QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October

by **George Carlin** Sun Oct 11 2015, 07:26

First topic message reminder :

QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Wallab10

QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Scot_f10

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
QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Geoffr10

QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Geoffr10

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
QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Tucker10

QF4: Australia v Scotland, 18 October - Page 7 Tucker10

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.

by TJ Wed Oct 14 2015, 19:13

Risky - its all been completely consistent and correct bar perhaps the week added for deterrence. if you understand the laws and the guidance on apllying them

Incidents putting the head and neck at risk are treated more harshly than those putting the body at risk

Incidents that attract a sanction on the field - that sanction is taken into account if a citing is issued and upheld in sentencing

Take the bosch incident - cos the tackled guy came down on his front he could and did put his hands out to break his fall - hence the lower sanction.

I am getting pretty peeved about this continual moaning about citings and sanctions when if you actually understand the process and take your blinkers off its really about as good as it could be.

Stop effing moaning you are hard done by =- we are not!

by SecretFly Wed Oct 14 2015, 19:45

Strauss for some reason has decided his boys are now going to take out their sense of injustice on the poor South Africans. Everyone is being dragged into this war!:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/josh-strauss-we-ll-beat-south-africa-in-tribute-to-ford-and-gray-1.2391670

by GLove39 Wed Oct 14 2015, 19:47

madmaccas wrote:
GLove39 wrote:
madmaccas wrote:https://vine.co/v/eEJ1aJl1Hpa

Trust me, once you've seen behind the scenes it all makes sense https://vine.co/v/eE6zmmtg3T6

Fantastic, good work!

You're infinitely better at making vines than I am GLove.

by GLove39 Wed Oct 14 2015, 19:51

SecretFly wrote:Strauss for some reason has decided his boys are now going to take out their sense of injustice on the poor South Africans. Everyone is being dragged into this war!:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/josh-strauss-we-ll-beat-south-africa-in-tribute-to-ford-and-gray-1.2391670

someones clearly optimistic of our chances, we wouldn't meet the Boks till the final...

by R!skysports Wed Oct 14 2015, 21:48

Tj

Not sure why you feel the need to defend the citing but fair play

But even u can not with a straight face say the word consistant in the sentence can you

Read the citing. All the advice and suggested outcomes were over ruled (there words) to make this a statement fo others. That in it self says it is not consistent. It even ignored the actual ref PoV

Not consistent at all

by cakeordeath Wed Oct 14 2015, 22:38

Just seen on Twitter that the SRU have announced an appeal.

by cakeordeath Wed Oct 14 2015, 22:40

Ah Frak. It's a retweet from someone. Never noticed it is the Daily Mail. Stand down. Nothing to see here

by SecretFly Wed Oct 14 2015, 23:24

Are yis going to get around to discussing the game anytime or are yis just going to keep bitching and Sobbing? Cool

by GLove39 Wed Oct 14 2015, 23:28

SecretFly wrote:Are yis going to get around to discussing the game anytime or are yis just going to keep bitching and Sobbing?

Come tomorrow we start afresh.
And with that in mind might, just going to use this last 20 minutes to call Scott Nowland & the QC's at world rugby a bunch of vindictive Fraknuckles

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 07:21

Apologies Glove for still talking about it, but...

Today is the deadline for launching an appeal, so if they do I'm assuming the hearing will be tomorrow. That puts the team in an awkward position because tomorrow is team announcement day - do you include Ford and Gray on the hope of appeal?

It can't be helping preparation either to be running with 3 hookers and different 2nd row combos to cover all eventualities.

As much as it sucks they'd almost be better off just taking the ban and planning without them.

I still think Ford has been incredibly hard done by - to be done for a leg lift tackle when he was no where near the player's legs.

by R!skysports Thu Oct 15 2015, 07:32

I think they will have to assume they are not playing. Even if they win the appeal then I think it will not be reduced to nothing

So team set up without them for this game and plan for them to be back for the final angel

by 21st Century Schizoid Man Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:11

World Rugby on the fastrack to become the new FIFA !

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:18

RDW_Scotland wrote:Apologies Glove for still talking about it, but...

Today is the deadline for launching an appeal, so if they do I'm assuming the hearing will be tomorrow. That puts the team in an awkward position because tomorrow is team announcement day - do you include Ford and Gray on the hope of appeal?

It can't be helping preparation either to be running with 3 hookers and different 2nd row combos to cover all eventualities.

As much as it sucks they'd almost be better off just taking the ban and planning without them.

I still think Ford has been incredibly hard done by - to be done for a leg lift tackle when he was no where near the player's legs.

Just checking, are you aware that Ford's account in the hearing had HIM saying that he lifted one leg?

by whocares Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:21

c'mon Scots , please knock those Aussies out of the world cup. their AAC and Kepu are needed by their new club asap!

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:27

Apparently to be able to appeal they have to present new evidence not previously used in their argument, so as has been said the best we can hope for is a week or two struck off, and only likely for Ford.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:28

HammerofThunor wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:Apologies Glove for still talking about it, but...

Today is the deadline for launching an appeal, so if they do I'm assuming the hearing will be tomorrow. That puts the team in an awkward position because tomorrow is team announcement day - do you include Ford and Gray on the hope of appeal?

It can't be helping preparation either to be running with 3 hookers and different 2nd row combos to cover all eventualities.

As much as it sucks they'd almost be better off just taking the ban and planning without them.

I still think Ford has been incredibly hard done by - to be done for a leg lift tackle when he was no where near the player's legs.

Just checking, are you aware that Ford's account in the hearing had HIM saying that he lifted one leg?

I didn't see that no. It certainly didn't look like he did from the video replays!

I'd still say that his clearout wasn't any different from a standard clear out you see 100 times in a game.

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:31

Yeah, I didn't see he had lifted either but he said he did so he must of.

When I saw it in real time I wince as the guys neck bend. That doesn't happen in every game. It might be it happens regularly but isn't as clear on the camera and gets missed. But I don't think it's a case of being ignored.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:33

HammerofThunor wrote:Yeah, I didn't see he had lifted either but he said he did so he must of.

When I saw it in real time I wince as the guys neck bend. That doesn't happen in every game. It might be it happens regularly but isn't as clear on the camera and gets missed. But I don't think it's a case of being ignored.

There's no doubting that it could have been dangerous - our main grip has been the inconsistency compared to other bans / non bans this world cup.

JP Pietersen did a very similar clearout against us (Swinson's legs were lifted above the horizontal) and didn't even get cited.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:38

#Breaking news#

Scotland to appeal both bans.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu Oct 15 2015, 08:56

And so they should.

If they didn't, it shows a lack of support and belief in Ford & Gray's case. I would ask them to categorically state, on the record, their full justification for all other similar incidents and subsequent disciplinary action compared to what they dished out to our lads.

Anyway, Scotland need to use this farce as 'no more nails' bonding and come out stronger with a new found belief that Australia are going out in the 1/4 finals.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:11

I do suspect it is more the principle of it and showing they support their players as opposed to any real hope that they will be available this weekend.

by RubyGuby Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:12

RDW - I'm sure this has been asked a million times but what's wrong with the clock on 606?

thumbsup

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:14

RubyGuby wrote:RDW - I'm sure this has been asked a million times but what's wrong with the clock on 606?

Your time zone was set to Micronesia - I've fixed it for you!

by MacKnocked-on Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:33

The SRU are right to appeal, not only from a supporting the players point of view, but for the fact that we'll need them for the Semis. Positive thinking.

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:35

The people who a reviewing the case have no power to cite players. They can only respond in the cases they're providing. Therefore, whether a player is cited or not is irrelevant because it's being reviewed by a completely different group of people (the Citing Commissioner). What they can base it on is other cases there were reviewed (for example Bosch, other types of offences, such as a punch are, again, irrelevant). In Bosch's case it was deemed that he actively tried to correct the issue and put the guy down safely when he realised the guy had tipped. He didn't, which is why he received a ban but it was deemed there was no 'driving', so it was 'just' a dangerous tackle. In this case it was taken that Lam was 'driven' into the ground (enough to bend his neck sideways) so they're different offences. I think the only change would be if this person didn't agree with the Bosch ruling, but that won't effect this one.

If that makes any sense.

by SecretFly Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:39

Jesus....Ruby's been on Micronesia time for it must be a year now........... explains it all Wink

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:42

I don't expect them to have their ban rescinded or shortened. That's not the point. What I would like to see is some consistency with sentencing.

Despite what body part is targeted I'm struggling to square off how deliberate and aggressive acts like Pocock and SOB's merit just one week bans where clumsy and accidental acts like Gray & Ford's merit 3 week bans.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:45

On another note, couldn't they get off on a technicality.

Since they were not "tackling" the player as such?

Will some sort of Lawyer's prattle work in that particular case FES? GC?

by R!skysports Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:46

What time is the team announced

I assume that they will still get at least a week ban, so we need to plan for that

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:46

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:On another note, couldn't they get off on a technicality.

Since they were not "tackling" the player as such?

Will some sort of Lawyer's prattle work in that particular case FES? GC?

In the full judgement the QC acknowledges that the law is intended for tackles but he says he is happy that this case meets all the requirements to be able to use that law.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:46

Riskysports wrote:What time is the team announced

I assume that they will still get at least a week ban, so we need to plan for that

Suspect it will be tomorrow - normally it is 2 days before.

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:50

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't expect them to have their ban rescinded or shortened. That's not the point. What I would like to see is some consistency with sentencing.

Despite what body part is targeted I'm struggling to square off how deliberate and aggressive acts like Pocock and SOB's merit just one week bans where clumsy and accidental acts like Gray & Ford's merit 3 week bans.

Aye but Radge, if you want to see consistency, then their bans should be shortened.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:51

RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:On another note, couldn't they get off on a technicality.

Since they were not "tackling" the player as such?

Will some sort of Lawyer's prattle work in that particular case FES? GC?

In the full judgement the QC acknowledges that the law is intended for tackles but he says he is happy that this case meets all the requirements to be able to use that law.

Well at least he's "happy".

I love how they waste money on a QC for this sort of thing. Shower of b£stards.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:53

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't expect them to have their ban rescinded or shortened. That's not the point.

We don't need to beat them, just fight them.

It's movie quotes day.

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:56

Because regardless of whether something is deliberate or intentionally the potential outcome is considered. RF/JG's acts had a higher potential for injury (and were against the Laws). If SOB's act hadn't have been intentional it wouldn't have got anything at all. If RF/JG had been deemed to do it deliberately they would have been out for months, not weeks.

The IRB are not going to reduce bans for tipping players so the only solution to your problem is to increase bans for things like punching. The mid level entry for a tip tackle is 8 weeks and this can still be for unintentional events (Warburton, 2011). That that would mean that a strike would have to have at least the same entry level as that. So all punches would carry an effective minimum of 4 weeks, starting at 8 weeks.

And I don't have a problem with that but it would need a change to the recommended sanction levels that World Rugby put out. These decisions so far seem to be consistent with those.

To clarify I got bored reading SOB's because it seemed clear cut and standard. I read Bosch's and Gray and Ford's. Haven't read Hooper's or Pocock's yet.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:56

In honour of big Gordie Reid, one from Mighty Ducks:

Goldberg: Be careful man, it almost hit me that time!

Charlie Conway: Goldberg, you're the goalie. It's supposed to hit you.

Goldberg: Does that sound stupid to anyone else?

by **George Carlin** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:57

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/scotland-deserve-wallabies-respect-at-rugby-world-cup-as-finn-russell-emerges-as-a-threat-20151014-gk9cxi.html

I like Cully.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 09:59

SRU wrote:Scottish Rugby will appeal against the suspensions issued to both Ross Ford and Jonny Gray.

It will contest the length of suspensions given, following the Independent Citing Commissioner’s review of the final Rugby World Cup Pool B match versus Samoa on Saturday 10 October and subsequent ruling by Judicial Officer Christopher Quinlan QC.

Both players have exemplary records and are widely acknowledged as model professionals who play the game in the right spirit. Their actions had no malice or harmful intention.

Ross and Jonny have both expressed their surprise and disappointment at the three-week suspension which has been handed down.

Scottish Rugby Chief Executive, Mark Dodson, said: “We hold Ross and Jonny in very high regard and as a result will be launching a robust appeal to challenge their suspensions, which we feel are unduly harsh.

“I have raised their case with Brett Gosper at World Rugby and asked for consistency in how such incidents are punished.

“It is clear other Unions are also seeking better clarity on the use of citing and the interpretation of how key areas of the game are scrutinised and the subsequent levels of punishment set.”

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:01

by RubyGuby Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:02

SecretFly wrote:Jesus....Ruby's been on Micronesia time for it must be a year now........... explains it all

I'm still looking forward to the 2015 RWC but I think we're fecked against England because of the injuries. then again what the feck do I know. Good luck against those minnows

thumbsup

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:02

George Carlin wrote:http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/scotland-deserve-wallabies-respect-at-rugby-world-cup-as-finn-russell-emerges-as-a-threat-20151014-gk9cxi.html

I like Cully.

Absolutely. Can't beat a journalist with something nice to say about Scottish rugby.

I still think that Russell has yet to really stamp himself on this Scottish team. Plenty more to come from him.

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:05

RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:On another note, couldn't they get off on a technicality.

Since they were not "tackling" the player as such?

Will some sort of Lawyer's prattle work in that particular case FES? GC?

In the full judgement the QC acknowledges that the law is intended for tackles but he says he is happy that this case meets all the requirements to be able to use that law.

He says the Law doesn't mention tackles. 10.4(j) is "Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play." The query was whether, since he was in contact with the ground, was he lifted from the ground. They also tried to got off with it by saying they didn't tip him beyond the horizontal because he was already tilted while going for the ball. Again, the laws don't mention "beyond the horizontal" at all. That's just guidance to the refs. They also tried to say that the guys was never at risk of injury, and that was cowpat too. Their defence seemed to be based on trying to get off on a technicality (without knowing what the laws are). Whoever the Scottish teams's legal advisor/rep is should probably get fired (unless he was told they had to plead not guilty to try and make the QF).

by EWT Spoons Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:07

funnyExiledScot wrote:
George Carlin wrote:http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/scotland-deserve-wallabies-respect-at-rugby-world-cup-as-finn-russell-emerges-as-a-threat-20151014-gk9cxi.html

I like Cully.

Absolutely. Can't beat a journalist with something nice to say about Scottish rugby.

I still think that Russell has yet to really stamp himself on this Scottish team. Plenty more to come from him.

I was sold after his opening paragraph where he pretty much says wilson should be banned and Ford and Gray not. I think every Scottish fan would happily take that.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:12

That was my suggested plea bargain. Perhaps throw in Strokosch as a bonus.

by funnyExiledScot Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:16

HammerofThunor wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:On another note, couldn't they get off on a technicality.

Since they were not "tackling" the player as such?

Will some sort of Lawyer's prattle work in that particular case FES? GC?

In the full judgement the QC acknowledges that the law is intended for tackles but he says he is happy that this case meets all the requirements to be able to use that law.

He says the Law doesn't mention tackles. 10.4(j) is "Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play." The query was whether, since he was in contact with the ground, was he lifted from the ground. They also tried to got off with it by saying they didn't tip him beyond the horizontal because he was already tilted while going for the ball. Again, the laws don't mention "beyond the horizontal" at all. That's just guidance to the refs. They also tried to say that the guys was never at risk of injury, and that was cowpat too. Their defence seemed to be based on trying to get off on a technicality (without knowing what the laws are). Whoever the Scottish teams's legal advisor/rep is should probably get fired (unless he was told they had to plead not guilty to try and make the QF).

It's interesting that a QC believes that Ross Ford committed this offence.

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:19

George Carlin wrote:http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/scotland-deserve-wallabies-respect-at-rugby-world-cup-as-finn-russell-emerges-as-a-threat-20151014-gk9cxi.html

I like Cully.

My biggest concern with that article is that it has shown a starting XV with Wilson playing.

by HammerofThunor Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:20

Ford said he lifted him. That's a pretty convincing argument.

by R!skysports Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:30

I think one of the outcomes of this is that I fully expect all games to end up with no players

as that sort of clear out happens all the time - and if they want to be consistent (and people will now watch for it) then they have to be consistent

by **RDW** Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:34

Will be interesting to see how the clear outs happen when Pocock and Hooper get over the ball in their strong jackle position – if you can’t get your shoulders lower then theirs and blast them out the way your options are to use their upper body/shoulders to roll them out the way, or to lift their leg for a similar purpose. The latter technique is what caused Ford and Gray problems.

by EWT Spoons Thu Oct 15 2015, 10:52

funnyExiledScot wrote:That was my suggested plea bargain. Perhaps throw in Strokosch as a bonus.

I like it. How can we involve Scott Johnson in this as well?

by Sponsored content