...by Ita 3. His head bounces off the Italian's shoulder. He needed medical attention to his neck after the fact. "No evidence of head contact" says the TMO. Ita 7 is also technically engaged in a high tackle as he is tackling about the line of the shoulders. Play on.
Pakie
I reall thught it was really at leasst a yel card offense and was amaze hen t h gme went on regardless With no actin beng taken a gainst the players invovled. In fact it was much wore than the Motert case.
I think World Rugby will have a lotof explaining to do in the cases - not only in Wessels case -but also in the De Jager and the Mostert tests,
Now that clearly looks like head contact on Kolisi.
Where is the permanent red card for the Italian number 3??
This is blatant double standards, inconsistent application of the laws, and selective enforcement.
What kind of refereeing is this??
It’s starting to look like there’s a deliberate targeting of Springbok players by World Rugby, their referees, and TMOs!!
Uncle what are you talking about?? Only yellow?? My fuck I must be eating crazy pills!!
You honestly have posters on here suggesting that Mostert’s red was justified and this offence was only worthy of a yellow??
Ag nee ooh fok, no wonder we getting all these cards, when our own supporters don’t even see the Bias…
Now that clearly looks like head contact on Kolisi.
Diabolical how they are getting this so wrong so many times.....
No wonder people start throwing the "cheat" word around so much....
How can the interpretation be so very different from ref to ref.
P!$$poor officiating on a few occasions...especially the TMO's involvement.
There is obviously an agenda.
My thinking is that it's about making the lesser teams appear better than they are in order to grow the game and bring in more revenue from those countries.
So if you are SA...and you're playing against crappy Italy, the refs are told to be far more harsh on the better team and more lenient on the lesser.
So, Kolisi actually gets medical treatment, but at no point does the TMO think "Oh, let's have a look at what happened there".
...if they are saying that they looked and there was nothing wrong then, compared to the Mostert card, they need to explain.
But they won't explain. It will be "refs make mistakes" and "there is so much pressure on refs".
It's total rubbish.
Another on Pollard. This one is technically okay as there is not direct head contact, but the Italians throughout the game were intent on hitting at this level. See #1 also completely upright.
Makes a mockery of WR's supposed concern with player wellfare.
So, Kolisi actually gets medical treatment, but at no point does the TMO think "Oh, let's have a look at what happened there".
He looked, said there was no head contact. Just like the hit on Eskom, which might not have been direct head contact either like Pollard but Eskom also had the medics on afterwards and there was no attempt to wrap, it was a pure shoulder hit. As I say, the intent of the Italians were clear - they were going to hit us high. Lots of arms around necks as well throughout. Glad they got their asses beat by 14 men. Did themselves not an ounce of honour with that showing so they can go fuck themselves right along with the refs.
Not even close to attempting to wrap ... blatant shoulder charge in
I think Moodie was taken in the air...no sanction. Farce.
I think Moodie was taken in the air...no sanction. Farce.
Yep, as I said on the TASanalytics thread, ref goes "no foul play" on the Moodie tackle when the applicable law resides under Foul Play/Dangerous Play. Just nuts.
This is exactly why Rassie drew attention to the piss poor officiating during the Lions series
This is exactly why Rassie drew attention to the piss poor officiating during the Lions series
Yep, and more questions need to be asked publicly regarding the accuracy or consistency of these kind of decisions, if it ultimately leads to better refereeing in the long term.
Mpower
I said at least a yellow card. But in tha case it represents hear no evil, see no evil and allows a lot of evil.
Yes I see, sorry a misunderstanding from my side.
Not too long ago those would be counted has normal tackles.
Remember how this Samoans use to tackle our players, proper close lines.
None of them should be cards in my opinion. Yes, Marco got a stinger on top of his should shoulders, but that is why you work those muscles in the gym.
Nah I can't agree with that, KC. All are shoulder action, the closest to an attempt at a wrap is the Pollard tackle, so all should at least be a penalty. I can maybe overlook the Pollard tackle but I've also seen another angle of that where it looks like direct head contact.
I don't have a problem with the height of the above tackles as such as long as they're 1) proper tackles, not shoulders, 2) don't make direct head contact and 3) as long as they're dealt with equally. In other words one isn't red carded and another ignored. No problem with a proper dominant tackle.
We definitely don't need Islander clothes lines in the game though.
Look at almost every tackle made in a goal line stand and tell me that World Rugbys law changes around head contact make any difference.
Absolutely ridiculous decision and honestly if this was a cricket match there would be investigations into match fixing.
Good point on the goal line defense Xavi. I see Stokke is saying the ref had to make 21 decisions in the first half, 20 went against the Boks if I understood it correctly.