The Bargies are the most frustrating team

Forum » Rugby » The Bargies are the most frustrating team

Oct 06, 2019, 00:08

Unbelievable stuff from Ole Cruz, blowing up their whole campaign. But there were so many other instances where they coughed up the ball stupidly or gave away silly penalties. Made all the more inexplicable by flashes of brilliance like the Matera offload just before the half.

They were in the game today against a Pom team that was struggling.....they couldn't even take it to the 8 man Bargie scrum.

And then Ole strikes.....dumb beyond words.....and to think guys like Peeper and Poofter still believe in Ole Cruz and probably in Santa Claus. Hilarious!

Oct 06, 2019, 00:58

Ole Cruz is probably the dirtiest player in world rugby. The person that was his imposter here, seemed far more refined. :cheerful: This is perhaps the strongest evidence they were different people... 

Oct 06, 2019, 09:38


What a stupid name for Argentina.


Oct 06, 2019, 14:04

Lets face facts - there was exactly the same type of tackle by an AB player in minute 72 and the AB tackler got a yellow  -   Viva la difference …..   

Oct 06, 2019, 14:19

Which game was that, Mike?

Oct 06, 2019, 14:29

Oct 06, 2019, 14:35

Never mind, Namibia. Would like to check it out when I can find footage.

Oct 06, 2019, 15:15

There was nothing intentional in the high tackle. 

Farrel as the EVIDENCE proved ducked and caused the tackle to be high. Played in real time its very clear Cruz had zero time to adjust his tackle. 

This was another disgraceful RWCref decision. 

Follow the money?

Dr Moz trying a Sunday afternoon troll! Moz I got ya number! 

Oct 06, 2019, 16:52

Exactly the same as the SBW was an obvious red under the rules they emphasized for the WC. It was clearly explained by the ref.

Oct 06, 2019, 19:30

Ole Cruz stuffed up??? It was Lavanini. I don't think there is anyone by that name in the entire Puma squad unless I'm mistaken.

Yeah they are very competitive but just can't seem to push the final score in their favour like when they dominated the Boks this year. Sort of like how South Africa always seem to lose thr close ones against New Zealand. 

Oct 06, 2019, 19:45

Bro, a few years ago there was a poster on this board called Ole Cruz who some thought was Lavanini.

Oct 06, 2019, 20:16

Bro...Ole Cruz (Tomas Lavanini in disguise) caught most of us out...he had incredible knowledge of rugby, Argentina dishes, father had holiday flat/bungalow in Clifton 2nd beach, played with Chiefs Juniors etc, etc.

NZ poster, Poi-e knew some of the Chiefs players and checked him out...even contacted him on facebook or twitter. It was claimed his English was bad but he wrote quite well.

Here is the link

Oct 06, 2019, 21:08

That shit is too funny! How the hell did you guys fall for that!!!! Hahahaha! Legend!

Oct 06, 2019, 21:40

Come at me broomstick doesn't sound English to me! 

Oct 07, 2019, 11:09

Lets face facts - there was exactly the same type of tackle by an AB player in minute 72 and the AB tackler got a yellow  -   Viva la difference …..  

Massive difference.

- No shoulder contact by any of the All Blacks, so instead of a default red as with a shoulder, this will only be a red if there is ruled to be a high degree of danger and no mitigating factors

- Both Namibians were going to ground at the time they were tackled. At the minute 72 tackle the guy was actually diving down into the tackle. That is plenty of mitigation.

Oct 07, 2019, 12:04


Was Farrell not going down - idiot?  You remain the 2nd worst rugby idiot on site after Strzok,  Forget about the photos idiot and looked at the sequence as to what actually happened.   

Oct 07, 2019, 12:19

Mike, I don't make the laws or present the framework. The framework for high tackles clearly state three default reds:

1. Shoulder contact to head or neck and no mitigation applies

2. High tackle with any contact to head or neck IF considered highly dangerous and no mitigation applies

3. High tackle with arm contact first to head or neck IF considered highly dangerous and no mitigation applies

The mitigation for going down reads as follows:

BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)

Note the emphasis on severe drops in height - falling, tripping, diving. None of that applies in Farrell's case. Falling/diving applies in both the AB cases, and clearly neither of those contacts were considered highly dangerous, nor involved a shoulder.

If you listen to Owens explaining to Lavanini it fits in perfectly with the framework:

"You were always high, you were leading with the shoulder, and you made contact with the head of #10 who was not coming down enough with the height for me to give you anything but a red card."

Oct 07, 2019, 12:28

I the first pic...

The time it took Ferrell's head to move about a foot closer to the ground just before contact, is about one to three-tenths of a second. You cannot respond to that.

Wrap tackles occure often enough that if you wanted to exploit the present situation, it would not be difficult at all. A team would have ample opportunities during a game to get opposition players sent off or binned. 

Count, in any game, how many tackles come in at about 30cm below the neck area. Many, very many. Each one of those tackles can be turned into a red card if the attacker dips prior to contact.

It's not even about exploiting the rules. Too many of these incidents completely ruin games and there is often no intent or malice. 

The counter-argument is to have a low starting position, I know. The natural conclusion of that is that the only way to be safe is to always tackle the waist/legs only. Obviously not possible. It would change the game way too much.

For me, if the attacker shifts his danger zone closer to the ground quickly and late, then the defender should be judged on his height/position at the point of no return. The same way that you can't Ebens been trying to do. 

In the AB incident above, the Namibian player had started going down much earlier and it should be easier to pull out of such a tackle. This is more a case of the AB defender going as low as he possibly can rather than the amount of time he had to pull out. His knee is about 25cm off the ground. That's about as low as one can make a standing tackle. 

I'd say. Once he is about an erm's length away, that's the point of no return. If he ducks on you from anything closer than that distance, he is the one that caused the dangerous situation.

Just my opinion.

Oct 07, 2019, 12:45

Remember when Cornell Hendriks was diving to score a try against Wales late in a game at Ellis Park?

He was awarded a penalty try because he had dived to score but the Welsh player came in from the side with a high shot...which was adjudged an illegal tackle despite happening at 50cm above the ground. 

How does that play into...

"Note the emphasis on severe drops in height - falling, tripping, diving."

It doesn't. The Welshman was punished on the grounds that he knew Hendricks was diving to the line and could have pulled out of the tackle, or not made it at all. And I agree, that was a dangerous tackle. 

What is clear is that falling, diving or tripping is not always a mitigating factor.


Oct 07, 2019, 12:49

As I said elsewhere Plum, had Lavanini not lead with the shoulder and that wide swinging arm, he might have got away with yellow. Once you hit with the shoulder first on the neck or face you're pretty much toast. The guy has a long history of illegal hits and cards for exactly that offence. It finally caught up with him at the worst possible time.

Oct 07, 2019, 13:03

The Welshman was punished on the grounds that he knew Hendricks was diving to the line and could have pulled out of the tackle, or not made it at all

I don't think you're comparing apples with apples now, Plum. The sanction of a drop in height relates to a tackle becoming high unintentionally because of the ball carrier dropping down into the challenge of a defender. From the shot below it looks like the Welsh tackler deliberately went down on Hendricks with an illegal challenge, including what looks like an elbow to the face. That's something completely different. I can't find video footage unfortunately so can't say for sure.

Oct 07, 2019, 13:53

Indeed Pakie.

So in the AB incident above, the guy was diving down or going to ground. 

In this incident above the Bok player is also going to ground. 

I know that all the incidents are different and i'm using them to issulstrate the point that mitigation is about more than just height. It's about starting position, size of the window to disengage and the end result. Ignore the elbow. If it were a shoulder on Hendricks, the sanction would have been the same.

These mitigating factors are not applied evenly. 

Look at the Ferrell picture. Now imagine Ferrell in an upright position. Sure, one hunches over slightly when you run. But even then, that tackle would have hit him somewhere above the stomach. 

Would be great if we could compare Ferrell's height when he ws 1m away from Lavinini to the picture you posted above. hint hint :)

Remove Lavanini from the picture and then ask if Ferrell would have re-gained his balance from there. He is falling over, or it looks like it.

The AB tackle is fine, one can only get down so low. The Wales incident is fine too because it was pre-meditated - a deserved penalty/card. The Ferrell incident is the one where games are ruined for no reason at all because nobody is really guilty.

To make it worse...

"had Lavanini not lead with the shoulder"

A tackle is done with a shoulder while the arms wrap around. It perfectly illustrates how a legal and textbook tackle is made to appear dangerous and full of malice. Imagine Lavanin hitting a guy in the stomach/chest like that. A perfect tackle. 

Perfect until Ferrell moves his head 30cm closer to the ground. Now it's an intentional high shot with poor form and a leading arm. 

Yes, I know the Lavas has a kak record. Anyway, that should not matter in terms of judging the incident. 

Oct 07, 2019, 15:53

Plum, agree 100%

Oct 07, 2019, 16:39

Well, "will this ruin the game?" is unfortunately not among the sanctions the referees can consider.

Plum, we can back and forth on this all day. The simple fact is that, within the framework the referees have, that was a red. Jonathan Kaplan in his column calls the red card "unquestionably correct".

Would be great if we could compare Ferrell's height when he ws 1m away from Lavinini to the picture you posted above. hint hint

This composite should roughly illustrate it. Farrell far left is about 2m from Lavanini, middle is where he starts bracing for the tackle and then finally where Lavanini hits. Best case that tackle hits him shoulder height if he didn't duck slightly. This was never a stomach/chest tackle, which is why Owens told Lavanini "you were always high".

Oct 07, 2019, 16:53

I totally agree. According to the framework, it was a red. No question.

Thanks for work on the composite. 

Just questioning if odds aren't stacked against defenders in some situations.

Oct 07, 2019, 17:02

Just questioning if odds aren't stacked against defenders in some situations.

They are in some cases. I see the NZ camp is asking how they should tackle legally when players dive on them after the two yellows they got.

In Lavanini's case, I have less sympathy. That stiff arm hanging and then swinging round, head turned away...classic shoulder charge pose.

But anyway, that's me done on this.

Oct 07, 2019, 20:43

Well done me it's clear even if Farrell maintained his posture, Cruz's shoulder would have gone just under the opposed to the cheek bone. Either way.....clear red card under the current rules.

I have seen many SA bloggers turn this into another biased ref story. Maybe some refs are biased.....but this was handled totally dispassionately.

Oct 07, 2019, 22:25

Watch the video again. Lav has his eyes on Farrell for an age before contact. He line farrell up and only dropped his eyes just before contact. That mofo knew exactly what he was doing. He had EVERY oportunity to adjust for Farrell's height and he'd not have hit him in the head. He had no intention of doing anything but hurting him. Lav is a trashy bastard. Always was and always will be. Now he gets to be remembered as the retard that ruined his countries hopes of getting out of the pool for the first time since 2003. What a muppet. 

Oct 07, 2019, 22:52

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the ref was in the wrong or that it wasn't a red card.

On another post, I said that the Ferrell incident wasn't a great example of the point I was making. 

I just have an issue with how quickly the red comes out...sometimes.

Oct 07, 2019, 22:57

For interest sake, how do we feel about Ferrell's hit on Esterhuizen last year?

Penalty or legit tackle?

Then, had Esterhuizen ducked into it, even slightly, would that have changed the call? I think so.

I believe on that was Ferrell's leading arm that saved him since "...he made a good enough effort to wrap".

Oct 07, 2019, 22:59

Farrell should have been penalized. It was an obvious call. He can leave me in fits sometimes. Kind of like Butch James used to be. 

Oct 08, 2019, 08:10

It was actually not the stiff arm that simulated a wrap in the Farrell tackle, but the outside arm. The wrap call was farcical and the ref admitted afterwards that he made the wrong call (I still think he felt too much pressure at the time to award a potentially match deciding penalty against England in front of a packed Twickenham). It was a penalty at least, possibly yellow since it was an illegal tackle without necessarily dangerous contact, hitting just below the neck. A card would have been academical of course at that stage of the game with time up.

Oct 08, 2019, 08:40

...And if Andre dropped slightly?

Red card all day long, right?

Oct 08, 2019, 08:41

Gosh, flogging this dead horse of an issue is giving me tennis elbow hehe

Oct 08, 2019, 08:44

:D Yes, red. Depending on how the ref saw it and how big his balls were, of course.

But ask Mike, Plum. He'll explain to you why it was all Andre's fault, actually. Or Erasmus, who I recall ou Mike said was also jogging slowly around the field at the time.

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top