Japan 2019 - Pool A Ireland Japan Russia Samoa Scotland

First topic message reminder :

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Tries	PF	PA	+/-	BP	Points
Japan	3	3	0	0	9	87	41	+46	2	14
Ireland	3	2	0	1	11	74	22	+52	3	11
Scotland	3	2	0	1	13	98	27	71	2	10
Samoa	3	1	0	2	7	53	81	-28	1	5
Russia	3	0	0	3	1	19	125	-106	0	0

Japan 30-10 Russia              
Ireland 27-3 Scotland  
Russia 9-34 Samoa                        
Japan 19-12 Ireland                          
Scotland 34-0 Samoa
Ireland 35-0 Russia
Japan 38-19 Samoa
Scotland 61-0 Russia  

                                       
                     
12 October 2019         Ireland v Samoa                         Fukuoka Hakatanomori Stadium, Fukuoka
13 October 2019         Japan v Scotland                         International Stadium Yokohama, Yokohama


Two games left. If Ireland get a TBP win on Saturday they qualify for the quarter finals irrespective of the result on Sunday. Any other result and they need to wait and see what happens between Japan and Scotland.
Any win for Japan and they will top the group (in fact a draw or losing with two bonus points will guarantee the same)
Most interesting scenario is if Ireland win without a bonus point - opening up a chance for Scotland to top the group if all 3 teams end up on 15pts and Scotland are able to keep their points difference ahead of Ireland.

Brendan wrote:The most frustrating thing for me is the inconsistent calls by refs in the tournament.  Both Japan and Samoa benefited in the first few games.  The Japanese player did a clear shoulder charge on the Russian player (who went off for a HIA to not come back on) and not even a review.

I am glad they have started taking actions but a red in the first round is less punished then a red in the final round.  As others have said I hope Aki goes away and fixes his tackle style as it has been coming.

Maybe Aki could injury himself in training with a "back issue" so we can call up a replacement who can play.  Not in the spirit of the rules but it would be what winners do.

Yep NZ got away with one v SA too. Australia too although it got cited.

I’d rather have ringrose or Farrell then Aki.

Ireland won convicngly in the end.

But what does this win say about Ireland, are Ireland on the up getting in to their stride, gaining convidence, for the up and coming game in the qf.

Or does it prove that with out Sexton Ireland are pants.

Every time Sexton play's Ireland all ways seem to up their game.

Are Ireland now in with a chance of winning this Rugby World Cup?

Carty has only played a few games for Ireland, what do you expect? Carberry may have been better, who knows.

Is there any up date on the Scotland game?

Christ Madge, ask again after midnight.

ok,ok. keep your hair on.

Well done Ireland, think we get a real contrast of preparation if a team that plays it’s last match plays a side that doesn’t, Schmidt saying initially it benefitted England and NZ to have the break and supposedly better prep, though I fail to see how a genuine test match is better prep than none.

Still think Scotland will topple Japan through simple tier one experience.

Another red card, ho hum, cards refs, and typhoons now doing their best to spoil this tournaments, throw in rubbish coverage from our perspective, no sky and streaming that doesn’t always work properly the only option here.

So far the worst World Cup I’ve seen from a viewing perspective...too many negatives, despite none of it being the hosts fault.

Yeah its been a bit disapointing for me too as much as I love Japan and loved being there. Having a suspended Aki is a disadvantage for Ireland going into the quarters. NZ may have suffered a suspension too, we will never know.

tigertattie wrote:

EnglishReign wrote:Samoa have been bleedin' awful. an extra man for most of the game and I've barely seen them in the Irish half.

I think they are the most indisciplined team at the World Cup

Even the ref is telling them that it’s not his fault they are hitting high or late.

It gets to a strange where rugby may want to look at something similar to the fifa fair play rules

Unfortunately this is true, and unfortunately it looks like too many chips on the shoulder. Just look at the coach.

Collapse2005 wrote:Yeah its been a bit disapointing for me too as much as I love Japan and loved being there. Having a suspended Aki is a  disadvantage for Ireland going into the quarters. NZ may have suffered a suspension too, we will never know.

We might have, though I’ve heard there’s a lot of work being put into that area, but the way these things happen, circumstances seem to come into far more than intent. For me the whole red thing is pitched too far one way, especially if the offence demands further match suspensions, which I think they need to reduce. If they must remove them from the field and ruin the match as a contest, reduce the ongoing sanctions to nothing further in cases like Ali’s to one or two or more where there’s more intent, less circumstantial...ducking, too late to avoid etc etc.

I wouldn't be averse to World Rugby saying if the red card is awarded before the 60th minute (I.e. 20 minute disadvantage and therefore 2x yellow card) you can count that as 1 game/week served.

It feels like there should be a distinction between the ban you get when you've missed an hour of the game, as Aki did, and when you go unpunished and latterly cited, as say Hodge did. To give both 3 weeks feels uneven.

You could couple that with an overall reduction in bans. Football give 1 game automatic or 3 games for violent conduct. I wouldn't like to go quite that simple, but for a red card tackle with no malicious intent to get a two week ban (potentially 1 served in game) with no further mitigation available is probably a fair sanction. Especially if referees can remain strong and keep carding players until they alter their tackle technique.

The point surely is to try and get everyone to reduce tackle height though with how high the penalties for it is. Theres still some commentators eg stuart barnes ready to catch up but there was a general acceptance in the itv studio that players simply have to go lower or reduce the hit if they go high.

robbo277 wrote:I wouldn't be averse to World Rugby saying if the red card is awarded before the 60th minute (I.e. 20 minute disadvantage and therefore 2x yellow card) you can count that as 1 game/week served.

It feels like there should be a distinction between the ban you get when you've missed an hour of the game, as Aki did, and when you go unpunished and latterly cited, as say Hodge did. To give both 3 weeks feels uneven.

You could couple that with an overall reduction in bans. Football give 1 game automatic or 3 games for violent conduct. I wouldn't like to go quite that simple, but for a red card tackle with no malicious intent to get a two week ban (potentially 1 served in game) with no further mitigation available is probably a fair sanction. Especially if referees can remain strong and keep carding players until they alter their tackle technique.

Great points, and hopefully that’s the way they steer, because with the sheer number...a red is now a risk every test, a yellow almost certain. Somethings gotta yield. Our game hasn’t suddenly got a lot of violent criminals playing it, the rules and methods to pick them up have merely increased their exposure. The focus on safety now must be mitigated by the amount of time players are forced from the field. I mean is a player more safer when another is sent for none, one or five weeks?
Do players need that long to ‘cool off and think’ about their transgression? I’d think in some cases that’s all forgotten as soon as they hit the shower...just don’t get ‘caught’ again.

Really doesnt need mitigating. Players need to play to the rules. If they get caught endangering opponents expect to serve the time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Really doesnt need mitigating. Players need to play to the rules. If they get caught endangering opponents expect to serve the time.

Possibly, it’s the time served that’s possibly where it can be cleaned up.

It’s as though there’s now three card offences...yellow as is now. Red as in severe, intentional, total disregard for player safety.

And ‘orange’ those probably like Aki’s where there was certainly no malice, and he was close to being borderline yellow.

For those, and I think they’re about half the reds...give an orange. Off the field and can be replaced by a sub after ten or 20, with no likelihood of further suspension.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point surely is to try and get everyone to reduce tackle height though with how high the penalties for it is. Theres still some commentators eg stuart barnes ready to catch up but there was a general acceptance in the itv studio that players simply have to go lower or reduce the hit if they go high.

Yep, agree with this. Can't be complaining about the laws and looking for workarounds a la NZ and Barrett and Oz and Kerevi when and only when it burns you. A red card is a red card - like with the contest in the air, the rugby world will catch up soon enough. As this is such a fundamental part of the game, it might take a touch longer for the red cards to stop compared to thinks like tip/dump tackling, neck rolling at rucks, and the aerial challenge, but the rugby world will catch up soon enough.

I thought Aki was a little hard done by. It's easy to look at the Samoa Russia game and see 2 blatant red cards ignored as a yellow and deem it even worse, but ignoring those mistakes/political decisions for the RWC's benefit in the first week, was it a red card?

Well, yes. I thought there was enough bend and dip in the attacking player, but then it wasn't particularly late - circumstances are harsh in that the ball was bobbling around, and it's very much a kind of 'scramble' situation where he's then just lunged in - but so be it. Australia and NZ have been very fortunate with 2 yellow cards for high tackles themselves, with the mitigating circumstances being because of body height rather than a situation like that, where the ball is loose. These are the fine margins it takes and tackling high now incurs a starting point of a red. I think someone like Nigel - who is big on 'empathy' - would use the bobbling ball and general confusion as mitigating circumstances, aligned with the body angle of the Samoa player. It's on the harsh end of the red card spectrum, but look at where his shoulder hits and you can't say it is categorically not a red card.

Unlucky for the player, but there we go. It's the risk you take. Had he wrapped him up and pull him backwards instead of looked to smash him, it would be a yellow and no suspension. It's the risk you take.

Aki was one of those right on the edge. For me it was a red, right on the bottom end. Could see it as a yellow just but either way I'd say yeah just about.

Well we had possible reds looked at where the players head was three feet off the ground. At that height all there is is head because the body is horizontal. It’s not a clear cut height thing. Players are dipping and diving all over the show.

Of course they were looked at taylor. And obviously yourself knowing the rules and listening to refs know why they weren't reds.

Yeah give you that. But if you’re saying the status quo is or will work, I don’t see it. I mean we are now talking more about cards than refs...that can’t be good. When neither dominates the discussion then we’ll have it about right. Already we’ve lost proper contests this tournament through reds and typhoons. Not a good look.

BODs article has just pooped up here, for once I agree with him. Certainly PI rugby as we know it will feature less and less, the big hits critical to their natural game. Now they’re being slaughtered for it...


https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/116538177/ireland-v-samoa-irish-great-brian-odriscoll-laments-the-big-hit-is-gone

Bod is a terrible pundit in my view. Talks Poopie. Watch the breakdown in NZ occasionally and got to say Jeff Wilson is a great presenter.

Taylorman wrote:Well we had possible reds looked at where the players head was three feet off the ground. At that height all there is is head because the body is horizontal. It’s not a clear cut height thing. Players are dipping and diving all over the show.

You're forgetting the salient point is you can't tackle the head. Have you never heard of the chop tackle either?

That’s funny cos I think he is too but geez he’s not popular, particularly with ozzies. He can come across as smug but he’s good at managing the panel and can up and down the flow, especially when JK pulls out his ‘Now hang on’ starters.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Well we had possible reds looked at where the players head was three feet off the ground. At that height all there is is head because the body is horizontal. It’s not a clear cut height thing. Players are dipping and diving all over the show.

You're forgetting the salient point is you can't tackle the head. Have you never heard of the chop tackle either?

When their head is three feet off the ground and the head is firing directly at you standing on the goal line you’re supposed to what! Go from above the three feet to below it, or, wait for the head to go by and take the body as it presents itself.

Yeah. Hilarious. As BOD says, players are leading with their heads. Touch it, and your done.

You're wrong, but keep going if you want.

I agree, Taylorman. This World Cup is a mess for different reasons, and this is one of them. As an Irish supporter I don't disagree with Aki being red carded, according to WR directives, but I do
disagree with the interpretation. Its making a mockery of Rugby Union. Defending players will be coached to go low into a tackle which opens them up to head injury.

Taylorman wrote:So did Italy. So will Scotland if they don’t play.

If Italy lost so did your precious NZ. Even if they win this RWC it will not have been a fair win.

There's no point beaten up each other for the mistakes of WR. Scotland absolutely deserve to fight for their place, but that isn't the fault of any nation. Neither is it the fault of any nation that they get a nice break

Fact is if rugby is going to penalize contact with the head with red cards, the game is actually finished.

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:So did Italy. So will Scotland if they don’t play.

If Italy lost so did your precious NZ. Even if they win this RWC it will not have been a fair win.

That’s a bit too pie in the sky im afraid. It’s called being a sore loser if one adopts that’s stance.

I never said England didn’t deserve the cricket win, in fact I didn’t really care, I said there were just as many stupid rules as there are here, in terms of countback.

Those who win matches with more players on the field don’t win fairly either then I guess? Not many without that hanging over them left are there? How many legit 15 a side winners are left?

It's a double edged sword. We all want less head injurues, but don't want to devalue the game. My thinking is; If refs had have penalised deliberate strikes to the head over the years then this wouldn't be so much of an issue. Its a failing of WR, especially over the last 4 years. Why at the RWC?

It started happening in the last two to three years, escalated at the Junior World Cup so before the tournament was considered highly probable to be an issue here.

And here we are...

I posted in an earlier match thread about the issues associated with contact with the head being reffed in the way it is. It has the potential for abuse and misinterpretation. Yes we have to be mindful of head impacts and the future of the game, safety, etc. But we need to look at the attacker too: the defender can set themselves for the tackle, brace themselves ready with knees bent, head in the correct place, to the correct side for a safe tackle, arms ready to wrap, the hit is going to be about chest height, all in a split second....... and then the attacking player sees the tackle and decides to protect the ball and lead with the head and it hits the shoulder area of the defender. The attacker often has all of the momentum, not the defender. Instant yellow or red. No questions. Or a more cyclical view is that the attacker sees the player set for the tackle and sticks their head or chin out and plays for the illegal hit by putting their head/chin into the shoulder. What can the defender do?!

So the question is how do we deal with that scenario as a sport going forward? Ian McGeechan was talking on the same show as BOD about defence coaches now needing to work on players going for the lower body tackle with a 2nd player going in for the jackal. A bit like a Lydiate and Warburton used to do to some effect a number of years back. So ‘man and ball’ tackles might be a thing of the past. Good for the game? Perhaps more open with more offloads? Two in each tackle so more space elsewhere? But other posters have pointed to the head injuries associated with tackling low too (more concussions in trials apparently). So where do we go?

Great post. Thanks. You're question on the end is my concern. The directive solves nothing and, in fact, can make it worse. Players being coached to go low into tackles isn't a great idea. Imagine being coached to milk penalties? Of course there's times to go low, but the player needs to read that as instinctive for his own protection.

Perhaps the simple issue is that a World Cup is not the time or place to be suddenly refocusing on game laws/rules and reffing standards.

I don't mean to say that World Cups should turn a blind eye to illegal and dangerous play - of course not.  What I do mean is that any laws, new regulations, new primary focus directives issued to rugby referees should be done so in a timely way over the four year cycle.  The World Cup is when players and coaches and referees should be at their most fluid - all knowing the laws and regulations, all being familiar with exactly what is expected of them and what will or will not be accepted.  
I dislike this concept that refs and World Rugby sit down together right before a World Cup and come up with a refreshed list of rules and regulations that are going to be given 'special status' as highly policed actions.  The inference kinda always is that players are told 'you had if probably easy up until now, but now that the WC is approaching, we're warning you that you won't be getting off Easy from here on in.'
My problem is the 'you had it probably easy up until now.'  They shouldn't have.  If a rule is important enough to be a major concentration directive for WC refs then it is important enough to be fully enforced in the years leading up to said WC.
My point is that players, coaches and refs should be at their most comfortable and familiar with any law variations during the WC.  The tough enforcement phase (to teach players new behavior) should come in well before a WC.

Maybe part of the TMO review needs to involve looking at the attacker and decide if they were leading with the head and take that into account? I know they sort of do now when acknowledging the dip. But then, what should the attacker do? Lead with the shoulder?! Lead with the forearm?! Raise it and you concede a penalty like the player for Aus v Wales! Or do we accept that a defender shoulder charging, i.e moving forward, is more liable to be penalised than a defender setting themselves for a tackle but remaining stationary, and therefore promote a ‘static’ tackle? And with that any head impact occurring is not the fault of the defender? Genuinely, it is so difficult to explain/police/mitigate/manage/coach. To the point that it is to the detriment of the game, potentially.

My thoughts exactly, as I hinted at. They have had 4 years to clarify. Why now in a world cup?

Oracle, all fair points. Imagine a defending player leading with the head?

Yes, good points ‘Fly. Agree with that. This all seems sort of ‘new’. Although I’ve also seen people saying that the NH has been adapting to this for a while, while the SH has been largely ingnoring it ‘til now somehow. So maybe the refs are to blame! At least the SH ones perhaps

Lagon wrote:Oracle, those laws were already in place it's the directives that's changed.

Do you mean the laws about looking at the attacker? I think it’s too heavily weighted against the defender currently. I could go into a tackle, poke my chin out and get a defender sent off. I don’t think that’s accounted for in the laws and directives currently.

I read your post wrong. Corrected my reply. You're right.

The Oracle wrote:I posted in an earlier match thread about the issues associated with contact with the head being reffed in the way it is. It has the potential for abuse and misinterpretation. Yes we have to be mindful of head impacts and the future of the game, safety, etc. But we need to look at the attacker too: the defender can set themselves for the tackle, brace themselves ready with knees bent, head in the correct place, to the correct side for a safe tackle, arms ready to wrap, the hit is going to be about chest height, all in a split second....... and then the attacking player sees the tackle and decides to protect the ball and lead with the head and it hits the shoulder area of the defender. The attacker often has all of the momentum, not the defender. Instant yellow or red. No questions. Or a more cyclical view is that the attacker sees the player set for the tackle and sticks their head or chin out and plays for the illegal hit by putting their head/chin into the shoulder. What can the defender do?!

So the question is how do we deal with that scenario as a sport going forward? Ian McGeechan was talking on the same show as BOD about defence coaches now needing to work on players going for the lower body tackle with a 2nd player going in for the jackal. A bit like a Lydiate and Warburton used to do to some effect a number of years back. So ‘man and ball’ tackles might be a thing of the past. Good for the game? Perhaps more open with more offloads? Two in each tackle so more space elsewhere? But other posters have pointed to the head injuries associated with tackling low too (more concussions in trials apparently). So where do we go?

This is exactly what happened when Kerevi ran over Barrett.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR57Hm9cWlM

There are better replay angles  but Barrett lined up Kerevi for the tackle  and just before the point of impact Kerevi angles his shoulder directly into Barrett’s head, and knocks the low, stationary defender full on at pace into the head, completely bold over...head first.

If head injuries are the primary concern, why is this type of run ‘celebrated’? Here you have a stationary head getting blasted full on, with pace, and bulk.

How does the intentionl of the rule ...to protect head injuries explain that?

Actually, that's the point I've been making all along.

Lagon wrote:I read your post wrong. Corrected my reply. You're right.

Yep, good point T’man. Has to work both ways.

Taylorman wrote:It started happening in the last two to three years, escalated at the Junior World Cup so before the tournament was considered highly probable to be an issue here.

And here we are...

Everyone else adapted. Look at the disparity of cards between NH and SH. You can thank your referees for not preparing you.

.

Players being 'coached' to go low is pretty simple:

1. Dipping in to the tackle/carrying low is mitigating circumstances. At the moment it's a hot topic and receiving tough cards, but it will eventually settle down and what is yellow atm will become no card soon enough. Even if it doesn't, carrying low/changing angle = yellow not red. Not a massive gain.

2. No player or coach is deliberately going to say 'get tackled in the head'. You're naive to think that will happen. Rugby doesn't work that cynically and that brazenly at the top level. No coach will say to their prop 'fat head, go and get their Samoan sent off please...don't worry about your brain'.

3. If it does, then it's a tatic that other teams will have to adapt to - don't tackle high, learn to tackle lower. The first skill when I learnt rugby full contact was to 'carry low' and drop the shoulder (that's right, Jaco Peyper, you bottler) and that the way to 'beat' this was to get lower than that, as a tackler. However low a shoulder (and head) can go, the tackler can go lower. Those fundamentals have. not. changed. If you're not skillful enough to adapt, then oh dear poor you but you don't belong on the field.

4. Let's say the worst does happen, and attacking teams DO carry 'low'/head first for the sole benefit of yellow cards and maybe the odd red. Your player is now off the field with an HIA. Possibly a broken neck. Possibly brain damage and CTE.

Do you really, really, REALLY think this is going to happen?

Because it won't.

It's pretty hysterical, frankly. No basis or grounding in reality.