Super Rugby Pacific (2022)

[The Seeker]

Congratulations Drua!

Drua notch historic Super win over Rebels

super.rugby

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Umaga's Witness]

That was a fun watch for a supporter of not the crusaders. Shows what you can do when you deny rolling maul opportunities by minimizing penalties in the wrong areas. Those chiefs shirts don't look like the chiefs though. Come on.

 

[saulan]

Just been watching my first game of Super Rugby for the year since it's made it onto Sky in the UK... Wow there is a massive disconnect in reffing in SR vs European tournaments at the moment (game being Waratahs Rebels watching as a complete neutral).

Multiple tackles in the first half where I thought there needed to be reviews at the very least be a penalty or a check, but nothing. I thought that was a bit odd but fine.

Then in around the 62nd minute the Rebels winger is running in on goal and the cover defenders first contact head on head. They stop play for the winger as he has stayed down and has to go off for a HIA. I'm thinking definite red card, no need to review as it's just clear and obvious with no mitigating factor as there is no dipping. And then there wasn't even a review, the commentators are talking about great cover defense and commitment from the tackler and they go back for a different penalty.

For those that have been watching more frequently, is this how it has been throughout the tournament or this is just a poor reffing team?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

@saulan i watched a fair bit of that game and dont remember those instances...so maybe we are just letting a lot more stuff go

edit: is this the one you mean? looked fine to me, only head contact was accidental head to head, right arm wrapping around the front, shoulder to shoulder contact....he could have better technique with his head but not even a penalty for me

 

[saulan]

@saulanedit: is this the one you mean? looked fine to me, only head contact was accidental head to head, right arm wrapping around the front, shoulder to shoulder contact....he could have better technique with his head but not even a penalty for me

View attachment 13663

Yea this is exactly the one I mean. In URC and NH rugby from what I've been seeing, any head to head clash is being seen as the defender not putting in enough effort to get low and potentially cause injury. Pretty sure the first contact there ends up being head on head and that the player didn't make it back to the field/failed HIA and there was some significant force going into it. But from what your saying it seems the aspect of the game is just being reffed very differently.

Although, maybe it's just me. Interested in what the thoughts are from others in SA and from the NH leagues and SA in terms of this kind of clash as I do feel this could rear its head in Autumn Internationals, if currently being reffed inconsistently.
@TRF_stormer2010 @unrated @TRF_Olyy @LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan) @mdaclarke @Groundhog

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Reckless with Force red card.

I guess potentially some mitigation is that the player has dipped would be a yellow.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yeah, head on head will always be judged harshly these days - if you're not basically bent to 90degrees at the waist and you make contact with the head then you always run the risk - as above, they call things like that reckless, it's not aimed at the head but you know not to touch it at all so you should be doing better

Just from that still it looks more like a collision than a tackle - as in he's just trying to get in the way and make it legal if he can, which again, refs aren't going to like (it's the same with ankle breaker/chop tackles where players try and just be a speed bump, but then get called for no arms)

 

[Which Tyler]

@saulan i watched a fair bit of that game and dont remember those instances...so maybe we are just letting a lot more stuff go

edit: is this the one you mean? looked fine to me, only head contact was accidental head to head, right arm wrapping around the front, shoulder to shoulder contact....he could have better technique with his head but not even a penalty for me

Being accidental doesn't really matter these days (as in, the last 18 months). Any head contact, adn you start at a red card, and mitigate down. Lack of intent is not a mitigation.

 

[saulan]

Okay it seems that the rest are aligned on this and I'm not imagining things. On the mitigation, I think it's pretty limited there as well. There was considerable force and I don't think there was much in the way of dipping from the attackers stride posture, but could be corrected with a replay. In general, they are both quite high and there is limited getting low in this tackle

 

[Kiwiwomble]

jesus...i think i'll honestly give up rugby if thats the way we're heading, currently thats a good ball and all tackle in the SH with an accidental head clash, i really am sick of trying to find things to penalise

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I guess for me how can it be a good tackle if head on head happened?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

the consensus with those i speak too over hear is accidents still happen, especially at speed and not everything needs to lead to losing points or players, everyone understands the idea intent is not a consideration (rightly or wrongly) but generally a accidently head clash has been exempt from that (over here)

lets not forget...the game asks players to stick their head in dangerous situations all the time...pretty much every tackle/ruck/maul so the idea its ALL about protecting the head is not 100% of the argument...they want to protect the ball carrier...so they can score tries because thats all that matter no days, same reason two guys jump for the ball with honest intent to catch it...but the one that gets it suddenly get extra rights of protection and the other one is suddenly at risk of getting carded for taking someone out in the air

edit: came across this which sums up what @Which Tyler posted i guess



Personally i want to see less reasons to penalise things not more, and expecting guys on the field to think about anything so complicated that it needs a flowchart is asking for trouble, but seeing as this is the WR directive i guess the real issue is how its being implemented in different comps...and how many cards we're going to see in the AI or RWC.

 

[Which Tyler]

Ahhh, the melodrama.
Has there been even a single year since the game turned professional without claims that the games gone soft, might as well play soccer, it's killing the game?

What WILL kill rugby, is not taking reasonable action to prevent concussive injuries.

If you initiate contact with someone, and you don't make any effort to avoid head contact - then any head contact is your fault, and you will be sanctioned (if noticed). See Charlie Ewels red card against Ireland.
It's no more "game's gone soft" than banning old-style rucking was.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Ahhh, the melodrama.
Has there been even a single year since the game turned professional without claims that the games gone soft, might as well play soccer, it's killing the game?

What WILL kill rugby, is not taking reasonable action to prevent concussive injuries.

If you initiate contact with someone, and you don't make any effort to avoid head contact - then any head contact is your fault, and you will be sanctioned (if noticed). See Charlie Ewels red card against Ireland.
It's no more "game's gone soft" than banning old-style rucking was.

i actually think old school rucking would fix a few things, obvious not the head but a few tag marks on the back got people out of the ruck just fine and didn't result in penalties and breaks in play etc

I didn't actually say anything about going soft, its the breaks in play and the ever growing list of reasons to penalise people thats getting old. im not saying people should head butt people...just that accidents happen...even if he was trying to avoid he may just have misjudged...and i dont like the idea a team might lose a game for a straight up mistake.

The same reason i dont like most scrum penalties, you can now be straight up out powered...so you're only failing is not being strong enough...and you can get carded and penalised...nothing to do with being soft or anything like that...it just feels like more and more aspects of the game are about being punitive

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Interesting sudden death conclusion to the match in extra time. I think some credit needs to go to the league in making the expansion sides competitive. More competitive than I was expecting to be honest.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

******* awesome to see them get a win!

Also the last only "nz" team to bother with a heritage jersey for the heritage round

 

[saulan]

To carry on the point of head clashes, I thought things were a bit better this weekend in the Brumbies vs Western Force game when a very clear head clash was red carded and awarded a penalty try.

Now SANZAAR/ANZAC has rescinded the red card and just given the player a warning. Feels like ANZAC are not on board with the laws on this one.

This thread has a good view on this (including the actual video of contact for reference):

 

[Which Tyler]

To carry on the point of head clashes, I thought things were a bit better this weekend in the Brumbies vs Western Force game when a very clear head clash was red carded and awarded a penalty try.

Now SANZAAR/ANZAC has rescinded the red card and just given the player a warning. Feels like ANZAC are not on board with the laws on this one.

This thread has a good view on this (including the actual video of contact for reference):

There's a change of direction by the ball carrier - but I don't think it's enough to mitigate down given the last 18 months of precedent.
IMO, disciplinary panel* got that wrong


*presumably a disciplinary panel, rather than SANZAAR

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Absolutely mad call to reduce that to a yellow

Dangerous precedent to set