Jonothan Kaplan on the two yellow cards of the weekend.

First topic message reminder :

Hookers Adriaan Strauss and Dane Coles were both shown yellow cards on Saturday which could have been avoided if the referee concerned had used a bit of common sense.

Strauss was sent to the sin-bin for taking Irish fullback Rob Kearney out in the air in the Springboks' defeat in Dublin, whilst Coles was sent from the field at Twickenham for lashing out with his foot during the All Blacks' victory over England.

In the second minute of the Test at Lansdowne Road Rob Kearney clearly took Willie le Roux out and the sanction was upgraded from a free kick to a penalty with the player hardly receiving even a warning.

Then 60 minutes later Kearney was taken out by Strauss just before he landed in a fairly innocous way without any malicious intent. It was almost as if Strauss had tried to put him off catching the ball and then touched him. That is literally all it is.

If you are going on the argument that we need the players to understand what is going to happen to them before they run onto the field then it must be done across the board and there should be a lot more yellow cards than they are giving.

I am not arguing that it should not have been a penalty, it should have. But certainly if you are refereeing at this level I would expect that there needs to be more common sense in a game that is a contact sport. I think netball has more contact in an aerial sense than what was allowed in that particular case.

If the referee had used common sense he could have just as easily have managed that situation by saying that although a player was taken out in the air in this particular case it falls at the lower end of the scale and we are going to give a penalty and a caution.

It would have been in line with what he had done in the second minute of the game and I cannot agree with the decision because it is a contact sport and they are over-sanitising that arena because they happen to be concerned about injuries of players who are exposed in the air, which is a knee-jerk reaction to something that could just as easily be managed with the right amount of law application and common sense.

At Twickenham Nigel Owens did not deal with the perpetrator Dylan Hartley who started the whole thing by pulling Coles.

Coles' reaction was worse, but for me it could just as easily have been managed. It was not a yellow card offence and the guy who started it should have been included in the discussion.

My feeling was that a penalty should have gone in favour of England because the reaction of Coles was worse than Hartley's, he should not have lashed out, but certainly both should have been put on notice.

Even though the reaction is wrong you cannot ignore the original action, you have got to take both into account.

In this case it wasn't that he kicked somebody, he was frustrated so he lashed out with his foot and happened to make contact.

Whilst you can argue that Owens was not wrong in the strictest sense, there are a whole bunch of better outcomes that could have been obtained through better mangement of that situation.

By Jonathan Kaplan - Rugby 365

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely not just for England?

Its a English broadcaster so shouldnt be allowed for England games. There would be no bias for other games not involving England however, it shouldnt be allowed for them too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So why only non England fans? Say what exactly you mean by that please.

The WC is in England.  I think that's what he means.  
Had the chat been about Indepenedent Broadcasters for the New Zealand world cup then he's have had to say that every non-NewZealander would be happy.

It's logic he's using.

Fair enough. I'm sure an independent broadcaster won't show any decisions on the big screen.

GunsGerms wrote:For the WC as they do in football, the TV replay shouldnt be allowed replay contentious decisions. If the ref wants to he can go to the TV match official. However, it isnt fair where a home broadcaster choses to replay away teams indiscretions that are subsequently picked up by the ref and do not replay their own teams fouls.

I'm not quite with you. How does this impact the game?

Unless the broadcaster puts on the incident without the referees consultation and the referee then takes notice then I understand but this is something that happens for every incident as the pundits want to highlight incidents for TV. In terms of Coles incident, Owens obviously had seen something and even though the TMO said no card, Owens kept on asking him to reply it as he felt on the footage that a card was warranted. In that incident also they clearly showed Hartley tugging away at Coles.

My issue is that we automatically assume they are biased.... that they hide incidents of their own team. I'm not so sure about this in that unless you work on the actual game for the broadcaster you would have any idea at all... unless their were 2+ broadcasters showing the game.

Lets say however England are in the final and the broadcaster is showing the SA vs NZ match. Surely the broadcaster could be laying down a preference too... If they were pro England then perhaps they would say, oh we want SA to win as that means England have a greater chance in the final.

If that's the case then sure it can't just be for the WC but for any game as the same rules will apply.

The ref sees the replay on the big screen and it influences his decisions as per the NZ v Eng game.

Its effectively the broadcaster prompting the ref.

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:I also didn't see the Ireland v SA game. What I saw with the Hartley/Coles incident was Hartley pulling Coles out of the ruck (Coles was on the wrong side), and Coles then lashing out with his boot at an England player's ankle...and Coles had a look at the 'target' for good measure.

Owens was pretty sure that it was a yellow, but the TMO was trying desperately to keep NZ from going down to 14 men.

Biltong, are you saying that kicking an opponent does not merit more than a penalty?

Yes, he clearly looked to see where he could stamp. Like Healy on Cole.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Really - really?. I suspect you are so far up your own arse that you can see daylight again.

I doubt that, he has gone to a very dark place and danky place.

Is there any need for that? If you disagree, fair enough. In both those instances (and plenty of others) I saw intent. Obviously you didn't.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:I also didn't see the Ireland v SA game. What I saw with the Hartley/Coles incident was Hartley pulling Coles out of the ruck (Coles was on the wrong side), and Coles then lashing out with his boot at an England player's ankle...and Coles had a look at the 'target' for good measure.

Owens was pretty sure that it was a yellow, but the TMO was trying desperately to keep NZ from going down to 14 men.

Biltong, are you saying that kicking an opponent does not merit more than a penalty?

Yes, he clearly looked to see where he could stamp. Like Healy on Cole.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Really - really?. I suspect you are so far up your own arse that you can see daylight again.

I doubt that, he has gone to a very dark place and danky place.

Is there any need for that? If you disagree, fair enough. In both those instances (and plenty of others) I saw intent.  Obviously you didn't.

We are wasting each other's time.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:I also didn't see the Ireland v SA game. What I saw with the Hartley/Coles incident was Hartley pulling Coles out of the ruck (Coles was on the wrong side), and Coles then lashing out with his boot at an England player's ankle...and Coles had a look at the 'target' for good measure.

Owens was pretty sure that it was a yellow, but the TMO was trying desperately to keep NZ from going down to 14 men.

Biltong, are you saying that kicking an opponent does not merit more than a penalty?

Yes, he clearly looked to see where he could stamp. Like Healy on Cole.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Really - really?. I suspect you are so far up your own arse that you can see daylight again.

I doubt that, he has gone to a very dark place and danky place.

Is there any need for that? If you disagree, fair enough. In both those instances (and plenty of others) I saw intent.  Obviously you didn't.

We are wasting each other's time.

That's the worst apology I've ever had!

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Hound of Harrow wrote:I also didn't see the Ireland v SA game. What I saw with the Hartley/Coles incident was Hartley pulling Coles out of the ruck (Coles was on the wrong side), and Coles then lashing out with his boot at an England player's ankle...and Coles had a look at the 'target' for good measure.

Owens was pretty sure that it was a yellow, but the TMO was trying desperately to keep NZ from going down to 14 men.

Biltong, are you saying that kicking an opponent does not merit more than a penalty?

Yes, he clearly looked to see where he could stamp. Like Healy on Cole.

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Really - really?. I suspect you are so far up your own arse that you can see daylight again.

I doubt that, he has gone to a very dark place and danky place.

Is there any need for that? If you disagree, fair enough. In both those instances (and plenty of others) I saw intent.  Obviously you didn't.

We are wasting each other's time.

That's the worst apology I've ever had!

At the risk of going in circles I wasn't apologising.

Why don't don't yu think a deliberate kick out to try and hit someone doesn't deservce a yellow Bilt?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why don't don't yu think a deliberate kick out to try and hit someone doesn't deservce a yellow Bilt?

Maybe because they deserve a kick and I dont know about Billtong but thats how the game was played when I was a player anyway.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why don't don't yu think a deliberate kick out to try and hit someone doesn't deservce a yellow Bilt?

I certainly think retaliation with a connection, whether a punch, kick, bite or worse is warranting of a red or yellow card.

But I think these days the cause of the provocation must be addressed to with the same severity.

Had Cole not lashed out, (I re-iterate, he was WRONG to do so), but would Hartley have conceded a penalty for his actions? Would any ref have even noticed. We all know players like him get away with a lot more than they get penalised for.

You can't go around kicking/punching etc now GG though.

Not sure a pull can be given a yellow or red just because someone loses it maes. I would agree pulling and holding should be a pen. Whistle had already gone by the time Hartley pulls. Ironically doing what a lot of people have said should be done to Hartley himself/Brown/Farrell, ie wing them up and let them go.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:Striking does deserve a YC I agree. Like when Hartley smashed his forearm into McCaw's face in 2010 but got no YC or penalty against. It was a shame the local partisan broadcasters didn't think it worthwhile replaying that 10 times on the bigscreen. I read yesterday that there will be independent broadcasters at the RWC. If this is true, every non-England rugby fan should rejoice.

Hypocritical twaddle comment of the day.

To be honest he has a point. The BBC does tend to ignore the England teams indiscretions and focus on the opposition. In all fairness you arent going to slow mo your own player doing something dirty over and over again whereas the BBC definitely does it when a team playing England does something bad.

That said Moore in particular isnt afraid to be critical of England dirty play.

6 nations is SKY not BBC for England matches at least.

and of course the BBC arent going to be doing RWC2015...because ITV won the sports rights for RWC 2011 and 2015!

But ITV are most definitely going to show the slow-mo replays that help England get a win - because that will significantly drive up the value of the advertising for them if England get to the final. Simples. Disaster for ITV commercially if England get knocked out in the group stages for example.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why don't don't yu think a deliberate kick out to try and hit someone doesn't deservce a yellow Bilt?

Because I think it is important to look at the result of the kick, punch stamp.

Let me provide you with this example.

In his debut season Etzebeth was taunted by the experienced Nathan Sharpe of Australia, he tugged and pulled on him in a maul, and Etzebeth feigned a headbutt, showing him he is frustrated and he will headbutt him. however he was at arms length and did not hit him, it was a mere warning.

Sharpe made a big show of it, the replay was thrown on the bigscreen and Etzebeth got a 2 week ban.

Sharpe was taunting a player who did nothing, he didn't touch him, yet he was banned.

That to me was nonsense, no common sense prevailed

So in this case, a player is taunted, pulled back or whatever you want to call it. What damage did Coles do?

Nothing, he stamped a boot/ankle with his stud, there as no blood, no injury, no face involved.

If there was, then fine punish the player, but to merely strike out with your boot out of frustration does not warrant a card in my opinion.

This is a contact sport, if a player causes injury fine, but let's keep it real.

Think the tug occurred after the ball was out - so no immediate impact on the game. Hartley tried to provoke Coles and he fell for it. YC for the kick, and a kick in the slats in the changing room for being a tool.

BBC shows all 6Ns even England quins.

Fair enough Bilt though I can't agree.

i meant AIs of course

The thing with tugging or pulling a player is that we usually only notice it when there was a reaction by the tugged or pulled player.

Often these tactics is a conscious decision by a team to identify players in a team with a short fuse, then the hunt begins, a pull in the 30th minute, then a tug in the 43rd minute, but the time the 60th or whatever minute comes along, depending on the fuse of the player retaliation will come.

In the old days these things were sorted out before there were cameras so we never or very seldom witnessed these incidents, now it is clear for everyone to see.

My question is, a guy pulls you once, you ignore, him, someone pulls you a second time, you warn him, now I know what most will suggest, go to the referee. Yeah right. That ain't happening.

SO eventually you blow.

And your team cops it because the other team is playing a sneaky game.

What is the alternative?

There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy here as usual. On the one hand players are celebrated if they are adept at the 'dark arts' aka cheating and on the other they should be getting yellow carded for a shirt pull.

Hartley did what he always does and tried to niggle his opposition to provoke a reaction that warranted a card. He did his job well and got the card. There is no doubt that Coles' reaction was down to the accumulation of niggles rather than the specific one that tipped him over the edge. Would any of the individual niggles by Hartley have warranted a card - probably not, but it was the accumulation of them that provoked the reaction.

In the Ireland game Ruddock was holding Vermeulen back from a maul and Duane was swinging right, left and centre without making any telling contact. That was the sort of niggle that Poite pulled the captains over to tell them to stop it. Shortly afterwards DV makes the high tackle on Heaslip and then AS makes contact with Kearney, so Poite issued the card to regain control of the game.

Most of the cards for taking players out in the air are totally wrong, because the vast majority of contacts are accidental. Therefore by definition producing a card cannot change behaviour as it is impossible to legislate for accidents. The IRB recognise the danger of aerial contact but it unfair of them to expect the referees to send some signal to the rugby playing world when accidents are arbitrary and subjective.

Kaplan showed he didn't know the Laws when he had the whistle, so whatever he says has little credibility anyway.

Understood quins.Sure you can get itv in Wales and Scotland at least and normally local broadcasters directers etc are used so it comes back to my question why just England. It's not as if the refs are paying attention to all their mistakes either; the McCaw one was replayed loads.

maestegmafia wrote:I certainly think retaliation with a connection, whether a punch, kick, bite or worse is warranting of a red or yellow card.

But I think these days the cause of the provocation must be addressed to with the same severity.

Nigel Owens disagrees with you. In his conversations with Brian Moore on Talksport, he has always maintained that an initial transgression should absolutely not be re-evaluated because of the scale of the reaction it provokes. That's exactly how he handled it at the weekend.

ebop's point is a bit silly. that kiwis are upset that they lost their winning streak to SA after the ref saw crowd reaction to a replay on the big screen and awarded a penalty for something he wasnt asking the TMO to check.

so automatically every home broadcaster is trying to cheat the ABs from winning what is rightfully theirs. and hence his comment.

The Great Aukster, it is not about hypocracy, it is about common sense.

If a player wants to take the chance of being sneaky he must be punished if the retaliator is punished, it is as simple as that.

He is there to play rugby, if he wants to irritate someone he should have done that to his little brother whilst growing up

quinsforever wrote:ebop's point is a bit silly. that kiwis are upset that they lost their winning streak to SA after the ref saw crowd reaction to a replay on the big screen and awarded a penalty for something he wasnt asking the TMO to check.

so automatically every home broadcaster is trying to cheat the ABs from winning what is rightfully theirs. and hence his comment.

Ebops point is perfectly fair IMO.

Why would it be only England though GG and not Wales, Scotland and a lesser extent Ireland?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would it be only England though GG and not Wales, Scotland and a lesser extent Ireland?

There are no games in Ireland. Yes maybe BBC might favour Wales and Scotland too but despite regional variations I though BBC was for the most part quite Anglo centric. They certainly wont be doing Ireland any favours.

I loved the niggle. The getting under a players skin. I played 7, and in scrums, messing with my opposition number, little tugs on the scrummy's shirt etc. Being a proper bollox. And I would do it until i got the smack I deserved. But that doesn't work in the world of slow mo big screen replays. Mores the pity, its the small mini battles that are fascinating in rugby.

It'll be ITV not the Beeb but inevitably it comes down to stadium directers of those stadia with big screens. Ireland represents part of the UK so you could apply the same thought process of bias.

quinsforever wrote:Bilt you are judging Hartley's pull by the overreaction it caused. That is quite obviously ridiculous.

Lashing out, if it makes contact, runs the risk of being carded. It could have been someone's face on the ground and then it would have been red. It's not an excuse to say he lashed out not meaning to hit anyone.

The problem for players and teams is 16 cameras and video replays. Everyone grows up playing rugby in a much less sanitised way. But at the top level if you do something silly it is invariably going to look worse in slow-mo.

We can't eliminate cheating in rugby...we'd never get to watch the great McCaw if we did! Rugby is a game where it's about getting away with whatever you can in order to secure advantage...niggle, scrumming for pens and pen trys, conning the oppo about line out numbers, etc, etc.

I dont blame Cole for lashing out , Hartley was being a kn*b pure and simple . Really hate seeing players holding back behind the ruck or whatever silly niggly things they do to slow down the opposition . Jannie Du Plessis is just as stupid sometimes and it costs us penalties , Ben Franks is another multiple offender with the same idiotic tactics. The penalty should have gone to England because Coles overreacted , but that was in no way a card especially since Hartley didnt even get a warning for instigating the silly mess

wolfball wrote:I loved the niggle. The getting under a players skin. I played 7, and in scrums, messing with my opposition number, little tugs on the scrummy's shirt etc. Being a proper bollox. And I would do it until i got the smack I deserved. But that doesn't work in the world of slow mo big screen replays. Mores the pity, its the small mini battles that are fascinating in rugby.

Nice post.

Biltong wrote:The thing with tugging or pulling a player is that we usually only notice it when there was a reaction by the tugged or pulled player.

Often these tactics is a conscious decision by a team to identify players in a team with a short fuse, then the hunt begins, a pull in the 30th minute, then a tug in the 43rd minute, but the time the 60th or whatever minute comes along, depending on the fuse of the player retaliation will come.

In the old days these things were sorted out before there were cameras so we never or very seldom witnessed these incidents, now it is clear for everyone to see.

My question is, a guy pulls you once, you ignore, him, someone pulls you a second time, you warn him, now I know what most will suggest, go to the referee. Yeah right. That ain't happening.

SO eventually you blow.

And your team cops it because the other team is playing a sneaky game.

What is the alternative?

While i'm not a fan of violence on the field sometimes it can be justified . How many times must the opposition be allowed to pull u back , keep you out of the game before you retaliate . Those little things build up over the course of 80 min and can be the difference between winning or losing . A Perfect example is Bakkies getting pulled back by Jimmy Cowan when chasing a loose ball . While i dont condone Bakkies headbutting him for her troubles i can totally understand the frustration .Theres a chance , however minute , that Bakkies could have latched on to the ball and started an attack that could have led to a try instead we got penalty and Bakkies ban for 9 weeks .

Biltong wrote:The thing with tugging or pulling a player is that we usually only notice it when there was a reaction by the tugged or pulled player.

Often these tactics is a conscious decision by a team to identify players in a team with a short fuse, then the hunt begins, a pull in the 30th minute, then a tug in the 43rd minute, but the time the 60th or whatever minute comes along, depending on the fuse of the player retaliation will come.

In the old days these things were sorted out before there were cameras so we never or very seldom witnessed these incidents, now it is clear for everyone to see.

My question is, a guy pulls you once, you ignore, him, someone pulls you a second time, you warn him, now I know what most will suggest, go to the referee. Yeah right. That ain't happening.

SO eventually you blow.

And your team cops it because the other team is playing a sneaky game.

What is the alternative?

The seasoned pro's will do it in other ways, a big hit, showing the player up in the next play etc. Was reading about NZ saying they demanded no d***heads. Well Cole acted like one for not even a tug. It was barely a hold. This is his first season as the first choice NZ hooker, react stupidly to a mere hold more often and he'll soon find the phone not ringing come selection.

Biltong wrote:The Great Aukster, it is not about hypocracy, it is about common sense.

If a player wants to take the chance of being sneaky he must be punished if the retaliator is punished, it is as simple as that.

He is there to play rugby, if he wants to irritate someone he should have done that to his little brother whilst growing up

That isn't using common sense though, there are probably 100's of instances in a game where players are being sneaky and the ref doesn't pick up on it.
Common sense to me says if someone pulls me over and the ref misses don't then go and kick someone. Surely every single person on that pitch knows what will happen if you kick out and make contact with someone.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why don't don't yu think a deliberate kick out to try and hit someone doesn't deservce a yellow Bilt?

Maybe because they deserve a kick and I dont know about Billtong but thats how the game was played when I was a player anyway.

Guessing probably no such thing as cards back then ?
Really bad foul = off for the match, but pretty unusual.

(although way back in the amateur day a club mate of mine was banned for life by Kent Society for punching the ref).

You could get sent off but there were no yellows. It was actually quite hard to get sent off.

Biltong wrote:Barney, I am not whinging, I have given Ireland their dues, I have criticised my team to the hilt.

If you think I am whinging, well then so be it.

I am whinging about te inconsistencies and lack of common sense in rugby as a whole.

Do me a favour. look at the Strauss yellow card in slow mo, then do the same in the 64th minute of the England vs AB game, where Jane takes out Farrell.

COmpare the reaction (or lack thereof) by the referee NIgel Owens, the TMO, the Touchjudge, the crowd at Twickenham and the commentators.

Biltong I think you're losing it with this ref stuff. It was Ben Smith that went up...with Farrell. Both were looking up and were airborne competing with the ball...and Ben Smith won it! Tapping it to his AB team mate. It was a completely even and fair contest. That Farrell came off second best is not Ben Smiths doing

Cue Strausses effort. Not only was he not even looking up or contesting the ball, he just ran through and his arm recklessly caught Kearney in the air, resulting in him landing on his back. And even then Kearney nearly nabbed the ball on his back.

How you can compare an evenly competed ariel high ball where one player was eyeing it and won it to a reckless action on the only one competing for it where Strauss had no idea where the ball was is beyond me.

Suggest you watch them both yourself again. Absurd comparison.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the producers did look at the Farrell incident after he stayed down so long only to find he was beaten fair and square. No doubt it might have flashed up in lights if he was hard done by. As per Coles and Strauss's 20 replays...

Coles yellow was correct. Kicking out = yellow card in my book. No matter how small the damage done

TJ wrote:Coles yellow was correct.  Kicking out = yellow card in my book.  No matter how small the damage done

Yes agree. Coles should also know better than to jeopardise the result for the AB's, despite Hartley's typical badgering.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:Barney, I am not whinging, I have given Ireland their dues, I have criticised my team to the hilt.

If you think I am whinging, well then so be it.

I am whinging about te inconsistencies and lack of common sense in rugby as a whole.

Do me a favour. look at the Strauss yellow card in slow mo, then do the same in the 64th minute of the England vs AB game, where Jane takes out Farrell.

COmpare the reaction (or lack thereof) by the referee NIgel Owens, the TMO, the Touchjudge, the crowd at Twickenham and the commentators.

Biltong I think you're losing it with this ref stuff. It was Ben Smith that went up...with Farrell. Both were looking up and were airborne competing with the ball...and Ben Smith won it! Tapping it to his AB team mate. It was a completely even and fair contest. That Farrell came off second best is not Ben Smiths doing

Cue Strausses effort. Not only was he not even looking up or contesting the ball, he just ran through and his arm recklessly caught Kearney in the air, resulting in him landing on his back. And even then Kearney nearly nabbed the ball on his back.

How you can compare an evenly competed ariel high ball where one player was eyeing it and won it to a reckless action on the only one competing for it where Strauss had no idea where the ball was is beyond me.

Suggest you watch them both yourself again. Absurd comparison.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the producers did look at the Farrell incident after he stayed down so long only to find he was beaten fair and square. No doubt it might have flashed up in lights if he was hard done by. As per Coles and Strauss's 20 replays...

Strauss barely touched Kearney! Kearney landed feet first and he fell over backwards because he was still trying to secure the ball which had gone backwards over his head. He probably would have fallen over backwards anyway without Strauss' tap on the shoulder.

It was stupid and it looked like a random reaction type kick rather than a deliberate targeting kick of ones body type of kick. I thought it was 50:50 decision and after it was awarded I could not argue against it.

The playing in the air one is tricky, like that Jared Payne one last year or earlier this year. He well took out the player but it still looked like he didn't mean to. But he got pinged, was it red? Can't recall. Most of these playing in the air incidents these days seem to be accidents or mis-judgments rather than deliberate acts.

Yes bullsbok, Ben Franks is a frustrating player for me. I'm surprised you mentioned him as he's such a nondescript player that doesn't seem to do anything memorable. Except give away penalties or YCs at the most stupidest of times. He's probably not savvy enough to get away with it like someone like how Hartley constantly does.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:Barney, I am not whinging, I have given Ireland their dues, I have criticised my team to the hilt.

If you think I am whinging, well then so be it.

I am whinging about te inconsistencies and lack of common sense in rugby as a whole.

Do me a favour. look at the Strauss yellow card in slow mo, then do the same in the 64th minute of the England vs AB game, where Jane takes out Farrell.

COmpare the reaction (or lack thereof) by the referee NIgel Owens, the TMO, the Touchjudge, the crowd at Twickenham and the commentators.

Biltong I think you're losing it with this ref stuff. It was Ben Smith that went up...with Farrell. Both were looking up and were airborne competing with the ball...and Ben Smith won it! Tapping it to his AB team mate. It was a completely even and fair contest. That Farrell came off second best is not Ben Smiths doing

Cue Strausses effort. Not only was he not even looking up or contesting the ball, he just ran through and his arm recklessly caught Kearney in the air, resulting in him landing on his back. And even then Kearney nearly nabbed the ball on his back.

How you can compare an evenly competed ariel high ball where one player was eyeing it and won it to a reckless action on the only one competing for it where Strauss had no idea where the ball was is beyond me.

Suggest you watch them both yourself again. Absurd comparison.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the producers did look at the Farrell incident after he stayed down so long only to find he was beaten fair and square. No doubt it might have flashed up in lights if he was hard done by. As per Coles and Strauss's 20 replays...

Strauss barely touched Kearney! Kearney landed feet first and he fell over backwards because he was still trying to secure the ball which had gone backwards over his head. He probably would have fallen over backwards anyway without Strauss' tap on the shoulder.

agree 100%. that is why it wasnt a yellow for me. he was already falling over. the contact was virtually weightless. and it was to kearney's chest so it is nowhere near as dangerous as pushing someone's legs who has jumped higher. the IRB do say that how the player lands should be taken into consideration when deciding the penalty. ref got it wrong on this one i reckon.

My point was more the comparison. They were chalk and cheese. Regardless of what Strauss did, his actions were aimless, and lacked any skill or thought, functionally benign so to speak. Where Ben Smith was up in the air challenging for the ball, winning it even.

i dont remember any foul play on farrell so i am sure you were right. NZ pretty much won all the aerial contests. was a bit flukey to be honest and i'm sure on another day they would knock the ball on more or england would sin several.

but i definitely dont remember anyone being taken out in the air at all. most of the kicks werent that long, so both teams had plenty of opportunity to get players in the air competing.

LondonTiger wrote:I did not see the Ireland - SA game so cannot comment. I completely agree that from a common sense point of view Coles shoudl not have been carded. It annoys the hell out of me that players get away with sly tugs, holding down etc. Yes a pro plyer needs to show restraint but Hartley was cheating - pure and simple.

Has Kaplan retired from reffing? Even if he has not, I am uncomfortable with him being so critical of referees who were his peers.

Yellow for Hartley, red for Coles, done

Nobody "just lashes out with their foot" at a ruck not aiming to hit someone and the movement is of a clear kick, nothing half-hearted or innocent about it. He clearly wasn't looking where he was kicking though because he misses Hartley and kicks Robshaw, apparently (I thought it was Care initially).

Just because Hartley was a cheating Tinkywinky doesn't excuse, justify or mitigate what was a clear kick in any way, and if a punch is red, any kick or trip both of which are inherently more likely to cause damage has to be a red. As with several other situations on the day, Owens thought that a compromise meant that instead of weighing up what exactly happened or punishing both men as they deserved he'd go for something bang in the middle which wasn't fair to anyone and didn't make sense. Rather like the Whitelock try where the compromise between not knowing whether it was a penalty (ball not on the line) or try (ball on the line) was a knock on.

And that indecisiveness is why both kiwis and englishmen found the refereeing by Owens lacking on Saturday

Looking at the slo mo the ball definitely goes about a half an inch downwards before going forward. Look at the ball height against the background player the instant the hand touches it- down then forward.

I know, so it was a penalty or a try

Taylorman wrote:My point was more the comparison. They were chalk and cheese. Regardless of what Strauss did, his actions were aimless, and lacked any skill or thought, functionally benign so to speak. Where Ben Smith was up in the air challenging for the ball, winning it even.

I actually disagree with this. To me it was a very quick reaction from Strauss, He saw very quickly that Kearney over-ran his jump and lost control of the ball. Strauss immediately thrust out his hand to disturb the ball even more. It was a natural reaction and one I would probably have taken myself. His actions (touching Kearney) had zero impact on his body position as Kearney was already falling backwards in an awkward manner. That's I saw it anyways.

Nachos Jones wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My point was more the comparison. They were chalk and cheese. Regardless of what Strauss did, his actions were aimless, and lacked any skill or thought, functionally benign so to speak. Where Ben Smith was up in the air challenging for the ball, winning it even.

I actually disagree with this. To me it was a very quick reaction from Strauss, He saw very quickly that Kearney over-ran his jump and lost control of the ball. Strauss immediately thrust out his hand to disturb the ball even more. It was a natural reaction and one I would probably have taken myself. His actions (touching Kearney) had zero impact on his body position as Kearney was already falling backwards in an awkward manner. That's I saw it anyways.

Will have to look at it again then. I just don't get what he was doing if he wasn't looking up at the ball and was virtually ahead of it from his sides perspective.