TNT88
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 0
Whats interpreted differently, the tackle situation?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Spring Tour: Australia v Wales - 3rd Test. (23/06/2012 05:00 GMT)
- Thread starter Darwin
- Start date
Whats interpreted differently, the tackle situation?
Yet again we find ourselves in the same position. Left gutted after a close game. We've shot ourselves in the foot with our conceded penalty count, yes the "referee" contributed to that with decisions straight from his delusional, f***ing mind, but still.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,878
- Reaction score
- 15
It was, but offside can only be called if there is contact with an opposition player. All Aus players stood off, so there can't be an offside.
Mainly players going off their feet. I thought Aus got away with sealing off all series, that's reffed much harsher in the NH.
Sam91
Academy Player
Haha, "SH's worst" Mate there's nothing slightly embarassing about the second ranked team in the world beating the apparently 4th best team in the world, in fact it makes perfect sense.
TNT88
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 0
Will keep a look out for it in the NZ game then. There were a couple of sealing off penalties today, SH refs generally only penalize if it has a direct effect on the ruck (ie: stops quickly arriving players from competing). Wales surely knew that by the 3rd test though.
Aussie are a top notch team, I think they are very underrated (By people in this forum, not world rankings). They can play poorly, but on their day they are very hard to beat. I honestly can't see Argentina winning a game in the Rugby Championship this year.
Aussies pack seemed to match up very well against the Welsh, and obviously they have a lot of talented backs.
Hard luck Wales, well done Aussie
Yes but there's the interpretation which there should not be.
But there really wasn't any contact. Every single Aus player stood off, it was clear in the replay. I understand the tactic, back off, then send one player in to get obstructed', but no-one came in before Ryan Jones passed the ball out. It was truck and trailor, but can't be called obstruction until an opposition player comes in. It was a mistake by Aus which the ref didn't pick up on.
Edit. Ultimately we shouldn't have been in that position. Basic errors by ourselves didn't allow us to build a lead we could and should have.
Last edited:
TNT88
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 0
Mate the IRB has sent out directives telling all referee's, especially pro refs to be extremely strict on the lineout/maul obstruction. If Joubert didn't call that he'd get in trouble after the game. Send a complaint to the IRB if you're not happy.
Yeah in hindsight I should have looked at the rankings first - it's still early here! :lol: My apologies.
That said - I stand by most of it - 3 games, 3 close ones, there should have been a win. Australia have been average; their set-piece shaky, their backs not as incisive as usual, and very open to counter-attacking. But no W. If we'd like to believe that we in the North are closing, that we can be as good if not better, there needs to be at least one win there. RIght now, Wales have a level of organisation and physicality that routinely stumps us, but put them up against the SH 3 in a big game and watch their brains melt. To be brutal about it, Wales are not good enough. And if they aren't, gods knows what that makes the rest of us.
I suppose we can celebrate Scotland's win...
Raises some interesting questions about the Lions tour too, which should probably be discussed elsewhere. I know someone will make a thread...
Dull the maul was moving towards Australia's pack. It was truck and trailer. Wales were naive here.
Mooly
Academy Player
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2012
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Agreed. It's a gutsy call to have a swipe at the IRB no 2 from anyone and potentially even the AB to underestimate the Wallabies.
I think from our Super Rugby standings it doesn't look that great but it's a long bow to draw to discount Australia as a SH threat.
I#d have no complaints if it actually was obstruction, but there didn't appear to be any contact. I'm probably wrong, and in reality an Aus player came in towards the end where Ryan Jones was passing the ball out, but didn't see it on the replay post game in the studio.
Yeh. Should probably be complaining more about Phillips getting taken out when he was about to pick the ball up, or on Wales' errors throughout.
Thingimubob
First XV
Yupp! Example: Last week, Pollock didn't give one penalty for sealing off last, and it seemed to be Australias main tactic to stop Wales getting anywhere near their ball at the breakdown. If they'd tried that with someone like Nigel Owens or Wayne Barnes, they'd get pinged time and time again. My guess is Australia are used to Pollocks reffing style from Tri Nations/SuperXV, knew he's not hot on penalizing it, so targeted that as a tactic to use, especially since they didn;t do it in the first or last test.
Anyway, what definitely lost us the game was all those stupid bloody penalties from mucking up the restarts, think at least 9 points can be put down to that. Such a cheap way to give away points.
cyRil
First XV
I think I'm going to have to have the biggest **** of my life to sort myself out here.
I don't think many/any are saying Aus are an easy game, however based on this test series they certainly look the weakest of the Trinations sides.
However being the weakest trinations side doesn't exactly make you a weak side...
TNT88
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,102
- Reaction score
- 0
Nowhere in the obstruction law does it state there must be contact. It says that a player must not "move into a position" to prevent the tackle from occuring. When 3 guys are truck and trailering downfield, the ref must pull it up.
This thinking that a player "must make contact" isn't one the ref considers. He just goes by the law and the IRB directives concerning those law.
Similar threads
