"He couldn't have cleaned him any other way" - the Morgan cleanout myth

Interesting topic, now more about how people bullshit themselves than the result of the game. The #1 cry going up about the Morgan cleanout is "Tizzano was so low, Morgan couldn't have done anything else". But is that the truth? I say no, and you merely have to go back one phase to demonstrate that.

Here is Len Ikitau over the ball one phase before - watch his position, compare it to Tizzano's BEFORE Morgan hits him. Most people are using a screen frame from after the Morgan hit came in to contend that Tizzano almost had his head in the grass, which is false. If anything Ikitau is lower.

Owen Farrell effectively cleans out Ikitau with a challenge to the body without going anywhere near his head, remaining on his feet until completion of the cleanout. Morgan, on the other hand hits the head/neck area while going straight off his feet. This makes a mockery of the contention that "Morgan couldn't have done anything else", as Farrell demonstrated just seconds earlier.

Also worth noting that Genge goes straight off his feet at both these breakdowns.

Even good old Eddie Jones is getting in on the bullshitting:

“Because he couldn’t do anything more legal than he did. The argument is that he hit his head. Yes, we know that. But he couldn’t do anything more than that."

Refer Eddie to Farrell 10 seconds before please. These are the so-called "authorities" we're supposed to bow to when opining about rugby.

It should have been a penalty for Genge going off his feet regardless of Morgan’s actions. Morgan clearly comes with momentum to the neck area, it was dangerous. If he couldn’t have ‘safely’ cleaned out Tizzano he shouldn’t have executed such an aggressive clean out….instead he accelerated into contact.

This is annoying for a number of reasons. In part because every weekend we see innocuous, unintended head contact in the tackle being carded when there is little risk. Unlike those incidents and frankly the Cane incident in the WC which was a reflex action, this was premeditated and aggressive.

There are two situations in rugby where serious spinal injuries are more likely …..the high ball and exactly this incident. When a player with his neck bent over the ball is hit with forceful clean out. Yet in a classical case of the latter we have people defending a woeful decision for partisan reasons.

The other reason it’s annoying is here we have another ref with a tin ear, making a unilateral ‘decisive; call. One had the sense in much of the second half he wasn’t calling Lions’ infringements. Ironically in several cases plunging over the ruck. He inspired little confidence and after week after week of excessive TMO actions, what was the TMO thinking?

Rugby is run by some of the thickest people in sport and reffing seems to be out of control. How is it that this guy and the incredibly incompetent Nic Berry are still reffing tests. The club is very protective of it’s own.

Let's revisit the Esterhuizen red card against Portugal in the wake of Barnes' apologetic "not all head contact is foul play" comment in regard to the above incident. Andre executes a perfectly legal tackle, wrapping around the chest of the player. In the process there is accidental head contact. This was not foul play, this was not an illegal tackle. Result? Red card and 4 weeks. World Rugby and their officials, both past and present, are so full of their own bullshit it's not even funny. We saw both Earl's chop tackle on Suaalii and Morgan's cleanout being pardoned on the basis of "there was an attempt to wrap". Andre with a full wrap, straight red.

Case closed, three perfect examples of something. Is it arrogance, insecurity to admit a mistake was made..,,or protection of some refs who are biased even though they try not to be.

Agreed fuck em all! These bloody pompous bunch of old farts from WR are behind the times and should be replaced ASAP!

Andre,s tackle was not only legal, but also very Cool….he tackled the Snot out of that Porra, Lekker:)

This is the very reason Rassie questioned the officiating as it’s a ball of shit when you consider the access they have to reviews from every angle

Barnes' comment of "not all head contact is foul play" is particularly galling given how they've been handing out cards left right and center for incidental and accidental contacts for years now. It's pretty obvious there are different sets of rules in play here depending on the game situation and the team involved.

Here’s another bit of evidence that WR has just hypocritically abandoned its own edicts:

The incident in question saw Tizzano hit the deck, clutching his head in agony after Morgan’s clear-out. Reports surfaced of Tizzano experiencing neck discomfort post-match. However, it was the readings from his high-tech mouthguard that caught Schmidt’s attention, indicating a 'high-magnitude impact'—a level of force so severe it nearly doubled the threshold typically classified as dangerous.

Yeah, the "How should you clean him out when he's that low" argument is a bit like "you can't give me out LBW when I kick away a perfect Yorker on leg stump...how else should I keep it out?"

Easy. Be better!

I'm just so pissed that it ruined the competition. We could be going into this weekend looking forward to a cracking game. Now I'll probably not even tune in.

However, it was the readings from his high-tech mouthguard that caught Schmidt’s attention, indicating a 'high-magnitude impact'—a level of force so severe it nearly doubled the threshold typically classified as dangerous.

You can see his head being folded into his chest by the impact on my screenshot up top, even more clear on the video if you play it frame by frame. Then you have people calling it "shoulder on shoulder" with a straight face. The level of rugby conversation out there is pathetic, to be honest.

My comparison of the Farrell cleanout to the Morgan cleanout above is more than any media outlet, coach, former coach, former player, former referee or any of the so-called authority structures have done on this incident, and I think it's bang on point to demonstrate that yes, Morgan could have done it more legally than he did because Farrell just managed it 10 seconds before in a virtually identical situation.

Yeah, the "How should you clean him out when he's that low" argument

And he wasn't "that low", he wasn't even as low and well set as Ikitau when Farrell legally cleaned him out. As I said, those who contend he was "that low" use a screenshot when his head is already being folded into his chest from the Morgan impact to back up that claim.

And of course there is the idea that if a ref call loses you a game then you should have been better and created a larger margin. Probably one of the most annoying counters to poor reffing ever.

The truth is, that was a red card offence.

Go back to the Wiese headbutt. He basically touched the guys head. He gets a perma red card and a 4 week ban. For something that was controlled and caused literally zero harm.

Yet, in this instance a guy races in and hits the most dangerous part of the body to hit, at pace, and without wrapping his arms in any away. Yet it's apparently total legal and "no foul play".

For me, so much of what I see leans toward the idea WR are pre-deciding outcomes to line them up with promotion of the sport. The result must be the one that favours the promotion of rugby the most.

Rugby seems to lag behind so many other sports in its officiating. Cricket has left bad calls behind and you can watch an entire Test without a single person being given out, or not out, incorrectly. Strange how umpires have become near flawless in their application of LBW decisions since the introduction of reviews...hardly getting any initials wrong any more.

Soccer is far better now despite a couple of gripes here and there. Tennis has gone the same way as cricket in that results are much more accurate now than they have ever been.

...but rugby, oh rugby. I swear, it feels like we're in a worse position now than we've ever been.

On field decision - here, if the ref calls a try, the tmo needs clear evidence to overturn it. So, the ref gets one look in real time but his decision overrides the estimates of a team that get to watch it over and over in slow motion. Why? We're basically saying that neither party is sure but the one with the least evidence decides the outcome. It's totally backwards.

The slow motion bollocks - how many times do we see things in slow motion and it looks totally intentional. Played at 1/10 speed. And yet refs, despite this being their profession, seem incapable of understanding that in slow-mo everything looks premeditated and intentional.

Scrums - Australia provided a brilliant overhead scrum camera on the weekend and the Lions were scrumming in from 45 at every single scrum. It's was absolutely blatant, but at no point does anybody say anything. Why is the TMO not involved here? It's pretty obvious that an overhead camera gives them the best view in the house. And it's a call that would take seconds...no massive replays required. So, not only did the ref miss repeated infringements of players being pulled down and elbows on the ground, the direction of the scrum wasn't being reffed either. How? Why?

For me, I know most don't agree, but I like the use of technology in reffing. It has worked wonders in other sports. I just feel that it's being applied in a very strange way in rugby...yes, I realise rugby isn't cricket. Still, seems inefficient, inconsistent and amateurish.

...but then, what can you do when a ref is shown somethig, in slow motion, that ticks every single box for a penalty and card...and then utters the nonsensical and factually incorrect statement of "He wrapped. I don't see any foul play."

The reffing is by country mile the worst thing about rugby.

All good points, Plummie. Nigel Owens has lost all credibility for me as well. When's the last time he's actually straight up contradicted one of these decisions he reviews? I can't recall any and I specifically went to his segment for a lot of these dubious decisions only to see him parrot whatever decision was taken on the field. He was even on board with the "wrapping" on the Earl chop tackle. One big circle jerk fraternity.

The sooner robots and AI start reffing, the better...

World rugby can't be sincere about head protection.

Pakie a friend raised an interesting point on the aggressive clean out charges like the one by Morgan. While certainly not covering all contingencies this could help…..force the player to bind to the breakdown, before cleaning out the player. It might be just another thing to officiate, but it would eliminate the charge in at pace, which leaves the health of the fetcher in the hands of his opponent and Lady Luck,

That's pretty much what Farrell did - bound on to the player and then just pushed him clear with some help from behind. Of course it happened in a split second but when you frame to frame it that's basically what he did.

But really they should just ref the law - Morgan went straight off his feet, never an attempt to keep them. Calling that a "perfect clearout" like Owens and most authorities are doing sets a dangerous precedent. Will the next guy diving into a breakdown onto a jackaler be excused? And the next, and the next?

I see Kirwan has joined the shills, actually calling it a courageous decision.

’Kirwan, however, called the referee's decision "courageous," ultimately deeming it fair despite the uproar it sparked.’

‘They all want to remain club members in good standing

"There's nothing else he could do" - the lie that cloaks this incident, disproven by Farrell in the same situation 10 seconds earlier.

But hey, I've said my piece about his now. It's not like this circus isn't going to produce some new fodder soon, probably starting tomorrow.

Spot on Moz, to scared to put there neck’s out for the right cause.

Question is, if we were part of the "Club" would we stand up and speak out against the tyranny??

That is one point where respect must be given to Dr. Erasmus the chosen and lucky one :)

He stood up and made a point, but the WR Cult tried to embarrass him by Banning him….

The Doctor is more wary I have noticed….

M, I'm an opinionated arse but...Doc Rasssie is still a legend regardless of my bias opinion.

Well you not that bad….above I give credit where it’s deserved:)