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

[TRF_Olyy]

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.

Happened in the six nations a couple of years ago,

The thought did cross my mind

 

[Yoshimitsu]

"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. "

I believe this falls into logical fallacy territory. A bit of ad hominem with an appeal to authority thrown in. I don't believe I'm either stupid or blind.

As far as I see it two laws are in play here:

"Law nine: clause 13"

A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders."

Excluding the massive grey area that is "but not limited to". Did Owen Farrell attempt to tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders? Doesn't look like it to me. If it is deemed a tackle then the contact starts at the chest and remains at that level. Now bar issuing a clarification that says "What Farrell did is clearly dangerous and thus illegal" what exactly is world rugby to do? The height of the tackle is not an issue is it? So what is?

Then we have this:

"Law nine: clause 16"

A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.

Which again is interesting. What's a"tap tackle" then? However, that's not the issue here. Does Owen Farrell attempt to grasp the player? Note there's no mention of "wrapping" in the laws that I can find and there are plenty of times where a single arm is used to effect a tackle and these are clearly not penalised (usually a shirt grab on a player breaking through). Also there's no mention of "successfully" grasping either. An attempt to grasp is what the law requires. This does come down to interpretation and the referee and his assistant, the TMO and the CC have indeed settled on a position where they are satisfied that an attempt to grasp was made. Looking at the video it also appears clear to me (but I admit other can disagree). In my view Farrell's attempt to grasp is made impossible by the fact that Esterhuizen effectively throws him.

So what's the issue? It was adjudged as a tackle with an attempt to grasp made, it wasn't high and therefore wasn't contrary to the laws of the game. I'll buy the consistency argument, but not the moral outrage one. However, the Saffas pointing to the Du Plessis tackle on Carter seem to have forgotten that at the time World Rugby stated that Poite had got the decision wrong......

Finally, the reason this won't become common practice is that it's clearly fraught with risk. If Farrell's tackle was smidge higher, it would have been too high and in all likelihood he'd have been looking at a straight red. Similarly even in the very amusing Rassie and Esterhuizen "training" video they are clearly "teaching" an illegal tackle technique as there's no attempt to grasp.

 

[Pom in Exile]

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.

Firstly, anyone with 2 brain cells etc can see that this tackle is the very definition of a 50/50 decision. Sometimes they go for you sometimes they go against you. I've seen Englishmen saying that it was a penalty, yellow card, red card, Farrell should never be allowed to play again and I've seen Saffa's say that it was a fair tackle - move on.
What does seem clear to me is that the timing of the tackle has had a disproportionate effect on the reaction to it...because it was the last play of the game it has somehow cost the Boks the game. Mmmh, even if it was given I suspect the chances of Pollard nailing the kick were pretty slim anyway...and if we're dealing in hypotheticals then shouldn't the Bok try have been disallowed and a player carded for the 'tackle' on Kruis?
Which brings me to the inexorable point that because the tackle was by an Englishman and a seemingly dislikable one in Farrell that we are still talking about it, where otherwise the world may have moved on.
Also, is it possible that the Referee, TMO and citing officer know more about the laws of the game than you or I?

Finally, regarding Australians losing interest in rugby, there is a simple reason for this which is that they are 'fair weather fans', plain and simple. You can see the same thing regarding cricket. Aussies love having a good whinge about 'administrators' and how they've ruined the game and therefore I'm not going to watch anymore when really what they should be saying is 'I don't like my team being crap and therefore I can't/won't watch them anymore...but rest assured if they become good again, I'll be back quick as a flash as if nothing happened.'

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So what's the issue? It was adjudged as a tackle with an attempt to grasp made, it wasn't high and therefore wasn't contrary to the laws of the game.

Laws 14.1 14.2 and 14.3.

Requirements for a tackle
For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

Those requirements were not met, therefore that is not a tackle.

 

[Nudger]

Laws 14.1 14.2 and 14.3.

Requirements for a tackle
For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

Those requirements were not met, therefore that is not a tackle.

Ffs sake it was judged not to be a shoulder charge as an attempt to rap the arms were made

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Laws 14.1 14.2 and 14.3.

Requirements for a tackle
For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

Those requirements were not met, therefore that is not a tackle.

Interesting, but if it's not a tackle, then the tackle law is irrelevant is it not? Not all attempted tackles become tackles as defined by the laws. That does not indicate an offence has been committed.

You're then left with law 9 clause 16 as quoted upthread. Given an attempt to grasp was made in the eyes of the officials there's no case to answer.

An attempted tackle fails many times in every game. For example when a player hands off and escapes the attempted tackle but goes to ground anyway. In that situation again no tackle has been made and thus the tackle laws and consequent offside lines etc. Are not established. You see this often with refs stating "no tackle, play on"

So in this case should Esterhuizen have been able to regain his feet he could have played on without being subject to having to release the ball etc.

Note: there's imprecision in one of my previous posts that is causing some of the issue. I think I used the words "adjudged a tackle" to be fully clear that should be amended to be "ajudged an attempt to grasp an opponent" an "attempt" does not always succeed. The poster above is absolutely correct in the application of the tackle law. However, in my view clearly wrong in their conclusion.

 

[ncurd]

Ffs sake it was judged not to be a shoulder charge as an attempt to rap the arms were made

I don't believe the attempt was good enough or was negligible at best (he doesn't lift or position his arm to use it IMO). But those were Garner exact words and reasoning for declaring it good.
You can disagree with judgement like I do but lets not pretend Garner didn't give his justification at the time.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

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.

Irish and English rugby are notorious bros might I remind you! Back in 1973 a year after Wales and Scotland refused to play us (In a year that those three teams were the only championship contenders thus ruining the championship) England saved the IRFU by simply turning up and playing a potentially dangerous fixture, they received a standing ovation entering and leaving the pitch and the RFU backed Ireland's RWC bid while Wales and Scotland backed a very inconsistent World Rugby report and money from a nation that continuously poaches their own players respectively. Unfortunately the Bro Union couldn't quite stop couldn't stop the axis of evil when they decided a lucrative RBS sponsorship deal wasn't good enough for the 6nations and instead cut the tournaments sponsorship intake by more than 50%. We even invited you to be the first international in the new Aviva but you were too busy for your old mucker at the time!

So for everyone out there who hates English rugby (Including blow in, cretinous Irish fans who've made the transition from soccer because our team couldn't kick snow off a rope), please stop. Not hating them doesn't mean that we can't enjoy England losing because the hysteria their fans and media get into is quite frankly just a little bit hilarious but display their flag, turn the heating on in their dressing rooms and accept that incidents like these happen in games and its not their fault the refs did or didn't get it wrong. I implore you all, please hate Scotland and Wales instead.

 

[Thingimubob]

Irish and English rugby are notorious bros might I remind you! Back in 1973 a year after Wales and Scotland refused to play us (In a year that those three teams were the only championship contenders thus ruining the championship) England saved the IRFU by simply turning up and playing a potentially dangerous fixture, they received a standing ovation entering and leaving the pitch and the RFU backed Ireland's RWC bid while Wales and Scotland backed a very inconsistent World Rugby report and money from a nation that continuously poaches their own players respectively. Unfortunately the Bro Union couldn't quite stop couldn't stop the axis of evil when they decided a lucrative RBS sponsorship deal wasn't good enough for the 6nations and instead cut the tournaments sponsorship intake by more than 50%. We even invited you to be the first international in the new Aviva but you were too busy for your old mucker at the time!

So for everyone out there who hates English rugby (Including blow in, cretinous Irish fans who've made the transition from soccer because our team couldn't kick snow off a rope), please stop. Not hating them doesn't mean that we can't enjoy England losing because the hysteria their fans and media get into is quite frankly just a little bit hilarious but display their flag, turn the heating on in their dressing rooms and accept that incidents like these happen in games and its not their fault the refs did or didn't get it wrong. I implore you all, please hate Scotland and Wales instead.

That's it. You're off the Christmas card list.

 

[ncurd]

I implore you all, please hate Scotland and Wales instead.

I can't hate Scotland too many years of feeling sorry for them. Wales.....sure it'll be a stretch but I'll do it for you