The still image you used in this video of ALB making the tackle from which he was yellow carded shows how much knee bend there was to get low and the angle of his torso being around 45 degrees would suggest that he wasn't upright in the tackle. The referee had already stated in this game that head on head contact is not always foul play, and this is an example of that.
Rule should be if a player leads with the head aka does the upside down v running into contact then they if they get hit in the head it's they're fault
That is true but the referee decided it was a yellow. It might have been a marginal call but he decided it was yellow. He also decided the second offence was a yellow. He then decided to yellow him for the first offence and say the second didn’t count because he should have stopped the game for the first offence and therefore the second should not have happened. I think under the guidelines the decision is fine. However if the offences occurred in reverse order he might have made a different decision. In that case the second offence would have been for foul play and in those circumstances the laws are clear play having been stopped (or should have been stopped) is irrelevant so two yellows would be given and converted to a red.
imho opinion, the 20 minute red card is to deal with the symptoms of some Laws not quite matching the dynamism of the modern game. I think the Laws have left players exposed to cards not for their actions, but for their inability to react in time, e.g. if you have a Garryowen coming down right on top of you, your eye line is in the sky watching the ball. Then an opposing player leaps high and clatters into you. You won't see them until too late, and if they fall awkwardly you receive a yellow card. Because you failed to react in time. The Laws need to start targeting the player who acted, in this example leaping into a situation where an opponent has to catch you and safely bring you to ground would result in a card against the leaper. Would have loved it if Nigel had discussed Maro Itoje's apparent deliberate killing of the ball in a ruck directly in front of the posts. What thought processes do referees go through when a team hasn't been penalized for a while then perform a cynical action.
Nice to hear him say something is wrong as he has previously stuck to the World Rugby script. Only problem is that on this occasion the ref was 100% right, one hand stretched out and not in any real chance of catching that ball
I do like the 20-minute red card. Too often, when a player receives a red card early in the match, it has had an outsize impact on the game. Though I was supporting South Africa in the 2023 RWC final, I would have preferred to see New Zealand able to replace Sam Caine after 20 minutes (though in that instance, the red card actually seemed to galvanize the Kiwis, and they may have stepped up their play…..but a 20-minute substitution may have removed an irritating talking point). Glad to see it in the current URC campaign and on trial in the autumn internationals; I think it’s good for the game.
Re the AB tackles off the ball. Were they tackles or was the tackler ran into by the opposition, in that case the AB is allowed to hold their ground. If someone runs into you, you need to tense as if to tackle or you are going to be hurt. Take it a little further all your tackle reflexes come into play and if you do not carry it out in a legal tackle manner you could be red carded. This was a border line call by the ref one that put the ABs in a no win situation, as was stated there was nothing sonically about their actions.
At 2:14 with the still of Sam Cane tackling Cunningham-South off the ball shows that Cunningham-South is in front of the Ball Carrier, Jamie George, clearly indicating that Cunningham-South was not in a position to receive the ball and indeed was running a Blocking Line helping to prevent Jamie George from being tackled by Cane. In fact, in this still, Jamie George had Dummy Runners/Blockers either side of him. Cunningham-South was also tackled off the ball in a near identical situation in another incident if my memory serves me right so Cunningham-South had been training for this role. This use of a Dummy Runner/Blocker/Escort is a tactic used by many teams to draw Penalties/Warnings/Cards. If a Team defending sets up a wall and are pretty much static/standing still, why should they be automatically penalised for an ‘off the ball tackle’ when the Attacking Players running at speed/pace, in comparison, simply run into the tackler (sometimes ahead of the ball)? In these cases, the Dummy Runners/Blockers/Escorts are the instigator of the tackle. World Rugby needs to address this tactic like it has in stopping Escorts when defending an Arial Challenge (aka Box Kick). Watch Ireland do it this weekend as well. Ireland did it several times versus SA back in the June games.
Indeed. The English decoys were very, very good at crashing into tacklers, and good old ‘Gus fell for it more often than not. This cynical and blatant cheating needs to be taken out of the game!
@lovemysport7902 I told my partner as we were watching that that could and should have been called obstruction rather than a tackle off the ball. But once the referee has indicated how he is seeing it, it needs the players to adapt their actions and NZ didn't.
The law dictates once a player does not obstruct a player from attacking a ball carrier it is not obstruction. Good decoy/dummy running play should be rewarded, as to be very honest, defences are extremely strong in the modern game. This rewards good tackle selection and decision making from the defending point of view. If a team wants to beat these attacking plays they can either do it tactically, or through other means, we shouldn't be penalising the team for coming up with new plays and strategies that innovate differently to other teams. I mean we should be focusing on so many other issues that are slowing down the game such as caterpillar rucks and scrums that take minutes to complete.
@@lukedowling1300 Obstruction or not, you just can't have attacking players taking defenders out of the game and/or refs calling this "tackling a player without the ball" and penalising the defender! That, in my book, is not good decoy running, it's not within the laws, it's certainly not within the spirit of the game and should not be rewarded with a penalty and potentially 3 points.
In the recent AB XV vs Munster there was a try scored where the Munster player propelled himself over the line. Can you take a look? I don’t believe it should have been a try. Thank you. Love your show!
Hmmm I'm not so sure. I had a close look at this and it appeared he had momentum and reached and placed the ball. He was not clearly held in a tackle so was entitled to attempt to get to his feet without releasing the ball. Benefit of any doubt to the try scorer in this instance I believe.
With regards to the officials in the Sco vs Fiji game, one of the Scottish tries, I think it was Darcy Graham who went to do a Grubber/Chip Kick by dropping the ball onto his right foot. What followed was that he missed with his right foot, the ball bounced and the ball hit his left chin/foot which propelled the ball forward enabling him to regather & score. Should that have not been ruled as a Knock On/Lost Control as he didn't kick the ball with the intended foot & the ball touching the ground before contact?
@@andyedwards4386 I stand corrected. Cheers. But it was a very very fine touch with his right boot before the ball hit the ground but them are the rules... Cheers
Caleb Clarke the ref actively called on the field at the time as knock-on only. TMO then called the game back to there many phases later after advantage had been over. If it's a deliberate knock on penalty offense then it's a card offense.
Who'd be a referee?! Eyes everywhere, including in the back of the head and a forensic knowledge of the laws of the game, rivalling those of a first rank barrister's knowledge of the laws of the country. Add to that the stress involved in performing your function in front of a massive crowd which can turn hostile in an instant, plus the attempts by players to influence decisions and it takes a very special person to do the job. I take my hat off to those who take it upon themselves. Some are better at it than others, of course, but the game wouldn't function without them. Thanks for your insights too, Nigel. Iechyd da !
Question please Nigel? How do you expect refs will police the scrum and lineout formation time limit rule. Let's say some members of both teams are causing the delay, will the ref judge who is the main offender and rule accordingly?
@@WetSands i think it should be . Take Leinart brown on Saturday , he went and the England ball carrier already had his head down and forward and Brown was low but still hit in the head, On another podcast they brought this also up because all ball carriers put their heads down to get a penalty or maybe a rc for his team
@@WetSands With the rules as they are currently, on offense the very best thing to do for the best outcome for your team is to lead with your head. Safety be damned.
The problem know is that every ball carrier go in low and head down, so your tackler stand no chance basically to miss his head . if you look at the of borown ab vs england the ball carrier already put his up front
The 20 minute red card has been a massive improvement for Super Rugby, I just think it needs a different colour from the full red to ease confusion, especially if you're at the stadium and can't hear the ref explaining which one it is.
Hi Nigel, I've always wondered, if a player gets a yellow card for foul play and leaves the field then the TMO comes in with a knock on by the opposition predating the foul play does that yellow get recinded and the player allowed to come back on?
How about penalising a team that has players sitting on the ground for a 'breather'. It slows the game down and enables the 'unfit' players a chance to get their wind back. Ireland did this so many times against the All Blacks, and it stopped the momentum.
With regards to tries being disallowed for an earlier infringement, I totally agree but is the ruling always applied consistently? How many phases are the officials allowed to go back to check or can the TMO etc go back to the last restart regardless of the number of phases or duration of play? Does that ruling of phases/time depend upon the severity of the offence? Do you check for Knock Ons only 2 phases back whereas Foul Play is all the way back to the last restart? It just seems that between the Pundits, Commentators & the Officials, there is never the consistency of the ruling. Also in the old days, a deliberate Knock On was exactly that whereas these days any kind of touch to the ball by a defender is deemed as deliberate when in a lot of cases it is simply reactive. Yes, there are players who are cynical & have a lazy hand/arm in the tackle trying to get away with it but I feel for the players where there was no intention. There are even instances when an intercept is being attempted/juggled and they themselves are tackled to prevent them from regathering the ball & then get pinged for a deliberate knock on. Maybe a few tweaks to the rulings/interpretations/explanations to differentiate between Deliberate, Cynical, Reactionary & Genuine Attempt.
We know if ALB was South African World Rugby and SA would be getting stick from everyone because there's no RED but i understand now not all double yellow cards are reds and not all head contact tackles are red love these new rules. So much for 9:42
1st off thank you for your tremendous service to rugby. Please please don’t cal it the Allianz stadium. It’s Twickenham and will ALWAYS be known as Twickenham.
Hi Nigel, good to have you back, Agree with the Red card, depends on the out come for dangerous play your off and no replacement, final. On a less offence yes 20 mins and bring on a replacement player. Thanks Nigel, take care , Shaun from Wrexham, P.s the ( 30-3 ) does revert to a 6N game played on Saturday 16 March 2013 in Cardiff
With regards to the Anton Leinart-Brown ‘head on head’ tackle, looking at the still at 0:53, why wasn’t their mitigation that the Ball Carrier was dipping into the tackle? Looking at the still at 0:54, given that ALB was bent at the knees and hips, what more could he have done in that split/sub second to get lower? This scenario happens many times in other games be they International or Club so it is not just an issue in this instance but this is a good example. Using this as an example and the World Rugby guidelines/rules/laws about the ‘Tackle Line’ being down around the Sternum/Nipple area, shouldn’t there be an onus/responsibility of the Ball Carrier to present the ‘Tackle Area’ otherwise it makes lawful tackling near on impossible with the responsibility entirely on the Tackler. Could the Ball Carrier have stayed more upright to prevent Head contact? Being totally pedantic, you could say that the Ball Carrier loses all rights if they dip/lower their head at all but that would be an overkill so hopefully a compromise could be agreed upon. Instead of the Ball Carrier leading/charging with their head, it may encourage the Ball Carrier to pass the ball. It could become a game of Catch & Pass…
As ever best ever explanations ... plz start referee school ASAP bach ...we need on field lads like yourself ... happy farming , sorry about the budget
Is there someone watching the shot clock to police it? I watched a match not long ago where the kicker from one side went over the time for each kick, but nothing whatsoever was done?
OK, now show us replays of England players without the ball running into AB defenders in the hope that Angus is still with them, England players off their feet going for the ruck ball especially in the last few minutes, which if done by the ABs would have been penalised, Marcus Smith advancing offside and then failing to get back onside before his intercept, England forwards joining rucks from the side and ahead of the ball carrier…..you see I can review all these with slow motion replays days afterwards but none of it changes anything. Let it go folks.
I beg to slightly disagree with the positive effect of hearing the referee all over the stadium. More precisely speaking, I'm OK that it is good for the people in the stadium to hear the referee's comments, just as people watching TV broadcasts already can. BUT the problem I see is the way it is currently done....which makes the referee's comments much more difficult to properly hear.....by the TV audience (a lot of echo noise, plus the noise of the stadium audience). There should be a way to keep the referee's sound just the way it was.....for the TV audience, while still broadcasting it to the stadium.
New Zealand's taking out of players with out the ball WASN'T a trend IT WAS A DELIBARATE PLOY and TACTIC Employed through out the entire match Espically at the breakdown area here AB players where taking out opposition players 4-5 yards past the breakdown area Thus opening up space for runners to run into thru the breakdown Which the ABs exploited ruthlessly all match
I just hate the issue with players recieving yellow/ reviews for head contact! Its rugby. Players are different heights, different skillz on their feet how the heck are we catergorising foul people. Player mitigation from falling or tackler having to make a split decision to prevent a brake in the play? I mean kolbe and arendse are both under 5 foot. Are we going to mitigate how tall a player is? A penalty is all it needs to be. If its cynical like to prevent a try or late than i guess it should be a card.
"When a player is being cautioned and suspended for 10 minutes, the referee will show that player a yellow card. If that player later commits another yellow-card offence, the player must be sent off" Common sense should always be allowed to prevail. In this instance (Eng v NZ) the player would not have known he had incurred a yellow card for the first incident.
I get the reasoning for not giving a red for two yellows in that he wasn’t actually awarded the first yellow so theoretically, if he had received it, he might have been more cautious going forward. However on the other hand, he probably knew he was going off after that tackle so he had a free shot to commit another foul without it really changing anything. Yellow or red wouldn’t have mattered as there was like 5 min or so left in the game anyway.
Should Tele'a have still been on the field after the faild hia? I always thought it was like the blood replacement and if you have already been subbed then you went back off after the 10. It wouldn't have made a difference im just curious
Why a card that ruined a game. You punished a team and a player specially with the red card. The red card is a double punishment because he will suspend fot 2 till 3 games after find guilty. The 15 guy team will always have an advantage over 14 or less players team. Some of the red card punishments is ridiculous. Punish the guilty party not the team.
@Poweroftouch exactly💯💯💯💯look at the Fijian instance as a perfect example, and he ended up getting binned🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️it shouldn't even be a penalty, get rid off it.
Yes but the argument for having it is that at any time any defender can simply blatantly knock the ball forward for no other reason than preventing the attacking team from having the ball.
@@clarke1319that's just good defending if you have the IQ to rush up and stop an overlap the players can still throw a high pass over the players head it's a stupid rule that makes it a 50/50 chance when going for an intercept whether you get a intercept or a card
Couple things. Barrett should have been carded for deliberate knock-on, how Gardner and now Owens think it wasn't or was 50:50 is wrong and a cop out. Yellow for tacklig off ball, NZ did it 4 times before Gardner even mentioned it. Poor and far too lenient. Other opinions available....
I would hope that if a Player needs Medical Attention then the officials would stop the clock. Once the situation has been resolved, it would be up to the Ref's discretion whether to continue with the Scrum/Lineout Clock as it was or to reset it back to the 30 secs.
Don't like the 20-minute red card at all. The few times I've seen it in games so far, the team should have been down to 14 players for the rest of the match for sure. It seemed like a light slap on the wrist for quite serious offences.
Either way Rugby is a dying sport trying to please everyone, Rugby League is gaining momentum which could replace Rugby Union in the next decade while we still debating which card is right or wrong,fans want to see Rugby like UFC or Gladiators pitch all swinging and fighting and leave everything on the pitch,shake hands and off to the pub for a pint and a laugh.
20min RC is a nonsense. Bunker is ridiculous. Ref is in charge of the game, nobody else. TMO is an assistant. 30s to get scrum & lineout formed, didn't say no wibbly-wobbly moving around in the lineout, did it?. Nobody mentioned ball coming in time....... Rule is (and it is a penalty according to the big red book), front rows engage, ball goes in straight and there is a contest. It is really easy to refereee. The scrum rule has been ignored for too long, it cannot be rescued - our sport ruined
It won't take long before someone finds a way to beat the 20-minute red card rule. Perhaps by putting a less capable/experienced player in for the first 20 minutes before they commit a foul and get a red card and then for the second half bring on a more capable/experienced player. I think red should mean the loss of a player for the remainder of the game.
@@JohnTerblanche-l1r The data is pretty cut and dry; losing a man for ten minutes costs you points and fatigue. Losing a man for 20 minutes basically means you start at least a converted try down, of not more. Stupid to think teams would willingly do that to gain the advantage lol
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Not sure this is quite the same category haha Unless you're suggesting the loophole to having 14 men is sneaking one back one while the ref isn't looking...
Not for two yellows but the head contact had no mitigation (according to little old neutral me) so that should be upgraded by the bunker. I don't know if it was or not and I can't find anything on the outcome so I may be speaking prematurely here. Also, Caleb Clarke should definitely have been yellow carded for that given the cynical nature of the move and the fact that the team had been on a warning since the 30th minute already.
@@Karma-qt4jiyes agreed, itoje and earls should have both been carded as well. Itoje for a cynical hand in the ruck on the try line and ben earls for a dangerous leg breaking no arms tackle. Such is rugby though....who would want to be a ref.
20 minute red card rule is ridiculous. Madness by world rugby, pandering to neanderthal types in the southern hemisphere. Whatever about letting very real risk of brain damage faced by players persist, which is very wrong, if world rugby can't change the game enough to convince parents that their children taking it up aren't at undue risk then no one will be playing the game in 25 years. All the nations cups and expanded RWC tables and so on won't matter a bit. 20 min red card is a retrograde step that sends completely the wrong message. Change the laws on tackle height and get rid of this mitigation guff, and they'd all learn to tackle at the ankles again soon enough. And we might even get a few more offloads at the same time.
You're clearly someone who's never played rugby... I was a fullback, and the only time I was ever concussed in a game was tackling around thigh height and copping a thigh to my head. Lowering tackle height to extremes might save the ball carrier but endanger the tackler more. We also don't want games ruined with red cards because of accidents, for example Sam Cane in the world cup final. Players change direction in a split second, and reactions happen off balance. No player would intentionally hit his own head into another players head, therefore head clashes are accidental and shouldn't cost a team a world cup. FYI full red cards are still a thing for egregious acts. The 20min red card is just there for accidental head clashes so the game (or world cup) isn't ruined for fans
@MattCraig1 I played plenty of rugby in the front row for years. Why do you think I follow this channel? Because I'm a hockey fan? Ask Alix Popham and all the rest about the consequences of their concussions. And it's about messaging. I know dozens of parents in my circle who won't let their children near a rugby club for fear of serious head injury (justified or not at that level). And so the game diminishes, fewer people playing, and those children miss out on the opportunity to experience the good things rugby teaches us. We have to show those parents that we do take the health of players seriously, we've responded to the scores of players who have been diagnosed with various brain problems as a result of head contact, and that response has been changing the laws to reflect that. The headline of "20 minute red cards" does the exact opposite of that. And, as you're such an experienced full back, you certainly know yourself that there is always a risk/reward calculation: What's the risk of a card versus the reward if I get away with this? Players will be working the odds of this 20 minute red card thing within a season, it will end up another mess with a quasi legal forum on the pitch which is exactly what they're trying to avoid. Change the laws, no tackles above the base of the sternum at any level, black and white. A few games of pain while players get used to it, but will eventually be for the better and the safety of all.
@@the5th2000 you're right, it does send the wrong message when the headline just reads "20min red card". We've had it trialled in southern hemisphere for a couple of seasons now. They should probably call it an orange card, because it sits between the 10min yellow and the rest of the match red which still exists for deliberate acts. Like you say, risk/reward, a player making a deliberate high shot to take out an opponent still cops a red for the rest of the match. Its the head clashes and accidents that happen that shouldn't decide an outcome of a match that now get an "orange" card. The player is still punished for the rest of the match, but his teammates (and fans) don't suffer so much because he can be replaced after 20.
The still image you used in this video of ALB making the tackle from which he was yellow carded shows how much knee bend there was to get low and the angle of his torso being around 45 degrees would suggest that he wasn't upright in the tackle. The referee had already stated in this game that head on head contact is not always foul play, and this is an example of that.
Brown should of been red carded
@@TheFreddyKruegerFan99 lol sour grapes
Rule should be if a player leads with the head aka does the upside down v running into contact then they if they get hit in the head it's they're fault
@@TheFreddyKruegerFan99should HAVE - not of
That is true but the referee decided it was a yellow. It might have been a marginal call but he decided it was yellow.
He also decided the second offence was a yellow. He then decided to yellow him for the first offence and say the second didn’t count because he should have stopped the game for the first offence and therefore the second should not have happened. I think under the guidelines the decision is fine.
However if the offences occurred in reverse order he might have made a different decision. In that case the second offence would have been for foul play and in those circumstances the laws are clear play having been stopped (or should have been stopped) is irrelevant so two yellows would be given and converted to a red.
imho opinion, the 20 minute red card is to deal with the symptoms of some Laws not quite matching the dynamism of the modern game. I think the Laws have left players exposed to cards not for their actions, but for their inability to react in time, e.g. if you have a Garryowen coming down right on top of you, your eye line is in the sky watching the ball. Then an opposing player leaps high and clatters into you. You won't see them until too late, and if they fall awkwardly you receive a yellow card. Because you failed to react in time. The Laws need to start targeting the player who acted, in this example leaping into a situation where an opponent has to catch you and safely bring you to ground would result in a card against the leaper.
Would have loved it if Nigel had discussed Maro Itoje's apparent deliberate killing of the ball in a ruck directly in front of the posts. What thought processes do referees go through when a team hasn't been penalized for a while then perform a cynical action.
How in the world can you say that ALB was in an upright position. He clearly was crouched and low.
His upper body is almost straight up.. should be parallel with the ground
@@dougbruce1555no it isnt. His head is up. As any good defense coach will tell you it should be.
I thought it was harsh, imho just an unfortunate rugby collision
Would love to hang out with this great man and chat rugby.
wow.. great to hear Nigel actually stating that a decision was wrong and not just sitting on the fence
Welcome to team Nigel, that’s how he does.
Nice to hear him say something is wrong as he has previously stuck to the World Rugby script. Only problem is that on this occasion the ref was 100% right, one hand stretched out and not in any real chance of catching that ball
I do like the 20-minute red card. Too often, when a player receives a red card early in the match, it has had an outsize impact on the game. Though I was supporting South Africa in the 2023 RWC final, I would have preferred to see New Zealand able to replace Sam Caine after 20 minutes (though in that instance, the red card actually seemed to galvanize the Kiwis, and they may have stepped up their play…..but a 20-minute substitution may have removed an irritating talking point). Glad to see it in the current URC campaign and on trial in the autumn internationals; I think it’s good for the game.
You would have preferred to have lost?
@@ruairiodonohoe2533 its not a given that they would of lost. And he appears to be a true fan of the game who puts principle over selfishness and bias
@ Hahaha. Losing wasn’t an option. They played better a man down over long stretches of the match.
The 20 Minute Red Card is an LOB.
Re the AB tackles off the ball. Were they tackles or was the tackler ran into by the opposition, in that case the AB is allowed to hold their ground. If someone runs into you, you need to tense as if to tackle or you are going to be hurt. Take it a little further all your tackle reflexes come into play and if you do not carry it out in a legal tackle manner you could be red carded. This was a border line call by the ref one that put the ABs in a no win situation, as was stated there was nothing sonically about their actions.
Great to have u back!
This explanation would be more helpful and clear if world rugby was allowed to play video replay of the penalties in question.
Did no one else see the no arms tackle on furbank after the deliberate knock on?
How do you keep your tractor so clean? Taranaki NZ
its all for show
@@JohnCoplestone not use it
At 2:14 with the still of Sam Cane tackling Cunningham-South off the ball shows that Cunningham-South is in front of the Ball Carrier, Jamie George, clearly indicating that Cunningham-South was not in a position to receive the ball and indeed was running a Blocking Line helping to prevent Jamie George from being tackled by Cane. In fact, in this still, Jamie George had Dummy Runners/Blockers either side of him.
Cunningham-South was also tackled off the ball in a near identical situation in another incident if my memory serves me right so Cunningham-South had been training for this role.
This use of a Dummy Runner/Blocker/Escort is a tactic used by many teams to draw Penalties/Warnings/Cards. If a Team defending sets up a wall and are pretty much static/standing still, why should they be automatically penalised for an ‘off the ball tackle’ when the Attacking Players running at speed/pace, in comparison, simply run into the tackler (sometimes ahead of the ball)? In these cases, the Dummy Runners/Blockers/Escorts are the instigator of the tackle. World Rugby needs to address this tactic like it has in stopping Escorts when defending an Arial Challenge (aka Box Kick).
Watch Ireland do it this weekend as well. Ireland did it several times versus SA back in the June games.
Indeed. The English decoys were very, very good at crashing into tacklers, and good old ‘Gus fell for it more often than not. This cynical and blatant cheating needs to be taken out of the game!
@lovemysport7902 I told my partner as we were watching that that could and should have been called obstruction rather than a tackle off the ball. But once the referee has indicated how he is seeing it, it needs the players to adapt their actions and NZ didn't.
The law dictates once a player does not obstruct a player from attacking a ball carrier it is not obstruction. Good decoy/dummy running play should be rewarded, as to be very honest, defences are extremely strong in the modern game. This rewards good tackle selection and decision making from the defending point of view. If a team wants to beat these attacking plays they can either do it tactically, or through other means, we shouldn't be penalising the team for coming up with new plays and strategies that innovate differently to other teams. I mean we should be focusing on so many other issues that are slowing down the game such as caterpillar rucks and scrums that take minutes to complete.
@@lukedowling1300 Obstruction or not, you just can't have attacking players taking defenders out of the game and/or refs calling this "tackling a player without the ball" and penalising the defender!
That, in my book, is not good decoy running, it's not within the laws, it's certainly not within the spirit of the game and should not be rewarded with a penalty and potentially 3 points.
In the recent AB XV vs Munster there was a try scored where the Munster player propelled himself over the line. Can you take a look? I don’t believe it should have been a try. Thank you. Love your show!
Hmmm I'm not so sure. I had a close look at this and it appeared he had momentum and reached and placed the ball. He was not clearly held in a tackle so was entitled to attempt to get to his feet without releasing the ball. Benefit of any doubt to the try scorer in this instance I believe.
He crawled on his knees mate @@clarke1319 he's allowed to reach out but not crawl on his hands and knees
@@clarke1319 The guy who was crawling across the ground for 2 metres?
The G.O.A.T giving some good FACTS. We miss u Mr Owen.
Is this going to be presented by Nigel permanently? It hinges on me subscribing 🤣 got to support a fellow Welshman
With regards to the officials in the Sco vs Fiji game, one of the Scottish tries, I think it was Darcy Graham who went to do a Grubber/Chip Kick by dropping the ball onto his right foot. What followed was that he missed with his right foot, the ball bounced and the ball hit his left chin/foot which propelled the ball forward enabling him to regather & score. Should that have not been ruled as a Knock On/Lost Control as he didn't kick the ball with the intended foot & the ball touching the ground before contact?
He touched the ball with his right foot if you watch it back
@@andyedwards4386 I stand corrected. Cheers. But it was a very very fine touch with his right boot before the ball hit the ground but them are the rules... Cheers
Caleb Clarke the ref actively called on the field at the time as knock-on only. TMO then called the game back to there many phases later after advantage had been over. If it's a deliberate knock on penalty offense then it's a card offense.
Who'd be a referee?! Eyes everywhere, including in the back of the head and a forensic knowledge of the laws of the game, rivalling those of a first rank barrister's knowledge of the laws of the country. Add to that the stress involved in performing your function in front of a massive crowd which can turn hostile in an instant, plus the attempts by players to influence decisions and it takes a very special person to do the job. I take my hat off to those who take it upon themselves. Some are better at it than others, of course, but the game wouldn't function without them.
Thanks for your insights too, Nigel.
Iechyd da !
Question please Nigel? How do you expect refs will police the scrum and lineout formation time limit rule. Let's say some members of both teams are causing the delay, will the ref judge who is the main offender and rule accordingly?
Hi Nigel, Is it possible for the ball carrier to be guilty of head to head contact? Cheers, Pip NZ.
Great question……..it should be!
No, and it shouldn't be, it is the tackler's responsibility to be in a safe tackling position.
@@WetSands i think it should be . Take Leinart brown on Saturday , he went and the England ball carrier already had his head down and forward and Brown was low but still hit in the head, On another podcast they brought this also up because all ball carriers put their heads down to get a penalty or maybe a rc for his team
@@WetSands With the rules as they are currently, on offense the very best thing to do for the best outcome for your team is to lead with your head. Safety be damned.
@@axxey That's such a stupid comment...
The problem know is that every ball carrier go in low and head down, so your tackler stand no chance basically to miss his head . if you look at the of borown ab vs england the ball carrier already put his up front
The 20 minute red card has been a massive improvement for Super Rugby, I just think it needs a different colour from the full red to ease confusion, especially if you're at the stadium and can't hear the ref explaining which one it is.
Agree totally with the 20-minute red card.
Always leave a gate the way you found it, Nigel, closed or open.
Hi Nigel, I've always wondered, if a player gets a yellow card for foul play and leaves the field then the TMO comes in with a knock on by the opposition predating the foul play does that yellow get recinded and the player allowed to come back on?
I think foul play supersedes a knock on. Meaning yellow card stands & penalty to the opposing team
How about penalising a team that has players sitting on the ground for a 'breather'. It slows the game down and enables the 'unfit' players a chance to get their wind back. Ireland did this so many times against the All Blacks, and it stopped the momentum.
I couldn't decide if the tactical medic and water boy flood was an Irish or SA creation, both do it like mad in the last 2 years.
@@axxey SA use it to best effect.
They are the best at appealing for TMO reviews also.
This is so awesome! Love it!
With regards to tries being disallowed for an earlier infringement, I totally agree but is the ruling always applied consistently? How many phases are the officials allowed to go back to check or can the TMO etc go back to the last restart regardless of the number of phases or duration of play? Does that ruling of phases/time depend upon the severity of the offence? Do you check for Knock Ons only 2 phases back whereas Foul Play is all the way back to the last restart? It just seems that between the Pundits, Commentators & the Officials, there is never the consistency of the ruling.
Also in the old days, a deliberate Knock On was exactly that whereas these days any kind of touch to the ball by a defender is deemed as deliberate when in a lot of cases it is simply reactive. Yes, there are players who are cynical & have a lazy hand/arm in the tackle trying to get away with it but I feel for the players where there was no intention. There are even instances when an intercept is being attempted/juggled and they themselves are tackled to prevent them from regathering the ball & then get pinged for a deliberate knock on. Maybe a few tweaks to the rulings/interpretations/explanations to differentiate between Deliberate, Cynical, Reactionary & Genuine Attempt.
Hey Nigel, what are your 'socials' that we can send questions/comments to other than via these RUclips Comments?
We know if ALB was South African World Rugby and SA would be getting stick from everyone because there's no RED but i understand now not all double yellow cards are reds and not all head contact tackles are red love these new rules. So much for 9:42
haven't watched the video - but the answer is NO. Ridiculous card with both players low.
1st off thank you for your tremendous service to rugby.
Please please don’t cal it the Allianz stadium. It’s Twickenham and will ALWAYS be known as Twickenham.
No should have just been a Yellow card for Mitigation, Angus Gardner is a great Ref to have does make the odd mistake but he is always fair.
Hi Nigel, good to have you back, Agree with the Red card, depends on the out come for dangerous play your off and no replacement, final. On a less offence yes 20 mins and bring on a replacement player. Thanks Nigel, take care , Shaun from Wrexham, P.s the ( 30-3 ) does revert to a 6N game played on Saturday 16 March 2013 in Cardiff
With regards to the Anton Leinart-Brown ‘head on head’ tackle, looking at the still at 0:53, why wasn’t their mitigation that the Ball Carrier was dipping into the tackle?
Looking at the still at 0:54, given that ALB was bent at the knees and hips, what more could he have done in that split/sub second to get lower?
This scenario happens many times in other games be they International or Club so it is not just an issue in this instance but this is a good example.
Using this as an example and the World Rugby guidelines/rules/laws about the ‘Tackle Line’ being down around the Sternum/Nipple area, shouldn’t there be an onus/responsibility of the Ball Carrier to present the ‘Tackle Area’ otherwise it makes lawful tackling near on impossible with the responsibility entirely on the Tackler.
Could the Ball Carrier have stayed more upright to prevent Head contact? Being totally pedantic, you could say that the Ball Carrier loses all rights if they dip/lower their head at all but that would be an overkill so hopefully a compromise could be agreed upon.
Instead of the Ball Carrier leading/charging with their head, it may encourage the Ball Carrier to pass the ball. It could become a game of Catch & Pass…
What Tractor is that ? Looks a bit better than our 50 yr old Landini 😅
As ever best ever explanations ... plz start referee school ASAP bach ...we need on field lads like yourself ... happy farming , sorry about the budget
Not upright though. Both bent and made head contact. - that was the mitigation for me..
Is there someone watching the shot clock to police it? I watched a match not long ago where the kicker from one side went over the time for each kick, but nothing whatsoever was done?
Presumably the referee delegates this task to the designated time keepers.
What a referee he was! Good content World Rugby. This is another typical example of the New Zealand side's indiscipline.
Im an England fan, and I thought the refereeing was as near to perfect as you'll get in a fast, complex game like rugby
OK, now show us replays of England players without the ball running into AB defenders in the hope that Angus is still with them, England players off their feet going for the ruck ball especially in the last few minutes, which if done by the ABs would have been penalised, Marcus Smith advancing offside and then failing to get back onside before his intercept, England forwards joining rucks from the side and ahead of the ball carrier…..you see I can review all these with slow motion replays days afterwards but none of it changes anything. Let it go folks.
Union used to such a great game.
I beg to slightly disagree with the positive effect of hearing the referee all over the stadium. More precisely speaking, I'm OK that it is good for the people in the stadium to hear the referee's comments, just as people watching TV broadcasts already can. BUT the problem I see is the way it is currently done....which makes the referee's comments much more difficult to properly hear.....by the TV audience (a lot of echo noise, plus the noise of the stadium audience). There should be a way to keep the referee's sound just the way it was.....for the TV audience, while still broadcasting it to the stadium.
The legend is back😊
New Zealand's taking out of players with out the ball WASN'T a trend IT WAS A DELIBARATE PLOY and TACTIC Employed through out the entire match Espically at the breakdown area here AB players where taking out opposition players 4-5 yards past the breakdown area Thus opening up space for runners to run into thru the breakdown Which the ABs exploited ruthlessly all match
I just hate the issue with players recieving yellow/ reviews for head contact! Its rugby.
Players are different heights, different skillz on their feet how the heck are we catergorising foul people. Player mitigation from falling or tackler having to make a split decision to prevent a brake in the play? I mean kolbe and arendse are both under 5 foot. Are we going to mitigate how tall a player is?
A penalty is all it needs to be. If its cynical like to prevent a try or late than i guess it should be a card.
Red card Needs to stay a red card. Stop trying to make TV happy. This is the game we love.
Scrum and line out clock - yes.
Two different red cards -no. It will only confuse fans and will not help to grow the game.
Have they got rid of Law 9.29? That says that a player who has had a yellow card and commits another yellow card offence he *must* be sent off.
The game stopped at the first infringement, so the 2nd yellow wasn’t actually awarded. No red.
"When a player is being cautioned and suspended for 10 minutes, the referee will show that player a yellow card. If that player later commits another yellow-card offence, the player must be sent off"
Common sense should always be allowed to prevail. In this instance (Eng v NZ) the player would not have known he had incurred a yellow card for the first incident.
I get the reasoning for not giving a red for two yellows in that he wasn’t actually awarded the first yellow so theoretically, if he had received it, he might have been more cautious going forward. However on the other hand, he probably knew he was going off after that tackle so he had a free shot to commit another foul without it really changing anything. Yellow or red wouldn’t have mattered as there was like 5 min or so left in the game anyway.
@@clarke1319 he didn’t go off for 10 mins as a result of the first yellow did he.
@@ObiePaddles Yes agree. That's my point.
Is it just me or does the Welsh accent sound similar to the I didn't accent?
Should Tele'a have still been on the field after the faild hia? I always thought it was like the blood replacement and if you have already been subbed then you went back off after the 10. It wouldn't have made a difference im just curious
Why a card that ruined a game. You punished a team and a player specially with the red card. The red card is a double punishment because he will suspend fot 2 till 3 games after find guilty. The 15 guy team will always have an advantage over 14 or less players team. Some of the red card punishments is ridiculous. Punish the guilty party not the team.
What do lines men never say or do anything
Yellow card for deliberate knock on is the SILLIEST law in our game🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️no wonder the game is going down hill.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF RUGBY
@Poweroftouch exactly💯💯💯💯look at the Fijian instance as a perfect example, and he ended up getting binned🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️it shouldn't even be a penalty, get rid off it.
Yes but the argument for having it is that at any time any defender can simply blatantly knock the ball forward for no other reason than preventing the attacking team from having the ball.
Totally agree. They don't have it in rugby league and just removes the issue completely
@@clarke1319that's just good defending if you have the IQ to rush up and stop an overlap the players can still throw a high pass over the players head it's a stupid rule that makes it a 50/50 chance when going for an intercept whether you get a intercept or a card
Why are the refs not blowing up for a crooked put in especially as the rules were re-enforced to make that happen
A red card is a sending off and the team will suffer down to 14 players
Close that gate, Nigel! This is a farm!
Does world rugby know that it has access to its own footage?
😂
Who said WR owns the footage. It's not their tournament. The matches were Eng/NZ - Scot/Fiji.
Unrelated comment: the photoshopped fist on the thumbnail of the vid is waaay off
I disagree twenty minutes red card, because It Is not dissuasive against not disciplinated players.
Couple things. Barrett should have been carded for deliberate knock-on, how Gardner and now Owens think it wasn't or was 50:50 is wrong and a cop out. Yellow for tacklig off ball, NZ did it 4 times before Gardner even mentioned it. Poor and far too lenient. Other opinions available....
A different colour card would have been okay. Start at yellow with 10min, orange at 20min, red early shower.
The ref missed a number of things including the deliberate knock on that did not get a yellow
How will the scrum clock work with regard a prop or hooker decides he or she or it needs medical attention? Same with lineouts?
I would hope that if a Player needs Medical Attention then the officials would stop the clock. Once the situation has been resolved, it would be up to the Ref's discretion whether to continue with the Scrum/Lineout Clock as it was or to reset it back to the 30 secs.
@@lovemysport7902 I am sure that is what we would all want but am equally sure that certain teams such as will take liberties.
British rugby eh? have always preferred to play the rules rather than the game! Look at the stats they will prove it.
Hi
Don't like the 20-minute red card at all. The few times I've seen it in games so far, the team should have been down to 14 players for the rest of the match for sure. It seemed like a light slap on the wrist for quite serious offences.
Either way Rugby is a dying sport trying to please everyone, Rugby League is gaining momentum which could replace Rugby Union in the next decade while we still debating which card is right or wrong,fans want to see Rugby like UFC or Gladiators pitch all swinging and fighting and leave everything on the pitch,shake hands and off to the pub for a pint and a laugh.
20min RC is a nonsense. Bunker is ridiculous. Ref is in charge of the game, nobody else. TMO is an assistant. 30s to get scrum & lineout formed, didn't say no wibbly-wobbly moving around in the lineout, did it?. Nobody mentioned ball coming in time....... Rule is (and it is a penalty according to the big red book), front rows engage, ball goes in straight and there is a contest. It is really easy to refereee. The scrum rule has been ignored for too long, it cannot be rescued - our sport ruined
It's time that England only plays touch rugby. They can only complain. Boooooo
It won't take long before someone finds a way to beat the 20-minute red card rule. Perhaps by putting a less capable/experienced player in for the first 20 minutes before they commit a foul and get a red card and then for the second half bring on a more capable/experienced player. I think red should mean the loss of a player for the remainder of the game.
Good luck playing with max 14 men for the first 20 minutes. In an international game of fine margins, that would be a death-blow.
@@toma411not necessarily because the players raise the standard, but with running rugby being more common I would lean toward your statement
@@JohnTerblanche-l1r The data is pretty cut and dry; losing a man for ten minutes costs you points and fatigue. Losing a man for 20 minutes basically means you start at least a converted try down, of not more. Stupid to think teams would willingly do that to gain the advantage lol
@toma411 the laws on kicks had to be changed after a player found the loop hole. So anything is possible.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Not sure this is quite the same category haha
Unless you're suggesting the loophole to having 14 men is sneaking one back one while the ref isn't looking...
Yes he should have had a red
Not for two yellows but the head contact had no mitigation (according to little old neutral me) so that should be upgraded by the bunker. I don't know if it was or not and I can't find anything on the outcome so I may be speaking prematurely here.
Also, Caleb Clarke should definitely have been yellow carded for that given the cynical nature of the move and the fact that the team had been on a warning since the 30th minute already.
@@Karma-qt4jiyes agreed, itoje and earls should have both been carded as well. Itoje for a cynical hand in the ruck on the try line and ben earls for a dangerous leg breaking no arms tackle. Such is rugby though....who would want to be a ref.
20 minute red card rule is ridiculous. Madness by world rugby, pandering to neanderthal types in the southern hemisphere. Whatever about letting very real risk of brain damage faced by players persist, which is very wrong, if world rugby can't change the game enough to convince parents that their children taking it up aren't at undue risk then no one will be playing the game in 25 years. All the nations cups and expanded RWC tables and so on won't matter a bit. 20 min red card is a retrograde step that sends completely the wrong message. Change the laws on tackle height and get rid of this mitigation guff, and they'd all learn to tackle at the ankles again soon enough. And we might even get a few more offloads at the same time.
You're clearly someone who's never played rugby... I was a fullback, and the only time I was ever concussed in a game was tackling around thigh height and copping a thigh to my head. Lowering tackle height to extremes might save the ball carrier but endanger the tackler more.
We also don't want games ruined with red cards because of accidents, for example Sam Cane in the world cup final. Players change direction in a split second, and reactions happen off balance. No player would intentionally hit his own head into another players head, therefore head clashes are accidental and shouldn't cost a team a world cup.
FYI full red cards are still a thing for egregious acts. The 20min red card is just there for accidental head clashes so the game (or world cup) isn't ruined for fans
@MattCraig1 I played plenty of rugby in the front row for years. Why do you think I follow this channel? Because I'm a hockey fan? Ask Alix Popham and all the rest about the consequences of their concussions. And it's about messaging. I know dozens of parents in my circle who won't let their children near a rugby club for fear of serious head injury (justified or not at that level). And so the game diminishes, fewer people playing, and those children miss out on the opportunity to experience the good things rugby teaches us. We have to show those parents that we do take the health of players seriously, we've responded to the scores of players who have been diagnosed with various brain problems as a result of head contact, and that response has been changing the laws to reflect that. The headline of "20 minute red cards" does the exact opposite of that.
And, as you're such an experienced full back, you certainly know yourself that there is always a risk/reward calculation: What's the risk of a card versus the reward if I get away with this? Players will be working the odds of this 20 minute red card thing within a season, it will end up another mess with a quasi legal forum on the pitch which is exactly what they're trying to avoid. Change the laws, no tackles above the base of the sternum at any level, black and white. A few games of pain while players get used to it, but will eventually be for the better and the safety of all.
@@the5th2000 you're right, it does send the wrong message when the headline just reads "20min red card". We've had it trialled in southern hemisphere for a couple of seasons now. They should probably call it an orange card, because it sits between the 10min yellow and the rest of the match red which still exists for deliberate acts. Like you say, risk/reward, a player making a deliberate high shot to take out an opponent still cops a red for the rest of the match. Its the head clashes and accidents that happen that shouldn't decide an outcome of a match that now get an "orange" card. The player is still punished for the rest of the match, but his teammates (and fans) don't suffer so much because he can be replaced after 20.