[2019 Rugby Championship] Round 3: Australia vs. New Zealand (10/08/2019)

[Icemn]

Malicious LMFAO , you obviously never watched rugby league in the 80's .
There was nothing in it, player's dropping just before the point of contact happens all the time. It's not like he charged in, it all happened in a split second.
In today's game it's still a red however

nope, I was born in the 80s so I guess u missed out...

anyways, I want to say a hurt kiwi is not something to mess with... come the return leg

but it doesn't have the same ring to it I guess

 

[TRF_heineken]

Game was over at half time once Garces gave that ridiculous red card.

#JusticeforBismarck

Karma is a biatch!

I don't agree with the red card, but that couldn't have happen to a side more deservant to know what it feels like to play a game with 14 men for nearly a whole half. It has been far too often where they got the advantage of that, and I guess it was just a matter of time before they got one too.

Rather let it happen now than in the World Cup. At least you didn't end up as the wooden spooners.

But in retrospective, it must be a worrying sight to see the All Blacks only winning one game in the RC? Clearly the experiment is not working, so just throw it out than to keep on trying it out.

But with that said, I think the AB's needs to bounce back, and if they do, this Aussie team might be in for a hiding at Bledisloe 2.

 

[BobbyM]

The thing that bothers me with the RC is that there are mitigating factors (namely change rapid in height + instinct + unsighted) that need to be viewed at full speed in order to be able to fairly interpret. From what we could see on the telly the replays being shown to TMO were all slow-motion, which significantly reduces the ability of the TMO to observe those factors. It's why i was saying to people watch it in real time to judge the call. If you are going to have mitigating factors in there then you must allow them to present themselves. Some refs/TMOs will do this by requesting it to be shown at full speed. Garces is not a ref I have ever seen do that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The thing that bothers me with the RC is that there are mitigating factors (namely change rapid in height + instinct + unsighted) that need to be viewed at full speed in order to be able to fairly interpret. From what we could see on the telly the replays being shown to TMO were all slow-motion, which significantly reduces the ability of the TMO to observe those factors. It's why i was saying to people watch it in real time to judge the call. If you are going to have mitigating factors in there then you must allow them to present themselves. Some refs/TMOs will do this by requesting it to be shown at full speed. Garces is not a ref I have ever seen do that.

Probably because Garces saw it already at full speed, and there was no need from his point of view to rewatch it at full speed. Plus we don't see all the footage a TMO sees in the box, We usually only see what the referee sees on the big screen.

IMHO I don't think watching it in slow motion or full speed would have made a difference here. Garces wanted to see what part of Barrett's body hits Hooper, and where the impact on Hooper's body was made. And for that you need the Slow-motion footage, and full speed would not necessarily have made that clear and obvious for him.

 

[BobbyM]

Probably because Garces saw it already at full speed, and there was no need from his point of view to rewatch it at full speed. Plus we don't see all the footage a TMO sees in the box, We usually only see what the referee sees on the big screen.

I agree we sometimes don't see all of the angles the TMO sees. However in this instance he was talking about the images as he was seeing them, so I'd suggest in this instance we were seeing the footage that the TMO looked at. He also used the erroneous concept of "force" in trying to rationalise his decision.

IMHO I don't think watching it in slow motion or full speed would have made a difference here. Garces wanted to see what part of Barrett's body hits Hooper, and where the impact on Hooper's body was made. And for that you need the Slow-motion footage, and full speed would not necessarily have made that clear and obvious for him.

I mean we can agree to disagree here. The dynamics of the change in height at speed to me should've warranted a second look given it is a specified mitigating factor, but hey ho.

 

[Gena_ZA]

In my view that was tough one to give.
There is a difference to someone going in to hurt someone and a wrong angle in the heat of the moment.
There are reasons to argue this should not have been red and the Farrel tackle last yes on Esterhuizen should have been red

Ref interpretations needs to be consistent and then the rule as it stand needs to be applied, like it or not

 

[Rinkadink]

It is pretty consistent and defined these days, I'm not sure why anyone is acting surprised or confused;

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines

Using these guidelines we are looking at a red card and I don't think there's enough clear and obvious mitigation to lower it to yellow. If you're not happy with the laws then blame them not the referee for seemingly doing his job in this case.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It is pretty consistent and defined these days, I'm not sure why anyone is acting surprised or confused;

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines

Using these guidelines we are looking at a red card and I don't think there's enough clear and obvious mitigation to lower it to yellow. If you're not happy with the laws then blame them not the referee for seemingly doing his job in this case.

But FrENcH reF...

 

[ncurd]

*snip

*mitigating factors = Are you Owen Farrell?

Joking aside if there were not some high profile cases of players getting away with it we'd be saying it was a red card all day long. That's the actual problem refs not doing their job properly and being unwilling to show red not the other way around. A shoulder to the head has been a straight red card offence for a long time, no different to high ball situations where another player tries to collect on ground and another jumps.

 

[BobbyM]

It is pretty consistent and defined these days, I'm not sure why anyone is acting surprised or confused;

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines

Using these guidelines we are looking at a red card and I don't think there's enough clear and obvious mitigation to lower it to yellow. If you're not happy with the laws then blame them not the referee for seemingly doing his job in this case.

And here on the mitigation point we disagree, noting it is a relatively subjective element of the decision making process. I've outlined above my specific disagreements with how the ref and TMO interpreted the situation.

 

[Derpus]

*mitigating factors = Are you Owen Farrell?

Joking aside if there were not some high profile cases of players getting away with it we'd be saying it was a red card all day long. That's the actual problem refs not doing their job properly and being unwilling to show red not the other way around. A shoulder to the head has been a straight red card offence for a long time, no different to high ball situations where another player tries to collect on ground and another jumps.

Even Owen would cop it if it was shoulder/upper arm to head. Its textbook.

I find the articles complaining about Kerevi bumping off BB absolutely hilarious. How on earth are you supposed to run with the ball and not end up hitting people with your arms when they try and tackle you? He didn't lead with his elbow or anything. It was pressed tightly to his body. Should he perhaps have sought to amputate his arm before taking to the field so as to avoid having a would be tackler headbutt his arm in an awful tackle attempt?

 

[TRF_heineken]

And here on the mitigation point we disagree, noting it is a relatively subjective element of the decision making process. I've outlined above my specific disagreements with how the ref and TMO interpreted the situation.

Well based on the guidelines available to the referee, the mitigating factors wouldn't have made a difference:

Mitigating factors
(must be clear and obvious and can only be applied to reduce a sanction by 1 level)

• Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier's head
• BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)
• Tackler is unsighted prior to contact
• "Reactionary" tackle, immediate release
• Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC's head or neck)

Based on the above factors:

• Barrett made no attempt to avoid Hooper's head.
• N/A - Hooper was lower than Barrett from the beginning.
• N/A - Barrett's vision of Hooper wasn't interfered with.
• N/A - He made no attempt from the start to hold onto Hooper, and there was hand on Hooper from Barrett, therefore no release would take place.
• N/A - Barrett's shoulder hit Hooper's head first.

Mitigating factors have therefore no relevance to this tackle.

 

[Derpus]

^^^^
He changed his height specifically to hit him.

 

[MikeTheNative]

No attempt to wrap, straight shoulder charge to the head and straight red for me.

 

[BobbyM]

• N/A - Hooper was lower than Barrett from the beginning

Now we're zeroing in. Your rationale for N/A on this point doesn't correlate to the relevant mitigation you highlight, which is sudden change in height. Hooper had just been tackled by Dane Coles and was moving downwards swiftly. In that situation there was a sudden change in height, and thus reasonable grounds for mitigation. The mitigation even calls out a tackle as a situation where a change in height may occur.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Now we're zeroing in. Your rationale for N/A on this point doesn't correlate to the relevant mitigation you highlight, which is sudden change in height. Hooper had just been tackled by Dane Coles and was moving downwards swiftly. In that situation there was a sudden change in height, and thus reasonable grounds for mitigation. The mitigation even calls out a tackle as a situation where a change in height may occur.

Hooper is like half the size of Barrett.

Hooper is at all times lower than Barrett...

 

[MikeTheNative]

The way I see it, you can only claim mitigation if it was a legal tackle in the first place and the carrier's slip/getting tackled caused it to be illegal. Barrett's tackle was a shoulder charge which would have been a penalty even if it didn't connect with Hooper's head.

 

[BobbyM]

Hooper is like half the size of Barrett.

Hooper is at all times lower than Barrett...

But that isn't the point of the mitigation. The mitigation is about sudden change in height, which is the instance here. I can see we may not see eye to eye on this (like Barrett and hooper when they stand face to face!) but happy to agree to disagree on this particular element of the mitigation circumstances. For clarity I do think it should've been a yellow due to the mitigation.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

The way I see it, you can only claim mitigation if it was a legal tackle in the first place and the carrier's slip/getting tackled caused it to be illegal. Barrett's tackle was a shoulder charge which would have been a penalty even if it didn't connect with Hooper's head.

This^^^

It's feeling like a burglar suing the owner of a house that shot at him...first and foremost...shouldn't have been committing the crime to start with! Everything else is kind of beside the point...shoulder charges aren't allowed in rugby

 

[Brigantine]

If that score is repeated next week, New Zealand could drop to as low as SIXTH in the rankings.
Any lower than third would be a new record low.

You heard it here first.

If Wales vs England is also a repeat of England vs Wales, and South Africa beat Argentina again, it will be:

1 England
2 Ireland
3 Wales
4 Australia
5 South Africa
6 New Zealand

Not that it will happen of course. The All Blacks never lose at Eden Park.