[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 4: Australia vs. Scotland (18/10/2015)

[ABs2011]

''Interesting that you are so sure Australia, who had already scored 5 tries, would have been unable to make anything out of an attacking scrum near the Scotland 22. The fact is, no-one will know what would have happened if the right call was made!''

How meany of those 5 tries had been made from the Australian scrum? the scrum belonged to Scotland on the night the Australian scrum would likely have collapsed and been awarded straight back to Scotland

I would say that the 5 tries should only have been 4 in the first place , but for another poor ref decision THAT YELLOW CARD allowed a gap for Australia to score through.
so you could argue for 8-10 points(cant remember if it was successfully converted) to come off the Australian score, Scotland tactics worked, they were the better team on the night and all things being equal - deserve a place in the semi .

It doesnt matter mate - the point is we dont know what would have happened so one cant say Scotland surely would have one!

 

[RoosTah]

Lol @ this forum, Aussie should be out off the cup, bunch of lucky sods, Joubert tried a similar thing in last years RC when he penalized McCaw for "not rolling away" when he was a mile out off the ruck and rolling away. He's gone off the boil, Owens will get the final, no doubt and rightly so.

I notice you have nothing to say about Samoa and aren't at all outraged about how the ref and WR conspired to handicap them against Scotland. Are you only outraged when Australia benefits, or do you just not like the PI nations?

 

[ABs2011]

There are no unknown here.
Australia was given an advantage they shouldn't have received and they capitalized on that.

Those are facts, not unknowns.

Of course there are unknowns here. Unless of course you know exactly what would have happened if the correct call had been made and Australia had been awarded a scrum!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Of course there are unknowns here. Unless of course you know exactly what would have happened if the correct call had been made and Australia had been awarded a scrum!

No. There would be unknowns if i were arguing about what would have happened. I am not.
I am arguing about what actually happened and saying it was wrong. WR agrees. No unknowns there.

 

[ABs2011]

No. There would be unknowns if i were arguing about what would have happened. I am not.
I am arguing about what actually happened and saying it was wrong. WR agrees. No unknowns there.

Yup I agree there for sure. It's just that some people are now saying the Scotland definately would have won, which is where this conversation started. That is something which is an unknown and to be honset pointless to discuss any further - and the point I am trying to make with regards to some posters going round and round trying to argue what would have happened based on the way the rest of the game was played out....

 

[Naw mate]

''I notice you have nothing to say about Samoa and aren't at all outraged about how the ref and WR conspired to handicap them against Scotland''

I'd guess that's because this did not happen? what conspiracy? another embarrassed Aussie attempt at deflecting a topic?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Yup I agree there for sure. It's just that some people are now saying the Scotland definately would have won,

I agree with you there.

 

[RoosTah]

''I notice you have nothing to say about Samoa and aren't at all outraged about how the ref and WR conspired to handicap them against Scotland''

I'd guess that's because this did not happen? what conspiracy? another embarrassed Aussie attempt at deflecting a topic?

Tuilagi gets rubbed out for 2 weeks (reduced from 5 on appeal) for the heinous act of running into a player, whilst two Scots dump a player on his head and get off free on appeal. That sounds to me like some pretty good luck going Scotland's way in a game they won by 3 points and only thanks to one very lucky try. Or the fact that WR gave Japan 4 days to recover from the match against the Springboks... in both instances things lined up pretty bloody favourably for Scotland to make it to the qtrs when Japan deserved it more.

Just saying, people can go on about the Scots being robbed all they like, but it cuts both ways and they had a bloody tonne go their way

 

[ABs2011]

By the way @smartcooky,

I suspect the person I was referring to on radio sport who got the rules wrong was Angus Mabey, NZ ITM cup rugby ref.

I think his exact words were "5 out of 10 people dont know the rules" and "the correct call was made". When the reality was the correct call was not made, and embarrassingly he is infact one of those 5 of 10 people that dont know the rules of rugby as he thought the whole call rested on the fact that Phipps didnt intentionally "play at" the ball.

Did anyone else here this on the radio? And can anyone confirm who the person was? I could be wrong thinking it was Angus Mabey though as if I think about the voice it may well have been Goran Paladin. Either way, a bit embarrassing!

 

[Naw mate]

Tuilagi gets rubbed out for 2 weeks (reduced from 5 on appeal) for the heinous act of running into a player, whilst two Scots dump a player on his head and get off free on appeal. That sounds to me like some pretty good luck going Scotland's way in a game they won by 3 points and only thanks to one very lucky try. Or the fact that WR gave Japan 4 days to recover from the match against the Springboks... in both instances things lined up pretty bloody favourably for Scotland to make it to the qtrs when Japan deserved it more.

Just saying, people can go on about the Scots being robbed all they like, but it cuts both ways and they had a bloody tonne go their way

The 2 Scots did not dump him on his head , they controlled his landing which is why the appeal was made and concluded successful

 

[RoosTah]

The 2 Scots did not dump him on his head , they controlled his landing which is why the appeal was made and concluded successful

He landed on his head mate, and whatever way you want to spin it, it was a million times worse that Tuilagi running into a bloke with poor tackling technique. Tuilagi was one of Samoa's most devastating players and they rubbed him out for that rather conveniently just before their match against Scotland, whilst Scotland gets off free for what was clearly a much worse and more dangerous incident. WR were doing Scotland favours with both the scheduling and their rulings and it's as simple as that. Again, a bloody tonne went Scotland's way for them to even make the qtrs, so lets cut this bull**** out about the 'merit' or otherwise of Australia's 5 try to 3 win.

 

[Naw mate]

The 2 Scots did not dump him on his head , they controlled his landing which is why the appeal was made and concluded successful

I think everyone apart from England had to play a mach with a 4 day recovery in the pool stage - NEXT?

 

[RoosTah]

I think everyone apart from England had to play a mach with a 4 day recovery in the pool stage - NEXT?

Not back to back against 2 tier 1 nations they didn't... Again, you boys just need to suck it up. You only scored through luck and frankly only made it to the qtrs through luck. One slightly wrong call doesn't make you the more deserving winner.

 

[Naw mate]

He landed on his head mate, and whatever way you want to spin it, it was a million times worse that Tuilagi running into a bloke with poor tackling technique. Tuilagi was one of Samoa's most devastating players and they rubbed him out for that rather conveniently just before their match against Scotland, whilst Scotland gets off free for what was clearly a much worse and more dangerous incident. WR were doing Scotland favours with both the scheduling and their rulings and it's as simple as that. Again, a bloody tonne went Scotland's way for them to even make the qtrs, so lets cut this bull**** out about the 'merit' or otherwise of Australia's 5 try to 3 win.

No spin , watch the footage, the fact they were sited for it (by an aussie ''just saying'') was clearly wrong - and why it was over turned

 

[RoosTah]

No spin , watch the footage, the fact they were sited for it (by an aussie ''just saying'') was clearly wrong - and why it was over turned

And yet the clearly incorrect decision on Tuilagi retained a 2 week ban - just enough to rub him out against Scotland. Pretty convenient really. Just sayin.

 

[Redcatstorm]

Lol @ this forum, Aussie should be out off the cup, bunch of lucky sods, Joubert tried a similar thing in last years RC when he penalized McCaw for "not rolling away" when he was a mile out off the ruck and rolling away. He's gone off the boil, Owens will get the final, no doubt and rightly so.

I doubt Owens gets the final as he wasn't selected for a semi, so unless they both royally cock up the final will be Barnes or Garces

 

[Naw mate]

And yet the clearly incorrect decision on Tuilagi retained a 2 week ban - just enough to rub him out against Scotland. Pretty convenient really. Just sayin.

so you have no confidence in the decision process ether?

 

[Redcatstorm]

so you have no confidence in the decision process ether?

Well i can say i don't the ban at 5 weeks by an Australian official was ludicrous but then to be cleared by a bitter former Wallabies coach is just as F up.

I truly believe they should have gone for a game or two and for the life of me don't know how the got off entirely.

But Water under the bridge doesn't matter now.

 

[Naw mate]

Well i can say i don't the ban at 5 weeks by an Australian official was ludicrous but then to be cleared by a bitter former Wallabies coach is just as F up.

I truly believe they should have gone for a game or two and for the life of me don't know how the got off entirely.

But Water under the bridge doesn't matter now.

its because they controlled his landing.

 

[nik]

Easy to blame the ref. Personally I believe Joubert should have gone to the TMO even if he wasn't allowed to. The correct call hopefully would have been made and the public relations dilemma would have been less (obviously Australia and their fans would have been aggrieved at the ref for bending the rules but for the sake of getting the right call it would have been difficult to argue against).

However this is all hindsight now.

The ref is not to be blamed. It's the game and the law that needs to be scrutinised. Does that offence warrant a penalty? I certainly don't think so. IMO it should be a free kick instead of penalty. Possibly the ELVs had this offence as a free kick.

Or every penalty in the last 10 mins of a match should be reviewed.

Or have a challenge system.