Rugby Championship 2021

RDW wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Come on now he's clearly aimed for the arms and hit the guys head with the top of his back more than his shoulder. If he's gon straight for the shoulder then the Aus player isn't getting up. He's aimed across him at the arms. If players are going to go for the superman long arm lean on the ball there's not a lot of options for where you hit on the clean out, if you actually watch the incident you can see Weise wrap his arms round the players arms to take him off the ball.

Ref got it spot on for me. No intent, player was in a legal position but isn't any longer as he ceased supporting his own body weight by the time Weise gets there. Yellow card because he catches him.

The penalty should have been blown earlier because that's when the Australian was in a legal position and trying to lift or when the second Bok into the breakdown tried to neck roll him out.

I'd definitely dispute the word 'clearly'!

There was a really good angle shown at the end but they didn't show it again - for me it showed shoulder to head.

Either way he charged shoulder first into a ruck with no real control over what he connected to - for me that's one of the most danger actions on the rugby pitch and we've seen many reds for similar over the years

Well if he'd clearly aimed for the player who was leaning forward and had no way to move then he could have gone with his other shoulder and absolutely smashed the guy into next week. The left shoulder was aimed at going across the player and driving through to clear the ball. Which is what the referee was saying on the mic. His arms are out and targeting the arms of the jackler because he isn't attempting to move the man just put himself between man and ball so no wrap on the man.

Now he hits the head and that's a penalty and a card but I'm with the ref in that's the plenty of dispensation present to bring that down to a yellow card. His only options on getting there were target the arms or stand there and watch the penalty be conceded that lost his team the game. I'm all for any head contact gets punished but I'm not for any head contact equals red card it's a contact game. I think the situation should be reviewed and the ref took the time to look at the incident made a tough call and got it right.

RDW. wrote:
SA looked jaded tonight, and perhaps are running out of steam. There's a lot of rugby to play still so they've got to pick themselves up quickly.

Perhaps questions over whether or not they should have added some more fresh faces after the Lions games. They openly talked about using NH based players for the Lions because they'd been playing but those guys have now been going for quite a long time without rest. Mixing in some more SA based players might have given them a bit more. Blooding some youngsters also tends to offset a slightly lukewarm performance in the eyes of the public whereas at the minute that won't be the case.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

RDW wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Come on now he's clearly aimed for the arms and hit the guys head with the top of his back more than his shoulder. If he's gon straight for the shoulder then the Aus player isn't getting up. He's aimed across him at the arms. If players are going to go for the superman long arm lean on the ball there's not a lot of options for where you hit on the clean out, if you actually watch the incident you can see Weise wrap his arms round the players arms to take him off the ball.

Ref got it spot on for me. No intent, player was in a legal position but isn't any longer as he ceased supporting his own body weight by the time Weise gets there. Yellow card because he catches him.

The penalty should have been blown earlier because that's when the Australian was in a legal position and trying to lift or when the second Bok into the breakdown tried to neck roll him out.

I'd definitely dispute the word 'clearly'!

There was a really good angle shown at the end but they didn't show it again - for me it showed shoulder to head.

Either way he charged shoulder first into a ruck with no real control over what he connected to - for me that's one of the most danger actions on the rugby pitch and we've seen many reds for similar over the years

Well if he'd clearly aimed for the player who was leaning forward and had no way to move then he could have gone with his other shoulder and absolutely smashed the guy into next week. The left shoulder was aimed at going across the player and driving through to clear the ball. Which is what the referee was saying on the mic. His arms are out and targeting the arms of the jackler because he isn't attempting to move the man just put himself between man and ball so no wrap on the man.

Now he hits the head and that's a penalty and a card but I'm with the ref in that's the plenty of dispensation present to bring that down to a yellow card. His only options on getting there were target the arms or stand there and watch the penalty be conceded that lost his team the game. I'm all for any head contact gets punished but I'm not for any head contact equals red card it's a contact game. I think the situation should be reviewed and the ref took the time to look at the incident made a tough call and got it right.

Yeah fair enough - I just hate these shoulder charges into rucks. They can really cause a lot of damage and as I said the person really has very little control of what they hit.

I thought it should have been red. I think the fact that it was the end of the game and SA wete already done saved him, an easy get out for the ref.

Be interesting to see what the citing officials think about it.

I though Koch got away with one as well, accidental maybe but it looked like a finger in the eye!

ABs looking very comfortable against Argentina - 24-3 HT

Come on Sam it was a red! Either way, you can still be happy he’s playing for Tigers. He was relatively unknown until then but I think he’s developing into a class international player.

Congratulations to Australia, were simply much better than Nienaber's Boks.

Wiese is kak.

Jantjies is kak.

Gameplan has been worked out.

Nienaber still in denial.

Cant help but think that a completely different South Africa will turn up next week for the Centenary test. In the first 20 minutes they will absolutely smash the All Blacks and the All Blacks have to show the character to endure it, then determinte and maintain the pace of the game.

Australia were just Australia, these guys have a swagger about them and a captain that wears his socks rouind his ankles, they want to play for their coach, they want to play for each other. this Wallaby team will only get better. They really turn up when they play at Suncorp.

Argentina need to not let themselves get pulled apart by an opposition kicking long at them, I struggle to think when they actually fed the ball through the hands to the wide channel without going flat sideways, but when they held on to the ball (Mid second half), not only did it stop the All Blacks from scoring points it made the All Blacks do some defending - I doubt I'm the only person that noticed this.

Old Man wrote:Congratulations to Australia, were simply much better than Nienaber's Boks.

Wiese is kak.

Jantjies is kak.

Gameplan has been worked out.

Nienaber still in denial.

There is certainly a big drop off from your first choices that's for sure. Wiese/Jantjies are particularly poor, you surely must have better options???

SA haven’t been great the last two weeks but no need to panic, I can’t see them getting any worse…

Aus are starting to look good again, they just don’t look that good against England and NZ which suggests they'll probably beat everyone else.

All Blacks will take some stopping. It looks as though they have two teams that can stomp everyone. Imagine having Dmac, Barrett brothers and Mo’unga in your backline…

Could easily have been at least a couple of reds in that game. Swinton one was very close, Wiese for me definite red and he's having an awful lot of those moment and Koch's hand to face looked dodgy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could easily have been at least a couple of reds in that game.  Swinton one was very close, Wiese for me definite red and he's having an awful lot of those moment and Koch's hand to face looked dodgy.

As always different reffing rules down there and alot more seems to be let go.

Old Man wrote:Congratulations to Australia, were simply much better than Nienaber's Boks.

Wiese is kak.

Jantjies is kak.

Gameplan has been worked out.

Nienaber still in denial.

I think two factors might be contributing to the two results.

1. Like with the Bulls in Benetton it is the first time in along time that the players have played away from home in front of fans and it being in front of a hostile crowd means the players are a bit shell shocked and have extra nerves leading to these mistakes.
2. The reason Australia has a decent record with the Boks in professionalism is a mix of SA players don't get up for Oz games like they do for NZ and they don't work as hard which you have to against Oz as they avoid contact. NZ will take contact and the players will be up for it.

I am still curious how OZ and NZ play in Europe as they are comfortable at home in the TT comforts but how will they manage against hostile stadiums in big time zone changes.

Brendan wrote:

Old Man wrote:Congratulations to Australia, were simply much better than Nienaber's Boks.

Wiese is kak.

Jantjies is kak.

Gameplan has been worked out.

Nienaber still in denial.

I think two factors might be contributing to the two results.

1. Like with the Bulls in Benetton it is the first time in along time that the players have played away from home in front of fans and it being in front of a hostile crowd means the players are a bit shell shocked and have extra nerves leading to these mistakes.
2. The reason Australia has a decent record with the Boks in professionalism is a mix of SA players don't get up for Oz games like they do for NZ and they don't work as hard which you have to against Oz as they avoid contact.  NZ will take contact and the players will be up for it.

I am still curious how OZ and NZ play in Europe as they are comfortable at home in the TT comforts but how will they manage against hostile stadiums in big time zone changes.

The Wallabies don't seem to travel all that well. Scotland's record against Australia in the past 7 matches is W4 L3, but the losses were all 7 points or fewer. Let's see how they go this year. It should be high scoring game if current form suggests anything!

Playing at home has to be acknowledged, but Australia's games this year of 3 v France, 2 v New Zealand and 2 v South Africa, with a record of W4 and L3 is good.

Not sure many teams would have better results even playing at home.

France are still a bit flakey and SA have not been at the races. Probably reflects more on the Lions than Aus. They'll comfortably beat Argentina though so could have a bit of momentum going into the AIs. As for SA it could be grim for them in the next couple of games.

Brendan, it was Carley who was the ref, even the TMO was English.

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could easily have been at least a couple of reds in that game.  Swinton one was very close, Wiese for me definite red and he's having an awful lot of those moment and Koch's hand to face looked dodgy.

As always different reffing rules down there and alot more seems to be let go.

English referee so that argument holds little weight. Sounds like you didn’t watch the game.

Brendan wrote:I am still curious how OZ and NZ play in Europe as they are comfortable at home in the TT comforts but how will they manage against hostile stadiums in big time zone changes.

I think most people are curious. Travel has never really affected the ABs and they’ll generally do ok no matter where they play. They’ll be tough games no doubt but I’m expecting the ABs to do as well as they usually do up north. They’ll have been on the road for several months and could very well lose games. France will be interesting.

Still early days for NZ but they seem to be coming back after a few dodgy years....as they usually do tbh. Good to have Australia getting some good wins under their belt too, a strong trio of SH sides really spices the November internationals up.

Wiese was cited then.

Yeah, but exonerated, luckily he wasn't selected. In every match he came on he conceded penalties, made stupid decisions. I sincerely hope the experimentation with him is over.

Yeah. Crazy citing you guys have down there. Not deemed highly reckless or intentional. I think even the Leicester fans would acknowledge he has a habit of targeting heads.

ebop wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could easily have been at least a couple of reds in that game.  Swinton one was very close, Wiese for me definite red and he's having an awful lot of those moment and Koch's hand to face looked dodgy.

As always different reffing rules down there and alot more seems to be let go.

English referee so that argument holds little weight. Sounds like you didn’t watch the game.

Reffing in the RC will have different focus areas. After the red card removal for Barrett it's clearly not the same focus as up North so refs adapt and play the interpretation the competition wants.

No 7&1/2 wrote:France are still a bit flakey and SA have not been at the races. Probably reflects more on the Lions than Aus. They'll comfortably beat Argentina though so could have a bit of momentum going into the AIs. As for SA it could be grim for them in the next couple of games.

It's hard to say.  Gatlands Chiefs where terrible against the other NZ sides which says his style doesn't do well against the running teams but was good for close games v SA like his Wales team that rarely won or lost by alot. His Chiefs with a different coach looked much better and I am sure the fans will be sad to see Gats back.

France left a fair few players behind.  If the 6 nations squad had gone down would they have lost the two games.  I guess we won't know but I would guess adding in their 5 or so key players would have made a difference.

NZ do seem to be building nicely and it will be nice to see the 3 SH nations come North for the first time in two years but I do think Oz are more the team that lost to NZ rather than the one that beat the Boks. Argentina aren't looking great in their Summer games or RC.

Also the rankings are ridiculous.  Why does Oz get to play SA in Oz and yet for the rankings it counts as SA being at home.  SANZAAR/WR the organisations leading the way in professionalism.

Brendan wrote:

ebop wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Could easily have been at least a couple of reds in that game.  Swinton one was very close, Wiese for me definite red and he's having an awful lot of those moment and Koch's hand to face looked dodgy.

As always different reffing rules down there and alot more seems to be let go.

English referee so that argument holds little weight. Sounds like you didn’t watch the game.

Reffing in the RC will have different focus areas.  After the red card removal for Barrett it's clearly not the same focus as up North so refs adapt and play the interpretation the competition wants.

I’ve read that the English referees reffed the games like they would in the English club scene with no nonsense allowed at the breakdown. Which is good. SA didn’t like it so they’ll have to adapt. The English refs did well, except for the non- red card.

He did OK overall. Like i said though the Wiese one is an obvious mistake and the lock one was dodgy as owt. The citing process is an absolute mess.

Quite like this from Simon Thomas at Walesonline (can't be bothered sorting the spacing):

'A huge can of worms has been opened in the game of rugby and closing it could now prove very challenging.

What players, coaches and fans alike want above all from the disciplinary process is consistency.

But what the events of the past few weeks have delivered is inconsistency, controversy and confusion, leaving people perplexed as our new season gets underway.

At the centre of it all have been two key cases which have provoked widespread debate - those of New Zealand full-back Jordie Barrett and Springboks No 8 Jasper Wiese.

Read more: For all the latest news and analysis, stop by our home of Welsh rugby

What we have seen with both are concerning precedents being set, ones which could have major consequences for the game.

They are the kind of incidents that have consistently resulted in red cards and bans in the northern hemisphere over the past couple of years.

But, in both cases, the players have been cleared of having committed a red card offence and avoided any suspension.

So what on earth is going on here?

Well, let’s look at what happened in detail.

Jordie Barrett
In the 27th minute of the Bledisloe Cup match between New Zealand and Australia earlier this month, All Blacks No 15 Barrett - the younger brother of Beauden - went up for a high ball.

As he did so, his right leg extended outwards and he caught Wallabies winger Marika Koroibete flush in the face with his boot.

After reviewing replays of the incident, Aussie referee Damon Murphy issued a red card to Barrett.

Now that would have been no great surprise to northern hemisphere viewers.

It’s what we have become used to for such incidents up here.

Ospreys full-back Dan Evans was red carded and banned for four weeks after a very similar incident in the opening seconds of a Champions Cup match against Racing 92 in December 2019.

Just a few weeks earlier, Wasps winger Paolo Odogwu had been suspended for six weeks after being sent off for catching Sale’s Rohan Van Rensburg in the face with his boot when jumping to field the ball.

And earlier this year, Glasgow’s Adam Hastings saw red and was banned for three games after another incident of the same vein against Leinster.

Barrett’s dismissal fell into line with those cases and surely a ban would follow?

Think again.

At his SANZAAR disciplinary hearing, the Hurricanes star was cleared, with his red card being rescinded and no ban resulting.

It was a landmark judgement and one which is worth studying.

The statement from the judicial committee chairman Robert Stelzner read: “He (Barrett) 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 his opponent’s head.

“The accidental nature of the incident led the judicial committee to find there was no intentional nor reckless act of dangerous play, with the result that the red card is expunged from the player’s record.”


What was particularly revealing was that two biomechanics experts played a crucial role in clearing Barrett.

They argued that because he had overrun the ball and had to lean back to collect it, his action was a predetermined biomechanical consequence of his movement rather than a malicious act and was also necessary to avoid putting himself at risk of serious injury by landing on his head.

It was an argument that won the day.

Yet you look back at the Odogwu hearing from a couple of years ago.

On that occasion, the disciplinary panel rejected the Wasps player’s explanation that his leg had extended to assist his balance in the air and prevent him from falling backwards.

But what was most telling about the Barrett judgement was it was essentially the accidental nature of the incident that saw him cleared of foul play.

Now, in recent years, we have come to understand and accept that even if contact with the head is accidental or unintentional that is still no defence.

Disciplinary sanctions have been outcome-based, with protecting the head the absolute priority.

But the Barrett judgement saw a significant moving of the goalposts, with accidental action now a workable and successful defence.


It felt like a watershed moment and a ruling which will be tucked away by the lawyers for when they head into future hearings.

One wonders what Dan Evans must have made of it all, given his action certainly looked accidental too, and one wonders what will happen the next time we have a similar incident, with precedent now having been set.

Jasper Wiese
With just seconds to go in Australia’s 30-17 victory over South Africa in Brisbane last Saturday, Wallabies centre Samu Kerevi jackaled over the ball at a ruck near his own line to win a penalty.

As English referee Matthew Carley raised his arm and blew his whistle, so Springboks back rower Jasper Wiese came in to clear out Kerevi.

Straight away, on seeing the replays, you had the feeling that Wiese was going to be in trouble.

It looked for all the world as though the Leicester man had made contact with Kerevi’s head with his shoulder, with no wrap involved. A red card seemed on the cards.

But after lengthy deliberation, Carley decided on a yellow.

Based on what we have become used to in the northern hemisphere in recent years that was something of a surprise, especially with an English ref on duty.

Time and again, we have seen red cards issued where players have dived in at rucks and made illegal contact with an opponent’s head while clearing out.

There were two examples during Wales’ Six Nations title-winning campaign earlier this year of players being sent off and banned for such offences.

In the Ireland game at the Principality, Peter O’Mahony was red carded for an upper arm connection into the face of Tomas Francis.

Then against Scotland, another Welsh prop was on the receiving end, with Wyn Jones taking a shoulder to the head from Zander Fagerson.

Like O’Mahony, tighthead Fagerson was sent off. And who was the referee? Matthew Carley.

So it was all a bit puzzling last weekend.

However, it did look as though things were going to be rectified when Wiese was cited for his actions.

But there was to be a further twist to the tale.

At his SANZAAR disciplinary hearing, Wiese was deemed not to have committed a red card offence and therefore escaped any sanction.

Once again, the full verdict is worth scrutiny as it is pretty startling.

The official statement read: “The evidence and submissions on behalf of the player, together with surrounding circumstances, satisfied the committee that the Citing Commissioner was not correct to find there was a high degree of danger involved.

“While the Australian player was vulnerable, the contact with the head was not intentional or highly reckless.

“Wiese was shown to be grabbing for the ball rather than targeting the head of the Australian player.

“The low force, modest speed, indirect contact and the turning motion used by Wiese meant the situation was not a highly dangerous one.

“The Australian player was completely uninjured and his statement suggested the contact looked more serious than it was.”

So pick the bones out of that one.


The first thing to say is we are again seeing intent front and centre of the debate.

When people have defended red carded players in recent years by arguing their actions were accidental or unintentional, you have always been able to point out that intent is irrelevant.

But it’s not as simple as that anymore.

This all seems to stem from the wording of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process which was published in March.

The key section reads: “Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play.”

What appears to be happening is those two aspects are now becoming key in terms of players being cleared.

If there is deemed to be no intent and it’s not seen as a highly reckless act, then the door opens for a red card being quashed.

In theory, it is only supposed to open the way for mitigating factors to be considered.

Those include limited line of sight, a sudden and significant drop or movement by the player taking the hit, a clear attempt to change height by player penalised, a level of control and passive versus dynamic.

Now it’s questionable whether any of those mitigating factors applied in the cases of Barrett and Wiese.

It’s other factors that have been referenced in clearing them.

There was the accidental nature of Barrett’s actions and the issue of biomechanics.

Then, with Wiese, there was the fact he was deemed to be grabbing for the ball rather than targeting the head and that Kerevi was not injured.

Just how these are now categorised as mitigating factors is a bit perplexing when you look at the World Rugby wording.

But, above all, it’s the new apparent focus on intent which is the real eye-catching aspect of the two judgements.

It’s important to note that a lack of intent doesn’t get you off if the act is deemed highly reckless.

But whether intent should come into it at all is highly debatable.

It’s virtually impossible to prove one way or another, without being a mind-reader.

Would it not be better to ask two simple questions? Was there direct contact to the head and was the action reckless or dangerous?

If the answer is yes on both counts, then red card, end of story.

At present, it is far from that simple. It’s all a bit of a muddle, with new precedents being set by the minute in terms of ways in which players can be cleared, seemingly undermining the crackdown on contact to the head.

What you also have is a real divide between what we have become used to in the northern hemisphere and the way the disciplinary process is operating down south.

All in all, it’s about as clear as mud, with the consistency players and coaches cry out for having gone out of the window.'

What that all suggests is if you have a union behind you which has enough money to bring in the right experts and really, really good biscuits, you are going to be fine.

Interesting about the biomechanics experts though. I would not have instinctively thought that sticking a leg out would help you keep balance.

The low force, modest speed, indirect contact and the turning motion used by Wiese meant the situation was not a highly dangerous one


The indirect contact is what saved Weise there. As the ref said at the time he's going through the breakdown and targeting the ball and not targeting the man. The other two red cards noted in the article are both clearouts on the player directly. I agreed with the ref at the time because I thought it was a logical view from the actions but I doubt very much that it will applied consistently going forward.

With the citings I doubt anything bar something really nasty is going to stick whilst the squads are limited in number and in their bubbles over in Australia. Can't water down the quality of the SH cash cow.

Boks v NZ now - I don't see it being the AB thrashing that some pundits have suggested. I can see it being a close and intense game, but NZ will ultimately win.

Agree RDW. Close enough game.
Boks certainly won’t want to lose 3 on the bounce.

Interesting game ahead.

I am not confident at all.

Our back up players aren't of the quality of those who are missing. The All Black depth is much better.

Some start for the AB’s

Great response from the boks. In for a great game.

Lightening start from NZ to get an early try but it's been all SA since. Everything is going right with their tactics this week with 2 up and unders into the AB 22 leading to a try and a penalty.

Brodie Retallick with 2 stupid penalties

11-7 Boks

Don't think ABs have touched the ball much in the last 10 minutes! Tempo of the game has completely dropped as a result.

SA pretty dominant right now.

Boks all over the AB breakdown too - ABs need to commit more men.

Kolisi having his best game in a long time, which is overdue TBF

Nkosi yellow card for deliberate knock on which is pretty fair.

Brodie Retallick having one of his worse games of his ABs career - stupid pens, failing lineout dropped passes then ending on a forward pass.

Very close half 13-11 HT.

SA tactics going well this game and the ABs are certainly not looking fluid at all. They look dangerous when they have the ball though the Boks will want to keep disrupting and dominating possession.

SA are so boring, suck the life out of any team.

Ref having a good game, wish the SH refs would raise their game.

Lol, this referee is gash

One of the lowest quality NZ-SA games I can recall seeing. This is dismal.

ABs have blown so many chances - how many knock ons in the SA 22?

Duty281 wrote:One of the lowest quality NZ-SA games I can recall seeing. This is dismal.

It's not.been a classic!

ABs sneak it!

I actually thought SA were the better team - that was their best performance in a long while. ABs weren't at their best by a long way but got the win.

The ABs played terrible and I’m extremely dissatisfied with that win. Sh1t is how I’d describe that effort. Fumbles everywhere. But WTF is up with SA box kicking in the defending 22 on multiple occasions? And box kicking when behind on the scoreboard with 2 minutes to play?!! Horrible game. SA have major issues because their game plan relies on something no one wants, time wasting. And the pedantic referee didn’t help things.

SA are an incredibly frustrating team to watch - if they could add an attacking edge to their 3rd/4th phases they could get more joy. Instead they make good ground off first phase from a really solid lineout then a couple of passes later it's an up and under. You might as well up and under direct from the lineout.

With the players they have at 13 and back 3 there's so much more potential than that.

Stick to that fundamentals of their gameplan but surely there's room in there for a bit more attack?

They absolutely bossed the breakdown and lineout but didn't look close to scoring any more tries.

They almost beat the ABs doing that but you can't help but feel there's so much more potential!

RDW wrote:They almost beat the ABs doing that but you can't help but feel there's so much more potential!

Potential, where? They’re scared to play rugby

Congratulations NZ.

Second test this year we lose because of a turnover penalty in our half.

When will these players learn?

Nienaber must go, he has no clue how to create an attacking platform.

Old Man, what can I say, you guys are better than that and you fricken know it. Seems there is zero faith in being able to hold the ball and the SA game plan is literally reduced to a lottery with the high ball. Mate, I didn’t enjoy that game one bit as it wasn’t a battle. The ABs, well, they won, but did they?

Ok so New Zealand wins the Rugby Championship, but how in Gods name did South Africa not win that game??? The All blacks made more ball handling errors in that game than the last 5 tests.

Yes it was an ugly game but to compete against all styles of the game, then a team must be able to win the ugly games and take points when they atre available, and in that regard Jordie Barratt was very good.

The honest part of me suggests that neither team deserved to win.