[2018 November Tests] England v South Africa (3/10/18)

[TRF_Olyy]

Citing commissioner too,

Once again world rugby showing it's one rule for England, another for everyone else.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Citing commissioner too,

Once again world rugby showing it's one rule for England, another for everyone else.

I think where everyone is missing the point is that myself, and most of us Saffas don't blame Farrel or England for what happened, but rather the man in the middle and the organisation. The issue isn't our opposition exploiting lapses in judgement of referees, but rather that these exploits are present and that there is a constant sense to get away with illegal things.

When everyone goes up in arms, and demand some sort of action from the governing body, they take the pussy route out with the typical response of "no comment". They are all a bunch of sackless cowards.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Meh, marginal calls happen - everyone's been on the end of them, England included.

What really sucks is an England international having his ban extended for being named in the England squad.

Another England international getting banned for an accidental high shot while an Ireland international did exactly the same, in the same game, and didn't even get penalised.

Rugby loves the English though - like Scotland refusing to display the England flag, and putting out a second Scottish flag instead. Imagine what would happen if the RFU refuse to allow NZ to fly their flag and do the haka this weekend.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Meh, marginal calls happen - everyone's been on the end of them, England included.

What really sucks is an England international having his ban extended for being named in the England squad.

Another England international getting banned for an accidental high shot while an Ireland international did exactly the same, in the same game, and didn't even get penalised.

Rugby loves the English though - like Scotland refusing to display the England flag, and putting out a second Scottish flag instead. Imagine what would happen if the RFU refuse to allow NZ to fly their flag and do the haka this weekend.

And the same can be said about SA. I mean the list is as long as the professional era of rugby, and instances where we were hard done by, and usually it resulted in a narrow loss for us.

I think the point we are getting to is that we as the public, no matter which country or team we support, want more transparency

 

[unrated]

I think its clear that the Springboks are trying to force World rugby's hand to make a statement on the law.
Maybe not to put blame on Gardener or to seek scapegoats for our loss against England but to rather find more clarity going forward, if we find a repeat scenario.

If World Rugby remains silent regarding the pleas concerning the Farrel incident, and again not whether he should be sanctioned or anything like that but just to get finality because if they remain silent and someone tries a similar move in the next couple of weeks and they get suspended then there will be a huge public outcry against them, the World rugby PR professionals will have to work overtime to try and fix a PR mess that they should have dealt with in a timely manner.

Our assistant coach for the backline confirmed at a press conference in Paris that "World rugby always sets standards and as the Springboks we always make sure we keep up with and follow those standards."

“Angus Gardner is a world-class referee, who is rated by World Rugby. If he says what happened at Twickenham was a fair tackle, I think that’s something we must also try because we are trying to keep up with the game and make sure we keep up with the laws."

at the same press conference Damian de Allende echoed what his assistant coach said "Obviously there was a lot of hype about the tackle. It is what it is, that’s World Rugby’s problem. If that is right, we should also start tackling like that. There was nothing wrong with the tackle so we can also start doing that.”

So they are putting the impetus at World rugby, if they dont provide further comment or clarity then this type of tackle will be used in the following games and if they then decide to backtrack it would be World Rugby with the egg on their faces.
I think there are still elements of Sarcasm involved with all the Springbok staff comments but i can see the point of it. Its not about bitching over the previous game its to force a reaction going forward.

https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/boks-remain-adamant-to-emulate-farrell-tackle-20181107

 

[TRF_Olyy]

"World rugby always sets standards and as the Springboks we always make sure we keep up with and follow those standards."

Absolute banter

 

[All Black]

If they get rid of the fair type tackle that Owen Farrell did to Esterhuizen, then the game will truly have become soft. Bigger men will have the advantage because smaller men won't be allowed to tackle them hard allowing bigger men to run it hard knowing they wont be tackled hard. The NFL will laugh at rugby.

If they're gonna run it hard, you gotta tackle them hard, below the neck.

 

[The Alpha Bro]

This thread is fantastic. World Rugby is a **** show, gets on the wrong side of everyone, and every game has multiple incidents missed by the citing commissioner. We all know this. Playing the victim card without sarcasm absolutely illegitimises any post as far as I'm concerned, like who can really say they haven't benefitted or lost out due to a reffing decision in this RWC cycle? and that WR did sweet fa about it?!

 

[ncurd]

Sorry the Springboks staff have lost the plot, I may agree with them that it should of been a penalty but if it occurred 20 minutes earlier in the match or they they won they would not even be talking about it. Its because they lost and they coin a phrase I hate "they lost get over it".

I'm loosing my respect for them with each passing day ion this ts quite honestly pathetic they know whats legal or not, they know whats borderline. They will have private conversations with Nigel Owens in the coming days about whats expected and not and clarifications for any tactics that might be used.

This public stuff really just is sour grapes to loosing a match, deflection from answering questions about how they lost a match they should of comfortably won and making their fans feel vindicated in their victim complex.

 

[All Black]

I hate it when people say 'leading with the shoulder' penalty. Thats how you know they've never ever played.

When you go to tackle the tackle bags at training, what part of your body should come into contact with the bag first?

'Leading with the shoulder' my ass.

 

[The Alpha Bro]

Sorry the Springboks staff have lost the plot, I may agree with them that it should of been a penalty but if it occurred 20 minutes earlier in the match or they they won they would not even be talking about it. Its because they lost and they coin a phrase I hate "they lost get over it".

I'm loosing my respect for them with each passing day ion this ts quite honestly pathetic they know whats legal or not, they know whats borderline. They will have private conversations with Nigel Owens in the coming days about whats expected and not and clarifications for any tactics that might be used.

This public stuff really just is sour grapes to loosing a match, deflection from answering questions about how they lost a match they should of comfortably won and making their fans feel vindicated in their victim complex.

Meh, they're deflecting from throwing a game away that they should have won. Its the beginning of a four week tour and they're a side with less than a 50% win rate this year so negativity isn't an option at this stage. Even if the message they're spewing is humourless and toxic the language used is all positive, this serves a purpose. They're definitely focusing on themselves and France behind closed doors, if something similar happens against Wales and its the same carry on that's time to worry.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Sorry the Springboks staff have lost the plot, I may agree with them that it should of been a penalty but if it occurred 20 minutes earlier in the match or they they won they would not even be talking about it. Its because they lost and they coin a phrase I hate "they lost get over it".

I'm loosing my respect for them with each passing day ion this ts quite honestly pathetic they know whats legal or not, they know whats borderline. They will have private conversations with Nigel Owens in the coming days about whats expected and not and clarifications for any tactics that might be used.

This public stuff really just is sour grapes to loosing a match, deflection from answering questions about how they lost a match they should of comfortably won and making their fans feel vindicated in their victim complex.

South Africa's statement after the attempted blinding of Fitzgerald is even more hilarious considering how they're acting now

"Rugby is a contact sport – so is dancing. If you are clued up on this game, you will have seen all that happened on Saturday. There were so many incidents and the referee could have carded one of them for maliciously charging into a guy. We could have brought that to the attention of the citing commissioner, but we did not because this game is a game to us and sometimes you get away with things."

 

[MikeTheNative]

I hate it when people say 'leading with the shoulder' penalty. Thats how you know they've never ever played.

When you go to tackle the tackle bags at training, what part of your body should come into contact with the bag first?

'Leading with the shoulder' my ass.

i thought it was obvious but apparently not. What this means when the arm of the shoulder that 'leads' makes no attempt to wrap, like in Farrell's case it was by his side.


I don't understand why WR need to make a statement on the matter. If it happened 20 minutes into the game, people would say Farrell got a bit lucky, maybe it was the wrong call but would have forgot about it. There is many tackles a game where a penalty could have been awarded and wasn't, vice versa as well but there is no statement regarding those.

 

[All Black]

i thought it was obvious but apparently not. What this means when the arm of the shoulder that 'leads' makes no attempt to wrap, like in Farrell's case it was by his side.

Its probably more obvious to you guys in the north. Down here, we take it word for word. 'Leading with the shoulder' doesn't even have any mention of the arm wrap. Maybe it would be more obvious if it was 'leading with the shoulder with no arm wrap'. We just call it 'shoulder charge' lol. In the tackle you should always go in with the shoulder and arms together.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sorry the Springboks staff have lost the plot, I may agree with them that it should of been a penalty but if it occurred 20 minutes earlier in the match or they they won they would not even be talking about it. Its because they lost and they coin a phrase I hate "they lost get over it".

I'm loosing my respect for them with each passing day ion this ts quite honestly pathetic they know whats legal or not, they know whats borderline. They will have private conversations with Nigel Owens in the coming days about whats expected and not and clarifications for any tactics that might be used.

This public stuff really just is sour grapes to loosing a match, deflection from answering questions about how they lost a match they should of comfortably won and making their fans feel vindicated in their victim complex.

Maybe we're just wired differently then. It's very clear that your sense of humour isn't the same as ours. While we all had a big laugh about this, you keep on with the negativity routine.

It was meant to be a joke and light hearted, geez, these guys have so much pressure on them, can't they have a bit of fun too? That press conference wasn't the first time a South African coach reverted to sarcasm for a silly question aimed at them. remember Brendan Venter?

 

[The Alpha Bro]

Are referee reports made available to teams after a game does anyone know?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I don't understand why WR need to make a statement on the matter.

Because you as things stand there is no clarity on the matter.

Everyone with 10/20 vision, two functioning brain cells and access to the play in question knows that was a penalty.
Yet, the referee, the TMO and the CC have all say, either by action or omission, that it was a fair tackle.

Not only coaches and players but more importantly, fans, like to know the rules of the game and as things stand down, we clearly do not.
If you ask any tier 1/2 coach/player if next game that same play happens again, what will the ref call? They can probably make an educated guess. Samoans probably with more accuracy than the rest, but if they are honest, they will you "i am not sure, i dont know".

It is simply unacceptable that the players, coaches, pundits and fans understand the rules to be about one thing while the refs do not apply that understanding in terms of calls. That is not good enough.
That is why WR needs to make a statement.

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, i know a considerable amount of people, disproportionately Australians, that are done with this **** and stopped watching the sport (not just because of this incident, but with inconsistencies in general). And another not so minor amount who watches less (still follow their club but stopped watching other competitions/teams). They find the game less attractive, and understandably so.

And to be crystal clear. The problem is not two refs calling two almost identical plays differently. You can miss things, mistakes happen. Fans will understand that, eventually. The problem is when you add TMO and CC. When two groups of people who are experts on the rules have 10 camera angles, slow-motion review, and watch identical plays with time to review them and come with not only different but almost opposite calls, well, you have a problem. Congruence is an essential element of fairness and people do not like unfairness when it comes to the sports they follow. At least not this much.

Last, considering what's being asked from the players on a regular basis, i dont think what people are asking from TMO's CC and WR is too much. Just do your bloody job.

 

[living sacrifice]

I thought he looked like he was trying to wrap his arm. It’s the angle that he is tackling at means that he can’t really do anything else with his arm.

In my mind it’s a good hard tackle. You always have to use your shoulders and Owen tried. I understand people having different opinions on this but at the end of the day do we want tackles like that in the game or not?

 

[Bruce_ma_goose]

Rugby loves the English though - like Scotland refusing to display the England flag, and putting out a second Scottish flag instead. Imagine what would happen if the RFU refuse to allow NZ to fly their flag and do the haka this weekend.

Is that true? Maybe it was to remind half the Scottish side who they were playing for and make sure they didn't line up on the wrong end of the pitch.

It was just a friendly and I've no dog in this fight. If I was either side I'd be more concerned about the lack of creativity, invention and execution rather than the ref. But if Farrell was in a Tonga or Samoa shirt there is literally zero percent chance that that wasn't a penalty, minimum. I'd have been amazed if then Islander wasn't yellow carded and only slightly surprised if they were shown red.

Remind me how Pro14 refs are so inferior again?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

but at the end of the day do we want tackles like that in the game or not?

No, no, no. That is NOT the problem here.

As Rassie Erasmus eloquently implied it, the problem is not whether such tackles are legal or not. The problem is not knowing what is legal and what is not.

This is precisely why some people are asking for WR to issue some sort of clarification.