Bledisloe Cup

First topic message reminder :

Wallabies coach Dave Rennie says a good portion of his squad is “pretty angry” at the behaviour of winger Marika Koroibete, back-rower Isi Naisarani and prop Pone Fa’amausili after a late night drinking session resulted in the trio being stood down for Saturday’s Bledisloe Cup opener against the All Blacks.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/three-wallabies-dropped-from-bledisloe-opener-after-drinking-session-20210804-p58fw0.html

The Springboks are looking forward to this tour as once they have completed their quarantine in OZ they can move around freely without restrictions. Mentally I think that will be good for them as in SA they had to remain in the team bubble.

Yeah Old Man, that will be nice for them being able to move about. I reckon the new found freedom will translate into some scintillating open back line play to match their awesome forward play. Mmmm, maybe not. Really looking forward to meeting the old foe again.

There will be a few moves out the backline, they will have to, doubt we will stop the OZ and NZ from scoring tries

XV, Gregor Paul:

'If the All Blacks are to achieve their goal this year of returning to the top of the world rankings, then never has it been so important for them to hit the ground running as it were.

They have arrived in Australia to begin what will be the longest tour of the professional age which will see them play 10 tests in total – five in Australia, one in the USA, one in the UK, and one each in Ireland, Italy and France.

It will be an epic three months, made all the harder by the fact the 10 tests are split into two blocs where they will play five weeks consecutively. And that’s before we factor in the other issues that are making life interesting.

The first is that none of Sam Whitelock, Aaron Smith nor Richie Mo’unga flew to Perth with the squad as all three are having babies.


The All Blacks’ first-choice halves pairing will likely be out of commission for the next month.
In normal circumstances, they would rejoin the group a few days after their respective births and most likely miss just the one test if everything went to plan.

But these are not normal circumstances. Once they are ready, they will fly to Queensland where they will have to endure a hard 14-day quarantine, leaving All Blacks head coach Ian Foster unsure when all three might become available.

“I’d be surprised if it wasn’t three,” said All Blacks coach Ian Foster to the question of how many tests those three players are likely to miss.

“But I don’t want to say too much beyond that because we don’t want to put any expectation or pressure on family. They have to do what they have got to do and we can’t do anything about quarantine either.

“So whatever time babies arrive, you add another two weeks of quarantine on top and then maybe another week to get them conditioned again, so pretty extraordinary times.”

Those three have been the All Blacks’ best and most consistent performers this year and two of them – Whitelock and Smith – have captained the team in the absence of the injured Sam Cane.

The All Blacks are blessed with an inordinate number of good players but there is no question that not having Whitelock, Smith and Mo’unga available for a while is a terrific blow.

Those three have been the All Blacks’ best and most consistent performers this year and two of them – Whitelock and Smith – have captained the team in the absence of the injured Sam Cane.

An impossibly tough tour is going to have to begin with a new, untried captain in Ardie Savea. He won the post ahead of other candidates such as Codie Taylor, Scott Barrett, Brodie Retallick and Beauden Barrett.

By a process of elimination, the job ended up with Savea. Taylor has been in brilliant form all year and shown himself to be a good leader at the Crusaders, but as a hooker, he won’t necessarily be on the field for the full 80 minutes and that has previously been a non-negotiable requirement for an All Blacks captain in the past.

Scott Barrett is another good, emerging leader but he remains prone to the odd moment of hot-headedness – as was seen in Brisbane last year when he earned a yellow card for an impetuous and silly decision to slap the ball out of Nic White’s hands late in the game.


Scott Barrett was sin-binned in the All Blacks loss to the Wallabies in 2020, and was sent off in the 2019 defeat.
Retallick has little provincial or Super Rugby experience as a captain, only co-leading the Chiefs for a handful of games in 2019, while Beauden Barrett probably doesn’t need any additional pressure heaped on him as he is going to be afforded his first extended run in the No 10 jersey since vacating it in 2019 when he was switched to fullback.

“You don’t need to be Einstein to know there is a nice window of time for him now and that is great. We always knew that Richie was going to miss a couple of tests around this time,” said Foster.

“I was really pleased with Beaudy off the bench at Eden Park. He looked to me like he’s in good form and he’s been training really well.

“He’s been hanging out for an opportunity but what I love about him is that he has been contributing heavily behind the scenes in the role that he has been given. He is going to have a nice little window of time to get back into the saddle.”

To be able to replace Mo’unga with Barrett is a luxury every coach in the world game would love to have and it means the All Blacks will have a world-class play-maker at No 10, despite losing their first-choice world-class option.

They become the figurehead of the leadership group and the spokesperson so there is a lot of on-field situations where they have to reflect the calmness of our team to the decisions that we make.

In Scott Barrett, Retallick and Patrick Tuipulotu they have ample talent to cope without having Whitelock available and between those three, Taylor and Lienert-Brown, there is a core leadership group that can provide strong support for Savea as captain.

“It has been an eventful 12 months for captains. Obviously we went with Sam Cane and then he had his injury. Sam Whitelock has come in and done a fantastic job and we have also had Aaron Smith this year.

“It has tested our depth in that regard but we have a lot of confidence in our leadership plan,” said Foster.

“I think it is really important because they become the figurehead of the leadership group and the spokesperson so there is a lot of on-field situations where they have to reflect the calmness of our team to the decisions that we make.”

The question the All Blacks can’t be sure they can answer just yet is whether they can play as well without Smith in the No 9 jersey. The veteran halfback has been in the form of his life this year and the gap between him and both Brad Weber and TJ Perenara is substantial.

Who the All Blacks opt to run at No 9 in Aaron Smith’s absence could be telling for the future.
One of them, though, is going to have to find their feet quickly and deliver something close to the accuracy of Smith and enable the All Blacks to play their usual fast, sweeping game.

And they have to do it immediately because if the All Blacks are to build momentum on this tour, grow in confidence and belief, they need to start their 10-test run with a solid performance and convincing victory.

Momentum will be everything, something they found out last year. After a slow start to their test season which saw them draw with the Wallabies in Wellington, the All Blacks shifted into a higher gear and blew them away in Auckland and then Sydney to retain the Bledisloe.

They were chugging along ever so nicely until they opted to make significant changes to their starting line-up for the fourth and final Bledisloe Cup test.

They made eight changes from the week before – the 43-5 demolition in Sydney – played without cohesion or authority and lost 24-22.

The All Blacks learned the hard way that it is vital to transition effectively out of playing Australia into the next phase of the Rugby Championship against Argentina.

They reverted mostly to the team that had started in Sydney for the game that followed the loss in Brisbane and ended up losing that one to the Pumas in a performance that was disjointed and bumbling.

Two defeats in two tests and the pressure intensified in a way it hasn’t for more than a decade. Not since 2011 had the All Blacks lost two in a row and plenty of questions came about whether the coaching group and the players were up to it.

The All Blacks learned the hard way that it is vital to transition effectively out of playing Australia into the next phase of the Rugby Championship against Argentina.

And what they also learned is that they have to make a major mental transition in how they view the final test of the year against the Wallabies.

Historically the All Blacks and Wallabies have played their final Bledisloe test at the end of the Rugby Championship.

Sam Whitelock
In last year’s historic victory, Argentina shocked New Zealand with their game plan and ferocity in the tackle.
As a consequence, there have been seven Bledisloe tests in the last 11 years when the trophy has not been up for grabs and therefore there has been ‘nothing’ on the line when the two teams have met.

The All Blacks have won four and drawn one of those games – a record that is considerably worse than their overall Bledisloe performance.

Last year, like this, has seen the ‘additional’ Bledisloe played before the Rugby Championship and that has changed things dramatically – something the All Blacks were slow to realise last year.

They learned that it was a mistake to view this coming game as the third Bledisloe test of the year. Instead, they have to view it as the second Rugby Championship test.

In the past, defeat in the final Bledisloe has cost the All Blacks nothing but a little bit of pride. But if they lose in Perth, it will leave them scrambling to catch the Springboks in the Rugby Championship and put more pressure on them.

This coming game is, therefore, not a dead rubber by any definition and the All Blacks understand this in 2021 a lot better than they did in 2020.

They understand that they can’t afford a similar mid-season derailment this year and so victory in Perth is imperative to enable them to generate the confidence and momentum that will be needed to face the Pumas and Boks four times in four weeks.'

Didn't realise that Savea had picked up the captains armband now, could be the making of him. Really impressive player and I think a lot will rest on him, Rettlick and Barrett with the dads to be missing.

Early try chalked off from the wallabies. Kerevi making an immediate impact!

Incredible try from the ABs who have pretty much dominated since. Wallabies can't get themselve in the game and turn over possession too easily.

Red for Jordie Barrett!

Real interesting one - went to jump to catch the ball then when in the air stuck his boot out and kicked Koriobete in the face.

TBH I think a red is fair - he literally kicked him square in the face, and there was a definite 2nd movement to kick the leg out. It may have just been for balance, but still - direct kick to the face.

Just a 20 minute red card with the new rules.

More poor decision-making from the young Aussie 10 - a hail Mary cross field with pen advantage that was never on, when hands may have seen them over.

Ruthless ABs - Aus have yet another try disallowed then 2 minutes later ABs take it up the other end and score bang on halftime.

Similar story for the wallabies - too many errors, terrible discipline.

18-0 HT

Dave Rennie won't be happy!

Wallabies finally get a try after a great break from scrumhalf McDermott, who has take to international rugby so well.

Do Australia have a contractual obligation to give NZ intercept tries?!

Duty281 wrote:Do Australia have a contractual obligation to give NZ intercept tries?!

It would appear so!

I've lost count of how many AB tries this year have directly come from really good play by the Aussies in the buildup.

The last 10% is massively missing from this wallabies team

That was almost another!

And another...

Well more of the same from Bledisloe with the ABs not having the create a huge amount and just feed off wallaby mistakes

Really looking forward to ABs v SA next week!

RDW wrote:Red for Jordie Barrett!

Real interesting one - went to jump to catch the ball then when in the air stuck his boot out and kicked Koriobete in the face.

TBH I think a red is fair - he literally kicked him square in the face, and there was a definite 2nd movement to kick the leg out. It may have just been for balance, but still - direct kick to the face.

Just a 20 minute red card with the new rules.

No question for me, a straight red.  Despite the commentators questioning whether it was a yellow or red, this was a kick out straight to the face.  Didn't take the referee long to make the decision either.

I really don't like the 20 mins red card trial.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really don't like the 20 mins red card trial.

Hard to know how much it would have changed things given how dominant NZ were, but it certainly didn't feel like there had been a red card in the game

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really don't like the 20 mins red card trial.

Agree.  I don't care for it either.

Are we playing by those laws variations this upcoming season in the Premiership, URC. and Top 14? My local club is playing by many of those, but the question of the 20 minute red has not come up.

Everyone knows a red card ruins the contest in most situations. Some teams can overcome a red card but not many. In today’s game the red card wasn’t an obvious one.

Jordie can’t have deliberately kicked a guy in the face whilst leaping 2 m in the air, eyes on the ball, and catching the ball. He’s good but not that talented. It was accidental. A red card and potentially 14 men for 50 mins would have been a disproportionate penalty for something that was hardly in the same ball park as a deliberate swinging arm, eye gouge, squirrel grip. Even some shoulders to the head or high tackles aren’t in the bracket of the aforementioned, they’re split second incidents where a head has been put in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For incidents where players have ‘not’ deliberately tried to hit the head or maim someone, 20 mins seems about right. But…there will be some deliberate incidents that will occur where 20 mins won’t seem fair, hence a potential lengthy suspension after the fact will come into play.

Part of thw problem here is trying to define what the purposes of the red card is. Is it purely to punish the actions of individuals or the team?

I.e. someone getting banned for 6 weeks after the event makes no difference to the opposition team who has been wronged in some way, and in some instances may be to their disadvantage if other rival teams then get an advantage when they play the team that has had the red card but without a certain player.

It makes an orange card come into the conversation, but then we'll just spend the whole time debating whether a card should have been red or orange.

Fwiw, back 3 players are taught to jump with their knee up to protect them, not to do a mid-air karate kick not knowing whether anyone is in the direct vicinity. Duty of care is mentioned a lot in decisions these days, and for me Barrett didn't show any duty of care for the person running towards him by kicking out like that. I fully accept he may have over balanced, but the very distinct late movement suggested not. I'm not for a minute saying he deliberately kicked the player, but it was definitely reckless. There was also no mitigation - i.e. he didn't get bumped by someone who made him off balanced. It was entirely his own actions.

I generally agree with all of that RDW. Perhaps the threshold for a red card is too low if we’re dishing one out for an incident like what happened today. If we’re handing out red cards for that then 20 mins is fair. Sure, a boot inadvertently hit Koriobete‘s head in what looked like a bit of a freak non-deliberate action but it wasn’t enough to warrant 50 mins with 14 players. Koriobete wasn’t injured and didn’t even go for an HIA. There needs to be a distinction between ‘clear’ deliberate vs accidental head contact. TMOs should be able to make the distinction using common sense.

The orange card makes a lot of sense for non-deliberate acts (i.e. equivalent to what the new red card ruled are - red cards would then be permanent dismissals like the good old days) but I'm guessing authorities don't want to make the rules even more confusing or murky!

doctor_grey wrote:

RDW wrote:Red for Jordie Barrett!

Real interesting one - went to jump to catch the ball then when in the air stuck his boot out and kicked Koriobete in the face.

TBH I think a red is fair - he literally kicked him square in the face, and there was a definite 2nd movement to kick the leg out. It may have just been for balance, but still - direct kick to the face.

Just a 20 minute red card with the new rules.

No question for me, a straight red.  Despite the commentators questioning whether it was a yellow or red, this was a kick out straight to the face.  Didn't take the referee long to make the decision either.

Adam Hastings got one for Glasgow v Munster last season for almost exactly the same thing, caught a high ball then stuck his foot straight into the face of the Munster winger on the way down. As with Barrett he was over balancing, but it was a sraight kick to the head which could have been avoided, so hard to argue with the red, though I was a bit narked in the moment!

RDW wrote:The orange card makes a lot of sense for non-deliberate acts (i.e. equivalent to what the new red card ruled are - red cards would then be permanent dismissals like the good old days) but I'm guessing authorities don't want to make the rules even more confusing or murky!

Bearing in mind just how much debate the was it/was it not a red/yellow card usually creates, I think it would be an absolute minefield if we had three cards to choose from and i imagine that officials would often take the safe option of an orange more often than not and especially if there was any controversy.

BigGee wrote:

RDW wrote:The orange card makes a lot of sense for non-deliberate acts (i.e. equivalent to what the new red card ruled are - red cards would then be permanent dismissals like the good old days) but I'm guessing authorities don't want to make the rules even more confusing or murky!

Bearing in mind just how much debate the was it/was it not a red/yellow card usually creates, I think it would be an absolute minefield if we had three cards to choose from and i imagine that officials would often take the safe option of an orange more often than not and especially if there was any controversy.

It might be that the default would be the 20 minutes but occasionally something happens that is bad enough to warrant the full red. I don't think any solution is perfect

BigGee wrote:

RDW wrote:The orange card makes a lot of sense for non-deliberate acts (i.e. equivalent to what the new red card ruled are - red cards would then be permanent dismissals like the good old days) but I'm guessing authorities don't want to make the rules even more confusing or murky!

Bearing in mind just how much debate the was it/was it not a red/yellow card usually creates, I think it would be an absolute minefield if we had three cards to choose from and i imagine that officials would often take the safe option of an orange more often than not and especially if there was any controversy.

I'm not disagreeing, and I said earlier that this would potentially create an absolute minefield, but I guess the purpose of it would be to remove the massive fine line between a yellow and red card. And if they were to take a cautious approach and err towards an orange card then that's fine - currently that's what the new red card rules are anyway!

Red - deliberate and severe foul play. e.g. French prop punching Jamie Ritchie in the face. Eye gouging, spear tackles, I'd say shoulder charges into rucks that connect to someone's head too (those are so dangerous)
Orange - red card level offences but not clear and obvious that it was deliberate - i.e. Barrett karate kicking Koroibete in the face. e.g. Kolbe taking Murray out in the air. I'd say Koroibete's red card earlier in the year too.
yellow- repeat offending, low level offenses, killing the ball in your 22 etc etc - basically the same as is currently

Given how relatively rare the offences mentioned in the red card list are, I'd expect the vast majority to still be orange cards.

But then we're back to the idea of just making all red cards orange cards....

RDW wrote:Red - deliberate and severe foul play. e.g. French prop punching Jamie Ritchie in the face. Eye gouging, spear tackles, I'd say shoulder charges into rucks that connect to someone's head too (those are so dangerous)

Orange - red card level offences but not clear and obvious that it was deliberate - i.e. Barrett karate kicking Koroibete in the face. e.g. Kolbe taking Murray out in the air. I'd say Koroibete's red card earlier in the year too.

yellow- repeat offending, low level offenses, killing the ball in your 22 etc etc - basically the same as is currently

That seems sensible to me

Red = off
Orange = 20 mins (and replaced by different player)
Yellow = 10 mins

A lot of red cards have been issued for what I might consider ‘mistakes’ by a player. They appear bad but there’s an element of unlucky-ness. We’ve all seen them. Red cards should be dished out for sinister ‘red-mist’ acts of violence on the field.

I like the ideaof an orange card.

I detest red cards in matches as itusually has to much of an influence on results.

Red card for me must be blatant malicious foul play.

The orange card should be for instances where the referee cannot adjudicate with certainty that ir was malicious.

An orange card also means a judiciary must decide the fate of a player where they can investigate with certainty whether they believe it achieves the threshold of foul play.

Many head knocks are "rugby incidents" and should be seen as that, especially when there are mitigating circumstances.

Mitigating circumstances mean that red card incidents should be lowered anyway. The problem WR have is that they are now starting to see the extent of injuries to the head and so should be looking to make the game safer. Accidental contact is being treated harshly now and to a much greater extent than in the past along with law changes to try and minimise risk. TBH this 20 mins trial seems to be railing against that and I suspect is being pushed more by the SH as it's quite a contrast listening to the commentators during the RC when we're used to the NH comps.

A good point 7.5 - how do you mix trying to make rugby safer while also then reducing the punishment for unsafe acts!

I don’t disagree with the ‘attemp’t to make the game safer with the harsher laws around the head but there has to be a balance between that and providing entertainment. If it’s not entertaining the professional game can’t survive.

The number of high profile games where a player has been red carded and there being a fuss afterwards are countless. People that pay money to watch games are upset and switch off because the red card penalty of going down to 14 men ruins the game. But a 20 min red card penalty is enough to give the offending team a sniff and keeps the rugby paying public interested enough to stick with the rugby game in question. 20 mins with 14 men will undo a lot of teams so is a good enough deterrent.

If it’s a truly egregious act of foul play the player goes for a very long skate when suspended to send the message (as is currently the case, no change there).

There can be plenty of entertainment even with a reduction of players. I really don't think the commentary down there helps with people understanding the outcomes of things like this, seems very poor for the snippets we hear.

Koroibete didn’t have an HIA. Not long after the red card Ardie Savea and Codie Taylor left the field for HIAs and never returned. Yet, the Koroibete incident is getting all the attention, when in fact, he was A-ok and it has to be said, it looked like he milked it a bit when he was on the ground and miraculously jumped up after the red card was issued. If the laws are trying to prevent head injuries why have the Savea and Taylor head knocks been swept under the carpet? They were legitimate head knocks (unlike Koroibete) and probably happened by ‘accident’.

I've been banging the drum on inconsistent approach to HIAs so glad to have you on board.

https://www.allblacks.com/news/barrett

Well there we go! The inconsistency in these type of citings is maddening.

He put his cleated foot in the other blokes face.  
That decision, whilst not totally unexpected, is a complete:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSB7QpldGTQ

Judicial Committee chair Robert Stelzner SC said.

"He legitimately went up in the air to collect a high ball, when in trying to regain his balance on the downward trajectory, his boot inadvertently made contact with the opponent's head. The accidental nature of the incident led the Judicial Committee to find that there was no intentional or reckless act of dangerous play, with the result that the Red Card is expunged from the player's record."

Sensible outcome

Adam Hastings got 3 weeks for almost exactly the same thing!

As RDW says, its the inconsistency that is maddening!

SANZARR....always 2 steps behind. WR really need to get their act together and impose some leadership around citing and general officiating.

Absolute B S outcome, intentional or not he kicked a player in the head.

Players are coached to jump up with a leading leg to draw the penalty. It needs to be made illegal otherwise the guy bending his hips and knees to make a tackle but still hits the head and getting a red is being treated unfairly.

Typical All Black biased B S.

The Ref was correct. Well done him.

That is a shocking decision and does not do the feeling the 'All Blacks can get away with anything', any good

Using the idea that it was unintentional means its ok is stupid reasoning.

I look forward to no more red cards where players lead with the shoulder to hit the runners chest but accidently hits the head area.

Decision should have been
1. Did MK cause the contact by breaking the law around players in the air. He clearly didn't.
2. Was MK head where you expect his head to be. Obviously yes.
3. Was JB foot where you would expect it to be. Clearly not or we would have these issues all the time. He moved his foot independent of anyone else.
4. Did JB put his studs up in the direction of another player. Yes, regardless of intent.
5. Does JB owe MK a duty of care once he puts his studs up. You would think no but I guess you can now.
NRL had this problem with Bill Slater I think. If players don't want to get hit when they land on the ground don't jump for the ball. Jumping with studs up means the jumper owes the duty of care to anyone he hits.

The TT area seems to be alot less strict on tackles and contact when it comes to cards. Every time there is a red it seems to be never the players fault.

If you take the example of a hit to the face. Intent doesn't come into it, it's did you hit the person's face or not. Then it is did any other player do something that made it happen. It incident all JB the overturning of the red is ridiculous but not unexpected.

So when is MK going to be cited for head butting JB's foot?

No 7&1/2 wrote:SANZARR....always 2 steps behind. WR really need to get their act together and impose some leadership around citing and general officiating.

Just wait till the AIs with headshots. Oz & NZ refs in their own little bubble because of Covid as are the players. It will be a shock to get NH refs.

Can't see why we can't have say 20 people who do all T1 competition cittings. Ref was spot on as per WR instructions and there was no discussion on intent on the field which was correct.

Flippancy aside lack of intent is not considered a defense when tackles go wrong.

lostinwales wrote:So when is MK going to be cited for head butting JB's foot?

When the NZRU get their apology from SANZAR

It's also troubling that Watson and Nowell don't think Barrett has done anything to get the red either. I'm amazed at the amount of players not really knowing the risks they're playing to.

Personally I think this is where rugby of late has been going wrong, the opinions and suggestions of players, coaches, and those recently or currently involved in the playing of the game are not being taken into consideration when all these laws on coloured cards have been drafted.

Fortunately in this instance the disciplinary panel looked at the incident for what it was, and not for what those on social media were demanding, (especially those who lose touch with reality when anything like this involves an All Black).

Thankfully not only was the charge dismissed, but even further the dismissal from the field of play (the Red card) was expunged from Barretts playing record. its good for once to see common sense prevail, its should happen more often.

So what do we learn from this?
1. The referees are being put in terrible situations to make the right decision under scrutiny of a live television audience, with very limited resources or opportunity for investigation or analysis. and.

2. The replacement rule more than justifies itself and should be adopted fully by World Rugby at all levels of the game.

Christ