[2015 RWC] Pool C: New Zealand vs. Argentina (20/09/2015)

[ABs2011]

Yeah, next year they have a good chance, with the All Blacks rebuilding.

I reckon after the WC NZ will be perhaps even a better side. Remember what happened after the 2011 RWC? Hansen introduced a bunch of new players and we spanked everyone. Same again I reckon as the motivation of the youngsters fighting for spots, and less rest and rotation take effect!

 

[nzlizard]

What a crock of S*it, I will just name one player Quade Cooper! He was given heaps by 80% of the crowd in NZ and all he did was give Richie a shove in the back. I didn't see Bakkies getting the same treatment when he used his head after completing a tackle.

Problem is Cooper tried multiple times to have a crack at McCaw, he made a complete cock of himself, and given that Cooper is the worst #10 in the world he has not earn't that right.

Thats probably because Quade has got one of those faces that you just want to smack every time to see it

Statement of the week

Do you think that Argentina can shock Aotearoa/NZ in the near future?
Scotland has not won 1 game against All Blacks in the Rugby history! (0 win, 2 draws, 28 defeat)

I think Argentina will have more of a shot than Scotland, esp after a few years of super rugby

 

[Kiwi_]

I reckon after the WC NZ will be perhaps even a better side. Remember what happened after the 2011 RWC? Hansen introduced a bunch of new players and we spanked everyone. Same again I reckon as the motivation of the youngsters fighting for spots, and less rest and rotation take effect!

Yeah, I was thinking that as well, but we still had Dan and McCaw, Nonu, Smith etc. I feel we're losing one too many wise heads this time round that it will be a lot harder than post 2011.

On the Read captaincy thing, I don't think Canes ahead of him, just raising the question "could he be?" Seemed like a good chance to make Read captain, I guess they don't want to run the risk of injury and that's the only reason behind it.

 

[ABs2011]

Yeah, I was thinking that as well, but we still had Dan and McCaw, Nonu, Smith etc. I feel we're losing one too many wise heads this time round that it will be a lot harder than post 2011.

On the Read captaincy thing, I don't think Canes ahead of him, just raising the question "could he be?" Seemed like a good chance to make Read captain, I guess they don't want to run the risk of injury and that's the only reason behind it.

Hard to know aye, I just get excited about all the talent that will get a chance to shine on a more regular basis. From the slightly more established guys like Fekitoa, Ardie Savea, Laulala, Taylor, Tuipoulotu to new blood like Ioane, Fafita, Karpik, Dunshea, Little, Samu etc etc. Heaps of talent coming through in the ITM cup aye! Exciting times. First things first though - RWC 2015

Re the captaincy, I'm pretty sure its the latter. According the the AB coaches this is the last chance to rest most of the starters, including Read, so they need one of the bench / 2nd stringers to captain. Wouldn't read much more into it other than its a pretty good indication who is now next in line after Read.

 

[Kiwi_]

So we're playing close to our starting team vs Georgia and Tonga? Hmm. I don't mind the Tongan game, but George will be tough and physical, we run the risk of injury here.

 

[nzlizard]

I can't see our best lineup starting in the Georgia game, will be a hybrid lineup imo, with possibly subs coming in nice and early.

 

[ABs2011]

So we're playing close to our starting team vs Georgia and Tonga? Hmm. I don't mind the Tongan game, but George will be tough and physical, we run the risk of injury here.

I can't see our best lineup starting in the Georgia game, will be a hybrid lineup imo, with possibly subs coming in nice and early.

That's what Hansen said anyway.

Makes sense to me. That would give us 2 games in a row with near to the first XV starting, a chance to build combinations and form etc moving into the QF. They have been very clear they will not make the same mistakes as 2007.

Anyway, it could be Hansen foxing, but I think they will make one or two changes at most in each game. As I said it looks like for sure Kaino and Whitlock will get rests next game. But otherwise I think we will largely see the first string side. And a couple rests again for Tonga perhaps but again, largely the full strength team.

 

[Expatinnz]

Question on the McCaw trip, speaking with a number of people and looking at Refs forums, seems that the consensus is that it should have been a red card with a subsequent ban.

Anyone know the official ruling on this, what I've read is that a Trip is not only a professional foul but its also dangerous play???

 

[nickdnz]

Question on the McCaw trip, speaking with a number of people and looking at Refs forums, seems that the consensus is that it should have been a red card with a subsequent ban.

Anyone know the official ruling on this, what I've read is that a Trip is not only a professional foul but its also dangerous play???

No way is it a red card in my opinion.

It seems it's up to a certain level of referee discretion:

Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes' playing time, or sent-off.

 

[smartcooky]

Question on the McCaw trip, speaking with a number of people and looking at Refs forums, seems that the consensus is that it should have been a red card with a subsequent ban.

Anyone know the official ruling on this, what I've read is that a Trip is not only a professional foul but its also dangerous play???

Not a chance of that being a red card, and in any case, he would been cited if it was.

If a trip worthy of attracting a red card was the equivalent of a punch attracting the same, then what McCaw did was handbags at 5 paces.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Rayno Benjamin got a yellow card for a far worse trip on Folau so how McCaw's can be red or even a citing is beyond me

 

[Mcfadden]

If people think the trip was a red card then they aren't being reasonable in my opinion. Eye gouging? A punch? Threatening someone's safety to such an extent like that, that's a red for me. Continuously doing the same level of infringing even after a yellow? That's a red too. McCaw's actions were purposeful and cynical, and the yellow is totally justified - but it wasn't at that level.

Do we want a spectacle or do we want a circus? Because as stupid as it was, it was also a pretty reflex driven in my view. I'm not blindly defending McCaw or saying he's a saint, before the Anti-New Zealand brigade start up. I just think the referees call was sensible and made sense.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Can someone explain to me the Galarza deal.
I watched the replay, at least the one Argentina is claiming to be the evidence of the episode, and i can't fathom that meriting a 9 week suspension (apparently his record helped, should have been 12).
I know the rules state "contact with the eye or eye area" but isn't intention taken into account at all? I don't believe for a second he wanted to do that.
I've had similar things happen to me and my friends while playing and we took it as what it was, an accident.
You are fighting for the ball, one guy moves his hands in one direction, the other moves his head in another one, both miss to anticipate each other's move and a hand/finger ends up close to the eye area.

If this was genuinely an accident, would it still merit a suspension?

 

[austingtir]

Can someone explain to me the Galarza deal.
I watched the replay, at least the one Argentina is claiming to be the evidence of the episode, and i can't fathom that meriting a 9 week suspension (apparently his record helped, should have been 12).
I know the rules state "contact with the eye or eye area" but isn't intention taken into account at all? I don't believe for a second he wanted to do that.
I've had similar things happen to me and my friends while playing and we took it as what it was, an accident.
You are fighting for the ball, one guy moves his hands in one direction, the other moves his head in another one, both miss to anticipate each other's move and a hand/finger ends up close to the eye area.

If this was genuinely an accident, would it still merit a suspension?

I found it bizarre also, I only saw one replay and it just looked like an absolute nothing. If what I saw is the extent of the evidence im totally flummoxed by this decision.

Yep just watched it again. 9 weeks for that??? Totally ridiculous.

 

[Kiwi_]

Yeah, outrageous. You've just got to wonder sometimes... Saw no ill intent. Just stupid, ruined this guys RWC ffs.

 

[Mcfadden]

Sorry, but from my angle Galarza is clearly curling his fingers inwards and makes no attempt to remove his hand until Rettalick struggles him off. For starters, the head is sacred in rugby. You shouldn't be touching it anyway. World Rugby are cracking down on twisting people's necks in rucks, why should this be any different? Contact was made with the eye, and it is an offense to do so. The minimum usually carries a sentence of 12 weeks.

Quite frankly, he's lucky it's not more.

 

[nickdnz]

I think the problem is a lack of angles. Based on the television one it is hard to say, but they have access to many more angles. Ultimately if he didn't do it we should hear it out over the appeals process.

 

[The Jones Boy]

9 weeks for an accidental poke in the area of the eye, in the heat of the moment?
Ludicrous, that poor Puma, he must be gutted.
Ridiculous decision.

 

[j'nuh]

Galarza incident: http://gfycat.com/GentleWhirlwindIlsamochadegu

It seems clear to me that:
1. contact was made
2. it was reckless (he shouldn't have been pulling at the face area) but not intentional

Precedent is that proper gouging would be a much longer than 9 week ban. e.g. Attoub got 70 weeks, Dupuy got six months, Hartley got 26 weeks. So I think it's fairly clear he's been punished on the much lighter end of gouging.

Perhaps 9 weeks is too long still? Not sure. Let's face it, anything longer than a week or two ban would have meant Argentina would have replaced him. Any reduction in his sentence at this point would be so he's available for Gloucester at the start of the domestic season.

 

[smartcooky]

9 weeks for an accidental poke in the area of the eye, in the heat of the moment?
Ludicrous, that poor Puma, he must be gutted.
Ridiculous decision.

Precedent is that proper gouging would be a much longer than 9 week ban. e.g. Attoub got 70 weeks, Dupuy got six months, Hartley got 26 weeks. So I think it's fairly clear he's been punished on the much lighter end of gouging.

j'nuh has nailed it

[TEXTAREA]WR Regulation 17 Appendix 1 - SANCTIONS FOR FOUL PLAY

10.4(m) Contact with the Eye(s) or the Eye Area
LE – 12 weeks
MR – 18 weeks
TE – 24+ weeks
Max = 208 weeks[/TEXTAREA]

The player got less than the minimum for contact with the eye area probably due to mitigation