Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > GENERAL RUGBY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - wales v Fiji
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


wales v Fiji

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
Message
Seagultaf View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 May 2021
Location: Penclawdd
Status: Offline
Points: 580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seagultaf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 11:31am
Originally posted by Tov Tov wrote:

Erasmus was confident that the initial tackle was on the ball on that the only head contact was a slight brush of the cheeks. Whitehouse seems to have made the same assessment and so has the citing commission. Why can't people accept the fact that referees actually know what they are doing.

I have watched the slow motion replay of the Kriel incident and (for once) I agree with Erasmus.
The contact was very slight and Kriel looked to be backing off, so rugby incident seems to be the correct call.
Most of the confusion over high tackles seems to stem from the total lack of consistency in the way the Laws are applied. That is something that clearly needs sorting.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by Seagultaf Seagultaf wrote:

Originally posted by Tov Tov wrote:

Erasmus was confident that the initial tackle was on the ball on that the only head contact was a slight brush of the cheeks. Whitehouse seems to have made the same assessment and so has the citing commission. Why can't people accept the fact that referees actually know what they are doing.

I have watched the slow motion replay of the Kriel incident and (for once) I agree with Erasmus.
The contact was very slight and Kriel looked to be backing off, so rugby incident seems to be the correct call.
Most of the confusion over high tackles seems to stem from the total lack of consistency in the way the Laws are applied. That is something that clearly needs sorting.

I think you may be missing the point here. For there to be any contact between Kriel's head & the ball carrier he must have been too high to make a legal tackle. That is the whole point of the rules. Very rarely are we going to see a tackler purposely looking to hurt someone but the rules are there to lower tackle heights. 
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 12:11pm
Further to the above if Rasmus is still coaching players to target the ball he is getting it wrong. 
Back to Top
Seagultaf View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 May 2021
Location: Penclawdd
Status: Offline
Points: 580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seagultaf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 2:40pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Seagultaf Seagultaf wrote:

Originally posted by Tov Tov wrote:

Erasmus was confident that the initial tackle was on the ball on that the only head contact was a slight brush of the cheeks. Whitehouse seems to have made the same assessment and so has the citing commission. Why can't people accept the fact that referees actually know what they are doing.

I have watched the slow motion replay of the Kriel incident and (for once) I agree with Erasmus.
The contact was very slight and Kriel looked to be backing off, so rugby incident seems to be the correct call.
Most of the confusion over high tackles seems to stem from the total lack of consistency in the way the Laws are applied. That is something that clearly needs sorting.

I think you may be missing the point here. For there to be any contact between Kriel's head & the ball carrier he must have been too high to make a legal tackle. That is the whole point of the rules. Very rarely are we going to see a tackler purposely looking to hurt someone but the rules are there to lower tackle heights. 

Look at the replays, the reverse angle shows contact with the ball at chest high first. So for me the tackle was legal.
Back to Top
Seagultaf View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 May 2021
Location: Penclawdd
Status: Offline
Points: 580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seagultaf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Further to the above if Rasmus is still coaching players to target the ball he is getting it wrong. 

I know that targeting the ball, ie chest high, is now an illegal tackle at community level. But I dont believe this tackle is illegal at professional level. 
On Sunday night probably half of Wales tackles were chest high targeting the ball.
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 2:54pm
Originally posted by Seagultaf Seagultaf wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Further to the above if Rasmus is still coaching players to target the ball he is getting it wrong. 

I know that targeting the ball, ie chest high, is now an illegal tackle at community level. But I dont believe this tackle is illegal at professional level. 
On Sunday night probably half of Wales tackles were chest high targeting the ball.

i am not suggesting that targeting the ball is illegal - what I am suggesting is that coaching targeting the ball is fraught with danger bearing in mind the current safety rules & should be discouraged. 
Back to Top
Seagultaf View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 May 2021
Location: Penclawdd
Status: Offline
Points: 580
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seagultaf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Seagultaf Seagultaf wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Further to the above if Rasmus is still coaching players to target the ball he is getting it wrong. 

I know that targeting the ball, ie chest high, is now an illegal tackle at community level. But I dont believe this tackle is illegal at professional level. 
On Sunday night probably half of Wales tackles were chest high targeting the ball.

i am not suggesting that targeting the ball is illegal - what I am suggesting is that coaching targeting the ball is fraught with danger bearing in mind the current safety rules & should be discouraged. 

If Erasmus is “wrong” to coach his players to target the ball then so is Gatland and all the other World Cup coaches, because every team is tackling this way.
If the Laws concerning height of tackle are lowered, then obviously this will change. But at the moment its a legal tackle.


Edited by Seagultaf - 13 September 2023 at 1:39pm
Back to Top
lofty evans View Drop Down
Rambler
Rambler
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2007
Location: Gorseinon
Status: Offline
Points: 53341
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lofty evans Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 9:28pm
My tenpence worth.

I was born in Glasfryn maternity hospital in Llanelli...West Wales.....so I ain't English...Irish or a biased foreigner. 

Fantastic game of rugby end to end stuff with some superb skills, tackling, guts and brilliance on display.

But I felt for Fiji......when they were parked on our tryline with five penalties to them...no yellow given and then we attack the same area and its a yellow card....come on people....you cant dress that bias into anything other than a refs bias.....I was embarrassed how he reffed the game.

Yes everyone says you can't have a pop at the ref....utter tosh...when you see it and you ignore it cos you want your team to win...no matter what ....stuff that...be honest we were lucky ...very lucky to win. Some of the Welsh play was superb...a lot of the Fiji play was sublime and I actually love rugby and love brilliance....that last pass could have been a defeat....id be surprised if that ref is given another game in this tournament...at least Whitehouse displays his bias openly.

I've talked to Welsh supporters in work...all die hard nutters from Neath,  Bridgend and Cardiff and to a man everyone said Fiji deserved more and the ref was diabolical......

And like a crap sadistic manager....he pulls the strings.






Edited by lofty evans - 12 September 2023 at 9:29pm
In 1972, Roy Bergiers scored that try and said "that was for you lofty"

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"
Back to Top
roy munster View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 15605
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roy munster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2023 at 11:36pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

On the subject of cards I think frankly that the ex Irish players were making a very fair point. Generally tier one nations seem to get more lax treatment from referees. It just so happens that on this occasion it was Wales benefitting. 

All that players, supporters & commentators want is fairness & consistency across the board. Curry's tackle was worthy of a red card but so was the tackle on the Scottish No 8 which didn't even get penalised. That is what makes keyboard warriors spout utter nonsense. Of course some decisions are very borderline and you cannot blame officials for sometimes getting it wrong but the non red for Kriel was senseless. 

I disagree ....Samoa got away with endless cheap shots over the years
If there's been any  favoritism  in rugby its gone New Zealand's way 
The filth theyve gotten away with is incredible 
ROYMOND MUNTER MBE (FOR SERVICES TO THE COMBOVER)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2023 at 8:20am
Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

On the subject of cards I think frankly that the ex Irish players were making a very fair point. Generally tier one nations seem to get more lax treatment from referees. It just so happens that on this occasion it was Wales benefitting. 

All that players, supporters & commentators want is fairness & consistency across the board. Curry's tackle was worthy of a red card but so was the tackle on the Scottish No 8 which didn't even get penalised. That is what makes keyboard warriors spout utter nonsense. Of course some decisions are very borderline and you cannot blame officials for sometimes getting it wrong but the non red for Kriel was senseless. 

I disagree ....Samoa got away with endless cheap shots over the years
If there's been any  favoritism  in rugby its gone New Zealand's way 
The filth theyve gotten away with is incredible 

What exactly are you disagreeing with Roy? I made no comment with regard to Samoa/tier 2 countries making what are now illegal tackles & your point about NZ rather supports my comments. 

I am pretty certain that when Samoa made those cheap shots they were probably penalised. Specifically if you think Wales giving away 4/5 penalties within 5 minutes within their 22 is not a case for a card then so be it - I just disagree. 
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18754
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2023 at 11:09am
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

On the subject of cards I think frankly that the ex Irish players were making a very fair point. Generally tier one nations seem to get more lax treatment from referees. It just so happens that on this occasion it was Wales benefitting. 

All that players, supporters & commentators want is fairness & consistency across the board. Curry's tackle was worthy of a red card but so was the tackle on the Scottish No 8 which didn't even get penalised. That is what makes keyboard warriors spout utter nonsense. Of course some decisions are very borderline and you cannot blame officials for sometimes getting it wrong but the non red for Kriel was senseless. 

I disagree ....Samoa got away with endless cheap shots over the years
If there's been any  favoritism  in rugby its gone New Zealand's way 
The filth theyve gotten away with is incredible 

What exactly are you disagreeing with Roy? I made no comment with regard to Samoa/tier 2 countries making what are now illegal tackles & your point about NZ rather supports my comments. 

I am pretty certain that when Samoa made those cheap shots they were probably penalised. Specifically if you think Wales giving away 4/5 penalties within 5 minutes within their 22 is not a case for a card then so be it - I just disagree. 

Roy is not exactly wrong, but I think he is referring to an earlier era before cards - refs would normally award a penalty, but were very reluctant in those days to send anyone off - and there were no YCs then, so no 'halfway house'. Some of the Islanders' tackling was pretty brutal back then....
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18557
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2023 at 11:33am
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by roy munster roy munster wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

On the subject of cards I think frankly that the ex Irish players were making a very fair point. Generally tier one nations seem to get more lax treatment from referees. It just so happens that on this occasion it was Wales benefitting. 

All that players, supporters & commentators want is fairness & consistency across the board. Curry's tackle was worthy of a red card but so was the tackle on the Scottish No 8 which didn't even get penalised. That is what makes keyboard warriors spout utter nonsense. Of course some decisions are very borderline and you cannot blame officials for sometimes getting it wrong but the non red for Kriel was senseless. 

I disagree ....Samoa got away with endless cheap shots over the years
If there's been any  favoritism  in rugby its gone New Zealand's way 
The filth theyve gotten away with is incredible 

What exactly are you disagreeing with Roy? I made no comment with regard to Samoa/tier 2 countries making what are now illegal tackles & your point about NZ rather supports my comments. 

I am pretty certain that when Samoa made those cheap shots they were probably penalised. Specifically if you think Wales giving away 4/5 penalties within 5 minutes within their 22 is not a case for a card then so be it - I just disagree. 

Roy is not exactly wrong, but I think he is referring to an earlier era before cards - refs would normally award a penalty, but were very reluctant in those days to send anyone off - and there were no YCs then, so no 'halfway house'. Some of the Islanders' tackling was pretty brutal back then....

Perhaps you can inform me what in my post Roy is disagreeing with Aber because I have no idea. My comments are to do with the consistency of refereeing over the opening weekend.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.