[June Tests 2018: 1st Test] New Zealand vs. France (09/06/2018)

[Five Meters Out]

Something I hadn't really noticed before (because I was being a bit lazy and just browsing the highlights) was this.

EDIT: OK, the damned useless forum software won't show the gif. Just try quoting this post and you will see it in the edit window.


Have a look at his feet... they are firmly planted and he is stationary, there isn't much else he can do other than brace for the impact; almost all of the velocity of that impact results from Blue 11's forward motion. Blue 11's head drops considerably when Black 7 tackles him; if there was no tackle, then IMO they would hit almost shoulder to shoulder.

It also contrasts sharply with the SBW red card from last year. Those who think this looks anything like SBW's RC are just plain wrong.

SBW recklessly charged from a distance with a leading shoulder into a player that was held in the tackle and slowing down. Almost all of the force of that direct contact to the head came from SBW's forward motion. It was a shoulder charge that made direct contact to the head, with force; he deserved the red card

I'm not looking to make any excuses here, merely make an observation.
I haven't made any detailed study of "shoulder charges" in general, but one fact stands out for me in the two videos shown here. In both these incidents the opponent is in the process of being tackled and propelled forward by a team mate of the "shoulder charging tackler". I wonder if, in the split second he has to weigh up matters, this moves "the shoulder chargers" thinking from "tackle" to "brace for contact".
Just a thought.

 

[Immenso]

Get what you're saying, but the context is changed completely by the fact that not one but two contacts to the head are missed out, which happened before the head on head collision.

Had Pearce noticed this then maybe he wouldn't have brushed off the TMO with the "only a head clash" line, as it clearly wasn't just that.

Overall I didn't think Pearce was atrocious, nor did he really have an affect on the result, just the ridiculous inconsistency between his treatment of the French yellow card and then the AB players in the Grosso incident knocks his grade down quite a bit!

The inconsistency between the treatment of the French yellow and the Grosso tackle was because the French yellow was an upright tackle and the Grosso incident the carrier was ducking into it. Pearce says: to paraphrase "penalty only, he was falling into into the tackle".

Whether you agree or not, fair enough, but he wasn't just plucking a decision out of his ass. He was applying a consistent methodology.

Citing commissioner disagreed. His report says Cane penalty only, Tuungafasi almost a red (therefore a yellow).

I disagree with the citing commissioner. , and would have have had it the other way around.

 

[Five Meters Out]

The inconsistency between the treatment of the French yellow and the Grosso tackle was because the French yellow was an upright tackle and the Grosso incident the carrier was ducking into it. Pearce says: to paraphrase "penalty only, he was falling into into the tackle".

Whether you agree or not, fair enough, but he wasn't just plucking a decision out of his ass. He was applying a consistent methodology.

Citing commissioner disagreed. His report says Cane penalty only, Tuungafasi almost a red (therefore a yellow).

I disagree with the citing commissioner. , and would have have had it the other way around.

Yes I agree. On past examples Cane got it wrong, hit him high and should have spent 10 in the bin. As for Tuungafasi, I go back to my "braced for contact" post above.

 

[OneBlackEye]

I'm not looking to make any excuses here, merely make an observation.
I haven't made any detailed study of "shoulder charges" in general, but one fact stands out for me in the two videos shown here. In both these incidents the opponent is in the process of being tackled and propelled forward by a team mate of the "shoulder charging tackler". I wonder if, in the split second he has to weigh up matters, this moves "the shoulder chargers" thinking from "tackle" to "brace for contact".
Just a thought.

No no no. In that split second he is really thinking "Great, here's a perfect opportunity for me to hurt this guy for some reason. And I don't even have to worry about any repercussions because the 4 guys refereeing this game are bias for some reason and even if I get cited afterwards I'll be let off because World Rugby is also bias for some reason." BOOMFA!

 

[Dizzy]

Turn my mic up!!!

The game is definitely becoming tiddlywinks nowadays. SMH

 

[Five Meters Out]

No no no. In that split second he is really thinking "Great, here's a perfect opportunity for me to hurt this guy for some reason. And I don't even have to worry about any repercussions because the 4 guys refereeing this game are bias for some reason and even if I get cited afterwards I'll be let off because World Rugby is also bias for some reason." BOOMFA!

That's more thinking than a prop would undertake in an entire year.

 

[mania]

No no no. In that split second he is really thinking "Great, here's a perfect opportunity for me to hurt this guy for some reason. And I don't even have to worry about any repercussions because the 4 guys refereeing this game are bias for some reason and even if I get cited afterwards I'll be let off because World Rugby is also bias for some reason." BOOMFA!

wow you can think a lot in a split second

 

[Umaga's Witness]

All this is a bit moot though. AT 52-11, a couple of bad referee decisions didn't make the difference. What made the difference was the French running out of steam against the starting players, and then the bench (who could all be starting players in their own right) coming on and putting the tiring French players to the sword.

at the end of the day t's unfortunate that at least one major call was wrong but dems the breaks. the all blacks won. but you can't say the decisions were moot.

not moot at all. the scores were pretty much equal when the french got yellow carded. then if we had gone to 13. of course it would make a difference. the score has absolutely no relevance, and even if it did, you'd expect 30 people minutes to be worth about 40 points.

 

[smartcooky]

I saw an analysis somewhere (I can't recall where, I'll dig it out and post it if I do) that in the last few years, at top level rugby, yellow cards have not made a great deal of difference as far as tries conceded during the time the team is one player short. This is thought to be because these top level teams have predetermined strategies for minimizing the impact of losing a player, and that strategy can be different depending on which player goes.

I think the score would not have been much different, and that the All Blacks would still have opened them up in the last 20. Their tactics were clear... kicking over the top to force the French to drop players back in cover depleted the French defensive line, then pushing the ball wide using two pods of three forwards in midfield (plus the ever present threat of the kick-pass to the wing) forced them to defend across the whole field. Once that happened the All Blacks' playmakers unleashed hell and the French had no answer to it. Even if they did, they had so little second half possession (32%) and territory (26%) that they couldn't have done much about anyway.