1st QF Wales v Argentina - Stade de Marseille

First topic message reminder :

Wales: 15. Liam Williams, 14. Louis Rees Zammit, 13. George North, 12. Nick Tompkins, 11. Josh Adams, 10. Dan Biggar, 9. Gareth Davies, 1. Gareth Thomas, 2. Ryan Elias, 3. Tomas Francis, 4. Will Rowlands, 5. Adam Beard, 6. Jac Morgan (capt), 7. Tommy Reffell, 8. Aaron Wainwright.

Replacements: 16. Dewi Lake, 17. Corey Domachowski, 18. Dillon Lewis, 19. Dafydd Jenkins, 20. Christ Tshiunza, 21. Tomos Williams, 22. Sam Costelow, 23. Rio Dyer.

Argentina: 1 Thomas Gallo, 2 Julian Montoya (c), 3 Francisco Gómez Kodela, 4 Guido Petti Pagadizabal, 5 Tomas Lavanini, 6 Juan Martin Gonzalez, 7 Marcos Kremer, 8 Facundo Isa, 9 Tomas Cubelli, 10 Santiago Carreras, 11 Mateo Carreras, 12 Santiago Chocobares, 13 Lucio Cinti, 14 Emiliano Boffelli, 15 Juan Cruz Mallia.

Replacements: 16 Agustín Creevy, 17 Joel Sclavi, 18 Eduardo Bello, 19 Matias Alemanno, 20 Rodrigo Bruni, 21 Lautaro Bazan Velez, 22 Nicolas Sanchez, 23 Matías Moroni.

Referee: Jaco Peyper TMO: Marius Jonker

Assistant referees: Karl Dickson (England) and Andrea Piardi (Italy)

Losing LW not ideal ...

Jesus. No fall play at all....

Karl Dickson is utterly insane.

Could this be a common sense decision with a head contact? Wow good reffing from Dickson. Hope Tomkins is ok.

Dickson is effing awful.

Well that's an interesting interpretation ...

Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

Seriously do not understand that. He went into completely uncontrolled... How is that no foul play?

That’s a good call; Lavanini is in a legal position and making a legal clearout. Tomkins falling into his path is something he couldn’t have anticipated.

I'm confused what's a penalty, what's a card and what's play on these days

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

Whether you agree or not I guess they are saying it's just a rugby incident

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Maybe I am just not understanding the laws anymore.

eirebilly_01 wrote:Maybe I am just not understanding the laws anymore.

Just dickson being dickson. Always awful.

This is gonna be a tight tight game.

Argentina have some very talented backs but have decided not to use them today

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

Hes barely bent. Always going to be close to high.reckless. it's just another Dickson event to his ever growing highlight reel.

Next score wins

tigertattie wrote:This is gonna be a tight tight game.

Argentina have some very talented backs but have decided not to use them today

Harsh on the Welsh defence that. Argentina want to use those wide talents but haven't had much opportunity to do so. Wales have been good in defence in general. Goal line discipline hasn't been as good and losing the dual openside threat hasn't helped them imo.

eirebilly_01 wrote:Maybe I am just not understanding the laws anymore.

For there to be an offence, someone has to have done something outside the Laws. Head contact itself isn’t outside the Laws - in a contact game, it can happen. There is a duty of care on players going into contact to make sure they are bent at the waist, not shoulder charging and able to adjust for any change in other players’ positions that can reasonably be anticipated.

Lavanini was bent double, wrapped the player he was actually aiming for, and could not reasonably have anticipated that Tomkins would fall into his path, because Tomkins wasn’t in control of his own body height. Under those circumstances, the whole refereeing team - correctly in my opinion - agreed that there wasn’t foul play.

Poorfour wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Maybe I am just not understanding the laws anymore.

For there to be an offence, someone has to have done something outside the Laws. Head contact itself isn’t outside the Laws - in a contact game, it can happen. There is a duty of care on players going into contact to make sure they are bent at the waist, not shoulder charging and able to adjust for any change in other players’ positions that can reasonably be anticipated.

Lavanini was bent double, wrapped the player he was actually aiming for, and could not reasonably have anticipated that Tomkins would fall into his path, because Tomkins wasn’t in control of his own body height. Under those circumstances, the whole refereeing team - correctly in my opinion - agreed that there wasn’t foul play.

Thanks for the clarification, I guess I need to refresh myself on the laws

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

Hes barely bent. Always going to be close to high.reckless. it's just another Dickson event to his ever growing highlight reel.

Go back and watch again, he's bent a long way. Tomkins is on his knees at the point of contact. Reckless is subjective. If that doesn't make contact with the head it's an absolutely standard clearout. So reckless I'm not sure.

It's sympathetic reffing.

Amazing try-saving tackle.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

Hes barely bent. Always going to be close to high.reckless. it's just another Dickson event to his ever growing highlight reel.

Go back and watch again, he's bent a long way. Tomkins is on his knees at the point of contact. Reckless is subjective. If that doesn't make contact with the head it's an absolutely standard clearout. So reckless I'm not sure.

It's sympathetic reffing.

Very sympathetic. Wrong. But sympathetic.

Dyer had to link up with his support there. Carved Argentina open and then had white line fever. Wales do look like they could carve up at any moment whilst the Pumas look like it's going to have to be grunt work.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

Hes barely bent. Always going to be close to high.reckless. it's just another Dickson event to his ever growing highlight reel.

Go back and watch again, he's bent a long way. Tomkins is on his knees at the point of contact. Reckless is subjective. If that doesn't make contact with the head it's an absolutely standard clearout. So reckless I'm not sure.

It's sympathetic reffing.

Very sympathetic. Wrong. But sympathetic.

Prove that it's incorrect. As PoorFour says head contact isn't automatically foul play. He's low and he's wrapped. It's an acceptable reaction given the picture on front of him.

Was it Dickson who decided on game you weren't allowed to land near a play who was sliding in to score? Feel for Wales here.

That's it then. Wales out...

Bad that. Arg better team though, we had the opportunity to put this to bed in the first half but didn’t.

Ouch. Gutting for young costelo

I missed something there - how did Wales get the put in to that scrum?

Well that's done it anyway. Surely the rfu have to stop putting Dickson forward for internationals now. It's embarrassing.

Definitely wont be an NH clean sweep now anyway

And that's game over. Thought it was Argentine ball from the scrum, and in the end it was.

Wales' line out wasn't good enough today, they made too many basic handling errors, weren't clinical enough in the first half, and I thought they carried Biggar for too long (because of his injury). Argentina did enough. Their work at restarts was really good, plus they kicked better and took their chances. Deserved win in my view. Will have to improve by several levels to win the semi-final.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Could this be a common sense decision with a head contact? Wow good reffing from Dickson. Hope Tomkins is ok.

With a tucked arm? No

mikey_dragon wrote:Bad that. Arg better team though, we had the opportunity to put this to bed in the first half but didn’t.

Wales were dominant in the first half. Looked rattled after the Pumas started slotting penalties. Wales could and should have wrapped this up with the Dyer chance.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Dyer had to link up with his support there. Carved Argentina open and then had white line fever. Wales do look like they could carve up at any moment whilst the Pumas look like it's going to have to be grunt work.

Not judging by the replay.

Well , I suppose you can't argue with that, they needed something special and it happened

Heaf wrote:I missed something there - how did Wales get the put in to that scrum?

I don’t know what happened here.

Adams should had yellow as should Argentina player.
Argentina better overall though.

RiscaGame wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Could this be a common sense decision with a head contact? Wow good reffing from Dickson. Hope Tomkins is ok.

With a tucked arm? No

tucked arm

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Understand what Kay is saying however it's jot up to refs to change the laws. Under the laws that's a penalty at the very very least.

No it's not.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

Under the guidelines it's; is there head contact? = yes. Is there foul play? = Dickson deems no. Therefore play on.

So it's just Dickson incorrectly applying laws again. Fair enough.

Well foul play suggests the Argentina play has done something wrong. He's bent at the waist (always low), he wraps. The only reason there's head contact is that Tomkins drops in height significantly before contact and with a speed with which the Argentina player cannot react.

What do you think the Argentina player did wrong?

Hes barely bent. Always going to be close to high.reckless. it's just another Dickson event to his ever growing highlight reel.

Go back and watch again, he's bent a long way. Tomkins is on his knees at the point of contact. Reckless is subjective. If that doesn't make contact with the head it's an absolutely standard clearout. So reckless I'm not sure.

It's sympathetic reffing.

Very sympathetic. Wrong. But sympathetic.

Prove that it's incorrect. As PoorFour says head contact isn't automatically foul play. He's low and he's wrapped. It's an acceptable reaction given the picture on front of him.

I thought that was good refereeing, what one might call a rugby incident. Anywaynot the reason Wales lost

RiscaGame wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Dyer had to link up with his support there. Carved Argentina open and then had white line fever. Wales do look like they could carve up at any moment whilst the Pumas look like it's going to have to be grunt work.

Not judging by the replay.

I think it was North central and then two out to the left. He needed to draw one of the remaining defenders and make the pass. It wasn't easy but he's an international winger he could have made it happen.

Sorry Wales I think I jinxed them - but they should have wrapped it up in the 1st half ...

Adams’ challenge was probably Yellow, we’ve seen him get a YC for similar before. The challenge on Tompkins was also Yellow. We seen another one like that for France in this tournament, can’t remember if it was a card or just penalty.

I’ll be honest, I don’t know how Wales were 10-6 up at halftime. Argentina were the better side in the first half and Wales did soak up a fair bit. I thought Argentina would win and they did turn up overall. Wales didn’t. Elias wobbled again. Gareth Davies poor. Looking forward to the Turk Steff Thomas having to rate those, as he’s so pro Turk.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Wales were dominant in the first half. Looked rattled after the Pumas started slotting penalties. Wales could and should have wrapped this up with the Dyer chance.

Not sure I'd agree Wales were dominant.  Felt Argentina had pressure but lacked composure.  Wales took their chance(s) well but the plan looked like get it to LRZ and see if he can get past his man (I'll admit we were no better with DVM and D.Graham).

Wanted the team that played best to win it, and think they did, but can see them getting obliterated next match.

That shoulder to head is something that gets called as a penalty 99% of the time. The drop from the Welsh player would be the mitigation that would usually take it down to yellow. Would Peyper have seen it the same way? We'll never know.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:Dyer had to link up with his support there. Carved Argentina open and then had white line fever. Wales do look like they could carve up at any moment whilst the Pumas look like it's going to have to be grunt work.

Not judging by the replay.

I think it was North central and then two out to the left. He needed to draw one of the remaining defenders and make the pass. It wasn't easy but he's an international winger he could have made it happen.

The replay I saw, looked like Dyer had nothing around him without Argentina players tracking a bit.

Anyway, all I’ve posted is moot, bar the last post I did. I think Argentina deserved it overall. Put us under pressure at the start and then somehow we were 7-0 up. Then Elias went back to being Ryan Elias when we had rare territory.