Rugby Championship 2023

AdamD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933255#Comment_120933255

Stevenson was brilliant in that game, interested to see how he goes.

TheRona

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933255#Comment_120933255

I think it illustrates the depth NZ has more than anything. Virtually every player could hold their own against the best in the world in their position.

TheRona

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933304#Comment_120933304

It was a ridiculous call to get rid of Rennie. Australia had shown a lot of promise in their tour up here last November.

Someone posted an interview with Eddie Jones on one of these threads, and he came across really well. On the other hand, he was talking about getting back Australia's rugby identity by essentially playing direct-running one-off rugby. Not exactly inspiring stuff.

TheRona

17-3 to Aussie over NZ at half time.

Aussie dominated territory and possession. I don't think NZ ever really got into the Aussie 22.

Australia played well overall. Stevenson poor for both Australia tries, and McKenzie had a shocker with the boot.

TheRona

NZ hit the lead with 15 mins to go. A complete reversal of the first half with NZ dominating.

Injury to Retallick in the first half didn't look good. Hopefully not his ACL.

TheRona

NZ win 23-20. Harsh on Australia, they played well.

Not a coincidence that NZ looked much better when Mo'unga came on for McKenzie. Totally changed the game.

rudiger2.0

Why was the game on so much earlier than usual? I woke up a few minutes ago excited to watch it only to be disappointed.

Football world cup maybe?

Brief_Lives

decent presser from Eddie after the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv44kvqIKUs

Locke_Lamora

Just caught up on the charge down debacle and I cannot for the life of me understand how so many people online seem to think it was fine because 'he made a genuine attempt at a charge down.' If you allow this sort of play and follow it to its natural conclusion you would be declaring open season on flyhalves. All I need to do is jump high and stretch out my arms to prove I'm making a genuine attempt and, when I inevitably fail in charging it down, I simply brace myself for contact with the kickers head. He's defenseless. This is not a 'rugby incident' as people are calling it because the defender is entirely in control of the outcome as the kicker is stationary and easily avoided.

Well then what are players supposed to do, not charge it down? Yes. Yes they are. If they don't think they can charge the ball down without knocking a player out and potentially ruining their career they should simply do something else. Plenty of charge downs happen without the added element of assault - they can angle their run, just stay on their feet or jump and land before contact with the kicker. I promise you the game of rugby is not being ruined because players haven't been given carte blanche to clobber at flyhalf's head.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120941577#Comment_120941577

Agreed. The difference between dmacjb and Richie was stark. Dmack was responsible for about 6 possession turn overs, kicking terribly from hands, and didn't seem to be able to organise anything substantial.

There no question now as to who NZs number 10 is.

biglad40

Japan v Fiji is on rugby pass on astromalaysia for those in the know

TheRona

Did anyone see the Japan red card? They're down 21-0, can't see them coming back with a man down.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120941939#Comment_120941939

It wasn't an attempt to charge down the kick, he successfully charged down the kick. So your claim that if this was allowed, it would be open season on fly halves is false. Personally I think it was just a rugby incident but the suspension might put it in the players heads that they will need to be more careful when charging down kicks. Still wouldn't want to see red cards for successful charge downs.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120941976#Comment_120941976

Agree with yourself and @TheRona Mo'unga is definitely the first choice 10. DMac had a great Super Rugby season but just isn't quite there in top level internationals. Good bench option as he covers 10 and 15 and could be a game changer in the last 20 to 30 minutes. Much like Beauden Barrett was when he first came into the ABs.

He will be useful in the RWC starting against Tier 2 countries as he will carve them up. Even against Italy he would be good but if he starts against France or any of the knockout matches, I'd be very nervous.

clsmooth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120942644#Comment_120942644

Historically when players tried to block down a kick they dived towards the ball leaving the players foot to block it down. Jumping directly up and towards the kicker with the arms in the air and turning the hips at the last moment is incredibly dangerous and seems to be more prevalent these days. Much higher risk of hip to head contact.

Stander on Lambie (who ended up having to retire from concussion a few years later), Kleyn on Jamie Osborne earlier this year and the challenge last week are all examples of where the player on the receiving end of the ‘charge-down’ were seriously hurt. Harald Schumacher knocked out Battison, who ended up losing teeth, broken ribs and damaging his vertebrae, in the 1982 football World Cup with a similar challenge.

100% this needs to be cleaned up in the game. It shouldn't matter if a player makes contact with the ball or not, a jumping hip to head can change someone’s life forever.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120942644#Comment_120942644

He wasn't cited for charging the ball down though was he? He was cited for recklessness and making contact with the kickers head.

It doesn't make sense to allow the lay to go on if the charge down was made and penalise it if it was missed - either the play was dangerous or it wasn't. To say this play should be allowed is to legally allow contact with a players head as long as a genuine attempt to charge it down is made ie. open season.

What is a 'rugby incident'? People seem to spread it around as something they just don't think should be penalised or something synonymous with rugby 'going soft.' To me, a rugby incident is something unavoidable and out of the players control. The play in question was entirely within the players control - the kicker was stationary, the defender had the option to approach in a different (non-dangerous) way, so the play is entirely avoidable.

ersatz

Replacement NZ front crushed oz in the 2nd half, ably assisted by some poor calls by the ref. Neither of these teams looking like world beaters today, though oz looking improved.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120943048#Comment_120943048

By that logic nothing on a rugby pitch is 'a rugby incident' doesn't exist. No matter what happens on the pitch the players have some level of control of what happens.

The judgement itself is pretty all over the place on it too. Between specifically calling out the historic refereeing of charge downs, the limited fault of Malia, and in my opinion over-focusing on the result of the action rather than the legality of the action. Reads like they were just going of feelings which is far from ideal.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949126#Comment_120949126

Thats not at all what that logic implies and that’s a ridiculous argument to make for this scenario but I believe you already know that.

The kicker was stationary so there’s no mitigation to be applied here like a sudden drop in being hit as with high tackles. I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m not a referee or an expert on the laws, but I would infer a general duty on the defender not to knock players out when charging the ball down. Just adjust your run.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949535#Comment_120949535

You said this:

To me, a rugby incident is something unavoidable and out of the players control. 

In most cases in the example you highlight of 'a sudden drop' there wouldn't be head contact if the player controlled their tackle height and went even lower to start off with, like going for the legs than sternum. Similarly, there would rarely, if ever, be a high level of danger in head contact if every tackle was passive rather than trying to win a collision.

There is hardly anything in the game of rugby where something is completely out of a player's control. What you claim as being 'unavoidable' is just slightly different to others who see this chargedown incident differently.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949841#Comment_120949841

I see nothing there about the actual incident but a lot of academic work, most of which is covered in the laws anyway.

The comment about a drop in height was to highlight how bad the incident was, not to provide an example of something 'unavoidable.' So you've went on a a tangent there and had fun with it, but I apologise if I wasn't clear. The situations you've highlighted aren't 'slightly different' in any case, your blatantly ignoring the difference in the level of control the players have.

Anyway, adjust your run, adjust your jump, tie your shoe-laces instead. Let's not legalise assault.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949961#Comment_120949961

No one agrees with you that this incident came anywhere close to your hyperbole of an 'assault'. The ref, ARs, and TMO didn't see it as a penalty and the citing team said that the 'mid-range sanction would be wholly disproportionate to the player's fault and that the foul play merited a low-range entry point'.

Given that you're now claiming that wasn't an example, can you provide a few examples of rugby incidents then that align to your explanation that are 'unavoidable and out of players control'?

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950063#Comment_120950063

'Given that you're now claiming' - ugh, I retract my apologies. It was clear enough.

Didn't say the incident itself was assault, i said allowing that play to go would be equivalent to legalising ie. the open season on flyhavles stuff. Nice try though.

There was a tackle in the Leinster vs La Rochelle final that the ref allowed to play on even though their was contact with the head. Player pretty much couldn't have gone lower and the Leinster attacker, at the last moment, made an unnatural dip. I'm fine with play-on in those cases because the defender has done as much as he could reasonably have expected to do. I'm not sure what the exact laws are but I don't believe there was a citation.

As always, I'd like to take this time to encourage everyone not to knock out kickers.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950063#Comment_120950063

Low range entry point still means it should have been a red card!

You can not absolve recklessness based on the outcome of the action in the game, otherwise you'll continue to just encourage the action.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950247#Comment_120950247

This incident is no way 'equivalent' to assault - no one from the ref, to his team, to the citing team believed it was.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950430#Comment_120950430

I never said they didn't deem it as a red card. My point was to call out the other poster's clear hyperbole throwing around the term assault.

I'll again go back to my previous example of a player going for a high ball and catching it but his hip/torso hitting the player in the head who stayed on the ground. I've never seen a ref or citing commissioner call that against the player catching the ball, however we've all seen many times the player on the ground being sanctioned if the player in the air tips.

It clearly wasnt a straightforward case for the citing team. If WR want to make contact with the kicker illegal they can take in the rules in the NFL to protect kickers, as pulling from current vague laws regarding recklessness for me isnt the right way to go about it and the citing team seemed to agree given their statement and sanction.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950583#Comment_120950583

It clearly wasnt a straightforward case for the citing team

It wasn't straightforward in terms of the length of the sanction. It was clearly straightforward that it was foul play deserving of a red card.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950583#Comment_120950583

Again, as you didn’t understand the first two times, I did not call the incident in question assault. Allowing the play to happen unpunished would lead to tactics implementing it. Not hyperbole.

Theres nothing vague about hitting a stationary players head with no mitigation. I’m unsure what further clarification you need there.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950791#Comment_120950791

It wasn't straightforward when 4 officials at the time didn't see it as a red card and in addition officials came to the meeting to explain the historic officiating. If it was straightforward none of that would have happened.

The length of the sanction fudge just adds to it.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951319#Comment_120951319

You've absolutely twisted yourself in a knot now.

It is pretty simple, if you didn't want to imply this incident was assault then there was absolutely no reason to use the term.

No point in going around in circles any further. Maybe tone down the hyperbole a bit and there wont be misunderstandings.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120952417#Comment_120952417

Is this hyperbole in the room with you right now?

You’ve had this explained to you several times now, I can’t believe you’ve just repeated yourself again after having it explained step by step why you’re wrong. Repeating yourself won’t change what’s written but I hope it brings you some personal closure.

We’re talking knot tying now? First the NFL now knot tying, whatever will you bring up next…

’it’s prettying simple..’ - but you’ve just waxed lyrical about the irrelevant and (perhaps deliberately) deflected once again. If you’re still confused, just ask questions instead of waffling and accusing me of saying things that are demonstrably false.

And in doing that, if at all possible, don’t knock a kicker out, although I suspect it might just be labelled as a ‘board incident’

Yeah_Right

@Locke_Lamora I don't think any player goes out there with the intention of knocking an opponent out. Unless they're a psychopath or the red mist has taken over. But it is a collision sport. So knock outs will happen. The laws will try to lessen this but will never eliminate it. So saying that letting an incident go that resulted in a player being knocked out is like legalising assault, that's hyperbole.

Maybe they should just outlaw charge downs if theres no guarantee that the kicker won't be assaulted in the process. Then players can concentrate on diving at their standing leg to put them off.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955048#Comment_120955048

Why would they outlaw chargedowns when the current laws already prevent you from making contact with the head? That's a ridiculous argument to make.

I'm not sure you understand what hyperbole means. It is incredibly simple, allowing contact to the head to go unpunished will only encourage deliberate implementation of it. Please just read it carefully before using that word again, I'm cringing at the sight of it now.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955166#Comment_120955166

😂🙄

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120955166#Comment_120955166

Well they don't.

Not every head contact is illegal. Head contact goes unpunished in most matches.

Mallia didn't get cited for head contact, he got cited for reckless / dangerous play.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120958589#Comment_120958589

I'm sure we could conjure up some sort of situation in which a chargedown allows contact with the head, but that seems like a lesson in pedanticism. I've already admitted in previous posts that I'm fine with contact with the head being going unpunished in certain, narrow, instances. The contact with the head in this case was clearly illegal though, it was reckless and dangerous because of the significant chance of serious injury to the head.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120958938#Comment_120958938

Do you agree that the head contact was accidental and he wasn't targeting the kicker's head?

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120959464#Comment_120959464

Absolutely and I never said otherwise, but the fact that you are asking that makes me question whether you have understood what I have written. Numerous times. I almost wish you just posted redundant smileys again.

Recklessness does not require a deliberate and most red cards and bans do not stem from intentional foul play. However, once again, allowing this play to go unpunished will only encourage deliberate tactics targeting kickers. Please tell me you understand that?

Of all the hills for the ‘just a rugby incident’ clan to die on, this just isn’t it.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120959751#Comment_120959751

I thought targeting kickers was part of the game. Players want to prevent the opponent's kick or make them rush it. Right? Do you think letting this incident go would result in players targeting the kicker's head in future?

I'm not trying to die on any hill here, I'm just trying to understand your desired outcome. And it appears some other posters are as well. That makes me think the issue might be that you aren't being very clear.

My position is that it was a successful charge down and there was an accidental collision afterwards that resulted in a player being knocked out. I didn't see any reckless or dangerous play.

Locke_Lamora

A player stationary player was knocked out, no mitigation could be applied and it wasn’t reckless to you? That’s where we’ll never agree because that’s an incredible statement to make. Thankfully the laws don’t agree with you.

’Some other posters’ - just one actually.

targeting a kickers head is not part of the game.

‘Do you think letting this incident go would result in players targeting the kicker's head in future?’ I knew you weren’t reading what I was writing and begged you to read carefully. In my last post I literally stated that allowing this play to go unpunished would only encourage it deliberately. I’ve stated this almost word for numerous times and you still have the empty mindedness to post almost exactly what I have written, phrased as a question, and stated that I’m being unclear. Astounding.

Thankfully the laws agree with me.

TheRona

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120960138#Comment_120960138

Watch the incident again. The player wasn't stationary. The kicking player moved forward a good metre in the time that the other player was in the air.

The speed he flew in was reckless, but I also feel like the SA player was completely unaware of what was going on. It's fairly common in that situation for the kicker to just fake a kick, step to avoid the player coming in, then play it into touch. The whole incident was kind of bizarre.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120960169#Comment_120960169

But what had the possibility of him faking a kick got to do with being clobbered in the head? Like, I’m not sure of the relevance in determining whether or not this play was reckless. He didn’t fake a kick and he didn’t move enough to change the outcome for me.

Yeah_Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120960138#Comment_120960138

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I disagree. If this incident went unpunished, I don't believe that players would see that as carte blanche to knock out kickers and claim they were attempting a charge down. Because unless they were successful in the charge down, they'd get pinged. And to be successful in a charge down and twist their body in the air to deliberately knock out the kicker would take some Matrix level ability.

What is the outcome that you'd like to see? Jumping charge downs outlawed?

You say the laws don't agree with me. Ok. But in the match, the 4 international refs did.

Locke_Lamora

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120960306#Comment_120960306

Jump straight at them.

clsmooth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120960306#Comment_120960306

And on reflection, away from the heat of the moment, it was decided that the 4 international refs got it wrong. I suspect if that incident had happened in the 50th minute, they probably would have come to a different decision.

Why did Mallia turn his body to lead with his hip? He decided to protect himself in that split second before contact and that put Williams at increased risk when he clattered into his head.