Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 83

Thread: Wallabies announce 38-man squad for France

  1. #16
    Legend Contributor .X.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,871
    vCash
    104000

    3 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    Oracle of Reality

  2. #17
    Player
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    perth
    Posts
    203
    vCash
    5118000
    I don’t know why they put Swinton in there . He’s a liability ….. red yellow after 2 minutes 5 minutes who knows??? The squad better practice 14 man rugby as a priority….

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  3. #18
    Legend Contributor .X.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,871
    vCash
    104000

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    Oracle of Reality

  4. #19
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,621
    vCash
    84000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    That's not the issue in question, which 6 Waratahs would you pick before Force players (or anybody in Super Rugby)

    Rennie went with
    Gordon
    Swinton
    Perese
    Bell
    Foketi
    Hooper

    Of those, Hooper is there because he's costing the union a million dollars a season, they can't admit that was a mistake, Peresi has been one of the best in an atrocious team and maybe Gordon gets there for turning them around from being a rabble to a slightly less rabble.

    THose 3 would be an affront, but understandable
    Swinton, Bell and Foketi, they're just taking the piss.

    Better than Swinton in the Force
    Koteka, Stander, Anstee, Callan, Lee Warner and that's without looking at the team list

    Better than Bell
    Robertson (towelled him up in the set piece both games and has been dynamic around the field)

    Better than Foketi
    Kyle Godwin and my dead grandmother
    I'll give you Tom Robertson

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #20
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    I'll give you Tom Robertson
    Just Robinson?I thought that was the closest call. Any backrowers that has the ability to play 80 minutes without getting sent off is better than Swinton and anybody who can make a 1 on 1 tackle 3 times out of 10 is better than foketi

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  6. #21
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,621
    vCash
    84000
    Quote Originally Posted by GIGS20 View Post
    Just Robinson?I thought that was the closest call. Any backrowers that has the ability to play 80 minutes without getting sent off is better than Swinton and anybody who can make a 1 on 1 tackle 3 times out of 10 is better than foketi
    I didn't see enough of the Tahs this year to debate any of the other points.

    Common sense would back up the points in your last post though.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #22
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    Swinton cleared so he can be sent off in the Wallabies games against the Frogs

    https://www.rugby.com.au/news/super-...d-card-2021617

    In the most ludicrous, but unsurprising decision of the century, the SANZAAR Judiciary have told serial numbskull Lachie Swinton that he shouldn't have even been carded for deliberately belting the head of a player that wasn't even active in the ruck without using his arms.

    Damien McKenzie should be livid

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  8. #23
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    643
    vCash
    5000000
    I thought they just said he shouldn’t have been red carded, not carded.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #24
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    Quote Originally Posted by maelkann View Post
    I thought they just said he shouldn’t have been red carded, not carded.
    Maybe, I'd have to check again to be sure

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  10. #25
    Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    410
    vCash
    5232000
    Quote Originally Posted by maelkann View Post
    I thought they just said he shouldn’t have been red carded, not carded.
    The report in GIGS20's link is ambiguous, "they believe the incident did not warrant the send-off" ... "However, the Committee has found that the level of offending did not reach the red card threshold".

    I would love one of our esteemed refereeing types to explain that in the light of the World Rugby protocols. From where I sit it seems they have thrown the match officials under a bus.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  11. #26
    Legend Contributor .X.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,871
    vCash
    104000
    Do you think that Red Cards have become an easier option to consider?

    Now that it doesn't have the impact of going a man down for the rest of the game?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Exile
    Sydney


    Oracle of Reality

  12. #27
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveWA View Post
    The report in GIGS20's link is ambiguous, "they believe the incident did not warrant the send-off" ... "However, the Committee has found that the level of offending did not reach the red card threshold".

    I would love one of our esteemed refereeing types to explain that in the light of the World Rugby protocols. From where I sit it seems they have thrown the match officials under a bus.
    Ecky has posted before that the entire process of the judiciary checking and overturning calls I think, since this is a red card he'd probably be OK with it going to judiciary, not sure whether he'd be keen about the call being changed.

    Word Rugby Protocols (yes I looked them up are (simply put)

    Is there Head contact?
    If yes, is there Foul Play?
    If yes, assess degree of impact

    Head contact with no foul play is play on

    If there's foul play, then the degree of danger sets the penalty, low is Penalty, Medium is Yellow High is Red
    Mitigating factors can reduce the penalty by ONE STEP ONLY

    Mitigating factors include sudden changes of height etc

    Let's look at the Swinton hit in that context
    Was there head contact - yes
    Was there foul play - I say yes, the hit was after the whistle (therefore late) and no arms

    So a sanction was required, the next question is the degree of danger
    The defending player is off his feet, trapped in the ruck and not presenting a solid target when he is hit. Swinton has impacted with high force to the upper body making direct contact to the head. I would consider this a high degree of danger, so it would meet the standard of a Red card so far.

    Mitigating Factors - the defending player is low to the ground with the remnants of the ruck scattered around him on the ground, it could be argued that Swinton couldn't have hit him any other way since a lower hit wouldn't have contacted him, but been into the players on the ground. This is the only possible way the judiciary could have found that a Red wasn't appropriate. I would argue that, since play was dead and the hit didn't need to happen the mitigation provided by this is questionable at best. the player was off his feet, not a threat to the contest, nor was anybody else in the ruck at that point of time. Swinton couldn't be accused of attempting to clean out a player who has rights to the ball, since nobody else was playing the ball, I think the mitigation isn't there.

    If no mitigation, Red is the correct call, if no foul play the no penalty is the call, if Mitigation then Yellow is the call

    Make up your own mind

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  13. #28
    Immortal jargan83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Earth Capital
    Posts
    20,621
    vCash
    84000
    He's hit him right between the eyes with the shoulder - that's a Red

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  14. #29
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    Quote Originally Posted by jargan83 View Post
    He's hit him right between the eyes with the shoulder - that's a Red
    Agreed but mitigation might turn it into a yellow.I can't see mitigation with it being late, no arms and the defender retreating from the contest, but I'm not paid by sanzar to make those calls

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  15. #30
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    19,345
    vCash
    7176800
    I think this one is less interesting than the Jordie Barrett cleanout against the force which was a penalty, the refs explanation was "he's done everything right but there was head contact" the protocol clearly states head contact with no foul play is play on.

    He clearly can't have done "everything right" if there's a penalty.there was a high impact, direct to the head so you could say medium severity mitigated by the position of the cleaned out player making it a penalty but not he's done everything right.

    Swinton might have got away with a lenient call on mitigation but it could still be within protocols, the Barret call was clearly outside the protocol.

    That's the real problem here, there's a clear and rigid protocol which is used for othing more than window dressing when a ref looks at something and makes a gut call.

    On the field "that's ugly, he's getting sent off now let's look at the footage and find a way of explaining it to cover our ass"

    In judiciary "that's a pretty soft red we don't want to give a sanction, let's review the footage and find a way of explaining it to cover our ass"

    It must frustrate the shit out of coaches

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WALLABIES ANNOUNCE SPRING TOUR SQUAD
    By RugbyWA in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-09, 11:39
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-09, 12:22
  3. Wallabies Announce Squad- O'Connor in
    By inactive in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 23-09-08, 20:38
  4. WALLABIES ANNOUNCE SOUTH AFRICA TOUR SQUAD
    By RugbyWA in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14-08-08, 12:00
  5. All Blacks Announce Squad
    By no.8 in forum New Zealand
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-06-08, 20:50

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •