Sorry all for contributing to some negative discussion. Particularly for coming across as accusing people of being biased. I was just offended at being called biased and receiving dislikes for responding to Someone who was asking me to consider if I might be biased, by suggesting they consider that maybe those on the other side of the argument are the ones who are biased.
To put my view in perspective, Hollywood's are a pet peeve of mine and I will often point it out in games that don't involve the all blacks. I was particularly harsh on Scotland in the last World Cup for instance.
to me, I was being rational, albeit with a harsher view on Hollywood's than most. I do think people's views on Hollywood's are largely a cultural thing. But I didn't think I was seeing this incident differently because of my nz bias.
I haven't changed my opinion on the actual incident. There is a very real possibility that we have seen different coverage. I saw a very light glance on the forehead with the palm from a pushing action as Farrell was falling to the ground. Others have suggested he was pushed to the ground by the face. That wasn't in my coverage. Or that he was hit or struck, possibly they are referring to something that happened before the incident I saw. I apologise here if you saw the same coverage and so I am insinuating that you haven't seen this rationally. I accept the subjectivity in how the incident could be defined and wouldn't judge anyone for being irrational in the aftermath of a match, if that actually was the case.
.
So basically if Farrell had been tough and just got on with it then Retallick would have got away with it and NZ would have had a penalty instead or England. I agree that it's not great to look at, but just don't see any controversy here. For me personally Retallick was the git for pushing Farrell in the face when he was already falling backwards. It was completely uncalled for and the sign of a frustrated player losing and taking it out on the opposition.
I would be happy if whitelock had been penalised for being a git, I can just see whitelock complaining to nige about the penalty and nige saying "Sam, saaaaaam, you were being a git".
you appear to have seen the same coverage as me too. Whitelock was a git to do that for sure. I just didn't think the impact was much. impact doesn't actually matter, technically, as it was contact to the face, so I can see people's point that it should be a penalty. But contact to the face happens all the time without force in rucks and rightly in my opinion no one is penalised for it. The intention of the law is to prevent eye injuries. The eyes don't get injured unless there is some force, less force is required compared to hitting someone's arm, sure, but still there needs to be some force. Certainly, from what I saw, I wouldn't define this as a hit or strike.
Having gone back and watched the incident, I take that back, Nige obviously saw what Whitelock did, so he may well have reviewed it with the TMO even if Farrell hadn't given him the time to do so.
As has already been established, it wasn't simulation to con the referee a la Andy Haden so there's no controversy in that. If you're really going out of your way to find something to fall out with, I guess you could argue that if he was Hollywooding, it violates some sort of "spirit of the game" law.
Was it Hollywooding though? It appears to me that after Whitelock's open handed strike (you have to already be in contact with something in order to push it), TJ Perenara takes it upon himself to dive on Farrell and one of his hands appears to make contact with Farrell's face.
Thanks for a reasoned contribution, it makes me feel less attacked.
It is certainly a sportsmanship law I am appealing to. In saying that, the interpretation of the other law by the mole I think is incorrect, there doesn't have to be no infringement, so there is no difference between an out and out dive and an embellishment. Similarly players shouldn't be bringing attention to infringements verbally, as they often do. So there is nothing especially worse, according to that law, about what Farrell did if you believe there was an infringement in the first place. I don't though.
I can see the rationale for It being a strike, based on your description, as I had thought that through as well. Problem is, are you touching someone right now? If not, by your definition, you can never push them, unless they have initiated contact by striking you first. To me, you can push if you first make contact with negligible force, ie something that doesn't hurt.
Ill have to watch the Perenara thing too.
