Rolland apologises to the All Blacks

World Rugby boss Alain Rolland admits to All Blacks that Aaron Smith yellow card was wrong.

The confusion and anger continues.

The latest fallout from the match against Ireland in Dublin last weekend is that World Rugby referees chief Alain Rolland spoke to All Blacks supremo Steve Hansen this week, and told him Aaron Smith should never have been yellow carded.

That might provide some clarity to those viewers who wondered exactly what referee Jaco Peyper was referring to when he accused halfback Smith of spoiling ball at the breakdown in the first half.

That is not the only thing the All Blacks are annoyed about.

Hansen has already called for consistency. Behind the scenes you can imagine his crew may also be wondering whether Peyper lost the plot at Aviva Stadium, during the All Blacks' 21-9 win.

The Irish will laugh, saying it is rich for the New Zealanders to complain when they should have first rights at firing all the arrows, given they believed Malakai Fekitoa and Sam Cane should have been sent off for high tackles.

They got it half right. The judiciary said Fekitoa committed a red card offence with his bell-ringer on Simon Zebo, and banned the All Blacks centre for a week. Cane was exonerated.

Now it is the All Blacks' turn to return serve.

They had no issue with Peyper penalising them 14 times, but feel they were marginalised because he failed to scrutinise what the Irish were doing.

They say it doesn't make sense that the Irish could only concede four penalties, especially with a fast defensive line, swift advances around the ruck fringes and, like everyone, the desire to slow ruck ball.

Former England and British and Irish Lions midfielder Jeremy Guscott has given referees the hot tip. It's time to watch the All Blacks' more closely, he whispered. They're getting away with too much, you blokes with the whistles need to take it up a level.

Hansen says things need to be taken up a level alright, but it has to be when the refs are scrutinising their opponents.

The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen.

He wants that habit to stop, for the referees to ask if the side in black, or black and white as will be the case when they meet France in Paris on Sunday morning (NZT), is the one really at fault.

Or is the perception, fuelled by Guscott and friends, becoming reality? In rugby, where the lawbook is so confusing, that is a dangerous thing.

The All Blacks can do their bit, too.

At training this week they have spoken about the need to lower their tackles, to give the officials fewer excuses to punish them. That in turn will, possibly, lead to them to start winning the PR war.

There is little doubt the All Blacks play some of the most attractive rugby on the international stage. You don't record 18 consecutive wins by operating by a kick-and-grind code.

Following their match in Dublin they have received a decent kicking.

Some of it was deserved, a lot has been unfair.

This All Blacks team is tired, and ready to go home. A win without any ugly incidents at Stade de France would be a suitable way to farewell their 2016 season.

Les Bleus might want to try their luck, to see if they disrupt with fist and niggle. Discipline may never be so important for the All Blacks.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you honestly agree that high tackles aren't penalised by NH refs, or just for NH teams? Maybe they just thought it was accidental (not that that's in the laws but it's how you see it right?).

Not necessarily. I watch more Northern hemisphere rugby than southern hemisphere rugby so I think it's bound to colour my views. But there are alot of high tackles that go unpunished. This week there has been alot of talk over refereeing decisions that would have no doubt led to far less talk a year ago or 2 years ago etc.

Alot of it boils down to referee "directives". This month it's high tackles. Recently it was "chop tackles" - a few players fell foul of that at the time, now it's ignored again.  World rugby are just ticking a box until the next directive whatever that will be. Neck rolls were another one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you honestly agree that high tackles aren't penalised by NH refs, or just for NH teams? Maybe they just thought it was accidental (not that that's in the laws but it's how you see it right?).

Not necessarily. I watch more Northern hemisphere rugby than southern hemisphere rugby so I think it's bound to colour my views. But there are alot of high tackles that go unpunished. This week there has been alot of talk over refereeing decisions that would have no doubt led to far less talk a year ago or 2 years ago etc.

Alot of it boils down to referee "directives". This month it's high tackles. Recently it was "chop tackles" - a few players fell foul of that at the time, now it's ignored again.  World rugby are just ticking a box until the next directive whatever that will be. Neck rolls were another one.

Neck rolls, linked to high tackles obviously are being penalised quite a lot still. You see kicking the ball in the ruck is high on the agenda where Launchbury got 2 weeks ban for accidental contact.

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you honestly agree that high tackles aren't penalised by NH refs, or just for NH teams? Maybe they just thought it was accidental (not that that's in the laws but it's how you see it right?).

Not necessarily. I watch more Northern hemisphere rugby than southern hemisphere rugby so I think it's bound to colour my views. But there are alot of high tackles that go unpunished. This week there has been alot of talk over refereeing decisions that would have no doubt led to far less talk a year ago or 2 years ago etc.

Alot of it boils down to referee "directives". This month it's high tackles. Recently it was "chop tackles" - a few players fell foul of that at the time, now it's ignored again.  World rugby are just ticking a box until the next directive whatever that will be. Neck rolls were another one.

Neck rolls, linked to high tackles obviously are being penalised quite a lot still. You see kicking the ball in the ruck is high on the agenda where Launchbury got 2 weeks ban for accidental contact.

There were about 3 or 4 neck rolls in Ire v NZ that went unpunished.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ignoring again ebop?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

ebop wrote:morale high ground

ebop wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ignoring again ebop?

There are rabbit holes and then there are 'rabbit holes'

ebop wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

All this morale high ground stuff is absolutely sickening when we all know Joe's cheating heritage has rubbed off on Ireland. And it's like....ohhh not us, we're like Irish, but Joe is a dirty cheating kiwi!!!

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

ebop wrote:Actually

I've had a brain wave

Can we award Ireland a moral victory in Dublin?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ignoring again ebop?

There are rabbit holes and then there are 'rabbit holes'

If you want to make general comments and not go any further no problem.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Differnet law now marty, you also saw (think Attwood, possible Wood) against Wales go to kick a bouncing ball and catch a player square in the head accidentally about 2 years ago.

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Actually

I've had a brain wave

Can we award Ireland a moral victory in Dublin?

Highly unlikely ebop, considering the reams of Irish published tears since the weekend

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

The rules have been changed since then to say no contact at all rather than deliberate hence saying is the inconsistency in laws rather than the correct application of this law.Do you think accidental should always be ignored and no penalty, as you want for high tackles, or is the change for stray boots a good one to make players think about their actions.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

The rules have been changed since then to say no contact at all rather than deliberate hence saying is the inconsistency in laws rather than the correct application of this law.Do you think accidental should always be ignored and no penalty, as you want for high tackles, or is the change for stray boots a good one to make players think about their actions.

I didn't realise the laws had changed. I think each case should be judged individually. It is not possible to perform an "accidental high tackle" as was pointed out to you previously.

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

I'm afraid this is not true.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

I'm afraid this is not true.

So you are saying its only a high tackle if its deliberate?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

I'm afraid this is not true.

So you are saying its only a high tackle if its deliberate?

Think about what a "tackle" is. It is a deliberate, conscious decision taken by a player. You can't tackle  someone by accident in the same way that you can't drop a goal by accident.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

I'm afraid this is not true.

So you are saying its only a high tackle if its deliberate?

Think about what a "tackle" is. It is a deliberate, conscious decision taken by a player. You can't tackle  someone by accident in the same way that you can't drop a goal by accident.

The tackle is the deliberate part

Taking them high is the accidental part

You can try a drop goal but miss, that's not your intention but it is the result

RugbyFan100 wrote:

How is taking a player high "accidental"?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Except it is possible but you fail to see it

I'm afraid this is not true.

So you are saying its only a high tackle if its deliberate?

Think about what a "tackle" is. It is a deliberate, conscious decision taken by a player. You can't tackle  someone by accident in the same way that you can't drop a goal by accident.

The tackle is the deliberate part

Taking them high is the accidental part

You can try a drop goal but miss, that's not your intention but it is the result

How is taking a player high "accidental"?

uncle_nigel wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

How is taking a player high "accidental"?

If it's deemed to be done without malicious intent then it is accidental surely? This seems like a dumb question.

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

aucklandlaurie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

After this game he was in the All Blacks changing Room having a beer and a friendly catch up with Charlie Faumuina, in fact a lot of the irish players went to the ABs changing room for the jersey swap and a beer. Now how could we get the fans to get on like the players do????

uncle_nigel wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

After this game he was in the All Blacks changing Room having a beer and a friendly catch up with Charlie Faumuina, in fact a lot of the irish players went to the ABs changing room for the jersey swap and a beer. Now how could we get the fans to get on like the players do????

Is there a team in rugby that doesn't do this though? It's the officials' prerogative to deal with what's being discussed in here - no point in the players becoming enemies over it. Every player in world rugby has a mutual respect for each other as far as I can tell, it's part of what makes our game unique. I can understand the Irish fans' grievance and I happen to agree with them. Both sets of supporters are as bad as each other for post-match bickering, but the Kiwi's do need to get off this high horse. They were complaining about ref's in every test against Wales this summer too, complaining as if everyone is out to get the stars & silver fern from their crest.

Regarding Charlie, his stock must be pretty high. Is he due a move to a club up north any time soon?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

uncle_nigel wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

After this game he was in the All Blacks changing Room having a beer and a friendly catch up with Charlie Faumuina, in fact a lot of the irish players went to the ABs changing room for the jersey swap and a beer. Now how could we get the fans to get on like the players do????

Is there a team in rugby that doesn't do this though? It's the officials' prerogative to deal with what's being discussed in here - no point in the players becoming enemies over it. Every player in world rugby has a mutual respect for each other as far as I can tell, it's part of what makes our game unique. I can understand the Irish fans' grievance and I happen to agree with them. Both sets of supporters are as bad as each other for post-match bickering, but the Kiwi's do need to get off this high horse. They were complaining about ref's in every test against Wales this summer too, complaining as if everyone is out to get the stars & silver fern from their crest.

Regarding Charlie, his stock must be pretty high. Is he due a move to a club up north any time soon?

Toulousse. next year.

The Great Aukster wrote:
Ireland aren't in the top two (or top four for that matter) teams in the world, yet a freak one-off victory incredibly bursts the All Black self-confidence to the degree it has.   All the attention Ireland is receiving from New Zealand is very flattering but I'm missing the disinterested arrogance they normally adopt.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Differnet law now marty, you also saw (think Attwood, possible Wood) against Wales go to kick a bouncing ball and catch a player square in the head accidentally about 2 years ago.

It was still illegal last season, there were others penalised for it

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

The rules have been changed since then to say no contact at all rather than deliberate hence saying is the inconsistency in laws rather than the correct application of this law.Do you think accidental should always be ignored and no penalty, as you want for high tackles, or is the change for stray boots a good one to make players think about their actions.

I didn't realise the laws had changed. I think each case should be judged individually. It is not possible to perform an "accidental high tackle" as was pointed out to you previously.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What was your take on Launchbury getting done for accidental contact? Fair or lack of consistency of the laws (not implementation)?

My take on it is that it just highlights that the laws haven't been refereed consistently. Didn't Mike Brown knock a Welsh player out in similar fashion? Did he get 2 weeks? Why not? I hope it's refereed consistently now and Launchbury isn't the fall guy. He's not a dirty player.

The rules have been changed since then to say no contact at all rather than deliberate hence saying is the inconsistency in laws rather than the correct application of this law.Do you think accidental should always be ignored and no penalty, as you want for high tackles, or is the change for stray boots a good one to make players think about their actions.

I didn't realise the laws had changed. I think each case should be judged individually. It is not possible to perform an "accidental high tackle" as was pointed out to you previously.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Differnet law now marty, you also saw (think Attwood, possible Wood) against Wales go to kick a bouncing ball and catch a player square in the head accidentally about 2 years ago.

It was still illegal last season, there were others penalised for it

At the time of the Brown incident it had to be done purposely, which his wasn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had to be on purpose. Wasn't even cited as he was obviously going for the ball and then pushed back into the player.

The Great Aukster wrote:What was amazing about the Dublin game was that the best team in the world felt the need to physically hurt their opponents. A team more comfortable in their own skin surely wouldn't have had such a personal and childish reaction to Chicago. On top of that Hansen then needed a comfort blanky from Rolland to reassure him that World Rugby were still friends.

Ireland aren't in the top two (or top four for that matter) teams in the world, yet a freak one-off victory incredibly bursts the All Black self-confidence to the degree it has.   All the attention Ireland is receiving from New Zealand is very flattering but I'm missing the disinterested arrogance they normally adopt.

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

uncle_nigel wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:Like a part time Irish?

Well Irish when not cheating....

When he does dirty stuff, he gets stoned in the dressing room as a Kiwi spy....

After this game he was in the All Blacks changing Room having a beer and a friendly catch up with Charlie Faumuina, in fact a lot of the irish players went to the ABs changing room for the jersey swap and a beer. Now how could we get the fans to get on like the players do????

Is there a team in rugby that doesn't do this though? It's the officials' prerogative to deal with what's being discussed in here - no point in the players becoming enemies over it. Every player in world rugby has a mutual respect for each other as far as I can tell, it's part of what makes our game unique. I can understand the Irish fans' grievance and I happen to agree with them. Both sets of supporters are as bad as each other for post-match bickering, but the Kiwi's do need to get off this high horse. They were complaining about ref's in every test against Wales this summer too, complaining as if everyone is out to get the stars & silver fern from their crest.

Regarding Charlie, his stock must be pretty high. Is he due a move to a club up north any time soon?

Toulousse. next year.

Surprised to hear that, thought he would still be in a good place for the 2019 squad

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Had to be on purpose. Wasn't even cited as he was obviously going for the ball and then pushed back into the player.

This is one that was accidental and got a 3 week ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTGmajAzX-0

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well we'll have to disagree then as I'm 100% sure.