[June Tests 2018: 3rd Test] Australia vs. Ireland (23/06/2018)

[smartcooky]

If super rugby were any good then the number one backrower and number one flyhalf in the history of the comp wouldn't be English

Who might they be?

 

[munstermuffin]

Who might they be?

Andy Goode and James Haskell???

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Andy Goode and James Haskell???

Danny Cips.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Danny Cips.

Forgot about Cips, and Parling too.

Top 4 super rugby players ever and all English.
Embarrassing, really.

 

[big ginger 8]

Where does Brad Shields land?

Given the Hask is a 7 .

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Gareth Delve sneaks in top 5?

 

[Leinster Fan]

Jamie Hagan?

 

[big ginger 8]

Tom Sexton clearly hooker and captain.

 

[smartcooky]

Andy Goode and James Haskell???

Bwhahahah!

Just as I always suspected..... you're a comedian.


ETA: Come to think of it, those two did win a couple of key prizes

Andy Goode won the MIC (Most Impressive Comb-over)
James Haskell won the BCH (Best Cart Horse)

 

[Derpus]

True but as we can agree it was grasping at straws

It's not true, an intentional knock down doesn't have to be forward. Old Beaugan Barrett coped a yellow for blantantly knocking a ball down, despite it going backwards, against the Tahs last year (it's a favourite of his).

The intentional knock down rule is ******* dumb though anyway. If Foley threw a good pass Stockdale wouldn't have been in a position to impede it. That should be the onus.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Forgot about Cips, and Parling too.

Top 4 super rugby players ever and all English.
Embarrassing, really.

really want to know who you mean now....

It's not true, an intentional knock down doesn't have to be forward. Old Beaugan Barrett coped a yellow for blantantly knocking a ball down, despite it going backwards, against the Tahs last year (it's a favourite of his).

The intentional knock down rule is ******* dumb though anyway. If Foley threw a good pass Stockdale wouldn't have been in a position to impede it. That should be the onus.

that's the first i've heard that, got the quote?

 

[Derpus]

really want to know who you mean now....



that's the first i've heard that, got the quote?

Nope i'm just wildly stating my memory as fact. To be fair he was running back from an offside position as well, so it could have just been offside.

But i don't see why it would necessarily need to go forward. It's not actually related to the knock on rule. It's just about impeding the ball.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope i'm just wildly stating my memory as fact. To be fair he was running back from an offside position as well, so it could have just been offside.

That it was

But i don't see why it would necessarily need to go forward. It's not actually related to the knock on rule. It's just about impeding the ball.

Err, no. It is exactly related to the knock on Law.


LAW 11: KNOCK-ON
1. A knock- on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes
contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum.
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.
Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks
on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain
possession.

 

[mania]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ahs-slam-folau-citing-in-third-wallabies-test
d4m, u did the crime face the time.

 

[smartcooky]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...ahs-slam-folau-citing-in-third-wallabies-test
d4m, u did the crime face the time.

Yep... 100%

"We've had presentation after presentation around what goes and what doesn't. We've had [referee] Angus Gardner in here and he's shown us video of what goes, what doesn't.

"We're really clear on what we think you're allowed to do and not allowed to do. I think they just need to revisit it themselves, probably."

And I'll bet my bottom dollar that in NOT ONE of those presentations was a video showing (and nor will Angus Gardner have told them) that it is OK to grab the opponent when you fail to catch the ball, and hold onto him as you come back down, which is EXACTLY what Folau did when he got the yellow card, and for the incident for which he has been cited.

The answer is simplicity itself,.... by all means jump to compete for possession, but if you don't get your hands on the ball, KEEP THEM OFF YOUR BLOODY OPPONENT!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

What crime?

"Full back competes for the ball in the air - more on this shocking story after this shirt ad break"

If Folau gets banned for "endangering" POM then the single lifter should also be banned for putting POM in danger.

 

[smartcooky]

To be fair, POM was never in any danger of being dropped by Stander until Folau played him.

 

[munstermuffin]

What crime?

"Full back competes for the ball in the air - more on this shocking story after this shirt ad break"

If Folau gets banned for "endangering" POM then the single lifter should also be banned for putting POM in danger.

As has been shown by all the international refs.
CJ was actually ok lifting. He put him up horizontally and had him secure.
Folau caused the danger 100% clearly by pulling him in the air.

Is the single lifter an issue. Yes. But lets not try BS out of this. Folau was the 1 who caused the crime.
If you actually watch. CJ lifted and kept him straight. There was no one cribbing when the famous lift by the Beast. So as I said single lifting is a bit of an issue but it's being used as a cop out here because Folau was guilty here. A hell of a lot more than CJ or anyone else. He blatantly pulled POM and well fact it happened 3 times is more proof of that. Let's remember he was cited for 2 that weren't the yellow card offence.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I thought the on field sanction was fair, the one man lift should be considered a mitigating factor at least considering there's no was any player gets in that prone a position without help. A red would have been harsh.

 

[RedruthRFC]

If Folau gets banned for "endangering" POM then the single lifter should also be banned for putting POM in danger.

I'd have thought that would be many people's get reaction, it certainly was mine. I don't see how anyone could argue that this practice doesn't increase the danger in an already dangerous situation. However having thought it through, I think it would be a great shame if this had to happen. The fact that the attacking player is much more likely to be running on to the ball while the defender is much more likely to be static already tips the scales massively in the favour of the attacking player. The option to lift the defender redresses the balance somewhat.

The fact remains that as others have pointed out, if Folau hadn't played POM after failing to win the ball, POM wouldn't have hit the deck. I'm often quick to criticise the laws for providing sufficient guidance (including a few recent aerial contests), but in this situation, it seems to me that the existing laws are perfectly adequate and when applied to their letter deal with the situation perfectly well.

I suspect that we'll see more and more lifting of defenders in these situations, so the safety of doing so needs to be considered, but unfortunately it's something that's tough to do proactively. At the current time, I would say that reminding players of the laws as they stand, in particular reinforcing the attacking player's responsibility for their actions would be sufficient.

FWIW, looking at the reports on this, it appears that the "crime" was multiple incidents, one of which should have received a yellow at the time, hence the ban.