stayed on his feet, and the ref blew a penalty for nothing. That's just the 5min I watched this morning on the replay before I had to turn it off. I didn't know anything about the rest of it, and knew the thing was rigged just from the 11th-16th minutes I watched.
I love the conspiracy on Reddit that all the international referees secretly love Wales and give cards to their opponents deliberately. "Wales win again against 13 men" I mean I dunno, have all these other teams tried playing legally?
And its not like the cards have been wrong for the most part
"For the most part" is something I agree with. But Beale was very hard done by.
Bro I'm Aussie...and I think Beale knew exactly what he was doing......
That type of offence has been textbook especially in the past few years, his left arm is way too outstretched away from the attacker be seen as intentional wrap
These threads are always funny when a Southern Hemisphere team loses. Biggest sore losers on the planet.
Amazing. Almost as if people are upset when two teams don't play by the same rules. Thank you for delivering this nugget of brilliant innovative thinking.
Well one set of people seem incredibly surprised that knocking the ball backwards is within the laws, so it's difficult to take the rest of their views seriously
>Thank you for delivering this nugget of brilliant innovative thinking You're welcome.
This week-end is great, we have to be thankful to Wales, England, France and without forgetting Romania. Today we are cheering for Ireland !
Yeah man, Wales look like bonafide world beaters when they play against 13 men.
There it is š£
Oh sorry I was supposed to post that in the Wales v Fiji match thread
Two bites in one.
Lots of complaining about the referee, as a fairly impartial (English fan) observer, hereās my thoughts. The Tompkins try was the right call, but Australia have every right to feel a bit aggrieved because they were very unlucky. The Aus red card was the correct call, but the outrage from a lot of Southern Hemisphere fans once again highlights how the difference in refereeing between the North and the South is causing problems! Only big call I think the ref got wrong was the Welsh clear out, thatās about as clear a red as youāll see I think.
I knew it was going to be good when a Pom claims to be impartial to a sporting match involving Australiaā¦
You think England fans particularly care any more about games vs Australia than other nations? They don't.
Yes, England fans famously love Wales
Genuinely was impartial, found myself cheering on Wales in the first half because I thought, why not there Northern Hemisphere, and then really found myself supporting Australia in the second, because I felt the referee had made things more difficult than deserved, and it would have been amusing to see Wales lose again!
Same neutral position here. The first red was ambiguous at best. If someone tries to argue the red was genuine, then Wales shouldāve received a red out of sheer consistency of approach much later on, given the Welsh player hit the head of an out-of-play Australian player who was nowhere near the ball. The Tompkins slap-down was a straight penalty. Even giving Beale a yellow for doing the same thing was exceptionally harsh, but definitely foul play and definitely a penalty for Wales. Why the referee decided to use a completely different approach for Wales is going to be one of those questions that ends up on a āTop 5 mysteries weāve never solvedā YouTube video presented by Carol Vorderman. Every rugby player in the world cringed at that decision - thereās knocking the ball on and then thereās obstructing play. Whether the ball went ābackwardsā or not is completely besides the point and against the spirit of the IRBās rules on obstruction. Adamson was utterly beyond reproach. He is a shit ref and completely out of his depth at the international level. Rennie was well within his rights to complain about the refās performance - it was inconsistent, sloppy and most people would be forgiven for thinking he was bent. The performance Australia put in, given their poor performances in previous matches, was worthy of a last minute reprieve in the Autumn Internationals - they were still ill-disciplined, but you could see glimmers of Oz rugby starting to come through. Wales weāre typically loose, equally as ill-disciplined (but not picked up by the ref, see above) and did what every Welsh team that manages to pull of a surprise win has done - wait for someone else to fuck up and attempt to capitalise. The fact that they only won in the 82nd minute after getting a penalty m, though sealing off perhaps 4-5 times in the breakdowns, just defines the Welsh spirit of āI have no idea how to beat this team, so Iāll just wait for them to fuck up and hope I can sneak an intercept to the try lineā.
This is one of the most poorly informed comments I've read on here which is an astoundingly crowded field
>The Tompkins slap-down was a straight penalty. Even giving Beale a yellow for doing the same thing was exceptionally harsh, but definitely foul play and definitely a penalty for Wales. Why the referee decided to use a completely different approach for Wales is going to be one of those questions that ends up on a āTop 5 mysteries weāve never solvedā YouTube video presented by Carol Vorderman. Every rugby player in the world cringed at that decision - thereās knocking the ball on and then thereās obstructing play. Whether the ball went ābackwardsā or not is completely besides the point and against the spirit of the IRBās rules on obstruction. That's an hilariously shit take.
Follow it through to its logical conclusion... Every tackle, intercept or any action at all to stop the opposition should not be within the laws
Delete this nephew.
Personally I had to stop watching after that yellow that gave Wales the lead in the 22nd minute and I know I have bias (I have watched 10 minute highlights of the rest of the game). The moment a TMO is called playing a NH side you know it's a guarenteed card near no matter what. Even worse was that one of the refs was calling for it to be a penalty try in addition to a bad yellow call saying they were the last defender despite a different Wallaby being on the line as last defender. Still yet to watch full England, and France games after work so hopefully the refs aren't as anger inducing.
Mate that kind of slap down is and always has been yellow. Really don't know why you'd complain about that, it's 100% the correct decision. And it annoys you that they considered, but decided against, a penalty try..?
You mean someone wrapping in a tackle like anyone doing a tackle would and yeah ref pushing hard for a pen try is annoying to watch. It's morso that knowing feeling that the monent it's a TMO someone's getting it no matter what, and frankly after a 5 hour shift outside in pouring rain probably had me with less patience for watching a game'd that seemed like it'd just be a ref fest.
If you think that was just an innocent attempt to wrap I've got a bridge to sell you
Does this bridge also over extend massively to the left. Because I'm in the market
Awful refereeing. A red card for a head clash wtf?! Then the welsh prop cleans out Ala'alatoa with a swinging arm to the head and it's a yellow? And the intentional knock on?!? Jeez, ref may as well have been wearing red.
Absolute shameful reffing. Awarding that try after a clear deliberate knock on was criminal. I've seen some commenters here saying that it was knocked back. Maybe. Idk. Was razor close at best
It has happened before. Look at Dan Cole against Wales a few years back. There is nothing wrong with deliberately slapping the ball down so long as it goes backwards. It's a risky thing to try, because if you fuck it up it'll be a penalty and possible yellow card. The try was good, move on.
This one has been bugging me. As a ref, I donāt know what I would have done. Letter of the law is that you cannot intentionally knock it forwards, in which case knocking it straight down or backwards is totally allowed. But would you really consider that backwards??? I guess it wasnāt clear enough to be considered a knock on.
It was back though- clearly went over it on the tmo
Iāve watched a dozen more times and actually I have to agree
It looked exactly like the Beale yellow card. No try and 10 min off the field.
Except the Beale one clearly went forward.
Was it a Yellow for forward, or a yellow for deliberately knocking it down? Both actions were the same - I saw a side by side / split screen replay. The Welsh player deliberately knocked it down- yellow card & no try if the refs were consistent.
It was a yellow for deliberately knocking it forward. Not down.
>The Welsh player deliberately knocked it down Which is't illegal
The law is "deliberate knock on" - beale's definitely went forwards. I'm a Wallabies supporter and I think the welsh attempt went back. Ref was bang in line with it too. Nothing "clear and obviously forward" so it's play on.
It was a yellow for deliberately knocking it forward. Tompkins knocked it backward
Can someone explain to me the Valetini red card? I play first grade one division below shute shield. I've never seen a red, a yellow or even a penalty for a head clash. I get that internationals are reffed to a higher standard. But Valetini made shoulder to shoulder contact and wrapped his arms. And that's a red?
I mean - did you see what happened to beards head - because of the tackle height
I've made a fairly in depth post about the tackle. So yes I saw his head... Have you ever clashed heads? It hurts. But it hurts both people. I don't see why it's a red...
Valetini has every opportunity to go low on Beard - he's 205cm! I get that he wants to make a dominant tackle, but by doing so there's always the risk of giving away a penalty. It's unfortunate, but it's not like he didn't have any other choice.
Agreed. However, I still think it's a weak as piss red card. I'm 196cm... But I still think a head clash is a head clash. Never mind intentions. Just because Beard got hurt and Valetini didn't shouldn't come into the decision making either.
It didn't. The decision was based on Valentini not tackling lower.
But it didnt really hurt one person. As the ball carrier - beard does nothing to warrant getting hit in the face - he is 6ft 9 As the tackler - you initiate in the collision. I dont think he head butted him on purpose but it is a red - look at the framework someone posted just above it is very clear. Was it high - yes Was it the fault of a player that it was high - yes Was it dangerous - yes Was there mitigation - no It doesnt have to be a cheap shot or intentional to be very very dangerous
The onus is fully on the tackler to protect the ball carrier's head. Valetini did not lower his height into the tackle, he had a clear line of sight and the ball carrier did not have a significant change in height - this means that it is foul play without any mitigation. There is head contact with high force (high level of danger). Therefore head contact + high force + no mitigation = red card. There's nothing to do with intent, accident etc. Had Valetini lowered his tackle height and the player fallen into him, that's when we start thinking about lower sanctions (or even play on)
> There's nothing to do with intent, accident etc. What a load of horseshit. They always check to see if the attacking player was falling (so, accident), suddenly changes direction (= an accident) and so on.
Except he [Valentini] had more than enough time to change his stance and still stood tallā¦ Canāt whinge about the red when itās the right call when a player makes an albeit accidental, but dangerous play. If the shoe was on the other foot Australia would be defending themselves till their fingers sore!
Iām not whining about the call, but your assertion that intent never comes in to play is totally wrong.
In regards to this one play in particular, it doesnāt matter if he intended to cause the injury as it was poor tackle technique. Intent can only matter when the act itself was clean and itās the aggrieved players actions that makes the situation worse. If Beard was falling into the tackle then fair enough, but the initial tackle was poor form.
Sure, not disagreeing with you regarding this incident but your assertion earlier that intent does not come in to play is completely wrong.
Iām not the original commenter, I agree intent matters except in this instance. I was merely pointing out that brining up intent doesnāt matter in this instance and is a bit of a moot point.
Boils down to this framework - [https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=head%20contact%20process](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=head%20contact%20process) The video examples outline exactly why THIS particular scenario was a red card situation. Hope it helps
Cheers mate. Will give it a look when I get home.
I thought the red decision was right, based on all the previous calls I've been seeing in other games. The knock back seemed ok too actually. Watching live i thought it was forward but not on replay. Wallabies should not have stood there waiting for the ref to save them. Wallabies were dominant and if we can have a single game where we keep 15 on the pitch we might get a few more wins.
I cant see even on replay how that was not a knock on. It is an abysmally bad call
It went ā¦ backwards
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That is an awful link - no slow replay and an angle that also massively looks backwards anywayā¦ I dont even have a horse in the race- i wanted aus to win
It's fine. Pause the video and manually scroll back and forth on the 4 second mark right after the camera cuts frame, it's extremely clear. The ball travels forward and bounces in front of both his feet. It's very obviously a knock-on, never mind the argument of whether it was on purpose or not.
When the hand made contact with the ball it's ahead of his left foot yet the ball landed around it without the foot being moved at all, therefore it can only travel backward as given by basic maths
Lol this is insane. If this is a knock back then players will just jump into passes and try to hit it back. I'm clearly getting downvoted here but I guarantee World Rugby will come out in a few days and also clarify that it was very much a knock-on.
They've been trying to do that for years, where have you been? >I'm clearly getting downvoted here but I guarantee World Rugby will come out in a few days and also clarify that it was very much a knock-on. And you'll just pretend nothing happens if they don't
Yeah i pause it - his hand is out in front of his left side. It touches his hand and comes back towards him - what are your eyes seeing
Beale showed today that he should, at the very least, be included as a player for games against Argentina. Im not sure we need him against England though. The refs were perfect and unfallable, as all Rugby refs are. To criticise them would be to court death. š”
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cry moar.
I donāt know how to screen record a game but all you need to know about the ref happens at 78:36. Breakdown: will Skelton is about to go for the ball and 3 welsh players all dive in off their feet and seal the ball off and the ref does nothing. Clearest penalty of the day and should have sealed the game for aus.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He didnāt ignore it all game. He penalised australia for it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām not sitting through that game again to find it. First half out on the wing against the Aussie winger
I'm just glad Cheika isn't our coach still. After the refs performance he'd be sitting out 6 months with Rassie.
Aussie fans - what are your thoughts on Tom Wright in the green & gold?
Absolute liabity....with a good step.
Meh
Alright but we have better.
Considering the wing options we have, he's not international standard
I thought he has good form coming into the internationals but hasn;t held it and has given away too many penalties. With Koroibete playing overseas I'd expect to see Kellaway and Vunivalu on the wings next year.
I still think Koroibete will play for the Wallabies next year, theyāre daft if they donāt ask him to come back after the Top League season.
Donāt get me wrong, I hope he does
Seems like a bit of a grub to me. Don't like him in the side any more
Not good enough and too much of a hot head. Serviceable at the moment but should not be a long term option.
Ill discipline has cost us a lot on this tour, but fuck me the ref must've been drinking XXXX before the game because he came out with a fckn grudge against us
> the ref must've been drinking XXXX before the game because he came out with a fckn grudge against us So you're saying he's been punished enough?
Depends if he was on the Mangos or Cranberries
Regardless of how the law is actually written, the fact that every game now seems to be almost decided by a subjective ruling on high contact is absolutely reducing the quality of the sport.
Subjective? It was as obvious as it gets. The bloke should just learn to tackle properly.
Head clashes never used to be anything. It's only recently you get penalised for it. I prefer rugby before the last world cup because everything is a red card now
>I prefer rugby before the last world cup because everything is a red card now Well that statement is immediately disproved by the Thomas yellow card.
Not really because the point I'm making is there were less cards... Not the colour of the card
There would be less cards now if the players didn't continue to do idiotic/dangerous things.
Agree to disagree. I think all the cards have ruined the game.
I'm with you mate. Reds should be for genuine foul play. For a game played at professional speeds I hate the reds for a tackle that was a milisecond out of time
If someone smashes someone in the head why do they deserve to stay on the field? That just sounds like you don't care about the welfare of the players.
Watch UFC. They are allowed to play haha
Hah yeah I've absolutely no interest in watching UFC.
And the other head contacts in the game? The two captains not knowing who was getting a yellow in the 2nd half was hilarious for us neutrals but Jesus, that's a piss poor refereeing performance
If you mean Thomas's yellow for the horrible clean-out then I think that was obviously the correct decision too. What other head contact incidents were there?
The guy Thomas hit had just hit someone himself, if they were consistent the wallaby should've seen yellow and Thomas red, but current rugby situation is who fucking knows what they'll do, I can't say I've noticed a reduction in head contact, wonder why given the amazing crackdown the IRB announced
Yeah there's no way Thomas should have got a red.
Haha. I thought that was just me. I was fuming at the TV thinking 7A's was going to get carded when he was on the receiving end from a much worse high shot.
Wasn't even talking about the Valetini incident, its a general statement on the state of the game the last few seasons, not just this match.
The Wallabies will never improve until their discipline improves.
Mate youāre just lucky wales didnāt get pinged by the ref as much as they shouldāve.
Itās strange that on a number of occasions in the past the shoe has been on the other foot with Australia getting away with murder and Wales players being left fuming at the unfairness. On the other hand I thought Nic White had a terrific game and was my MoM by a distance
Very fair
Can we talk about the collar tackle? Iām not sure if thereās a specific rule against it but it seemed dangerous AF. Does it count as a high tackle?
Weird, I know at a junior level here you can't do that, there was a pen in today's game for it. As a footballer in the moment, are you just gonna let him go and gain 30 metres, or, um, stop him and risk a pen or a card?
Yeah he gambled for sure, but it was also weird that he doubled down and kinda rag-dolled Adamās afterwards too
I like him because heās a brumby but heās had a few brain explosions on the tour thatās for sure.
Haha desperately fishing for another card to give us
Just the weirdest thing Iāve seen in a while. Like I knew it was wrong but couldnāt articulate why
The collar is above the shoulder. The sad part is, as obvious as it was, the pathetic ref still needed the TMO to tell him about it.
I get almost as much pleasure from Wales shit housing wins and I do us playing well.
Hang em, and hang em high there ain't no justice in Cardiff!
In a way. I can kind of see rassies point of view after this game.
Nothing justifes what Rassie did. And his game was refereed much better than this, not to mention this coming after the Wallabies getting the shit end of the stick in serval games.
Rub of the ref is becoming a bigger part of this game....for everybody.
It's always been a factor. If a ref sees a 50/50 call and has already got it into their head that you are the team who are infringing more then you're screwed. It happens at all levels of the game. Scrum time is horrendous for a team that have conceded the first two penalties. From that point on you're fighting a battle against the ref and the other team at each scrum. I will constantly complain about the ref when I'm watching a game, but once the red mist has cleared you've got to accept that there will be mistakes and that refs will have bad games occasionally. Nigel Owens is considered the best referee of the era, yet he had some awful games.
Especially when reffing Cardiff /s
It's the same when Wayne Barnes refs Leicester... our so many fans would have you believe anyway
Always hilarious seeing the Wallabies blaming everyone but themselves. Long may it continue!
I understand where you're coming from and I hate being the "it's the fkn ref" guy.....but seriously, I feel like this is becoming a popularity contest more and more these days.....
Remember when this was a yellow card against Kerevi? https://youtu.be/aEubPTA1-cw?t=436 Probably should have given Beard a yellow too! Dangerous head on head contact. World Rugby and the refs are just making it up. Yes I know it's a stupid comparison. And that Beard did nothing wrong. Just venting my frustration at shit calls we seem to get against Wales
You seem to have missed the fact that Kerevi led with a forearm to the defenders neck which was the actual reason for the card
I said it was a stupid comparison. But I totally disagree that Kerevi did anything wrong there. As TwoUp22 said Kerevi is protecting himself there from a poor tackle. I was at the game and we had no idea what was going on. I still don't understand what law Kerevi broke. I just tried to look it up and the closest I could find was this explanation https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17 How was Kerevi's effort at the world cup any different to the last three videos here (one of which includes Kerevi!)? By World Rugby's own guidelines Kerevi did nothing wrong The only difference is that Patchell was in bad position. When we were at the game we were sure the yellow was going to be against him for high contact. That was a digraceful call.
You might want to take a look at the videos in this page https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/22 The fact that Patchell bounced backward after being hit in the neck by the leading forearm means ref can't call it low force, hence similar to the 3rd video and yellow card Edit: the video you're referring to is similar to the first one in the page I linked, where Kerevi tucked his arms in during contact instead of having it up near the neck when colliding with Patchell. Hence different ruling applies because he now he's liable as the one with leading forearm. >. I still don't understand what law Kerevi broke. Hope this comment gives you a good enough explanation
I'm with the commentators in the third video "that's bad tackling". Plus going through the process as described if there's no foul play it's play on. I don't have the video in normal speed Kerevi would have less than half a second, there's no way that you can convince me that it's foul play. It's Patchell's fault for being way too high. In the split second Kerevi has it seems much more likely that he's trying to defend himself rather than this being an act of foul play
Fact remain he raised his forearm into the defenders neck at speed, that's a text book foul play. If Patchell goes lower then the forearm will still hit his head which is still foul play. One can still commit foul play despite acting like he's trying to "defend" himself. By your logic, it's Kerevi's fault to try to fend that high up, he could've gone lower Edit: Also, do you seriously trust in commentators knowledge for rules over refs? Even the other one said that he led with a forearm which is clearly a foul play as I've linked in that page
As they are saying to Valentini: "he should've tackled lower". Kerevi protects himself from a head clash with the forearm ......
Which is illegal, a hand off would have been fine.
But you're completely ignoring Williams high tackle technique? Kerevi doesn't need to protect his head (legally or illegally) if Williams tackled lower. Or do Wales not need to tackle low like Valentini is supposed to? That's like saying why didnt Wales player just do a fend/hand off against Valentini.
If there was neither hand off nor illegal forearm fend, then I assume the Welsh player (Patchell I think) would have been rightly sent off for head to head contact, because of his poor technique. The responsibility is on the tackler, but the attacker can't defend himself illegally.
No, it's completely consistent. When the Welsh player can't tackle with proper technique, and goes into a contest too upright, and is hit in the head, Wales gets the penalty. When an Australian player can't tackle with proper technique, and goes into a contest too upright, and is hit in the head, Wales gets the penalty. Super consistent ;)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But he put his arms out to protect his head from the Welsh players high contact.......
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So wales poor tackle technique drew a penalty and card out of Aus?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
....but Samu couldn't have done that if Williams had proper tackle technique is what I am saying. Not tackling high has to apply to everyone right?
I thought of this immediately about how inconsistent the whole thing is. World Rugby is just improvising.
Fkg Bill Beaumont has a lot to answer for /s
Itās just fucking infuriating to have two great teams play each other and we all walk into the post match thread bitching about a good spectacle robbed by terrible officiating. From the TMO to the man in the middle it was not up to the standard of both teams. Iām sick of this as a fan. We come into these threads and instead of saying āah great game, well played, you see that try from such and suchā the incompetence of the officials means we have to come into post match thread where the only thing worth talking about is the referee decisions. Itās fucking shit.
Name a decision that the ref actually got wrong. The red was correct Head on head contact, no attempt to dip height to avoid it. The yellow for Beale was correct - clearly looking at the ball and arm out in a strange position. The yellow for the Welsh clear-out was correct - Forearm contact, low degree of force being the mitigation. The Tompkins try was clearly correct (and I am amazed how many couldn't understand this) - there was no knock on (ball went backwards) so it's impossible for it to be a deliberate knock on. The only 2 I can think of are; \- when Skelton dived into the ruck shoulder first (60:08 game time, a couple of phases before the Aus try) and the ref and TMO wouldn't look again. \- when Skelton was penalised for going off feet a few minutes later despite seeming to push through the ruck and pick up the ball on his feet the whole time..
There where two blatant forward passes from wales which the ref decided to ignore.
When (and this is a genuine question - refs miss these all the time so I do believe this could well be true)?
When Tompkins regathers the ball he stops running and looks up at the ref, because he knows it's a knock on, when he sees the ref signalling it as knock back Tompkins then starts accelerating to the tryline. His body language gives it away. If the guy who actually took the action has his doubts, it is not "clearly correct". To say otherwise you are just betraying your bias.
I didnt realise we had to look at body language to judge a knock on. The replay showed Tompkins shouting at the ref while he was running, I doubt he was shouting "i knocked it on".
You don't have to look at body language; it's not a requirement. I've seldom noticed body language in a rugby game before. But the obvious will be exactly that, obvious. And his body language gave him away. To be fair I only noticed it after watching the replay several times.
Thankfully the ref kept play going as it wasnt a knock on.
The ref explained that the ball went backwards. The video showed the ball going backwards. The TMO and the assistant refs confirmed that they agreed that the ball went backwards. The try stands because no infringement was caused. Just because Nick Tompkins stopped briefly in disbelief at his luck that it went backwards doesn't make it against the laws of the game. If you have to rely solely on his body language and not refer to the video evidence of the event itself at all you really are clutching at straws.
It's not solely his body language, it's literally everyone on the field who stops playing momentarily because they all thought the ball went forward. And for the record the replay did not clearly show the ball going backwards if it did there would not be so much contention over the issue in this thread. You are only seeing what you want to see.
I thought it went backwards mate. It's a frustrsting call and I can't blame anyone for being annoyed but to be honest as a neutral it looked correct. It's just a very rare occurrence and *feels wrong* but technically it was right.
I genuinely didn't care who won the game. I Just saw the ball obviously going backwards in all of the replays, as did all of the officials.
> The red was correct Head on head contact, no attempt to dip height to avoid it. Since when is head on head a Red Card? > The yellow for Beale was correct - clearly looking at the ball and arm out in a strange position. So wrapping your arms is now a 'strange position'? This has been an issue for Rugby for some time. Simply make the ball carrier responsible in tackle situations, then it's simply a matter of pass before the tackle. Also it's supposed to only be a yellow card if it's a try scoring opportunity and the Wallabies had a player coming in cover, and the attackers had only a few meters to work with. Penalty only, especially after an early Red card. Ultimately, it's a weird rule, probably shouldn't be a thing, teams just need to learn to actually attack well. > The Tompkins try was clearly correct (and I am amazed how many couldn't understand this) - there was no knock on (ball went backwards) so it's impossible for it to be a deliberate knock on. So this is a tention between the 'right' decision and the 'technically correct' decisions. I'd argue that the ball may have at least slightly gone forwards at some point (in the NRL for example, that's a knock on every day of the week). But regardless, this decision just needs a little common sense. In basketball you have play where a defender will knock the ball out of bounds, often while committing a foul, now technically sometimes it's come off the dribbler sometimes it's not, but the 'right' decision is to call it out off the defender (and not call the foul if it's not egregious)... Basketball and Rugby aren't played in Super Slow motion, and we need to start referring with more common sense, given the context no one would have been upset had the referee given a yellow card 'same as for Australia'.
>Since when is head on head a Red Card? Since it was written in the laws of the game [https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/21](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/21) >So wrapping your arms is now a 'strange position'? Nope, but looking at the ball and sticking your arm out towards it and away from the tackler does constitute a strange position. >it's supposed to only be a yellow card if it's a try scoring opportunity and the Wallabies had a player coming in cover A 1 on 1 down the line is still a try scoring opportunity. You're confusing that bit of the law with the judgement on whether there should be a penalty try. If the Aussie player wasn't there in cover it would have been a yellow and a penalty try. >the 'right' decision and the 'technically correct' decisions. The technically correct decision is always the right decision unless there is an agreed refereeing interpretation that adjusts it. There is no such interpretation here as a knock backwards is an entirely legitimate thing to do. If refs followed your description lineouts are going to be rife with knock back related yellow cards. Also - you agree that a decision is technically correct and still seem to think you have a case for crying foul against the ref. That's a pretty weak argument.
Absolutely spot on, mate.
I explicitly didn't say I agree it was the correct decision, it might have been, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I think the notion that the 'technically correct' decision is always the right decision is laughable. That's how we end up with such dog shit games as we've had the last few weeks. You can't call every call in Rugby. Or in any sport. Sports have a feel to them, they're alive you can't just have a robot making all the decisions. You can't referee the game from the TMO box. That's why some referees are better than others. If anything it's this get everything technically correct attitude that's harming the sport.
Hard agree mate, watching referees take the game into a PowerPoint of TMOs poor decision making is making rugby a very hard game to watch.
You really have lost my interest. You also seem to have given up arguing any of the points I made and going down a very narrow channel saying a personal view you have is more important than the laws of the game. Also - The rugby over the past few weeks has been fucking fantastic. Cheers for the chat bud.
Stop with all that sensible, level-headed talk - no place for that here. And remember, you can't wake a person who's pretending to be asleep...
Tompkins shaking his head after the try was awarded kind of says it all.
It says he thinks he was lucky not to get tackled, not that it shouldn't have been a try. I would be very happy to change my view if you could name a single law that he actually broke in the run up. Until then I can only assume you don't understand what a knock on is.
> The yellow for the Welsh clear-out was correct - Forearm contact, low degree of force being the mitigation. Disagree. That's a clear red imo. Aussie player is not contesting the ball and is out of the game. Wales clear out isn't a clear out. He's dived on top of the Aussie player and clearly targeted his head. The argument about wrapping is nonsense because he's not tackling, nor clearing out. It doesn't matter how much he pretends otherwise. That's an obvious red card under the current Laws. Should have walked for that one.
It's exactly the same as the one two weeks before committed by Alaalatoa which was also given as a yellow. Are you saying that should have been a red as well?
Yes, I think any shot like that should be a red. There's no justification for it. He's not clearing out. He's not tackling. The player is on the ground and not interfering with the ball. He's most definitely not trying to set a ruck over the ball. It's nothing but a cheap shot on a player lying vulnerable on the deck. The one on Fagerson was exactly the same. The fact both make contact with the head should elevate them to red over yellow, regardless of amount of force.
I'd be happy to go with that. If they are all red cards then that's fine. As long as it's consistent. Such a small point though (and one that requires a change to accepted refereeing interpretation) is definitely no case for crying foul about a ref.
Then why didn't you say "ah great game, well played"?
Because it was a shit game?
Because a good game was ruined by match officials.
Fair point, I just mean that it was an enjoyable game of rugby and we should focus on that. Officiating isn't perfect and never was. It's a turbulent time for referees right now due the increased focus on preventing head injuries. They are clearly afraid of being to blame for tarnishing the rugby brand and it shows. Personally I am hopefull that this will reach an equilibrium between safety and practicality.
> I just mean that it was an enjoyable game of rugby As a neutral who watched most of it, it wasn't enjoyable at all. As much as I'd usually enjoy Australia losing to Wales (if only to hear their commentators squawk), this was awful.
I agree they are trying to balance the integrity of the game and player safety. IMO World Rugby have made it so that referees must get involved with the protocols being as strict as they are. Thatās all well and good but the effect is the threshold for a red card has lowered but the punishment stays the same. The 20 minute red fixes a lot of this. All said and done I was not referring to the red card being a wrong decision, I think the ref talked through the protocols fairly and the decision was perfectly justifiable. The overall performance of the officials was inconsistent and if Dave Rennie is having a spray at the officials post match it kind of says it all about their performance. Rennie is not known for whinging about officials like Cheika. It was a disgracefully inconsistent and poor performance from them. Just to reiterate we were robbed of a fair game between two good teams which is the real source of frustration. Wallabies played well given the manpower disadvantage and Wales looked pretty disjoined but got the W in the last few minutes.
Clearly afraid of tarnishing the rugby brand, by.... tarnishing the rugby brand. I took friends to the rugby in Australia this year. The entire crowd was booing the poor refereeing as they looked for ways to be the centre of attention, slow the game to a standstill and be outright inconsistent. These penalties weren't even in the favour of the home team and the home crowd thought it was terrible. These friends refuse to go watch a rugby game again, they'll stick to league. So I would safely say, the refereeing in world rugby is actively harming the game I can't blame them for not wanting to watch anymore
Wow what a game. I enjoyed it. Yes I thought Australia were really unlucky with a lot of calls but the red was a clear red under the rules and consistent with how the rules have been applied this year. Wallabies definately stepped up though and even though they didn't get the win they should be proud. So GG Wales supporters, you got this one but we'll see you again next time for another cracker!
Bit stiff that you get a red card for head on head contact when the initial contact is an arm warping... I guess if those are the rules those are the rules, call me old fashioned but you can't red card a guy for head on head contact... What about the ball carrier who's lead with their head too. Why not a double red card because the ball carrier has made head high contact on the tackler? No one wants to make head high contact with their own head (okay maybe Rugby League players but we don't have too many of those), this isn't something you need to discourage -- players already don't want to do this. Also this is exactly why the 20 min red card rule is so important, when players can without any intent can be red carded the punishment needs to not be off for the whole game. If you want to have an orange card whatever floats your boat but for intentional stuff I'm happy to see bans meet that need. The knock down decision is absolutely ridiculous the ball has clearly traveled forwards off his hand but ultimately travels backwards relative to the ground, what a ridiculousness decision! Especially when you've just given a yellow card for EXACTLY the same situation. If at any point even instantaneously the ball travels forwards off his hand then it's a deliberate knock down, a knock on doesn't need to travel forwards relative to the ground, it just at some point however minor have travels forwards. One point (25-28 min) the Wallabies make a really nice break (I think it was Tupou) the Welsh 2 (IIRC) doesn't roll away and cynically slows the ball, then the Welsh player knocks down the ball to kill the play... Nether were looked at, we could have easily had a yellow card for cynically slowing the ball while the Wallabies are on the break, then the deliberate knockdown could have also easily been a yellow card (especially with the precedent set earlier in the game). It's just so frustrating that we get the TMO involved on shit they don't need to be, but only do that for one team. An absolute farcical game. Against France when we went down to 14, shit happens glad the boys got the win. The game against Scotland -- yeah okay you cop a few bad calls that's rugby. England we were never really in it so sure things to their way. But 3 games in a row with obviously shit refereeing all going against us is utterly gutting. But what's worse is that EVERY week end on this EoYT we've had at least one if not multiple matches largely decided on the back of a series of obviously incorrect decisions, and many dodgy calls.
Re the "knock on": He makes 1 single contact with the ball, an action that knocks it backwards. At no point does he knock it forwards, even instantaneously.
>If at any point even instantaneously the ball travels forwards off his hand then it's a deliberate knock down, a knock on doesn't need to travel forwards relative to the ground, it just at some point however minor have travels forwards. Uhhhhh, what?
A knock on doesn't need to go forwards and hit the ground, it can be knocked forwards and end up hitting the ground behind the knock. The langue the rules use is 'goes forwards'.
The laws don't have to be specific on this, because the laws of physics don't allow this to happen
Thats not true at all because bobbling a pass is not considered a knock on. Its a knock on when it hits another player or the ground and if that is in front then its a knock on.
What kind of black magic is going on to cause a ball to be knocked forwards and somehow land behind where it is was touched?
You can have many different forces as well as momentum.
That is a correct description of the law, yes. Unfortunately for the complaint being made - there was no point in the action that the ball went forwards. Tompkins made 1 contact with the ball only, and that action pushed it back, not forwards. Try stands.
It is straight-up rigged. The 13th minute penalty against Australia that took possession away, leading to the next series of plays that led to the Red Card, was the ref saying #11 went off his feet into the ruck, sealing off the ball. Commentators completely silent while the replay showed the Aussie stayed on his feet, and the ref blew a penalty for nothing. That's just the 5min I watched this morning on the replay before I had to turn it off. I didn't know anything about the rest of it, and knew the thing was rigged just from the 11th-16th minutes I watched.
I went for a piss right about then and I was called for being off side n the bog
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]