I agree. Considering the cleaners are coming in at speed and they don't have much time to pick their target and the SA 9 clearly prevented them from targeting under the chest of the jackler and altered their hit path. I would go so far to say that the jackler was also close to being off his feet and head and shoulders was lower than the body of the SA 9 and his legs were splayed (very dangerous position at a ruck). So basically the cleaners could not execute the clean out legally and as a result of the SA9 illegal position had to attempt to grab the sides of the jackler. This resulted in a them falling on his spread out legs (again dangerous by the jackler). This was completely accidental and was predicated by the SA9 illegal position. A crock roll is completely different as the player latches onto the back and then rolls the player out. I find it very interesting that Refs are now so against the crock roll and I wonder why they allowed it for so long when it is against the law book(deliberately going to ground at a ruck). I would like to know what directive was given by world rugby to the Refs to ignore a dangerous play invented by top coaches. I am suprised Bothma isn't asking that question now his career has been ruined.
Also a Bok fan. I expected the yellow (and am happy with that) but a red card seems way to harsh. What I don't get is that this is a red card, but in the Welsh game one head contact was red and the other was yellow? If we are grading the degree of danger, how is the crock roll a higher degree than a shoulder direct to the head of a player standing on his side of a tackle? I simply do not understand what WR is trying to achieve here and the inconsistency in application from game to game, or even within the same game, is what is leaving us fans confused and frustrated.
Croc role is the worst, even more devastating than a high tackle. The 'twist' and especially the following 'fall' forcing the knee cap inwards is being taken extremely serious under new laws. In this case the carded player was deemed worse than the one who did the actual 'twist' because the injuries are caused by the 'fall', a joint under twisted tension and added weight is what causes injuries not the tension alone. He was obstructed yes. But he still chose to fall on his leg, why didnt he grab a leg and arm and drive Mostert up and over at an angle? Or why didnt he try and grab both arms away from the ball, at the angle he was standing he was in reaching distance? At most rucks there is a player in the way sometimes, doesnt mean you should grab a jackler by the shoulder and lazily just fall on his leg? He was panicked and made the wrong split second decision, the least he couldve done was not fall on jacklers leg because that's how the injuries occur and a pro rugby player should know better by now, they are marked at very high standards. WR have told this to them for months.
Why is the player on the receiving end of head contact not taken off for HIA immediately? The offender always rightfully gets carded but what does that do for the health of the other player ?
That's the reason you see the team doctor gets on the field immediately as that happens to assess if it's just a huge knock only that took a player down and nothing more needs to be done or have a reason to take him off if the player is fine after the knock.
Good comment. That said, the HIA does happen at times as we saw Barret and Taylor both unable to play last Saturday due to an HIA. So there are times where the players are removed but it is strange that after a red card hit, we don't automatically see that.
As a South African I was disgusted with that red card. My opinion is that the seriousness of the offense did not justify a red card. What is rugby coming to?
You need to understand that this movement tears the ACL in knee ligament. As with Bongi in the world cup. Hope that helps your understanding of the the red.
@@seangouws2535 I have also seen Jacques Olivier and Andre Snyman break legs due to a normal tackle. Countless other people have snapped ACL, just being tackled. You could snap and ACL just sidestepping. If this continues, there will be no more tackles, no more rucks and scrums will have to become uncontested. Hello Rugby League
It's certainly not the roll that took Bongi out of the World Cup final. That 'tackle' was by a considerable margin the worst offence in the entire match and the player wasn't even penalised!
I would call it a croc "fall" rather than roll. I don't think it was a malicious roll but rather an instinctual one. Cummings comes in and although tripped by Hendrikse, he comes at the shoulder, has a hand on the neck of the Bok, and his other hand lightly grabs the thigh of the Bok. Then he falls (due to the tripping) and rolls to the side. I think these meet the standards for a roll but again I do understand why it is viewed as harsh. The problem is the speed and lack of control that Cummings came in with. The entire game Scotland and SA were hitting the ruck with no control and were frequently off their feet. Had Cummings come in with control, I doubt he would have fallen, and he and Darge could have cleaned the ruck without a roll/fall.
If there is a twist, and you land on the limb it's straight a Croc roll. Whether its clean or no doesn't matter. Like our high tackle rules, mitigating factors are very slight.
Croc roll is a general term for this now, intentionally falling on players lower limbs. Real men don't resort to it as seems to be a tactic against the Boks.
you seem too eager to get an outcoe that favours Scotland for clear foul play on a player they knew just came back from a broken foot injury. Makes me further concerned of the type of bad sportsmanship thats inherently breeding with this team. And you qs a supporter seem to want to condone sich bad sportsmanship. Pitiful you are and so is your team. had it been South Africa, you and your ilk would have been crying foul from all roof tops and calling for more stronger sanctions. Go and review yourself and your comment again bruv.
Indeed, and those actions are precisely why I didn't expect to see a card, let alone a red. Once he was off, I thought he'd be back on in ten. I say this as a South African.
Actions of green doesn't change that Cummings, Scotland, and SA were coming at the ruck with no control for most of the match and being called for going off their feet at the scrum. I think Hendrikse's trip was part of their mitigation decision so Cummings sentence was reduced. This aside, Nigel has disagreed in these videos a number of times and called out the TMO for overstepping their authority. So before you criticize him, take a step back, watch other calls of his and then comment. (If you say you have then you might have missed the videos during Six Nations time). Best to you and hope Scotland win their next match.
The moment he knew he could not clear the ruck he "falls over". But moreover he never let's go, meaning Cummings was in full control of avoiding this scenario but still opted to fall on the man's leg. As with the new rules, that's a red. Luckily just for 20 tho.
Literally last episode he says the ref might have got a decision wrong. Sure there is bias in favour of the refs decisions but let's not act like he never accepts any other decision being equally plausible
I feel the 20 min red card needs to be a different colour to make it clearer between the 20 min red card that they can replace the player later and the straight red that they can’t replace the player with
As we all know, the ‘Yellow with a review’ is signalled by the waving of the Yellow Card along with the Ref crossing their arms to indicate an Off-field review by the “Bunker”. The Broadcaster also (sometimes) shows a card that is half yellow & half red until the decision of the Bunker has been made known. I have always thought that there could be an ‘orange’ card for something like the 20 min Red but I would take that further for the sake of those that are Colour Blind. When the Broadcasters display what colour card it is in the vicinity of the Score/Game Clock, could there be a ‘Y’ or an ‘R’ (inside of the coloured card) for a Yellow or a straight Red respectively & maybe a ‘B’ for a Yellow that has gone to the Bunker for a review? If the Yellow is then upgraded to a 20 min Red then it becomes something else like ‘UR, ‘UtR’ or a Count Down Clock is put in to indicate how many minutes of the Red 20 is left? And while we are at, could the Broadcasters ensure that the Fonts are the most appropriate to differentiate between the various Letters/Numbers. No chunky/fancy Fonts - just a good legible Font & if possible make the Fonts a tad bigger.
Well, remember when the head contact framework was in its infancy. We saw some really soft red cards at that time too. So with the new Croc roll framework I suspect we will see many soft ones until players stop doing the dangerous action.
The only reason the clear out was unsuccessful is because the tackler interferes with play, he literally stands up into the clearing player and makes it impossible to create any power.
World Rugby, over legislating the game to the point it's becoming unwatchable, if Cummings case warrants a red we're unlikely to ever see a full game of 15 v 15 ever again! 🤨
If you don't want to get sent off, don't croc roll or make dangerous tackles. Why is 15 vs 14 less watchable. It makes it more exciting AFAIAC and rewards discipline.
Why was the cleanout/tackle on Handre Pollard not even looked at? I did not get to see a replay but looked like head contact and possible no arms as well.
I'm a big fan of Nigel. Great explanations of the issues. What makes this videos difficult is that there is no actual video - still shots help, but why not show a short clip so we can see the sequence of events? Makes no sense to me.
Apparently the ruleaw is that it needs to be dissallowed before restart, so after conversion its still valid to dissallow a try, but agree, they took too long. As a South African I wouldve had issues with that too. Also not consistent with high tackles/head contact calls in several matches, a dangerous tackle with head contact on Pollard was ignored and in other games the same actions results in red cards, that shouldve been at least yellow if theres mitigation but it wasnt even looked at. My issue is with the inconsistent application of the laws and it becoming too technical and/or subjective to ref properly. I feel for referees, the complicated laws makes their job incredibly hard.
Nigel - quick question. Am I wrong in thinking that the TMO used to have no restriction on how far back they could check. Then it was decided they could only go back two phases. When did it go back to as many phases as required?
Is there a issue with a player in a vulnerable position being tackled by two opposing players? If both opposing players were reprimanded for foul play it would discourage the double tackle?
Never retreated behind the offside line and then played the ball carrier. With it being 5y from our line, it was considered cynical. Can't really argue with that.
While I like you, I can't trust you. I have never seen you even question or contradict a card given. The Scotland red card is a prime example. I have seen many worse croc rolls, sent to the bunker that were not changed to red. World cup with South Africa and Bongi Mbonambi being an example (not sure if the rule was in place yet, but the point stands). There is a lot of inconsistency in rulings by referees and I have never seen you disagree with a card call. Be honest here, would you ever call it out or call it wrong, seeing that this is an official World Rugby channel and you represent them? I just want an honest answer so that I can know whether to continue watching this channel or whether it is just a front for marketing the ridiculousness of what World Rugby has become
To me the red card was a Croc of BS,the tackle was soft ,the Scottish player missed the SA player sliding over his back,if you’re going to make these judgement calls that will effect the dynamics of the game,GET IT RIGHT I think the decision was a poor call
From the first still, at 4:04, of the contact, JB was bent at the knees and bent at the hip & was much lower than the Ball Carrier with the Ball Carrier leading with his right shoulder. JB's head is pretty much at the same height where the ball is. In the 2nd still, at 4:09, JB is still low and bent but the Ball Carrier is dipping down into the contact. JB hasn't changed his stance. What happens is that it is Shoulder to Shoulder contact resulting in the Ball Carrier's Head being in a whiplash action combined with JB's shoulder (maybe) slipping up towards the Ball Carriers Head. Could JB have gone lower? Potentially but he was in a good position through-out being bent at the Knees & the Hips & targeting well below the Ball Carrier's sternum. Could JB have reacted fast enough to the Ball Carrier dipping into the tackle? No, not enough reaction time. Could the Ball Carrier be deemed to have initiated the Head Contact because it was his dipping into the tackle by lowering his head below where his sternum is when standing/running upright that ultimately caused the contact? I'm all for Player Safety/Welfare but the Ball Carrier has to take some responsibility whilst the Tackler is not always the offender.
@lovemysport7902 Well said. Very frustrating how often attacking player contributes to the 'foul'. I am sure the powers that be are aware of this but are scared of potential legal action in the future. A very strong argument for the 20 min red card replacement rule. No idea why so many people are against it. Most 'fouls' are accidental and occur in very high pressure moments.
Come on world rugby. We just want consistency and a good game. Give us one centrialised team of EXPERTS to make calls on this stuff and a 20 Min red card option.
I would like to know whether Nigel thinks that Mostert is contravening Law 15.3 'players in all stages of the ruck must have their head and shoulders no lower than their hips' could have been applied as mitigation for Cummings. I'm not defending his actions but do feel like he was in an position with few safe competion options due to the body position of the jackler and arguably tried to remove him in a safer manner than we often see, allbeit when this has gone wrong it is dangerous. More generally why this law is not applied and many times dangerous positions are used by jacklers that give defenders entering the ruck few safe options. This is a law that in my opinion, if applied and ref'd, would greatly improve the safety, fairness of competition at breakdown and increase the speed of the game. I am baffled why this law isn't applied given the number of serious or career ending injuries to jackling players who are in a position contravening this law - I'm not trying to defend the illegal and dangerous clear outs but often players but often this is the only option they have other than not competing and allowing a turnover.
My only question is the tmo ref and bunker handed out the cards why is everyone pointing fingers to the boks like they were the once that handed out the cards. Seriously why blame the boks as a whole? Fyi there was a dangerous head contact on Handre Pollard but was not even looked at no one see the boks or Rassie throw toys and blame anyone.
Rules should make the game save but don't. People blame the Boks bomb-squad for making it dangerous which is rubbish. 13 or 14 players against 15 makes it dangerous as do some rules. How should cards be given? 1.) Yellow must be done as in football. The player gets a penalty against him but stays on the field. A 3rd yellow or 2nd must become a red or 20 red, but that player must be replaced. 2.) Red: A red card that is serious must make the player leave the field but he must be replaced. Take note - There are 8 players on the bench. They replace one but can after that only replace 6 players. Another red must be replaced but then they can only replace 4 players. Get the picture? 3.) There must always be 30 players on the field. With a red you loose one player on the bench (You have 7 but can replace only 6). One exception: The 1, 2 and 3 must always be replaced even if the team made a early substitution. Non-contestable scrums can happen, and even if a wing plays hooker, there must be 15 players on each side. 4.) All players must wear head gear and some high tackles or head to head contact must be revised as these guys play rugby and not netball.
Than you mr Owens. The problem with the crock roll is that if the player is not injured, it seems like there was nothing in it. But it is always dangerous with a high risk of an injury. Just because the players in this instance was not injured,it does not reduce the risk and therefor should not reduce the sanction. But, our couch experts on the internet will still disagree with you.
Yeah, we all want to keep the game clean with no injuries but we also want to see a proper content so could a decision be decided by intent/malicious vs accidental/reckless/rugby incident vs consequence? Maybe if there is no injury via the Croc Roll, Head Contact, taking a player in the Air etc then just a Yellow or maybe even just a penalty with the offender(s) being put on a final warning to not 'offend' again but the offence is noted & carried over across games as potential evidence of habitual/repeat offending and/or very bad technique which needs to be addressed/punished.
Im staggered there is a shortage of refs in grassroots rugby , clearly judging by the amount of people on here who think they know better than one of the best refs in the world , one would think there was a waiting list for refs instead of a shortage
If he had lifted his hands to wrap he would have taken the Welsh players head off. I can't help but feel you are siding with world rugby too much of late Nigel. I don't think it was even clear there even was head contact with the Jordie tackle. Neither players heads moved, and neither went off for an HIA.
For these experts in the chat. A croc role has two phases: 1. A twist which causes tension as the studs stay in ground but the knee upwards turns. 2. A fall on the knee under tension. WR has deemed the 'fall' worse than the 'twist' because a joint under tension is more injury prone when weight/pressure is put on it. Pro rugby players are so called for a reason. These guys have to make split second decisions and even though there was obstruction, both players couldve done better but ultimately the one did the 'twist' and the other fell on the limbs, which they deemed the most dangerous. Because a joint under tension is fine unless pressure is applied/weight. WR talks with teams regarding laws, it's not a one way street, there's regular interaction via agents of the unions, with WR. Its in hindsight, but why didnt both players or one slow down and try and grab the jackler arms up and away, or one grab a arm and leg and drive sideways. Because it was a panicked decision, because they were late and obstructed, but they still shouldve done better, especially since pro players are expected too do such at that level.
Totally disagree, Mr. expert. If the joint wasn't under pressure, the fall would not have done anything. So how can the fall be worse? If one were to follow that logic, even collapsed scrum would have to result in a card. Because every single joint is under pressure and there is literally a ton of weight on the props. When a player tackles another player they fall on them, so weight is applied. Often, the tackled player is in motion and sidestepping for example, so the knee and ankle joints are under pressure. No cards. This rule is ridiculous and this interpretation is even worse. Let's do away with scrums and tackles and only play touch rugby, because this is what we are steering towards.
No respect for Nigel after this. He was so blatantly knocked off the straight line by the South African number 9. He doesn't even mention the number 9 standing up and knocking him. Absolutely shocking.
Very sombre video. Hate to see Nigel going thru the motions on this one. But not only is this informative but it's absolutely crucial to World Rugby credibility among fans
The expert of refs say it's a clear red card, yet keyboard warriors have their own set of rules because they watch so many Rugby games lolol... typical internet...
Fair point. A lot of time can be wasted between refs giving penalty/knock-on advantage and then coming back to give that penalty/scrum. It doesn't get noticed early in a game, but when it is tight with just a few minutes to play, and the ref keeps yelling at a team with advantage to play on when they clearly want the stoppage it can look silly.
Was never a red, not even a yellow, probably not even a croc roll. Fast forward to the Ireland game, actual croc roll and only a yellow. Utter nonsense, how about some actual consistency.
It's to satisfy the fans b*tching about red cards ruining the game. Now they're b*tching about that. WR need to react less to the fans and understand that moaning is a sport in itself to them. There will always be a conspiracy theory of some sort and refs will never be good enough. If Owens doesn't agree with them then he must be biased. They can't just accept that his, PROFESSIONAL, opinion is different from theirs and agree to disagree.
I understand that the Scott's are frustrated with the red card but it was the correct call and they should also appreciate that only one of the offenders were carded and not both
Utter rubbish. Look at the SA9, he comes off the deck, hits Cummings in the side and knocks him onto the other players leg - without the SA 9 Cummings would have remained straight and legal. Typical of world rugby referees to stick together over a clear bad call instead of calling it out for what it is. PS, my comment isn’t made out of frustration, it is made out of disgust.
Nigel I smell bullshit with your views with Fiji …. the world can clearly see his attempting to rap the Welsh player… nothing new with tier 1 political rugby & the unconscious bias with official TMO is unbelievable 👎👎👎💯 For you being Welsh it would be a good thought to highlight Caleb Muntz as best player at the Welsh & Fiji game. Radradra is band for 3 games WOW. Another duty tactic from tier 1 nations 👎👎👎 Not surprise 👎👎👎
Wow. So Radradra has a history of 7 yellow cards and now one red card. Nayacalevu has a history of 11 yellow cards and no reds. Owen Farrell (the poster child for claiming this bias) has a history of 8 yellow cards and 2 red cards. Let's stop this foolish talk and focus on the actual problem between Tier 1 and Tier 2, very little inclusion in the tournaments that matter.
The team playing the more cautious game will win...not necessarily the best team..the same principle was at play during the rwc final..the new rules changed the game for the very worst..I am changing too another code union became non contact very boring
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The red still seems soft to me, and I say this as a Bok. Even a yellow is questionable given our 9's role in knocking Cumming's onto Mostert.
I agree. Considering the cleaners are coming in at speed and they don't have much time to pick their target and the SA 9 clearly prevented them from targeting under the chest of the jackler and altered their hit path. I would go so far to say that the jackler was also close to being off his feet and head and shoulders was lower than the body of the SA 9 and his legs were splayed (very dangerous position at a ruck). So basically the cleaners could not execute the clean out legally and as a result of the SA9 illegal position had to attempt to grab the sides of the jackler. This resulted in a them falling on his spread out legs (again dangerous by the jackler). This was completely accidental and was predicated by the SA9 illegal position. A crock roll is completely different as the player latches onto the back and then rolls the player out. I find it very interesting that Refs are now so against the crock roll and I wonder why they allowed it for so long when it is against the law book(deliberately going to ground at a ruck). I would like to know what directive was given by world rugby to the Refs to ignore a dangerous play invented by top coaches. I am suprised Bothma isn't asking that question now his career has been ruined.
Also a Bok fan. I expected the yellow (and am happy with that) but a red card seems way to harsh. What I don't get is that this is a red card, but in the Welsh game one head contact was red and the other was yellow? If we are grading the degree of danger, how is the crock roll a higher degree than a shoulder direct to the head of a player standing on his side of a tackle?
I simply do not understand what WR is trying to achieve here and the inconsistency in application from game to game, or even within the same game, is what is leaving us fans confused and frustrated.
Agreed, Bok supporter
I like Nigel but this is World Rugby marking their own homework
Croc role is the worst, even more devastating than a high tackle. The 'twist' and especially the following 'fall' forcing the knee cap inwards is being taken extremely serious under new laws.
In this case the carded player was deemed worse than the one who did the actual 'twist' because the injuries are caused by the 'fall', a joint under twisted tension and added weight is what causes injuries not the tension alone.
He was obstructed yes. But he still chose to fall on his leg, why didnt he grab a leg and arm and drive Mostert up and over at an angle? Or why didnt he try and grab both arms away from the ball, at the angle he was standing he was in reaching distance?
At most rucks there is a player in the way sometimes, doesnt mean you should grab a jackler by the shoulder and lazily just fall on his leg?
He was panicked and made the wrong split second decision, the least he couldve done was not fall on jacklers leg because that's how the injuries occur and a pro rugby player should know better by now, they are marked at very high standards. WR have told this to them for months.
At least choosing their own questions 😂
@@JohnTerblanche-l1rthe only reason he fell was because the 9 was in the way
The SA 9 caused the problem. Nigel always fond of the sound of his own voice just backing up the establishment @JohnTerblanche-l1r
Why is the player on the receiving end of head contact not taken off for HIA immediately? The offender always rightfully gets carded but what does that do for the health of the other player ?
That's the reason you see the team doctor gets on the field immediately as that happens to assess if it's just a huge knock only that took a player down and nothing more needs to be done or have a reason to take him off if the player is fine after the knock.
I agree with you and I have been asking the same question for months now
Good comment. That said, the HIA does happen at times as we saw Barret and Taylor both unable to play last Saturday due to an HIA. So there are times where the players are removed but it is strange that after a red card hit, we don't automatically see that.
Great question. Why indeed
Off-field HIA should be mandatory after cards for dangerous high tackles.
As a South African I was disgusted with that red card. My opinion is that the seriousness of the offense did not justify a red card. What is rugby coming to?
You need to understand that this movement tears the ACL in knee ligament. As with Bongi in the world cup.
Hope that helps your understanding of the the red.
@@seangouws2535 I have also seen Jacques Olivier and Andre Snyman break legs due to a normal tackle. Countless other people have snapped ACL, just being tackled. You could snap and ACL just sidestepping. If this continues, there will be no more tackles, no more rucks and scrums will have to become uncontested. Hello Rugby League
Just don't see that as a croc roll, or isit just me !!???
It's certainly not the roll that took Bongi out of the World Cup final. That 'tackle' was by a considerable margin the worst offence in the entire match and the player wasn't even penalised!
I would call it a croc "fall" rather than roll.
I don't think it was a malicious roll but rather an instinctual one. Cummings comes in and although tripped by Hendrikse, he comes at the shoulder, has a hand on the neck of the Bok, and his other hand lightly grabs the thigh of the Bok. Then he falls (due to the tripping) and rolls to the side.
I think these meet the standards for a roll but again I do understand why it is viewed as harsh. The problem is the speed and lack of control that Cummings came in with. The entire game Scotland and SA were hitting the ruck with no control and were frequently off their feet.
Had Cummings come in with control, I doubt he would have fallen, and he and Darge could have cleaned the ruck without a roll/fall.
If there is a twist, and you land on the limb it's straight a Croc roll. Whether its clean or no doesn't matter. Like our high tackle rules, mitigating factors are very slight.
Croc roll is a general term for this now, intentionally falling on players lower limbs. Real men don't resort to it as seems to be a tactic against the Boks.
It’ was a croc roll just cause it’s a croc roll doesn’t mean it ends in a broken leg he put wait on mosterts leg and swung on it
Of course you agree Nigel. It’s a World Rugby video. You didn’t mention actions of green 9. Your clip conveniently cuts this out.
u can see it on every video
you seem too eager to get an outcoe that favours Scotland for clear foul play on a player they knew just came back from a broken foot injury. Makes me further concerned of the type of bad sportsmanship thats inherently breeding with this team. And you qs a supporter seem to want to condone sich bad sportsmanship. Pitiful you are and so is your team.
had it been South Africa, you and your ilk would have been crying foul from all roof tops and calling for more stronger sanctions.
Go and review yourself and your comment again bruv.
Indeed, and those actions are precisely why I didn't expect to see a card, let alone a red. Once he was off, I thought he'd be back on in ten. I say this as a South African.
Sour grapes
Actions of green doesn't change that Cummings, Scotland, and SA were coming at the ruck with no control for most of the match and being called for going off their feet at the scrum.
I think Hendrikse's trip was part of their mitigation decision so Cummings sentence was reduced.
This aside, Nigel has disagreed in these videos a number of times and called out the TMO for overstepping their authority. So before you criticize him, take a step back, watch other calls of his and then comment. (If you say you have then you might have missed the videos during Six Nations time).
Best to you and hope Scotland win their next match.
Going to disagree. SA 9 takes Cummings off his feet. Never a red.
The moment he knew he could not clear the ruck he "falls over". But moreover he never let's go, meaning Cummings was in full control of avoiding this scenario but still opted to fall on the man's leg. As with the new rules, that's a red. Luckily just for 20 tho.
That was a red stop being delusional
SA9 was th3 instigator ogg& this series of events. Cummings was left with very few options.
Never a red card....
"Quite rightly so" is Nigel's recurring theme as he explains every referee decision is 100% correct. No surprise there.
Literally last episode he says the ref might have got a decision wrong. Sure there is bias in favour of the refs decisions but let's not act like he never accepts any other decision being equally plausible
didn't hear a single word cause the dogs had my full attention
There was speaking???? 🤣🤣🤣 The one, a puppy I think, just staring at the other like "you're in my spot!!"
I was about to ask about the dogs having their meeting at the back. Tks for pointing it out.
I feel the 20 min red card needs to be a different colour to make it clearer between the 20 min red card that they can replace the player later and the straight red that they can’t replace the player with
Almost like an orange card, but that's been suggested for years so that'll never happen because.....the fans can't be right?
We've had the 20 min red for 5 years now in the southern hemisphere, and we don't have any confusion over the colour
@@rhysduncan8676 Yeah but you had 5 years to get used to it.
@jbmboy yeah - so there's nothing wrong with the card colours, it just takes a little bit of time
As we all know, the ‘Yellow with a review’ is signalled by the waving of the Yellow Card along with the Ref crossing their arms to indicate an Off-field review by the “Bunker”. The Broadcaster also (sometimes) shows a card that is half yellow & half red until the decision of the Bunker has been made known.
I have always thought that there could be an ‘orange’ card for something like the 20 min Red but I would take that further for the sake of those that are Colour Blind.
When the Broadcasters display what colour card it is in the vicinity of the Score/Game Clock, could there be a ‘Y’ or an ‘R’ (inside of the coloured card) for a Yellow or a straight Red respectively & maybe a ‘B’ for a Yellow that has gone to the Bunker for a review?
If the Yellow is then upgraded to a 20 min Red then it becomes something else like ‘UR, ‘UtR’ or a Count Down Clock is put in to indicate how many minutes of the Red 20 is left?
And while we are at, could the Broadcasters ensure that the Fonts are the most appropriate to differentiate between the various Letters/Numbers. No chunky/fancy Fonts - just a good legible Font & if possible make the Fonts a tad bigger.
But would Scott have been given a red if it wasn't only for 20 minutes?
Excellent point. No, I don't believe he would have.
Well, remember when the head contact framework was in its infancy. We saw some really soft red cards at that time too. So with the new Croc roll framework I suspect we will see many soft ones until players stop doing the dangerous action.
I always enjoy ur explanations and knowledge of the game. Thank you
The only reason the clear out was unsuccessful is because the tackler interferes with play, he literally stands up into the clearing player and makes it impossible to create any power.
World Rugby, over legislating the game to the point it's becoming unwatchable, if Cummings case warrants a red we're unlikely to ever see a full game of 15 v 15 ever again! 🤨
Would rather have a 14v15 game than losing players for months at a time or ending their career
I can't remember the last 15 v 15 I watched
If you don't want to get sent off, don't croc roll or make dangerous tackles. Why is 15 vs 14 less watchable. It makes it more exciting AFAIAC and rewards discipline.
@@Ollies2CentsWardill spoken like a guy who's never played the game!
@@robmilligan1851Exactly, a game - players shouldn’t be risking paralysis for your enjoyment.
Why was the cleanout/tackle on Handre Pollard not even looked at? I did not get to see a replay but looked like head contact and possible no arms as well.
It’s easy to explain the 2 different outcomes for Fiji and Wales.
Fiji is a small pacific nation and Wales is a first tier nation (for now).
I'm a big fan of Nigel. Great explanations of the issues. What makes this videos difficult is that there is no actual video - still shots help, but why not show a short clip so we can see the sequence of events? Makes no sense to me.
Anyone gonna mention the TMO struck off the Scotland try after the conversion? Did I miss a rule change where this became a thing?
I’m also flummoxed. Thought it could not be cancelled after a kick😊
Apparently the ruleaw is that it needs to be dissallowed before restart, so after conversion its still valid to dissallow a try, but agree, they took too long. As a South African I wouldve had issues with that too. Also not consistent with high tackles/head contact calls in several matches, a dangerous tackle with head contact on Pollard was ignored and in other games the same actions results in red cards, that shouldve been at least yellow if theres mitigation but it wasnt even looked at. My issue is with the inconsistent application of the laws and it becoming too technical and/or subjective to ref properly. I feel for referees, the complicated laws makes their job incredibly hard.
Thanks Nigel. That cleared up a few things for me.
Pressed the like button when the cow agreed😁
Nigel - quick question. Am I wrong in thinking that the TMO used to have no restriction on how far back they could check. Then it was decided they could only go back two phases. When did it go back to as many phases as required?
Lekker Nigel.
Is there a issue with a player in a vulnerable position being tackled by two opposing players? If both opposing players were reprimanded for foul play it would discourage the double tackle?
I was most concerned about the brickwork im the barn. That's a nasty looking crack.
Pip's question was interesting...nearly all forwards put their heads down to run....
Except it wasn't a croc roll
wasn't croc roll
Does anyone know why Mapimpi was yellow carded against Scotland? This wasn't even reviewed into today's show.
He was never on side from the start so it has to be a yellow car because he prevented a possible try.
Never retreated behind the offside line and then played the ball carrier. With it being 5y from our line, it was considered cynical. Can't really argue with that.
Yeah he was the "unlucky" one out of 3 players that cynically stopped the Scots scoring on that particular phase of play!
Lazy running prevented a possible try.
Has anyone else noticed the correlation between the increase in cameras watching the action, and the decrease in dominance of NZ?
With the new HIA detecting gumshields, does TMO go back over play to see where it was triggered, to see if an illegal action had been missed?
Well done !
World rugby killing the game🤡🤡🤡🤡
Its called a hip drop,was big poblem in NRL,caused serious injuries.
While I like you, I can't trust you. I have never seen you even question or contradict a card given. The Scotland red card is a prime example. I have seen many worse croc rolls, sent to the bunker that were not changed to red. World cup with South Africa and Bongi Mbonambi being an example (not sure if the rule was in place yet, but the point stands). There is a lot of inconsistency in rulings by referees and I have never seen you disagree with a card call. Be honest here, would you ever call it out or call it wrong, seeing that this is an official World Rugby channel and you represent them? I just want an honest answer so that I can know whether to continue watching this channel or whether it is just a front for marketing the ridiculousness of what World Rugby has become
Example came yesterday when Bealham did an intentional croc roll and only got a yellow. 0 consistency
To me the red card was a Croc of BS,the tackle was soft ,the Scottish player missed the SA player sliding over his back,if you’re going to make these judgement calls that will effect the dynamics of the game,GET IT RIGHT I think the decision was a poor call
No mention of Joran Hendrikse's involvement in the red card is criminal
Barrett 'foul' play? Unintentional head contact surely.
From the first still, at 4:04, of the contact, JB was bent at the knees and bent at the hip & was much lower than the Ball Carrier with the Ball Carrier leading with his right shoulder. JB's head is pretty much at the same height where the ball is. In the 2nd still, at 4:09, JB is still low and bent but the Ball Carrier is dipping down into the contact. JB hasn't changed his stance. What happens is that it is Shoulder to Shoulder contact resulting in the Ball Carrier's Head being in a whiplash action combined with JB's shoulder (maybe) slipping up towards the Ball Carriers Head.
Could JB have gone lower? Potentially but he was in a good position through-out being bent at the Knees & the Hips & targeting well below the Ball Carrier's sternum. Could JB have reacted fast enough to the Ball Carrier dipping into the tackle? No, not enough reaction time.
Could the Ball Carrier be deemed to have initiated the Head Contact because it was his dipping into the tackle by lowering his head below where his sternum is when standing/running upright that ultimately caused the contact?
I'm all for Player Safety/Welfare but the Ball Carrier has to take some responsibility whilst the Tackler is not always the offender.
@lovemysport7902 Well said. Very frustrating how often attacking player contributes to the 'foul'. I am sure the powers that be are aware of this but are scared of potential legal action in the future. A very strong argument for the 20 min red card replacement rule. No idea why so many people are against it. Most 'fouls' are accidental and occur in very high pressure moments.
Come on world rugby. We just want consistency and a good game. Give us one centrialised team of EXPERTS to make calls on this stuff and a 20 Min red card option.
I would like to know whether Nigel thinks that Mostert is contravening Law 15.3 'players in all stages of the ruck must have their head and shoulders no lower than their hips' could have been applied as mitigation for Cummings. I'm not defending his actions but do feel like he was in an position with few safe competion options due to the body position of the jackler and arguably tried to remove him in a safer manner than we often see, allbeit when this has gone wrong it is dangerous.
More generally why this law is not applied and many times dangerous positions are used by jacklers that give defenders entering the ruck few safe options. This is a law that in my opinion, if applied and ref'd, would greatly improve the safety, fairness of competition at breakdown and increase the speed of the game. I am baffled why this law isn't applied given the number of serious or career ending injuries to jackling players who are in a position contravening this law - I'm not trying to defend the illegal and dangerous clear outs but often players but often this is the only option they have other than not competing and allowing a turnover.
Should both of them not have gotten at least a yellow?
"quite rightly so"
Should have mentioned Ben Okeefe terrible performance
Eng vs. Aus was a great match to watch despite BOK, not because of. I think his AR's were rubbish, too.
@Hiltok completely agree, Great match so happy it didn't end with a bad decision
I Remember the Jean de villers one that was bad
My only question is the tmo ref and bunker handed out the cards why is everyone pointing fingers to the boks like they were the once that handed out the cards. Seriously why blame the boks as a whole?
Fyi there was a dangerous head contact on Handre Pollard but was not even looked at no one see the boks or Rassie throw toys and blame anyone.
Difference with Wales game...Red to Fiji..TMO will make sure of it.....
If it is dangerous play, it should remain red no replacement
Rules should make the game save but don't. People blame the Boks bomb-squad for making it dangerous which is rubbish. 13 or 14 players against 15 makes it dangerous as do some rules. How should cards be given? 1.) Yellow must be done as in football. The player gets a penalty against him but stays on the field. A 3rd yellow or 2nd must become a red or 20 red, but that player must be replaced. 2.) Red: A red card that is serious must make the player leave the field but he must be replaced. Take note - There are 8 players on the bench. They replace one but can after that only replace 6 players. Another red must be replaced but then they can only replace 4 players. Get the picture? 3.) There must always be 30 players on the field. With a red you loose one player on the bench (You have 7 but can replace only 6). One exception: The 1, 2 and 3 must always be replaced even if the team made a early substitution. Non-contestable scrums can happen, and even if a wing plays hooker, there must be 15 players on each side. 4.) All players must wear head gear and some high tackles or head to head contact must be revised as these guys play rugby and not netball.
Nigel is back
Than you mr Owens. The problem with the crock roll is that if the player is not injured, it seems like there was nothing in it. But it is always dangerous with a high risk of an injury. Just because the players in this instance was not injured,it does not reduce the risk and therefor should not reduce the sanction.
But, our couch experts on the internet will still disagree with you.
Yeah, we all want to keep the game clean with no injuries but we also want to see a proper content so could a decision be decided by intent/malicious vs accidental/reckless/rugby incident vs consequence? Maybe if there is no injury via the Croc Roll, Head Contact, taking a player in the Air etc then just a Yellow or maybe even just a penalty with the offender(s) being put on a final warning to not 'offend' again but the offence is noted & carried over across games as potential evidence of habitual/repeat offending and/or very bad technique which needs to be addressed/punished.
Games gone
Im staggered there is a shortage of refs in grassroots rugby , clearly judging by the amount of people on here who think they know better than one of the best refs in the world , one would think there was a waiting list for refs instead of a shortage
what happened to the German shepherds... yellow card?
Who posts these videos with titles that have obvious errors in them?? C'mon WR, get it together
If he had lifted his hands to wrap he would have taken the Welsh players head off. I can't help but feel you are siding with world rugby too much of late Nigel. I don't think it was even clear there even was head contact with the Jordie tackle. Neither players heads moved, and neither went off for an HIA.
For these experts in the chat.
A croc role has two phases:
1. A twist which causes tension as the studs stay in ground but the knee upwards turns.
2. A fall on the knee under tension.
WR has deemed the 'fall' worse than the 'twist' because a joint under tension is more injury prone when weight/pressure is put on it.
Pro rugby players are so called for a reason. These guys have to make split second decisions and even though there was obstruction, both players couldve done better but ultimately the one did the 'twist' and the other fell on the limbs, which they deemed the most dangerous. Because a joint under tension is fine unless pressure is applied/weight.
WR talks with teams regarding laws, it's not a one way street, there's regular interaction via agents of the unions, with WR.
Its in hindsight, but why didnt both players or one slow down and try and grab the jackler arms up and away, or one grab a arm and leg and drive sideways. Because it was a panicked decision, because they were late and obstructed, but they still shouldve done better, especially since pro players are expected too do such at that level.
Thanks for the info,expert
Totally disagree, Mr. expert. If the joint wasn't under pressure, the fall would not have done anything. So how can the fall be worse? If one were to follow that logic, even collapsed scrum would have to result in a card. Because every single joint is under pressure and there is literally a ton of weight on the props. When a player tackles another player they fall on them, so weight is applied. Often, the tackled player is in motion and sidestepping for example, so the knee and ankle joints are under pressure. No cards. This rule is ridiculous and this interpretation is even worse. Let's do away with scrums and tackles and only play touch rugby, because this is what we are steering towards.
I love your dogs, I got one.
I love your 🐕dogs
Grow a spine Nigel, it wasn’t a croc roll and you know it.
Nigel needs to put in his personal opinions on the the card's and not use world rugbys book rules that just sound over the top
That’s for ruining rugby whistle watchers. It’s a contact sport. Refs are not the reason we watch this game.
cards are ruining the game, that was awful at murrayfield, only ten mins in.
They're making the game more exciting and safer. Blame the players if you don't like cards.
@@Ollies2CentsWardill wow
Red
Nigel has never liked Scotland. Nothing changes....
No respect for Nigel after this. He was so blatantly knocked off the straight line by the South African number 9. He doesn't even mention the number 9 standing up and knocking him. Absolutely shocking.
Very sombre video. Hate to see Nigel going thru the motions on this one. But not only is this informative but it's absolutely crucial to World Rugby credibility among fans
The expert of refs say it's a clear red card, yet keyboard warriors have their own set of rules because they watch so many Rugby games lolol... typical internet...
When the try was disallowed in the Scotland game. Why does the clock not move back to the time the knock on happened?
Why would it?
Fair point. A lot of time can be wasted between refs giving penalty/knock-on advantage and then coming back to give that penalty/scrum. It doesn't get noticed early in a game, but when it is tight with just a few minutes to play, and the ref keeps yelling at a team with advantage to play on when they clearly want the stoppage it can look silly.
I think rightly players welfare is to thr fore but rugby is becoming unplayable
Man sounds straight from Punjabi
Awful refereeing
Oh boo hoo. Awful playing by the losing teams
As if world rugby will come out and say that the bunker got it wrong 😂😂 nice try guys
Is this a joke? It was never a red. Do you ever find that a red has made a bad call? WR propaganda 😂
Was never a red, not even a yellow, probably not even a croc roll. Fast forward to the Ireland game, actual croc roll and only a yellow. Utter nonsense, how about some actual consistency.
What's this 20 minute Red nonsense ? If it's foul and dangerous enough to warrant a red then that's him off the field for the duration in my book.
It's to satisfy the fans b*tching about red cards ruining the game. Now they're b*tching about that. WR need to react less to the fans and understand that moaning is a sport in itself to them. There will always be a conspiracy theory of some sort and refs will never be good enough. If Owens doesn't agree with them then he must be biased. They can't just accept that his, PROFESSIONAL, opinion is different from theirs and agree to disagree.
With 20-min red card, the player sent off stays off. A sub can come on after 20 minutes. It isn't just an extended yellow card.
@@Hiltok Cheers for that ... 🙂
Moaning moaner complains about moaning! Can you honestly not hear the whine in your voice as you type this? 😆
wasn't croc roll.the guy 6'8 stop coming up with stupid rules. won't be given aginst england
I understand that the Scott's are frustrated with the red card but it was the correct call and they should also appreciate that only one of the offenders were carded and not both
Waste of time watching Nigel now. He never ever ever ever says the ref got it wrong. Save yourself 12 mins
Utter rubbish. Look at the SA9, he comes off the deck, hits Cummings in the side and knocks him onto the other players leg - without the SA 9 Cummings would have remained straight and legal.
Typical of world rugby referees to stick together over a clear bad call instead of calling it out for what it is.
PS, my comment isn’t made out of frustration, it is made out of disgust.
Somebody try the kill our wonderful game, stop this poker game nonsense, every job got it's dangers.
Nigel I smell bullshit with your views with Fiji …. the world can clearly see his attempting to rap the Welsh player… nothing new with tier 1 political rugby & the unconscious bias with official TMO is unbelievable 👎👎👎💯
For you being Welsh it would be a good thought to highlight Caleb Muntz as best player at the Welsh & Fiji game.
Radradra is band for 3 games WOW. Another duty tactic from tier 1 nations 👎👎👎
Not surprise 👎👎👎
Wow. So Radradra has a history of 7 yellow cards and now one red card. Nayacalevu has a history of 11 yellow cards and no reds.
Owen Farrell (the poster child for claiming this bias) has a history of 8 yellow cards and 2 red cards.
Let's stop this foolish talk and focus on the actual problem between Tier 1 and Tier 2, very little inclusion in the tournaments that matter.
This bitching is getting tiresome now. You won. Enjoy it.
The comments are a disgrace 🤣🤣🤣
Mainstream news
The team playing the more cautious game will win...not necessarily the best team..the same principle was at play during the rwc final..the new rules changed the game for the very worst..I am changing too another code union became non contact very boring
Impacts are harder than ever. The difference is that now players need to use their brains to avoid recklessly endangering other players.