NZ v France 2nd Test

France down to 14 for the game, red card in the 12th min.

Game Over
Red card by the laws, but harsh in my book.

Thought it was harsh to tighthead.
Contest over as soon as the red was shown.

NZ allowed to tackle high unpunished it seems!

And they win the penalty!!!!!

France needed to hold out for the final 30 seconds or so.
Shame they couldn’t

westisbest wrote:France needed to hold out for the final 30 seconds or so.
Shame they couldn’t

Both box kicks were silly. The one in the 22 should’ve gone off the park, if they were kicking. I’m sure they could’ve retained possession for a minute though.

Disallowed try from France.

NZ always get the benefit of the doubt

Apparently there is a different set of referee calls for all black games. This includes when any team scores a try against New Zealand it is reviewed by the TMO everytime no matter how clear cut with the call being "can we please come up with any reason to not award this try please"

Good effort by France, scoring the try at the end.
Would have been interesting if it was 15 v 15 the whole game.

Fair play for going for the try in the end. We are almost in moral victory territory good attitude during the game and they didn’t surrendered this time.

Good effort by France. Matthieu led well to make sure heads didn’t drop, well done to him.

A win is a win but thought this wasn’t a vintage ABs performance in the 2H. Very sloppy for their standards . Hope B.B. is ok.

Agree, horrible from the ABs because France made it so. France earned some respect tonight. Red cards suck and there has to be a better sanction for incidents like the one that happened tonight. There was no malice so why not a 20 min sit down instead of a red card. Leave those for the deliberate nasty acts.

Ref was the 16th man today, but how average do the ABs look.

Being English, you’d be a good judge of what an average performance is. And you were bang on the money. But I’d go further and say that ABs performance was well below their average.

Only won due to the Ref being kind and making decisions based on slow motion replays. Shocking officiating.

TightHEAD wrote:Only won due to the Ref being kind and making decisions based on slow motion replays. Shocking officiating.

Oh stop youre whinging, grow a pair.

It was a red but it ruined the game. France looked a better side but then we will never know as it was a non contest after the red. NZ played in 1st gear.

Hopefully NZ will see red the next time they are guilty of foul play that merits a sending off. They usually dont.

ebop wrote:Agree, horrible from the ABs because France made it so. France earned some respect tonight. Red cards suck and there has to be a better sanction for incidents like the one that happened tonight. There was no malice so why not a 20 min sit down instead of a red card. Leave those for the deliberate nasty acts.

Its hard to decide whats deliberate and whats not. For example according to the ABs pr machine they have never committed a deliberate act of foul play.

Bastereau is a very decent player these days. Shame we havent seen this French side play to their potential on this tour. I think they missed Camera too. He is unreal at the breakdown.

sirtidychris wrote:Apparently there is a different set of referee calls for all black games. This includes when any team scores a try against New Zealand it is reviewed by the TMO everytime no matter how clear cut with the call being "can we please come up with any reason to not award this try please"

It is the exact same in the Ireland games v Oz. The SH refs have been shockingly biased.

Collapse2005 wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:Apparently there is a different set of referee calls for all black games. This includes when any team scores a try against New Zealand it is reviewed by the TMO everytime no matter how clear cut with the call being "can we please come up with any reason to not award this try please"

It is the exact same in the Ireland games v Oz. The SH refs have been shockingly biased.

Love the way you northerners manage to console yourselves after losses. Its hilarious shat youll talk yourselves into.

Collapse2005 wrote:Bastereau is a very decent player these days. Shame we havent seen this French side play to their potential on this tour. I think they missed Camera too. He is unreal at the breakdown.

Its because he and they up against better opposition . I mean... durr. We all got told how hes bossing midfields around up there. Havent see it yet. Wonder why that is.

The red card has been rescinded. World Rugby have ruled that Fall was always looking to contest the ball, and the collision with Lienert-Brown compromised his ability to do so, while also steering him into Barrett. It's unclear to me what penalty WR think it warranted, if any.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/104810094/french-fullback-benjamin-fall-should-not-have-been-sent-off-world-rugby-says-red-card-cancelled

I do think those considerations are relevant but we are used to seeing that kind of incident ruled a red card without World Rugby intervening before.

It's now impossible for an average supporter to look at these incidents and know what the result will be, which is not acceptable.

We are four years down the line from Jared Payne's red card for Ulster against Saracens, which appeared to set one standard, and Michael Rhodes' yellow card in the same fixture the following year, which appeared to set another.

You would hope that elite officials would have had time to work towards a common understanding of the laws on high tackling, and tackling in the air but it's clear there isn't one. I don't think anyone has ever been happy with the idea that the outcome alone should determine the severity of the penalty, and yet it's nigh on impossible to judge intent.

Rugby Fan wrote:The red card has been rescinded. World Rugby have ruled that Fall was always looking to contest the ball, and the collision with Lienert-Brown compromised his ability to do so, while also steering him into Barrett. It's unclear to me what penalty WR think it warranted, if any.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/104810094/french-fullback-benjamin-fall-should-not-have-been-sent-off-world-rugby-says-red-card-cancelled

I do think those considerations are relevant but we are used to seeing that kind of incident ruled a red card without World Rugby intervening before.

It's now impossible for an average supporter to look at these incidents and know what the result will be, which is not acceptable.

We are four years down the line from Jared Payne's red card for Ulster against Saracens, which appeared to set one standard, and Michael Rhodes' yellow card in the same fixture the following year, which appeared to set another.

You would hope that elite officials would have had time to work towards a common understanding of the laws on high tackling, and tackling in the air but it's clear there isn't one. I don't think anyone has ever been happy with the idea that the outcome alone should determine the severity of the penalty, and yet it's nigh on impossible to judge intent.

Well the only full proof way is to ban jumping for kicked balls, though How theyll deal with five or six opponents standing a foot away waiting to smash the catcher might be a minor issue.

Taylorman wrote:Well the only full proof way is to ban jumping for kicked balls, though How theyll deal with five or six opponents standing a foot away waiting to smash the catcher might be a minor issue.  

It's odd, because there was a consensus opinion developing (not shared everywhere) that Angus Gardner made the right decision but it was rough on France, and the game as a spectacle. Consequently, the law might need a review. Now, World Rugby say Gardner and team made the wrong decision, which suggests they believe the law is fit for purpose.

I'm unclear what World Rugby are trying to do here. If the primary aim is to censure Gardner, then that seems a bit unfair, given the number of times other officials have escaped any consequences for their decisions. If, instead, they are trying to provide clarity for the public, then they have failed, as we are no clearer about how referees ought to rule in future. Was Lienert-Brown's check the decisive factor, or would Fall have always been ok if he had jumped while always keeping eyes on the ball?

What World Rugby probably needs to do, then, is assemble a collection of similar incidents across a range of competitions in the last few years, and indicate whether the rulings in each case were appropriate. To be consistent, however, they would probably have to show that a lot of referees have been getting these decisions wrong, which will raise questions about why better guidance wasn't given before. Not a good position to be in only a year out from the next World Cup.

One of the reasons World Rugby decided to tweak the laws to give blanket harsh penalties, is that they assumed players would change their behaviour once they realized the consequences of getting it wrong were so severe. That hasn't happened, and the intervention here isn't going to help matters. It just confirms what most players have long felt: you can set out to make a legal challenge or tackle, but circumstances out of your control can turn it into an illegal challenge, which injures an opponent.

Taylorman wrote:

Well the only full proof way is to ban jumping for kicked balls, though How theyll deal with five or six opponents standing a foot away waiting to smash the catcher might be a minor issue.  

Maybe the catcher should be a gentleman and not assume that he has a right to every ball he runs for?  So the six opponents ready to smash the catcher have their rights to be there stamped on their passports? The catcher to save himself might just offer the ball to them - or in other words not compete if too many smashers are there?

I know the Kiwis will like that ruling as they do like the old contact side of the business as much as any of the rest of us.  The more designated smashers the better too!

Fall's Red card rescinded.

Shame it ruined the game but Refs are always going to be influenced by the home crowd mob rule atmos.

It was never a red card offence.

I think NZ look very beatable.

If Ireland can maintain their form they have a real chance next year at the RWC.

TightHEAD wrote:It was never a red card offence.

That was a minority view at the weekend. Even people who didn't want to see a card shown mostly accepted Gardner's decision was in line with how such incidents have been refereed in recent seasons. That's what makes World Rugby's intervention so curious.

I think the most frustrating thing is you jump for a ball. You are in a position where at the hight you are at you would catch it, but someone jumps higher than you at the same time and fumbles because he got his lines wrong while also jumping into you and suddenly you are at fault because he was higher. Then he falls poorly and you are off.

I am not saying this is what happened in this situation but if you touch the ball and you are higher it's always the other guys fault which isn't fair either.

Simple solution is only defending/attacking team is allowed to jump.

TightHEAD wrote:I think NZ look very beatable.

If Ireland can maintain their form they have a real chance next year at the RWC.

Except historically Ireland fail miserably every single time they get a sniff at a decent knockout win in the world cup, and thats never had anything to do with the ABs so Id suggest they have more to contend with than an AB scratchy game vs France. They had a more than decent chance last time out yet collapsed in a heap as 6N champs to the last placed RC side Argentina, and that wasnt even a contest, over with a half to go.

Thin logic.

SecretFly wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Well the only full proof way is to ban jumping for kicked balls, though How theyll deal with five or six opponents standing a foot away waiting to smash the catcher might be a minor issue.  

Maybe the catcher should be a gentleman and not assume that he has a right to every ball he runs for?  So the six opponents ready to smash the catcher have their rights to be there stamped on their passports?  The catcher to save himself might just offer the ball to them - or in other words not compete if too many smashers are there?

I know the Kiwis will like that ruling as they do like the old contact side of the business as much as any of the rest of us.  The more designated smashers the better too!

Well its always one of the options for targetting Folau. Put a nice kick up his way and allow him full reign on taking it, but ensure there are a couple of handy smashers lining him up as soon as he lands. Easily said but an obvious tactic that works when done correctly, not that thats been easy.