QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October

First topic message reminder :

      
AUSTRALIA v SCOTLAND

18 October 2015
16:00 BST (UTC+01)
Twickenham, London

Live on telly

Ref: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
ARs: Glen Jackson (New Zealand) and Pascal Gauzere (France)
TMO: Ben Skeen (New Zealand)

A. Head to Head

28 Played 28
19 Won 9
0 Drawn 0
9 Lost 19
671 Points 330

B. Recent Form

23 November 2013
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
15 – 21 to Australia

5 June 2012
Hunter Stadium, Newcastle
6 – 9 to Scotland

21 November 2009
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
9 – 8 to Scotland

25 November 2006
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
15 – 44 to Australia

20 November 2004
Hampden Park, Glasgow
17 – 31 to Australia

C. TEAMS:
AUSTRALIA

15 Kurtley Beale; 14 Adam Ashley-Cooper, 13 Tevita Kuridrani, 12 Matt Giteau, 11 Drew Mitchell; 10 Bernard Foley, 9 Will Genia;

1 Scott Sio, 2Stephen Moore, 3 Sekope Kepu, 4 Kane Douglas, 5 Rob Simmons, 6 Scott Fardy, 7 Michael Hooper, 8 Ben McCalman.

Substitutes: 16 Tatafu Polota-Nau, 17 James Slipper, 18 Greg Holmes, 19 Dean Mumm, 20 Sean McMahon, 21 Nick Phipps, 22 Matt Toomua, 23 Quade Cooper.

SCOTLAND

15 Stuart Hogg; 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Mark Bennett, 12 Peter Horne 11 Tommy Seymour; 10 Finn Russell,  9 Greig Laidlaw;

1 Alasdair Dickinson, 2 Ross Ford, 3 Willem Nel, 4 Jonny Gray, 5 Richie Gray, 6 Blair Cowan, 7 John Hardie, 8 David Denton. 


Substitutes: 
16 Fraser Brown, 17 Gordon Reid, 18 Jon Welsh, 19 Tim Swinson, 20 Josh Strauss, 21 Henry Pyrgos, 22 Richie Vernon, 23 Sean Lamont.

LONDON, 13 Oct – Ross Ford and Jonny Gray (Scotland) have each been suspended for three weeks for dangerous tackles contrary to Law 10.4(j).

Following a review of broadcast footage, Ross Ford and Jonny Gray were both cited by independent Citing Commissioner Scott Nowland (Australia) under Law 10.4(j) during the Rugby World Cup 2015 Pool B match against Samoa at St James’ Park on 10 October.

Both players denied committing an act of foul play.

Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all broadcast angles and additional evidence, including from the players and submissions from their representative, the independent Judicial Officer Christopher Quinlan QC (England) was satisfied that each player committed an act of foul play contrary to law 10.4(j) and so upheld the citing.

In the IRB (now World Rugby) Memorandum on “Dangerous tackles” dated 8 June, 2009 the Referees Manager and Judicial Panel Chairman highlighted that “tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground… must be dealt with severely by match officials and all those involved in the disciplinary process.”

With respect to the sanction, the Judicial Officer deemed the act of foul play merited a low-end entry point, namely four weeks. The Judicial Officer added one week for aggravation due to the need to deter this type of dangerous foul play. However, taking into account mitigating factors including the players’ conduct prior to and at the hearing, their expressions of regret, exemplary characters and excellent disciplinary records, the Judicial Officer reduced the suspension to a period of three weeks in respect of each player.

In the context of Rugby World Cup, three weeks equates to three matches and therefore neither player will be available to play for the remainder of Rugby World Cup 2015. Any remaining sanction not applied in the tournament context will revert to weeks for the players’ respective club fixtures.

The players have 48 hours in which to appeal from receipt of the written decision.

yappysnap wrote:

If it's potential out come that you mean well that's different, yes being lifted and landing on a certain part could be fatal. But then so could a punch to the head, or a knee.

Yes - and a punch to the head or a knee to the head is also dealt with seriously see tuilagis ban for an example

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

TJ wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

If it's potential out come that you mean well that's different, yes being lifted and landing on a certain part could be fatal. But then so could a punch to the head, or a knee.

Yes - and a punch to the head or a knee to the head is also dealt with seriously see tuilagis ban for an example

A punch/knee to the torso can also be potentially life threatening

Don't seem to remember much outrage over this (apart from me, of course )



Ulster's Stuart McCloskey banned for four weeks

Ulster centre Stuart McCloskey has been banned for four weeks as a result of his red card offence in last Friday's Pro12 match away to Edinburgh.
The 22-year-old was sent off for what was deemed a dangerous tackle on opponent Hamish Watson during the second half at Murrayfield and he was found guilty of foul play.
McCloskey will miss this Friday's sellout Pro12 game against the Scarlets in Belfast, plus Ulster's two matches in March away to Newport Gwent Dragons and at home to Cardiff Blues.
Despite being found guilty, the disciplinary panel felt it was at the lower end of the scale.
An official Pro12 statement said: "The committee added one week to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of offence, but reduced it by one week having noted the player's previous unblemished record, among other mitigating factors."

4 weeks!!

In fairness, I think Ford should appeal.

Munchkin wrote:Don't seem to remember much outrage over this (apart from me, of course )



Ulster's Stuart McCloskey banned for four weeks

Ulster centre Stuart McCloskey has been banned for four weeks as a result of his red card offence in last Friday's Pro12 match away to Edinburgh.
The 22-year-old was sent off for what was deemed a dangerous tackle on opponent Hamish Watson during the second half at Murrayfield and he was found guilty of foul play.
McCloskey will miss this Friday's sellout Pro12 game against the Scarlets in Belfast, plus Ulster's two matches in March away to Newport Gwent Dragons and at home to Cardiff Blues.
Despite being found guilty, the disciplinary panel felt it was at the lower end of the scale.
An official Pro12 statement said: "The committee added one week to reflect the need for a deterrent for this type of offence, but reduced it by one week having noted the player's previous unblemished record, among other mitigating factors."

4 weeks!!

In fairness, I think Ford should appeal.

I remember this. I don't think they are comparable. McCloskey was the only Ulster player involved and upended Watson. It was worthy of a card, maybe a red, but that would be the most. I didn't think there was any need for a ban. In this case it's a combination of Ford and Gray which cause the problem. Take one of them away and it's probably wouldn't have been a tip tackle.

I don't agree. I think it's the same type of offence. There was absolutely no intent on the part of McCloskey. The player wasn't injured, and if you view it you will find that McCloskey tried to ease him down.
Still stupid from McCloskey though.

I can remember there wasn't much sympathy for McCloskeys length of ban, from certain quarters.

I don't think two players being involved should matter. Maybe even make it worse (thinking back to BOD in NZ).
What I would say though is that Fords punishment seems harsh, and think he should appeal.

Such a sad way for Ford's World Cup career to end.

Has anyone got video of the tackle in question? I really don't remember seeing any tackles that looked worthy of a 3 week ban from either team during that game but I am happy to be proven wrong. It was very physical at times.

bsando wrote:Has anyone got video of the tackle in question? I really don't remember seeing any tackles that looked worthy of a 3 week ban from either team during that game but I am happy to be proven wrong. It was very physical at times.

https://twitter.com/SDM_Robertson/status/654048075976196096 just look at the howls of complaints from the Samoans afterwards...

I think Scotland will win this. Much like 2007, we will have France defeating the Kiwis, and a lowly-rated Northern Hemisphere side shocking Australia.

And just like England's win in 2007 over Australia, it will be built on the back of a good kicking game, a tremendous set-piece, and that most elusive of factors: luck.

Scotland by 2.

Why on earth wouldn't we try to appeal this?
What have we got to lose?

If I'm honest I think it's right that Gray is banned for at least this game, you simply can not lift a player up like he did, we all saw what happened in 2005 on the Lions Tour and we were probably all on BOD's side. That said there was no intention to injure and no one was injured and on top of that we have to play a side with Hooper and Pocock both playing, two players who have deliberately assaulted players in their last appearance, and yet have a combined ban of one week whereas Ford and Gray get six. Tuilagi got five for accidentally kneeing someone, Pocock got none for doing it purpose, just what "example" are they trying to set by doing this? That if you're going to do something make sure you meant it, or is it similar to the Spartan theory that you don't get punished for stealing, only for being caught.
I believe this has been and will continue to be the best world cup of all time however it's time we addressed some issues in our game, nominally our referees are overwhelmingly white and English speaking, of course you could argue that Rugby as a sport is but surely by 2019 we should be looking to have Japanese or Samoan referees as well for example, secondly I hope we have a disciplinary procedure based on fixed sentences for fixed events rather than on the whims of two random officials, we need to start using recently retired and unbiased players to play a prominent role in the judicial process rather than "the tournament's official legal partner".

George Carlin wrote:Why on earth wouldn't we try to appeal this?
What have we got to lose?

Bans can be increased on appeal.

I think Ford definitely needs to appeal - he has been banned for a leg lift yet never actually lifted the guys leg.
- He was just unfortunate enough to land in the guy who had fallen awkwardly due to another player. Ford shouldn't even have any ban IMO

Gray probably has less of a chance, but they could try and reduce it on the basis that Bosh tackled a player onto his head yet only got one week.

3 weeks - wtf

Almost every clear out ends up with people be rolled onto their neck and shoulder - (watch any match to see)

This is actually a absolutely a comlete f ing discrace


Pocock gets nothing

I am now furious

That's the first time I've seen it again, to watch that incident specifically. Very surprised that Ford has been deemed culpable at all. He basically acted as a pivot by holding he guys upper body low...but that is completely normal practice at the ruck. Fail to see what he did wrong in any way shape or form. It's all on Gray who got a bit carried away.

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

Kenny Logan has raised a good point – they have been banned using the laws surrounding tip tackles. This wasn’t a tip tackle – this was a ruck clear out, with a completely different set of circumstances than what the law was designed for. For a start, the player was already in an unstable position with his lower than below his hips.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

Prepare to feel even more aggrieved https://vine.co/v/eEat1u3lVtJ

GLove39 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

Prepare to feel even more aggrieved https://vine.co/v/eEat1u3lVtJ

How could that possible be less of an offence?? That was well off the ball too!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

Prepare to feel even more aggrieved https://vine.co/v/eEat1u3lVtJ

How could that possible be less of an offence?? That was well off the ball too!

They'll argue because he got a yellow on the field. Regardless it totally and utterly stinks.

Ludicrous decisions all round, can supposed 'expert' QCs not use the evidence of their own eyes? Too gin soaked probably.
If any appeal by the SRU fails are we allowed to call up replacements to the squad?

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

He is not landing on his head and neck - he is landing on his front or appears to be so its not as bad as some  under the laws as they stand

also if it was dealt with on the field then that is taken into account in sentencing. Under the laws a yellow for that is about right.

Munchkin wrote:I don't agree. I think it's the same type of offence. There was absolutely no intent on the part of McCloskey. The player wasn't injured, and if you view it you will find that McCloskey tried to ease him down.
Still stupid from McCloskey though.

I can remember there wasn't much sympathy for McCloskeys length of ban, from certain quarters.

I don't think two players being involved should matter. Maybe even make it worse (thinking back to BOD in NZ).
What I would say though is that Fords punishment seems harsh, and think he should appeal.

And I don't agree with you As I said I thought it was worthy of a yellow probably red. There was no need for a ban though.

Hey! Remember when Francois Louw got cited & then banned for 3 weeks for lifting a player and dropping him dangerously at a ruck against Samoa https://vine.co/v/eE5hY9ni1AJ

Ohhh, wait no, that first bit never happened...

One week for Gray and nothing for Ford if you ask me. (Obviously no one did though).

It was clumsy, not malicious. If nothing had been done at all do you think anyone would even have noticed!?

Ridiculous decisions

Do we really need legal people and QC's to judge this sort of thing? - I find that bizarre. FFS keep it simple and get those with knowledge making the decisions - Maybe its time every nation had a panel of 3 professional commissioners who are intimately aware of the game.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Kenny Logan has raised a good point – they have been banned using the laws surrounding tip tackles.  This wasn’t a tip tackle – this was a ruck clear out, with a completely different set of circumstances than what the law was designed for. For a start, the player was already in an unstable position with his lower than below his hips.

McCloskey was banned under exactly same circumstances last year.

The reality is if the head/shoulder hits the ground first you are going to be clobbered.
Anything to do with the head is going to get a ban given the games concern around head injuries

Ah well, what's done is done. There is no point in appealing the decision, no one ever wins these things. In my view we have been f u c k e d over, others may disagree.

Time to concentrate on Sunday, I hope the players use it as motivation

geoff999rugby wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Kenny Logan has raised a good point – they have been banned using the laws surrounding tip tackles.  This wasn’t a tip tackle – this was a ruck clear out, with a completely different set of circumstances than what the law was designed for. For a start, the player was already in an unstable position with his lower than below his hips.

McCloskey was banned under exactly same circumstances last year.

The reality is if the head/shoulder hits the ground first you are going to be clobbered.
Anything to do with the head is going to get a ban given the games concern around head injuries

As I already said, I don't think it is comparable
https://vine.co/v/OQuEmlxZWlX

An utter disgrace but totally expected by a corrupt bunch of parasites who are out to destroy the game. Now have some sympathy with journal Martin Hannan who says the SRU should walk away from this qf to make a rather (dramatic) point. Unlikely I know.

geoff999rugby wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Kenny Logan has raised a good point – they have been banned using the laws surrounding tip tackles.  This wasn’t a tip tackle – this was a ruck clear out, with a completely different set of circumstances than what the law was designed for. For a start, the player was already in an unstable position with his lower than below his hips.

McCloskey was banned under exactly same circumstances last year.

The reality is if the head/shoulder hits the ground first you are going to be clobbered.
Anything to do with the head is going to get a ban given the games concern around head injuries

Unless you're South African... https://vine.co/v/eE5hY9ni1AJ

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:An utter disgrace but totally expected by a corrupt bunch of parasites who are out to destroy the game.   Now have some sympathy with journal Martin Hannan who says the SRU should walk away from this qf to make a rather (dramatic) point.   Unlikely I know.  

Actually the best way to make a rather dramatic point would be for Scotland to win the World Cup.....

We have been absolutely screwed here. The clear out was clumsy, it wasn't a deliberate attempt to hurt the guy. What I don;t get is how SOB deliberately punched someone with an attempt to hurt and only gets a week. Or Pocock who knees someone doesn't get a ban at all.

What is done is done. We'll be without them for the rest of the tournament. Odds of appeal are pretty hopeless.

We'll miss Gray more than Ford. Fraser Brown is a very capable and classy player. The drop of from Gray to Swinson though is quite stark.

I wonder if big Wagga fancies a runout along side Richie?

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:So a clumsy accident is worse that a deliberate act of violence?


.

yes it is if the clumsy accident puts them in life threatening danger and the deliberate act does not.

So Bosh tackling a player onto his head wasn't putting him in life threatening danger?

I haven't seen that one so cannot comment

Images of the Bosh tackle - I can't find a video anywhere

https://twitter.com/RossWhiteside1/status/654039634217967616

He is not landing on his head and neck - he is landing on his front or appears to be so its not as bad as some  under the laws as they stand

also if it was dealt with on the field then that is taken into account in sentencing.  Under the laws a yellow for that is about right.

Did you not see the 2nd image?

Yes - and my point still stands.

TJ wrote:He is not landing on his head and neck - he is landing on his front

I don't see how you can conclude that based on that picture, which shows him landing on his head!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TJ wrote:He is not landing on his head and neck - he is landing on his front

I don't see how you can conclude that based on that picture, which shows him landing on his head!

I have to agree with RDW, the second picture clearly show this, there his head is the only part of him touching the ground.

https://imgur.com/YlST6fK

I think the three weeks judgement on both players is problematic on two levels.  

One: I think it a highly unfair judgement in light of the judgements handed down to other players recently (Pocock - no ban; Hooper - one match ban; O'Brien - one match ban)  and in light of those two players not exactly being known for their dirty vile ways.  The incident looks like a very bad case of coincidental clumsiness - in that two players wanted to clear out a player individually and unfortunately combined in the same instance trying it. That's what it looks like to me.

Two: I think the more important aspect actually is the potential perception of the citing guys.  Had Scotland been favourite to go through to the semis, would they have been so harsh?  It seem the citing guys feel too safe in giving the harsh judgement (to make an example of the seriousness, as they alluded to) by believing Scotland will be out after this weekend anyway.  They feel no guilt that they might be impeding Scotland's progress to the Final because they've made a tacit judgement that Scotland won't be around for all three games.
That's the bit I'd be offended by if I was a Scottish fan/coach/player - The presumption of the quality of threat they pose to this Competition.

Good point fly.

Sort of like FIFA voting for Qatar instead of Australia... and remaining tight lipped about it.
We are only a tiny backwater after all.  The Middle East (especially Qatar) is where it's at in the big scheme of things!

It all stinks.

cakeordeath wrote:https://imgur.com/YlST6fK

Photoshop is such a fantastic tool, isn't it? Is he singing something as well?

I also think that having an Australian citing commissioner is asking for trouble. I do not believe he is biased, I think he is applying the rules (albeit rather harshly) as he would to any team, but the potential for accusations could be easily avoided. This is after all why we don't have Scottish referees refereeing Scotland for example.

It's beyond belief. This situation should never have been allowed to eventuate.

Can't believe how slow the powers that be are not to have seen such a potential shortcoming. Even if he is said (by others?) to be unbiased and objective in his determination... is still reeks of partiality whether he thinks so or not.

Now our relations with Scotland could get even worse than it was with Norway after that misunderstanding over whaling. We nearly went to war with them over bloody fishing rights.

I don't think any Scottish rugby supporter will blame the Australian team. It will just make us more determined to win, which we now have even less chance of doing.

That's the horrible irony though isn't it, cake?

Not the sort of atmosphere any of us really wanted. It's a cheap shot at all of us!

SecretFly wrote:I think the three weeks judgement on both players is problematic on two levels.  

One: I think it a highly unfair judgement in light of the judgements handed down to other players recently (Pocock - no ban; Hooper - one match ban; O'Brien - one match ban)  and in light of those two players not exactly being known for their dirty vile ways.  The incident looks like a very bad case of coincidental clumsiness - in that two players wanted to clear out a player individually and unfortunately combined in the same instance trying it.  That's what it looks like to me.

Two: I think the more important aspect actually is the potential perception of the citing guys.  Had Scotland been favourite to go through to the semis, would they have been so harsh?  It seem the citing guys feel too safe in giving the harsh judgement (to make an example of the seriousness, as they alluded to) by believing Scotland will be out after this weekend anyway.  They feel no guilt that they might be impeding Scotland's progress to the Final because they've made a tacit judgement that Scotland won't be around for all three games.
That's the bit I'd be offended by if I was a Scottish fan/coach/player - The presumption of the quality of threat they pose to this Competition.

agree 100pc.

there is no way on hells earth England or NZ would have copped that ban. The Obrien case is clear cut. They pre determined the outcome. His punch was pure GBH. Does anyone even try to say otherwise ? its actually a criminal offence. If the police were to press charges he wouldnt be playing hed be on bail !

Now we have precedent gbh is a 1 match ban. unless your tier 2 in which case expect months.

Keep an eye out here for the full ruling, which should be uploaded today

http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/judicial-decisions

I suspect it isn't going to provide answers or reduce our feeling of injustice very much!

So it seems much better to knee someone in the chest off the ball (no ban) punch someone off the ball and without provocation (1 week), charge shoulder first into someones head (1 week) than clear someone out of a ruck so they end up rolling onto their shoulder (3 weeks for 2 players), even though that type of clear out happens 30 x a game


Great to be a small rugby nation....

https://vine.co/v/eEJ1aJl1Hpa