(2022 Rugby Championship - Round 5) - Australia V New Zealand (15/9/2022) [Bledisloe 1]

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Foley pleads innocence by effectively blaming teammates for yelling at him to get on with it. Bit of a cheek.

Wallabies: Bernard Foley pleads innocence in time-wasting decision

Wallabies fly-half Bernard Foley claims he was not trying to slow the game down ahead of the controversial ending to Bledisloe I.

www.planetrugby.com

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Tbh I think you were far too aggressive and rude there @Cruz_del_Sur

I don't think the decision was fair personally as it's completely inconsistent with 99.9% of similar situations, but it was legal and NZ fans are perfectly within their rights to point this out.

Have to agree. There are posters I personally dislike all over the internet but unless they are a slimey fascist or racist who deserves a good winding up for the sake of humanity I'll always reply to the post, not the poster. Holding grudges on the internet isn't doing anyone any favours and isnt a good look (speaking as someone who has probably gone there himself more times than he'd have liked).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

My point is not directed at him but at his argument. I wrote with a strong, direct and even rude tone, granted*, but my point is at the way he builds arguments and how he switches stances whenever the wind blows one way or another.

When it favours him he goes ' the rules say XYZ, period' and when it doesn't he goes 'i know the rules but you have to take into account that the ref had been using his discretion in the other direction'. Pointing that out is not ad homimen. It's an argument on itself.

Rules when he likes, consistency when he doesnt.
He is perfectly within his rights to point out the rules, i am perfectly within my rights to point out his double standard. And every time, EVERY SINGLE BLOODY TIME, his switch in stance favours the team he supports. You wanna look the other way, fine, but dont try to lead me down guilt avenue just for calling a spade a spade.

To add insult to injury, he treats everyone who disagrees with him as an ignorant, idiot, hater, kiwi basher or anti nzer. I spent a good time during the the last weeks defending the crusaders against most and then this guy comes back, throws random labels at others and i'm supposed to shut up? Nah


* if that is the issue here, fair enough i apologize, to him and the rest. I am quite sure the delivery was not the perceived problem. The content was.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Foley pleads innocence by effectively blaming teammates for yelling at him to get on with it. Bit of a cheek.

Wallabies: Bernard Foley pleads innocence in time-wasting decision

Wallabies fly-half Bernard Foley claims he was not trying to slow the game down ahead of the controversial ending to Bledisloe I.

www.planetrugby.com

Actually that was pretty sad if it was true - that he thought time was off and would come back on when he kicked it, (therefore had all the time in the world to kick it.)

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Man... Aussie were robbed. If I was the country that had not held the rivalry cup between the two nations for what, 18 years? And that happened to my national team, when talking about that rivalry for the next decade I'd mention that refereeing decision. That is absolutely criminal. I couldn't fathom how the players on the Australian rugby team feel, it makes me uncomfortable because something like that just isn't rugby for me. For NZ to be so bold as to not even play for a draw which was SO OUTRAGEOUS to me in the first place, and for the referee to then do that, which I mean, we're talking about a 1 in a million call, well, it's worse than that but yeah... And like people have mentioned prior, when world rugby is already having refs as babysitters 'hands out", "roll away" etc. Yeah... Wild.

I thought it was outrageous not to go for the draw too, but actually they probably got that decision right in terms of the bledisloe cup because if they drew or lost they'd have to win next week - so no difference between winning and losing, but if they win then the can lose next week, so big difference between winning and drawing in this match.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

My point is not directed at him but at his argument. I wrote with a strong, direct and even rude tone, granted*, but my point is at the way he builds arguments and how he switches stances whenever the wind blows one way or another.

When it favours him he goes ' the rules say XYZ, period' and when it doesn't he goes 'i know the rules but you have to take into account that the ref had been using his discretion in the other direction'. Pointing that out is not ad homimen. It's an argument on itself.

Rules when he likes, consistency when he doesnt.
He is perfectly within his rights to point out the rules, i am perfectly within my rights to point out his double standard. And every time, EVERY SINGLE BLOODY TIME, his switch in stance favours the team he supports. You wanna look the other way, fine, but dont try to lead me down guilt avenue just for calling a spade a spade.

To add insult to injury, he treats everyone who disagrees with him as an ignorant, idiot, hater, kiwi basher or anti nzer. I spent a good time during the the last weeks defending the crusaders against most and then this guy comes back, throws random labels at others and i'm supposed to shut up? Nah


* if that is the issue here, fair enough i apologize, to him and the rest. I am quite sure the delivery was not the perceived problem. The content was.

Your post was not in the slightest directed at his argument, it was directed at his approach to arguments. Your post didn't address this particular argument at all.

I tend not to bother reading arguments too much when they get personal, so I don't know all this history, so I don't know how reasonable it is to still hold a grudge (and noting he was the one that left not you, meaning what happened historically might have affected him more, yet he decided to come back after a cool off period and provide some interesting and objective facts about this bizarre decision we saw) but it was a long time ago.

long enough ago at least that you can hardly claim now that he has an approach to arguments - over the last three years he has made one argument. Maybe he has changed his approach.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Your post was not in the slightest directed at his argument, it was directed at his approach to arguments.

So let me get this straight: pointing out that he changes his argumentative line (to opposing views!) at his convenience when and only when it suits him is not an argument, but an ad hominem?
yes or no?

I tend not to bother reading arguments too much when they get personal

Is pointing out a fact rude? Hope not.

He calls others anti nz, kiwi bashers. You say nothing.
I call him a hipocrite and you step in.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

So let me get this straight: pointing out that he changes his argumentative line (to opposing views!) at his convenience when and only when it suits him is not an argument, but an ad hominem?
yes or no?



Is pointing out a fact rude? Hope not.

He calls others anti nz, kiwi bashers. You say nothing.
I call him a hipocrite and you step in.

Sorry for offending you.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think there are two issues here that are in this instance seemingly in conflict but both relevant:

1) The inconsistency of refereeing (regardless of the merits of this decision it is quite inconsistent with how time wasting is normally reffed. Then again, it's rare to have a player so blatantly ignore a explicit instruction on their own penalty so swings and roundabouts)
2) The actual legal merit of this case in isolation.

I don't think it can be denied that rugby has a serious issue with consistency of the application of the laws. The fact we talk about NH vs SH refs or even French vs English vs URC refs sort of proves a point, there should not be all these different "styles" of reffing and teams should be able to trust a ref to be predictable in the application of the laws. Eg as an England fan, Gauzere was responsible both for Wales being allowed to restart mid HIA and the restarted game after telling the England captain to talk to the team. As a team how do you feel when the standard is that poor?

Rugby has really got to stop ******* about with whether they will apply laws or not. If laws are not being applied, remove them, if they are going to be applied then do so. The scrums and "use it" are the obvious examples but some consistency is really needed. Also is there any real action that can be taken against refs who seriously **** it up? The closest I can think of was Walsh being removed as a ref but that was for off-pitch stuff (and he was really bad in any England game he reffed after). The Gauzere instances, same ref same team and both times being screwed over and yet he carries on?

On this specific issue, I think Raynal was right to penalise the time wasting but, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be part of a wider move to penalise it. It's like when refs randomly penalise a not straight feed, that's fine if it's part of a new standard (old standard?) but if it is a one off out of nowhere, it further erodes the trust.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sorry for offending you.

As the moral lighthouse of these boards i feel compelled to forgive you.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I think there are two issues here that are in this instance seemingly in conflict but both relevant:

1) The inconsistency of refereeing (regardless of the merits of this decision it is quite inconsistent with how time wasting is normally reffed. Then again, it's rare to have a player so blatantly ignore a explicit instruction on their own penalty so swings and roundabouts)
2) The actual legal merit of this case in isolation.

I don't think it can be denied that rugby has a serious issue with consistency of the application of the laws. The fact we talk about NH vs SH refs or even French vs English vs URC refs sort of proves a point, there should not be all these different "styles" of reffing and teams should be able to trust a ref to be predictable in the application of the laws. Eg as an England fan, Gauzere was responsible both for Wales being allowed to restart mid HIA and the restarted game after telling the England captain to talk to the team. As a team how do you feel when the standard is that poor?

Rugby has really got to stop ******* about with whether they will apply laws or not. If laws are not being applied, remove them, if they are going to be applied then do so. The scrums and "use it" are the obvious examples but some consistency is really needed. Also is there any real action that can be taken against refs who seriously **** it up? The closest I can think of was Walsh being removed as a ref but that was for off-pitch stuff (and he was really bad in any England game he reffed after). The Gauzere instances, same ref same team and both times being screwed over and yet he carries on?

On this specific issue, I think Raynal was right to penalise the time wasting but, as mentioned earlier, this needs to be part of a wider move to penalise it. It's like when refs randomly penalise a not straight feed, that's fine if it's part of a new standard (old standard?) but if it is a one off out of nowhere, it further erodes the trust.

On the other hand, if things are going to change - re application of the laws - it has to start somewhere, some time.

But whatever they do long term they need to make it clear How the laws will apply.

 

[Derpus]

So anyway. Any interest anyone mighta had in this RC was effectively killed by Raynal.

ABs almost certainly guaranteed a bonus point win and the RC next week and it will likely finish 1.AB 2.SA 3.Arg 4. Aus.

I suppose we can congratulate the Argies for moving up a spot. Woo?

 

[Derpus]

On the other hand, if things are going to change - re application of the laws - it has to start somewhere, some time.

But whatever they do long term they need to make it clear How the laws will apply.

Maybe next time they can start a new law interpretation at the start of a game rather than the end. The absurdity is off the charts - all these blokes saying 'I hope to see more of it' would be bleeding out of their ears with apoplectic rage if this happened to their teams. Saffas would have literally taken up arms and invaded France.

Countless examples of penalties/kicks taking too long including Moungas first kick which broke the 90 second rule. Nothing? No new interpretation? No communication from the ref they are going to stamp time wasting out? No broader indication from anyone anywhere at all?

I think what we are all missing here is the unwritten text in the rule, i.e. 'you must not cause unnecessary delay against the All Blacks in the 79th minute in a situation where the protected species might actually lose a Bledisloe game because we have no interest in making rugby a competitive viable sport in the Antipodes'

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Maybe next time they can start a new law interpretation at the start of a game rather than the end. The absurdity is off the charts - all these blokes saying 'I hope to see more of it' would be bleeding out of their ears with apoplectic rage if this happened to their teams. Saffas would have literally taken up arms and invaded France.

Countless examples of penalties/kicks taking too long including Moungas first kick which broke the 90 second rule. Nothing? No new interpretation? No communication from the ref they are going to stamp time wasting out? No broader indication from anyone anywhere at all?

I think what we are all missing here is the unwritten text in the rule, i.e. 'you must not cause unnecessary delay against the All Blacks in the 79th minute in a situation where the protected species might actually lose a Bledisloe game because we have no interest in making rugby a competitive viable sport in the Antipodes'

Tell ya what, if you win next week we can pretend on here that you have the bledisloe cup .

 

[Jimbo]

Maybe next time they can start a new law interpretation at the start of a game rather than the end. The absurdity is off the charts - all these blokes saying 'I hope to see more of it' would be bleeding out of their ears with apoplectic rage if this happened to their teams. Saffas would have literally taken up arms and invaded France.

Countless examples of penalties/kicks taking too long including Moungas first kick which broke the 90 second rule. Nothing? No new interpretation? No communication from the ref they are going to stamp time wasting out? No broader indication from anyone anywhere at all?

I think what we are all missing here is the unwritten text in the rule, i.e. 'you must not cause unnecessary delay against the All Blacks in the 79th minute in a situation where the protected species might actually lose a Bledisloe game because we have no interest in making rugby a competitive viable sport in the Antipodes'

The situation sucks but the reality is you can only blame BF, even his team mates are screaming to hurry it the hell up, not entirely the same situation but I have seen sealing off pinged a lot more harshly in the last minutes when defending teams have a narrow lead.

 

[Derpus]

The situation sucks but the reality is you can only blame BF, even his team mates are screaming to hurry it the hell up, not entirely the same situation but I have seen sealing off pinged a lot more harshly in the last minutes when defending teams have a narrow lead.

Foley certainly isn't blameless. Or the forwards.

Bit of an incompetence bukake all over paying fans faces.

 

[Nubiwan]

I read there was a bit of controversy, so just watched highlights. What they don't show is ref had apparently stopped clock. He then started clock (did he) and told foley to get on with it. Bit harsh, but if the ref tells you twice to get on with it, and you still stand there, you taking chances.

Agree, penalties and conversions should be given 30 second tops. Make the drop kick them ffs. Loads of wasted time in union. Usually at the scrum, reset, scrum, reset. Can take 5 minutes off the clock.

It's frankly one reason league is more enjoyable. Too many laws, interpretations, and stoppages in union. Get the ball in play faster, not have referees being the centre piece of the production either. Nigel Owens - "look at me!!!!" FFS

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Leaked sky cam footage reveals full extent of what Mathieu Raynal told Bernard Foley

Leaked sky cam footage with the full on-field audio has surfaced online which details exactly what referee Mathieu Raynal told Wallaby flyhalf Bernard Foley.

www.rugbypass.com

 

[Nubiwan]

I read there was a bit of controversy, so just watched highlights. What they don't show is ref had apparently stopped clock. He then started clock (did he) and told foley to get on with it. Bit harsh, but if the ref tells you twice to get on with it, and you still stand there, you taking chances.

Agree, penalties and conversions should be given 30 second tops. Make the drop kick them ffs. Loads of wasted time in union. Usually at the scrum, reset, scrum, reset. Can take 5 minutes off the clock.

It's frankly one reason league is more enjoyable. Too many laws, interpretations, and stoppages in union. Get the ball in play faster, not have referees being the centre piece of the production either. Nigel Owens - "look at me!!!!" FFS

I watched the full tape of the incident. What is abundantly clear is that the OZ backs are gesticulating with Foley to "kick the f7cking thing into touch", and Foley is clearly blagging for time. In the spirit of time being wasted in the entire world of rugby, it may be harsh, but the ref told him several times, and his backs knew it too. In the context of the match, the ref could have simply added more time at the lineout.

 

[Nubiwan]

Leaked sky cam footage reveals full extent of what Mathieu Raynal told Bernard Foley

Leaked sky cam footage with the full on-field audio has surfaced online which details exactly what referee Mathieu Raynal told Wallaby flyhalf Bernard Foley.

www.rugbypass.com

Good to see that.

He says enough times to Foley to get on with it. Calls "10", Foley not paying attention. |

Foley says something about "we were just under a lot of pressure". Like, who cares? Still looked quite harsh. As a neutral, its quite funny actually.