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

[ZeroTwo]

Also talking of dodgy decisions, wasn't maitlands arm out before the pass? Surely it sets a precedent for just blasting the ball at any outstretched arm to get a yellow?

 

[Fard]

Sanzar settle petal. That is a bit over the top accusing the judiciary of racism.

 

[RoosTah]

Sanzar settle petal. That is a bit over the top accusing the judiciary of racism.

Well not so much race, but there's a definite bias toward home nations in most things done by World Rugby, and one decidedly against the PI nations in particular

 

[tobago22]

Sanzar
I admire your attention to detail. Quite outstanding.
We could all analyze the scrum until we are blue in the face and all come up with different answers. It is far too complex. The one undoubted error however is that the final penalty should not have been awarded.
I note with interest that you fail to mention the blatant late tackle by Mitchell on Hogg

 

[WaterboySA]

Sanzar
I note with interest that you fail to mention the blatant late tackle by Mitchell on Hogg

Lol, I thought it was a replay of the dive he took against South Africa.

- - - Updated - - -

Also talking of dodgy decisions, wasn't maitlands arm out before the pass? Surely it sets a precedent for just blasting the ball at any outstretched arm to get a yellow?

So because he sticks his arm out, the player with the ball can't pass? Also, since when do you go for an intercept with only one hand?He KNEW he was never going to catch that ball. he wanted to stop the pass from being completed.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

Also talking of dodgy decisions, wasn't maitlands arm out before the pass? Surely it sets a precedent for just blasting the ball at any outstretched arm to get a yellow?

I really don't think the Scots can feel too aggrieved with this. Natural instinct was a penalty, which most agree with, and then the yellow came with the help of the TMO cos there was a man outside. What really frustrates me is how hypocritical Kenny Logan was in his little rant. He talked about the necessity of going to the TMO for the big call at the end, which Joubert couldn't and then complained with one of the results that came from going to the TMO with the yellow card.

He was talking with his heart, which I can understand, but he didn't give himself any time to reflect or properly analyse the situation. I had a little rant about him here: http://fourballsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/kenny-logans-reaction-to-australia-vs.html#more

Still waiting on a reply from him on twitter...

 

[valley commando]

Because of the final poor penalty, that has now been admitted by RWC to have been incorrect. Scotland surely would have won by 2pts.

We had a penalty that went between the posts V the Boks in 2011 but wasn't given, you have to accept the scoreboard as we did.

 

[ncurd]

Story will run for a while

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34581006

Personally I found it refreshing for world rugby to say he got the decision wrong, they still backed him saying it was difficult to make and couldn't got to the TMO. I find hard to stomach when ref are publically afters a fairly crucial decision has gone wrong. At least admit they made the wrong decision than ignoring the problem.

 

[RoosTah]

Story will run for a while

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34581006

Personally I found it refreshing for world rugby to say he got the decision wrong, they still backed him saying it was difficult to make and couldn't got to the TMO. I find hard to stomach when ref are publically afters a fairly crucial decision has gone wrong. At least admit they made the wrong decision than ignoring the problem.

Yes, but given all the other **** they won't admit was obviously wrong it looks a lot more like pandering to their beloved home nations than any genuine desire to be accountable

 

[valley commando]

Good analysis on why getting in a tizz over Joubert's call at the end is being rather selective:

Bloody good post, I agree with all of it but especially the comment about Warburton, he is class both on and off the field, Laidlaw, Brown and Robshaw all showed a distinct lack of class and also lack of respect for their opponents.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of bitterness from Scotland and New Zealand fans after the Aussies won on Sunday, I can understand the Scots, although the team deserves credit for a decent performance its all about the scoreboard regardless of any decision which went against them.
Honestly if people want every decision referred and analysed we are going to get games that last for over 2 hours, leave things as they are apart from the whinging this has been by far the best WC to date.
As for the AB fans I understand the rivalry between the Anzacs and its no different to our rivalry with England, however is the real reason for the extra bitterness after the Oz victory on Sunday that you guys are getting worried you may meet them in the final and are already looking for excuses if that happens and you get beat.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Story will run for a while

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34581006

Personally I found it refreshing for world rugby to say he got the decision wrong, they still backed him saying it was difficult to make and couldn't got to the TMO. I find hard to stomach when ref are publically afters a fairly crucial decision has gone wrong. At least admit they made the wrong decision than ignoring the problem.

I was thinking about this and have mixed feelings. On one hand, i admit i'm happy the governing body admits when someone that works for them got it wrong. It is at the very least refreshing and inspiring. But then, they threw him under the bus. They could have done this in such a better manner. I was thinking about it from a PR point of view and though of an alternative:

1) They talk to Joubert and encourage Joubert himself comes out and says: after watching the replay, which i couldn't at the time, i got it wrong. As a fan, i can understand that. **** happens and the rules say he couldn't check with the TMO for that.
2) WR makes a statement about how good was of Joubert to admit a mistake and some bull**** about what steps are being taken in oder to prevent this from happening again in the future (something like, "we're considering other options regarding when to check with TMO" or something along those lines).

That would have been 10 times more gracious, both for WR and Joubert. Now it looks as if the WR is cherry picking which referees they will send to the slaughter. Not only that, but they would have shared the blame, as Joubert would admit he got it wrong, but he would also pass some of the blame to WR for not allowing him to check with the TMO.

 

[RoosTah]

I was thinking about this and have mixed feelings. On one hand, i admit i'm happy the governing body admits when someone that works for them got it wrong. It is at the very least refreshing and inspiring. But then, they threw him under the bus. They could have done this in such a better manner. I was thinking about it from a PR point of view and though of an alternative:

1) They talk to Joubert and encourage Joubert himself comes out and says: after watching the replay, which i couldn't at the time, i got it wrong. As a fan, i can understand that. **** happens and the rules say he couldn't check with the TMO for that.
2) WR makes a statement about how good was of Joubert to admit a mistake and some bull**** about what steps are being taken in oder to prevent this from happening again in the future (something like, "we're considering other options regarding when to check with TMO" or something along those lines).

That would have been 10 times more gracious, both for WR and Joubert. Now it looks as if the WR is cherry picking which referees they will send to the slaughter. Not only that, but they would have shared the blame, as Joubert would admit he got it wrong, but he would also pass some of the blame to WR for not allowing him to check with the TMO.

Very much this. With the way WR is carrying on what they're essentially saying is that if you're part of their inner sanctum they'll kick up a massive stink on your behalf and show contrition, but if you live on the other side of the tracks, then we'll just go f##k yourself and deal with **** decisions because it's not their problem.

 

[ZeroTwo]

So because he sticks his arm out, the player with the ball can't pass? Also, since when do you go for an intercept with only one hand?He KNEW he was never going to catch that ball. he wanted to stop the pass from being completed.

Players who rush out of the defence to stop the outside pass make themselves as big as possible to stop that pass ALL THE TIME. You must have seen it?

I think then passing into their hand which was there before the ball left yours doesn't determine a intercept attempt. He passes it straight into Maitlands hand then Maitland tried to have a grab at it. The initial contact was not intentional in my eyes (and maybe my eyes alone)!

Therefore anyone who rushes out the line now risks having someone pass the ball at them and guarantee a yellow card. Ridiculous.

To try and show what I'm saying at 7.50 ish:



You think that knock on is intentional? Trying to block the pass is completely legal (providing you're not offside then running between the ball carrier and potential recipient happens regularly) and to say that he saw that ball coming, decided he couldn't catch it then knocked it on?!

Also from the World Rugby site:

(f) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.
Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

I know it has been the recent trend to yellow card it but can anyone tell me why?! The rule book from http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12&language=EN says otherwise!

 

[ScrumHauf]

My first post on the site and I would like to start by saying how much I have enjoyed the World Cup.Being old enough to have watched the tournament since its inception I have no doubt that most of us rugby fans can agree that this has been the best yet, mainly due to the emergence of the smaller nations closing the gap on the more established nations.I would love for this progression to continue as it can only be beneficial to the sport. so in view of this i would like to throw in for discussion the possibility of setting up a new "Hemisphere Championship" to take place halfway through the world cup cycle with a similar set-up ie group stages followed by knockout stages. Obviously this would involve the postponement of the established 6 Nations and southern Championship in these years therefore there would have to be interest both commercial and amongst the fanbase of the nations involved, is this the case?I am a great believer that the best way for any team to improve and evolve is by playing against better opposition and this seems a viable solution for allowing this evolution. Secondly as a Scot. I will throw in my tuppenceworth on the events of our Q.F. in my opinion it was a wonderful game played by both teams playing open attractive rugby and was a lot closer than many including myself expected as I thought that this extremely young yet extremely talented generation of Scottish players were just a little bit inexperienced at this level of international rugby. This could possibly have been the main factor in the defeat as the lineout call may suggest. As for the contrivercial refereeing decision let me start by saying that the refereeing in the toutnament so far has been exceptional and use of TMO in rugby has been a boon for the integrity of the sport but the grey areas of when and how referrals can be made has been highlighted by this incident so how can this be improved? My suggestion would be along the lines of the American NFL where all scores are reviewed as a matter of course to check for foul play leading to the score.The only other referrals would be after a challenge by coach\captain to a decision made on field.Each team would have a set number of challenges and to prevent challenges being made "willy-nilly" a penalty by a loss of a right to use of a substitute for each incorrect challenge made. Finally I would just like to say that the future for Scottish rugby is looking very rosy indeed.The average age of the starting XV was 26 and most if not all will still be around come the next world cup and with the combination of natural progression of our younger players and the continued improvement I foresee with our wonderful coach then the next few years will almost certainly be Scotlands most successful in the professional era. Good luck to the 4 remaining teams and as a neutral and eternal supporter of the underdog Come On Argentina.

 

[Shaggy]

Bloody good post, I agree with all of it but especially the comment about Warburton, he is class both on and off the field, Laidlaw, Brown and Robshaw all showed a distinct lack of class and also lack of respect for their opponents.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of bitterness from Scotland and New Zealand fans after the Aussies won on Sunday, I can understand the Scots, although the team deserves credit for a decent performance its all about the scoreboard regardless of any decision which went against them.
Honestly if people want every decision referred and analysed we are going to get games that last for over 2 hours, leave things as they are apart from the whinging this has been by far the best WC to date.
As for the AB fans I understand the rivalry between the Anzacs and its no different to our rivalry with England, however is the real reason for the extra bitterness after the Oz victory on Sunday that you guys are getting worried you may meet them in the final and are already looking for excuses if that happens and you get beat.

Maybe I need to re-read the thread but it doesn't appear to me that there are masses of my countrymen/women bitter over Australia winning. The final acts of the game were controversial, so why isn't it okay to voice your disapproval (if you feel that way), regardless of which country you primarily support.

Are we worried we might lose to Australia in the final, well, we have to get past South Africa first, who are more than capable of beating us on the day, and Australia has to beat the Pumas, which isn't a given either.

I dispute that we are looking for excuses too. All week (and prior) I was reading about poor French selections, discontent in the camp, and even the length of the French domestic season (recently) as to why a French victory was unlikely over the All Blacks. During the course of the tournament, most of the comment regarding the Welsh was the injuries and how they would be disadvantaged. Are these legitimate reasons for failure to progress in the tournament? Probably, but I don't recall seeing any posts calling anyone out about making excuses.

To sum up (as I've stated many times on here before) should controversy appear that might effect the outcome/New Zealand progressing, it won't be the over riding reason NZ dips out, it will be because we put ourselves in the position that we could lose in the first place, and that we couldn't adapt/weren't good enough on the day; no excuses will be forthcoming from me.

 

[celticc]

I think you are missing the point. I am saying that Australia would of had a scrum in an attacking position deep in Scotland Territory and therefore the game would of still be up in the air. The suggestion from a lot of people is that Scotland would of won if the knock on was given but its not like that at all. The fact is they threw to the back of the line out in the rain and put themselves in that position.

i think if you run that scenario a hundred times the team with the attacking scrum would win the game maybe 10 times. Which team would you rather be, the team with the lead or the team with the put in.

 

[Naw mate]

Players who rush out of the defence to stop the outside pass make themselves as big as possible to stop that pass ALL THE TIME. You must have seen it?

I think then passing into their hand which was there before the ball left yours doesn't determine a intercept attempt. He passes it straight into Maitlands hand then Maitland tried to have a grab at it. The initial contact was not intentional in my eyes (and maybe my eyes alone)!

Therefore anyone who rushes out the line now risks having someone pass the ball at them and guarantee a yellow card. Ridiculous.

Agreed!

and for anyone thinking that an Aussie Kiwi final would be a closer better match I remind you of the last performances New Zealand 26 - 12 Australia , New Zealand 24 - 16 Scotland and Scotland were leading till the last 10 minutes, and the last 4 matches between Aus & Scot - 2 each, With this last one being a very controversial win for the Aussies Should have made it 3-1 to Scotland out of the last 4 games, People need to stop thinking of Scotland as the underdog, they have many world class players - Skin of your teeth Australia!! - Till next time!! , just don't screw up against Argentina or you will make our ''what if's?'' feel worse! (we also beet them the last time we played them 41-31).

- - - Updated - - -

i think if you run that scenario a hundred times the team with the attacking scrum would win the game maybe 10 times. Which team would you rather be, the team with the lead or the team with the put in.

Agreed!

 

[Shaggy]

My first post on the site and I would like to start by saying how much I have enjoyed the World Cup.Being old enough to have watched the tournament since its inception I have no doubt that most of us rugby fans can agree that this has been the best yet, mainly due to the emergence of the smaller nations closing the gap on the more established nations.I would love for this progression to continue as it can only be beneficial to the sport. so in view of this i would like to throw in for discussion the possibility of setting up a new "Hemisphere Championship" to take place halfway through the world cup cycle with a similar set-up ie group stages followed by knockout stages. Obviously this would involve the postponement of the established 6 Nations and southern Championship in these years therefore there would have to be interest both commercial and amongst the fanbase of the nations involved, is this the case?I am a great believer that the best way for any team to improve and evolve is by playing against better opposition and this seems a viable solution for allowing this evolution. Secondly as a Scot. I will throw in my tuppenceworth on the events of our Q.F. in my opinion it was a wonderful game played by both teams playing open attractive rugby and was a lot closer than many including myself expected as I thought that this extremely young yet extremely talented generation of Scottish players were just a little bit inexperienced at this level of international rugby. This could possibly have been the main factor in the defeat as the lineout call may suggest. As for the contrivercial refereeing decision let me start by saying that the refereeing in the toutnament so far has been exceptional and use of TMO in rugby has been a boon for the integrity of the sport but the grey areas of when and how referrals can be made has been highlighted by this incident so how can this be improved? My suggestion would be along the lines of the American NFL where all scores are reviewed as a matter of course to check for foul play leading to the score.The only other referrals would be after a challenge by coach\captain to a decision made on field.Each team would have a set number of challenges and to prevent challenges being made "willy-nilly" a penalty by a loss of a right to use of a substitute for each incorrect challenge made. Finally I would just like to say that the future for Scottish rugby is looking very rosy indeed.The average age of the starting XV was 26 and most if not all will still be around come the next world cup and with the combination of natural progression of our younger players and the continued improvement I foresee with our wonderful coach then the next few years will almost certainly be Scotlands most successful in the professional era. Good luck to the 4 remaining teams and as a neutral and eternal supporter of the underdog Come On Argentina.

Well welcome (a great first post, by the way). I think we may be of a similar age group, as I saw many of the games in the first world cup, and well remember your Competitive Scottish team with Roy Laidlaw and co; it was a shame your fly half, Rutherford was injured or you may have done even better than you did.

.... Anyway, to address some of your points, I've always liked the idea of another smaller tournament half way between cups, but as everything revolves around money these days, it's unlikely to happen unless the major unions are fairly compensated/it's worth their while. The long awaited global calendar would probably have to be agreed upon too, so that all sides can finally be in sync with one another.

I'm also a little dubious about borrowing too much of the referral system from American Football, as it kind of lends itself to referrals, as it's a stop start kind of game by nature. To illustrate my point, friends of mine in north America had no trouble explaining the rules to me every time the umpires threw there flags, or the offence went off and the defense went on, but I had much more difficulty explaining what happened/the calls when I took them to live Rugby, because the game had moved on.

I totally agree about the closing of the gap between the traditionally strong teams and the rest at this RWC; I hope it continues, as it makes fora better tournament.

From a Scottish point of view, hopefully they can build from this tournament and build into a consistently competitive side. Hopefully you now have a good core of players to do so as you suggest.

 

[woodwarj13]

i think if you run that scenario a hundred times the team with the attacking scrum would win the game maybe 10 times. Which team would you rather be, the team with the lead or the team with the put in.

Still not the point I am making. I am saying that quite a lot of people are suggesting Scotland would of been in the semi-final if the correct decision was made which just isn't the case. Australia could still have won from that position. It has also been stated here already but if Scotland's try to put them through against Samoa had been reviewed it would have been disallowed and would have opened the door to Japan, with this in mind I cannot see how anyone can dwell on this decision.

 

[gamine]

No, that was fine, if you're referring to Kuridrani's try. Not a double movement, you are allowed one placement of the ball, and his movement of the arms there was fine.

Oh, OK, thanks, it was just that I thought that the placement had to be immediate, and when I saw the re-play of this try I didn't think it was.