Western Force vs Highlanders - Match Thread

[SteveWA]

No need to be defensive nor condescending. I'm asking you explicitly to explain the differences between the incidents in a number of games. It's a genuine request, I want to understand why apparently similar incidents treated differently.

[James]

Personally I think the Holmes call was fair enough. I do, however, think responsibility goes both ways. Ball carriers, don't jump into tackles or significantly lower your body height. It is hard in Holmes position that, had the carrier not lower, it would have been a legit tackle. Everything happens so fast that it is hard to account for that. Yes tackling technique needs to improve, but again, it goes both ways.

[Ecky]

No need to be defensive nor condescending. I'm asking you explicitly to explain the differences between the incidents in a number of games. It's a genuine request, I want to understand why apparently similar incidents treated differently.

Sorry about how you read that. You didn't ask anything; explicitly or otherwise. My response was designed/intended to find out where your statements came from and how much neutral thought went into them. I haven't seen the non-Force match so can't comment, other than to again refer you to the actual WR protocols.

[.X.]

for what its worth.

Sometimes its OK to say, "we were beaten by a better team on the night"

[SteveWA]

for what its worth.

Sometimes its OK to say, "we were beaten by a better team on the night"

Sure. What's that got to do with this discussion?

[.X.]

Sure. What's that got to do with this discussion?

Steve - perhaps I am reading your posts wrong, and I may be putting words in your "mouth". If that is the case - please accept my apology.

But I get the impression that you believe that if Nigel Owens or a Referee who isn't under the influence of RugbyAustralia refereed the game the Western Force would have won.

[SteveWA]

Simon that totally misrepresents my position. But no apology necessary.

[AndyS]

I think you guys are at least in part reading what you expect, rather than what Steve said. I think he had a genuine point when he said..

.. I also have difficulty reconciling the treatment of the accidental high tackle from Greg Holmes with the shoulder to the head and tip tackle the previous week against the Chiefs, and the accidental head high in the Chiefs / Brumbies game yesterday.

Because I'll be honest, I also have difficulty working out what they've been told when you ask...

Have you reviewed the World Rugby protocol relating to high contact?

'Cos it is starting to look a bit like the old 'push in the back' lottery in AFL, when over the last few of weeks there have been...
A. Tackled player folds in the middle and brushes the shoulder of the third tackler = yellow
B. Second tackler steps in and makes pretty direct contact to the head without arms = nothing at all
C. Tackled player almost dives into the tackle = yellow
D. Tackled player drops into the tackle = just a penalty
E. Seatbelt tackle both dropped into and shrugged up = yellow
F. Let's not even mention some of the contacts made at the pick and drive...

God only knows what we'll see if we get some European refs when the French show up.

[.X.]

I think you guys are at least in part reading what you expect, rather than what Steve said. I think he had a genuine point when he said..


Because I'll be honest, I also have difficulty working out what they've been told when you ask...


'Cos it is starting to look a bit like the old 'push in the back' lottery in AFL, when over the last few of weeks there have been...
A. Tackled player folds in the middle and brushes the shoulder of the third tackler = yellow
B. Second tackler steps in and makes pretty direct contact to the head without arms = nothing at all
C. Tackled player almost dives into the tackle = yellow
D. Tackled player drops into the tackle = just a penalty
E. Seatbelt tackle both dropped into and shrugged up = yellow
F. Let's not even mention some of the contacts made at the pick and drive...

God only knows what we'll see if we get some European refs when the French show up.

First up - I did some research and found this. Which I believe is what Ecky is referring to.

Secondly. I do not claim or pretend to be an expert. Nor am I saying that anyone else here is claiming that.

Thirdly. for the record. I do get upset when people claim that a particular official has a predetermined bias for or against a team and officiates accordingly.

I do not believe that you can compare one tackle in one game to another in a completely different game. The play is different, the players are different as are the Officials and the time and place of the match.

Officials have their own interpretation of the laws. But, they are influenced by the Television Match Official, their assistant referees and to a lesser extent the players onfield and the crowd at the game. They also must take into account the guidelines handed down from World Rugby.

I don't recall or believe that it has been said here in this forum. But, to suggest that a Governing Body at the State or National level would influence an Officials's opinion or interpretation that would impact a match's outcome is ludicrous.

[GIGS20]

Sorry about how you read that. You didn't ask anything; explicitly or otherwise. My response was designed/intended to find out where your statements came from and how much neutral thought went into them. I haven't seen the non-Force match so can't comment, other than to again refer you to the actual WR protocols.

It is my understanding that mitigation can reduce the penalty by one step (RC to YC, YC to Penalty) and World Rugby lists the following factors as mitigation

4. Is there any mitigation?
Considerations include:

Line of sight
Sudden and significant drop or movement
Clear attempt to change height
Level of control
Upright - passive vs dynamic

I think Holmes's tackle includes at least a couple of those factors, Certainly Sudden and Significant drop or movement and Holmes is (IMHO) the passive player in the tackle (almost backpedaling) Although you can't see any clear attempt to change height, I would argue that the lateness of the drop in height would make it virtually impossible to correct and therefore I think Level of control enters the discussion as well.

Let's just say I would consider that Mitigation is present, Nick Berry clearly stated that mitigation didn't exist.

Since he said that mitigation wasn't present, you would assume that he assessed the level of danger as moderate, which doesn't make sense to me, the factors for level of danger are

3. What was the degree of danger?
Considerations include:

Direct vs indirect contact
High force vs low force

Was there direct contact? yes
Was the tackle high force? I would say yes

World rugby hasn't published anywhere I can find whether the level of danger is assessed based upon the outcome or the actions (ie can the degree of danger be lessened if the tackler lines up to make a safe tackle on his opponent and significant drop in height initiates head contact, is the assessment of danger based upon the initial setup (indirect contact) or the outcome (direct contact) That's one for you to advise me on Ecky.

It is clear though, through World Rugby Protocols that arguing for mitigation in the tackle isn't unreasonable. This has been my point all along.

It is also very interesting to note that every video example on the World Rugby website is of a defender making a tackle around the hips and getting his head in the wrong spot, with the defender's head making contact with an arm or the hip of the attacker. It appears that the actions attackers have absolutely no impact on World Rugby's head contact protocol.

If we continue down this path, I see a day when attackers start leading with their chin, simply to milk a penalty.

[shasta]

It seems like Paul Cully agrees with some of you. Personally I think hoping for consistency from different referees, match reviewers etc is a pipe dream. The problem I've had so far is with officials sometimes ticking the "no mitigation" before issuing a card when that has very little to with what is being seen on replay.

5. Australian and Kiwi referees not on the same page.

You need the rub of the green against the New Zealand sides, but there were a few calls that went against Australian sides in Round 2. Waratahs hooker Dave Porecki was smashed without the ball, and possibly high, by Blues back-rower Akira Ioane in Auckland, yet the incident didn’t even attract a penalty.
In Hamilton, Chiefs No 13 Anton Lienert-Brown was pinged by referee Ben O’Keeffe for high contact on Noah Lolesio in the second half, but the tackle was only deemed worthy of a penalty. Yet, in the same game Darcy Swain copped a yellow card for a seatbelt tackle on Damian McKenzie.

The Lienert-Brown decision was particularly confusing as the night before in Perth Greg Holmes was shown a yellow card by Nic Berry for a swinging arm tackle on a player who dipped into contact, as Lolesio did. No one is suggesting that the decisions affected the results, but consistency has been lacking.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-u...23-p57ucr.html

P.S. After reading the rest of the Cully piece I have to add a caveat that this bloke does not know his arse from his elbow. With the rest of the OZ teams conceding average margins of around -50, he can still only find 3 places for Force men in his "team of the week"

[GIGS20]

It seems like Paul Cully agrees with some of you. Personally I think hoping for consistency from different referees, match reviewers etc is a pipe dream. The problem I've had so far is with officials sometimes ticking the "no mitigation" before issuing a card when that has very little to with what is being seen on replay.

Yes, but Paul Cully also picked a bunch of Rebels and Waratahs in his team of the week, putting his credibility in serious doubt.

[Kevin77]

That was a tough game. Forgive my rambling incoherent post. Just some random thoughts;

- We seriously missed Thrush. Last season he just got better the more rugby he played and the same has happened this year. He's our pack leader and he was missed to put pressure on the ball in the air at lineout time and to break up the maul. We'll never know for sure but the first two tries we conceded were from lineouts and I feel his presence would have had an impact.

- It was noticable that we were missing a bit of leadership in the pack without Thrush. Could Stander being on the bench also have had an impact on that? Both have been our leaders the last few years and there were times when we conceded tries where it was noticable that we were missing their voices.

- Has the upping of the pace caught Kearney short? He looked great in the first few Super Rugby AU games but since coming back from injury he's played against two Kiwi teams and all the players around him (and against him) have gotten sharper. There's no doubt he still reads the game well and I'm not writing him off but he needs to inject himself a bit more into the game to show that Father Time hasn't caught up with him.

- Our scrum is so inconsistent. Or is it the refereeing? Last week against the Chiefs we were annihilated for the first 15 minutes at scrum time before turning it around. This week our scrum was a liability at crucial times and then a weapon at other times. I'm not so sure about the refereeing, particularly the one in the first half where he said Medrano's knee hit the ground.

- Our depth is an issue. I hate to pick on one player but Macauley seems to struggle to make an impact on the game. He's good on our own ball at lineout but defensively in the lineout he never causes issues. He was also poor defending their maul for their second try. I'm looking forward to us having Rodda alongside Timani and Thrush next year.

- Cubelli is going to be a huge loss. He's been excellent this season and just keeps getting better. He's the full package.
To be fair Prior has been excellent off the bench particularly in recent weeks.

In summary, some days you're just not good enough and I think the Highlanders were better on the day. They looked really well coached and their discipline and defence was brilliant. We looked a touch lacking the get up and go we've had for the past 4-5 games and perhaps missed leadership in the form of Thrush, Stander and Kuridrani.

[GIGS20]

As rambles go Kev, it was one of the better ones

- Our scrum is so inconsistent. Or is it the refereeing? Last week against the Chiefs we were annihilated for the first 15 minutes at scrum time before turning it around. This week our scrum was a liability at crucial times and then a weapon at other times. I'm not so sure about the refereeing, particularly the one in the first half where he said Medrano's knee hit the ground.

My read on the scrums against the Chiefs was that they were bashed up early, but managed to figure it out in the end. Re Medrano's knee, it did touch the ground and his was first so you can't use that one as an example of refereeing inconsistency, but I take the point Yes I think the scrums are a bit of a lottery, but it's been that way for a while it certainly looks worse with a ref like Nick Berry who seems to make up his mind before the match starts who is the better team and call everything that way.

- Our depth is an issue. I hate to pick on one player but Macauley seems to struggle to make an impact on the game. He's good on our own ball at lineout but defensively in the lineout he never causes issues. He was also poor defending their maul for their second try. I'm looking forward to us having Rodda alongside Timani and Thrush next year.

It's a bit rough comparing McAuley to Thush, Thrush is an AllBlack in the twilight of his career, with a massive body in every respect, able to bring to bear years of experience and gamesmanship, McAuley still has to fill out, is young and hasn't seen anywhere near the amount of stuff Thrush has. In short, McAuley is not a 2021 player, he's the future, How great is it that he is getting the advantage of Thrush's wisdom as he develops his game. I'm hoping desperately that Thrush will go around for another year so he can pass all his wisdom onto Izaak Rodda, who will be our short term option.

Rodda and Timani, with Thrush pushing them for spots on the field

[Kevin77]

As rambles go Kev, it was one of the better ones


My read on the scrums against the Chiefs was that they were bashed up early, but managed to figure it out in the end. Re Medrano's knee, it did touch the ground and his was first so you can't use that one as an example of refereeing inconsistency, but I take the point Yes I think the scrums are a bit of a lottery, but it's been that way for a while it certainly looks worse with a ref like Nick Berry who seems to make up his mind before the match starts who is the better team and call everything that way.



It's a bit rough comparing McAuley to Thush, Thrush is an AllBlack in the twilight of his career, with a massive body in every respect, able to bring to bear years of experience and gamesmanship, McAuley still has to fill out, is young and hasn't seen anywhere near the amount of stuff Thrush has. In short, McAuley is not a 2021 player, he's the future, How great is it that he is getting the advantage of Thrush's wisdom as he develops his game. I'm hoping desperately that Thrush will go around for another year so he can pass all his wisdom onto Izaak Rodda, who will be our short term option.

Rodda and Timani, with Thrush pushing them for spots on the field

Fair comments all around. I generally hate basing the ref and re: the Chiefs game I completely agree. I don't profess to know too much about the dark arts and part of me thinks that Medrano thinks his way through a game really well. I feel he may have been surprised by a particular technique (maybe illegal) against the Chiefs and corrected which should be applauded.

Berry just frustrates me. But the ref is always in your eye in tight games.

Yeah, fair too about Macauley being young. My only concern is that all of the best locks usually are mongrels at his age. Some (O'Connell, Itoje, Coleman etc) are wild and penalty machines and they usually temper this as they get older. My frustration with Macauley is he doesn't seem to have that animal in him. Easy for me to say from my comfy seat behind a keyboard I know and I'm sure he puts his body on the line but I think there's such a drop off from our first choice locks to him.