I feel like the Kellaway on Reinach tackle is a yellow . . . regardless of Le Roux’s actions, that was a reckless move that deliberately put Reinach in harms way. You can’t lift a player like that . . . period.
Yup that was the correct call, cause of AU 14 didn’t break the law there wouldn’t be a dangerous situation. Leroux’s actions aren’t illegal as you can bring a player held up to ground but you can’t lift a player vertical like that for very obvious reasons.
Flying wedge point is just flat out wrong, read Law 18.37... a lineout only ends if someone leaves the lineout or if a ruck/maul forms. Since the receiver from the catcher was still within the lineout, the lineout hasn't ended yet... fair game Please research the laws before complaining
Research you say. Haha so explain the process of the ball going from SA 7 to SA 4, what happened? The ball was passed, not transfered through the hands. That makes SA 4 a ball carrier, not a lineout option. I'll ask you this. If we apply your logic to the 2 first clips I showed with the ball being passed to the scrumhalf. using your logic, the lineout is not over when the receiver gets passed the ball. So using your own logic there, the scrumhalf can have the ball for an infinite amount of time and Australia can't approach him until he goes past the 15m line. See why that would be an absolutely stupid law if we apply it like that?
@@tasanalytics - Actually, he could be right. The conditions for ending a lineout are as follows: Ball or Player Leaves the Lineout: The lineout ends when the ball or a player in possession of the ball leaves the lineout. Neither the ball nor the player in possession of it left the lineout. Although the ball was passed to another player, it could be argued that player was still part of the lineout. Not so? Maybe Luke Pierce didn't get it wrong....however in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the match. The Aussies were going to get a hiding no matter what. 😁
@tasanalytics you sound like Terence Howard. You make so many assumptions which are not defined at all. Here is the full 18.37 The lineout ends when: a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball: i. leaves the lineout; or ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line. b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch. So lets through this. i) does the does the ball or player in possesion leave the lineout? No. ii) enter the 5m zone? No iii) Goes beyond the 15m line? No b) does a ruck or mall form? No. Now what consitutues a lineout forming in case you say passing the ball leaves the lineout. 18. 9 A lineout is formed on the mark of touch. 18.10 Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines. The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown The ball is passed "parallel" and therefore never leaves the lineout. Seriously, you do some good analysis but this one youre really reaching here.
They definitely talked to Peyper about it beforehand. And I'm prettys ure Peyper told them that it was a big grey area, which they exploited. Nothing wrong with that. But yeah pretty sure if common sense is used, World Rugby will change that. But then again, we're talking about World Rugby, so good chance they do nothing about it
It’s within the laws (law 37) as long as the ball carrier is still in the line out it’s not over. Here they passed it flat to another jumper which is legal and still on the line out make and in the line out so it ain’t over. If you pass to 9 then the ball carrier is now out of the line out hence why it’s over. The law also says the line out is over of a maul forms and all the feet of the players involved leave the mark, if there’s a ruck or the ball becomes unplayable. If the ball leaves the 5m or 15m line it’s over.
@@dreammaker9642 Have to agree with you here. The front pod is still inside the lineout, thus the ball never leaves the lineout. The law doesn't state anything about passing the ball inside the lineout, it does state that if the ball or ball carrier leaves the lineout, the lineout is over.
Agreed I did understand Gardners explanation for the High contact. Problem with the Yellow for Aus was the fact the tackler could not control the tackle and in fact it was his own player who made it dangerous not Willie. There is always missed calls by refs that what makes it human as for the Lineout there is nothing wrong as Aus went for the Maul if they pulled away then yes Penalty.
Unfortunately your interpretation of the laws is lacking in many areas yet again. Firstly for the head contacts, the only incorrect decision was Angus Gardner's decision. That should have been a yellow as low degree of danger only mitigates to a yellow, not a penalty. Marx's one was unfortunate but is in line with the protocol. Could have been mitigated to a penalty but we have seen yellows for plenty of tackles like that so it is consistent overall. Tip tackle on Reinach was a yellow. Regardless of what Willie does, the tackler takes all the responsibility when lifting a player and not getting him safely to the ground. Even if Willie was in the wrong, this doesn't take away from what Kellaway did. The fact that he stayed on a yellow means that they likely did take it into account otherwise that was a pretty straight forward red card. So yellow was the right call there too. So now you have criticised 3 decisions when in fact only one was incorrect. The other two were called perfectly fine. On the so called flying wedge, you have completely misinterpreted what a flying wedge actually is. A flying wedge is when a ball carrier is charging forward, usually towards the goal line, with 2+ players latched to him. A ball carrier turning his back to set up for a maul in open play is not, in any way, a flying wedge. I'm sorry but you are just 100% wrong here. There have been several mauls attempted in open play and nobody would ever call those a flying wedge. All you have done is read the definition of a flying wedge and then applied it to a maul in open play. You have completely ignored the context in which that definition was developed and the relevant application guidelines for both the wedge and mauls. There are literal videos about open play mauls to watch and the Maul Working Group Outcomes clearly stated that open play mauls are to be refereed the same as mauls at the lineout. So far, you have got 4 out of 5 wrong in this video. Not a great start. The Aus no 9 did knock that ball on and to his credit, Luke Pierce actually acknowledge this was a mistake and that he didn't see it. Fair play to him for owning up. However you then drum up a few 50/50 decisions and then criticise these as if they were 100% wrong. On the mark call, the player caught the ball, called the mark and was then clattered into by his own player. At the point of calling the mark and touching the ground, the game is stopped so anything after that is inconsequential. You then claimed Eben knocked on when it is not clear if it was ripped or knocked on or whether the ball was ripped when Eben was already on the ground on not. This is a classic 50/50 which can go either way and neither would be wrong yet you are so sure your version is correct and then use it to bash the referee again. You have saved the worst for near the end. It is just laughable that you think Willie was offside. This alone tells me and others that you have no idea of how offsides work in open play and also just adds further to my point that you fundamentally do not understand the laws. The offside line from a kick in open play is the point where the ball is kicked, not the hind most leg of the kicker. According to your made up laws, Am was also offside for Mapimpi's try at the 2019 WC because he definitely wasn't behind Mapimpi's hind leg either. This was also reviewed and funny thing is they didn't apply your made up laws but applied the actual laws. I am just embarrassed for you at this point. Overall this was a hopelessly poor video which shows a vast, gaping lack of knowledge of the laws of the game and how they are interpreted. You seem to think because you read the laws and definitions you are now an expert of sorts but it is rather obvious you have completely missed all the related guidelines, outcomes of working groups, explanatory videos etc. and yet you now think you are adept enough to criticise referees week in week out and stir up this "inconsistent refereeing" narrative when the only reason you see it that way, is because your lack of knowledge makes it that may way. I suggest you take a referees course and read up ALOT more before making another video because this is just an absolute shambles now.
I had a look at the world rugby framework. For degree of danger it has 3 options after head contact with Low being PK not yellow. the red had the right to make that call.
@@katcraigthomsen3429 a PK is normally reserved for when there is indirect head contact and low force. Gardner’s decision is very inconsistent with how it has been reffed over the last few years. Of the 4 criteria for low degree of danger, this tackle maybe meets one of them so it’s very unusual for it to be a PK only. But if he saw a very low degree of danger yes he can call a PK only but this is certainly an outlier
@@notenoughstones3873 i did love the way he dominated the TMO. That was super rugbys aim this year to put refs back in control. Wasnt long ago a heavy impact broke Rettalils cheek and that was just a yellow due to being passive. This was very soft impact
Your offside line is drawn incorrectly. It is not at the back foot of the kicker. That attacking player was in line with the kicker, and behind the ball.
You are wrong. "The offside line is an imaginary line that runs across the field, parallel to the goal lines, and is located at the kicker's back foot when the ball is kicked."
When you have 2 players bound and the defending team touches the player with the ball its not illegal,because the ball did not transfer. If he shits the ball before making contact with defenders then It would be a penalty to AUS,
Just one question: Why didn't any of the officials call or pundits talk about the flying wedge? And why wasn't it called in the game? The line out wasn't over at all according to the current laws of the game. You're applying your opinion, that's all.
Ahh okay so because the pundits missed it, that means I'm wrong. Maybe check the laws on flying wedge, and comment again. As for the officials, I don't know how they missed it. They probably thought it was a trick play, and just thought it was okay. Which is a problem because you would want an international referee to be able to spot stuff like that.
@@Steynbruweradventures "Factually"?? Mate, we're reading different comments then. All I'm seeing is a few try to copy paste the lineout laws, and proving my point as to how this is a very grey area. The ball never "transfers" from SA 7 to SA 4, it directly gets passed to him. Meaning he is a ball carrier. If They were bound to the same maul, and then it gets tranfered to him, yes then it stays a lineout and a Maul. But as I clearly showed in the clip, the ball gets passed. Much the same like when SA 7 would pass the ball to the receiver. So it is nowhere close to being "Factually". It's a clear grey area that Rassie exploited with the help of Peyper. Good on them, but if common sense is applied, World Rugby will fix that flaw in the law book.
@@tasanalytics You're annotations are wrong. They say the lineout is over when SA4 passes the ball and SA9 gets the ball. Two different moments in time. which is it?
@@tasanalytics I have read all this with interest, and I have a question: The two players ( 7 and 4) are in the lineout, correctly. And at the moment the ball moves from 7 to 4, both are in the air, not on the ground. In that circumstance since this is happening in the lineout and it's clearly still in progress, I am not Certain you can say it's a pass. If it's not a pass, it has to be a transfer. If its a transfer, and its not forwards....its legal. No? Your point rests completely on your observation that the Lineout is over because the ball was passed. BUT if the line out is not over it seems to me the play follows is legal.
To say he cant go any lower to tackle and has no other options is not correct. He can tackle the legs. 16 SA also pushs up into the tackle which is into the head contact obviously. There's nothing stopping him driving forward or downward. AUS 14 can lift players that's not illegal you just can't then drop them on there head or turn them feet over head into the ground. If he was attempting a croc roll off the lift then that's obviously different and highly illegal.
The ball being pass back in the line out. It is the same as a player making contact with his hand and the player behind him or several people on catching the ball. It is still inside the line out. hence all the liner rules still apply.
Its been quite a few years since I've handeled a whistle and the rules might have changed since then. I understood the lineout ends when the ball leaves the box formed by the outer shoulders of the players in the line. That 2nd pod was still part if the line-out. So no flying wedge. I stand to be corrected though
Once the ball is thrown in, the lineout area is where the contest for the ball occurs, and the lineout is officially over when the ball or a player carrying the ball leaves this designated area. The lineout area also consists of two lines of players from each team, who must be at least half a meter apart from each other. So once the ball is received this the new lineout area. So passing the ball to the front of the lineout means it has left of the lineout area of contest and the line out is over. Reply
@@leoncosgrove4138 Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post .I had a quick look at Rule 19 and nowhere can I find any indication that the line-out shrinks to the catcher and his 2 supporters the moment he catches the ball. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. All I can find on the ending of a line-out is the following: When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the line-out, the line-out ends. When a line-out player hands the ball to a player who is peeling-off, the line-out ends. When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the line-out ends. When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touch-line. When a ruck or maul develops in a line-out, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line-of-touch, the line-out ends. When the ball becomes unplayable in a line-out, the line-out ends. Play restarts with a scrum.
What about the last try before half time? SA deserved a penalty from the scrum. But instead the winger ran through the forward pack while using multiple blockers and scores untouched. What is the TMO looking at?
1. Law 19 refers in detail to the Lineout and to quote the law: The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout. This includes the following: a) When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends. Would this not cover the line out, does not say once it leaves the receivers hands or you would have immediate accidental offside at any "maul" that isn't formed 🤔 (This is not a rule I am well versed in)
2. Marx could of gone lower in his tackle, a Yellow was harsh but I do feel that if we want to make sure these things don't keep happening we need to penalize both parties when it is clear that the attacking player is dipping into a tackle. Just because they have the ball does not make it any less dangerous and NZ should of seen a 20min red at least with very little there to mitigate
3. Kellaway yellow - He decides to lift the player that's the foul play this was also the second foul in a very short time as there was also a tackle near the 5m line on Le Roux without the ball. I don't like what Le Roux does on Kellaway but as far as he can see we still have the ball and this could become a maul? Hence the attempt to bring it down 🤔 You could give a 20min red for Kellaway for the creation of the dangerous play and then Le Roux a yellow for tackling a player without the ball? But then you have the problem of this same attack you had Aus tackle Le Roux without the ball near the try line. Cannot have this in Rugby and take away the lift and you take away the danger
4. The Le Roux offside is very difficult from our angles to decipher this isn't football where you have lines drawn on offside often from the angle he looks off but not sure it is worth the highlight in the video as it's not by a mile either
5. Le Roux isolated not letting go, he attempts to put the ball down and then grab it again At the time I thought it should be a foul for holding but in your video it looks more like a release and then an attempt to get up which fails and he is essentially playing it on the ground. So either way it's a penalty to Aus imo
6. Good video overall - would have liked a bit more on the consistency issues we see in Rugby. Felt it was harsh that SA saw 3 yellow cards for accumulated fouls, when you compare the territorial dominance SA had in the first half and how many fouls Aus gave away in their own 22. As well as the Kriel knock on being so central and what seemed like a genuine effort to win the ball something I have seen constantly not be given as a yellow. Will bring back the review on field by the ref on the tackle off the ball on Le Roux near or on the 5m line.
What about all the other matches where the ref helped the All Blacks and the Springboks just had to accept it ? Buddy let me tell you whats good for the goose is good for the gander😉
TAS - Can we get Gayton McKenzie to assist in you posting more recent updates. We hate having to wait weeks befor we see your excellent feedback. This channel is an excellent learning platform for all of us.
I have asked about what constitutes "ahead of the kicker" previously on a ref's panel (I am an ex-referee) as there is no mm-precise definition, like there is in soccer. The consensus is unless the whole of the chaser is ahead of the kicker, play on. From the lines drawn in your video, at the time of the ball leaving the foot of the kicker, there is at least some part of the chaser behind the ball. It is not torsos like in Olympic sprinting - there is simply no clear definition in the law book.
Law 18: The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line. As soon as the scrumhalf picks it up out of the ruck, players can go for the ball (from an onside position). This why a scrumhalf needs a quick clearance.
Law 37: The lineout ends when: The ball or a player in possession of the ball: leaves the lineout; or enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or goes beyond the 15-metre line. As far as I am aware when the ball was passed to Eben, it has still not left the lineout, nor the other two.
so no it is not a flying wedge. Eben still has the ball in his hands at the front. A flying wedge is when the ball is passed back to the players supporting the wedge before the tackler has a chance to engage the man with the ball. Because the Aus player engaged with Eben before he passed it away, it is perfectly legal.
As copied from World Rugby. Forming a maul: 1. A maul can take place only in the field of play. 2. It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet. A player ripping the ball from the ball carrier must stay in contact with that player until they have transferred the ball. Sanction: Penalty. 3. Once formed, a maul must move towards a goal line. That Line Out piece was simply Rassie & Co knowing the rules better than everybody else.
Wrong again. Once the ball is thrown in, the lineout area is where the contest for the ball occurs, and the lineout is officially over when the ball or a player carrying the ball leaves this designated area. The lineout area also consists of two lines of players from each team, who must be at least half a meter apart from each other. So once the ball is received this the new lineout area. So passing the ball to the front of the lineout means it has left of the lineout area of contest and the line out is over.
1st one is the right call the player had time to adjust tackle position or not tackle at all. Kellaway Yellowcard was the right call i believe he did pick the player up. however was put in a position where he couldn't bring the player down safely as SA 15 was pulling him down, so he wasn't able to place him down gently. It was reviewed and if and the TMO did recognize there was not much he could done. so it stayed a yellow and not changed to red.
The yellow was a ridiculous call and should have been a penalty only. It was very obvious of the other players actions in not allowing Kellaway to place the player back down. The on-field ref and TMO were incorrect
The lineout is over when the ball leaves the line NOT when the halfback gets the ball! There is NOTHING illegal in the flying wedge 1) The ball did NOT leave the line though there is reason to argue the lineout is over considering the pass from 7 deviated from the line therefore the Wallaby defenders can come off the line! 2) The support players bound to the side and behind the jumper/catcher therefore since there is NO support player in front of the jumper/catcher of the wedge then there NO infringement for offside 3) if the jumper/catcher of the wedge delivers the ball to the 4th support player of the wedge before the Wallaby player defends and makes contact to the wedged maul then the jumper/catcher of the wedge is in a offside position 4) The ball cannot be transferred from the front of the wedged maul till a defender has engaged in the wedge maul - if the transfer to the back of the maul has happened before a defender makes contact to defend the maul then the jumper/catcher is offside!
That tackle on Valentini would have been a red card last year It don't agree with it, but thats what I think would have happened. After the world cup final a lot of fans weren't happy watching 15 guys play 14 guys after 4 years of hyping things up, for what was a pretty minor head contact not requiring a HIA. This year the referee's have let things slide a little more. Turns out by having super strict head contact laws it actually incentivizes players to dip into tackles head first in the hopes of getting their opposition sin-binned.
7:12 you need to actually learn the Laws. Law 13.3 The players from the kicking team must be behind the ball when it is kicked otherwise those players are offside. The SA 15 doesn't have to be in front of the KICKER to be offside. He has to be in front of the BALL. Which he is not.
@@mikezog1030 mate this guy thinks forming a maul in open play is the same as a flying wedge so that says a lot. The Laws are not his strong point I’m afraid
Wrong. The offside line is an imaginary line that runs across the field, parallel to the goal lines, and is located at the kicker's back foot when the ball is kicked.
@@leoncosgrove4138 looks like we have found TAS’s alternate account lol. So TAS can you please provide exactly where it states in the laws that players must be behind the kickers back foot?
well if the lineout is over when it gets passed to the scrummie, shouldn't the same logic be applied to when you pass it to someone else? Because it wasn't transfered through their hands, he directly passes it to another player. To me that means he is passing it to a ball carrier.
@@tasanalyticsThe short answer to your question is "no". Law 18(37), entitled "Ending a Lineout" is clear: "The lineout ends when: (a) The ball or a player in possession of the ball: (i) leaves the lineout; or (ii) enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or (iii) goes beyond the 15-metre line. (b) A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch. (c) The ball becomes unplayable." None of these things happened when the ball was passed to Eben, so the lineout was not over.
@@RobertHerbst93 In Mauls you are meant to rip it back whilst being bound. Here the issue is that the player isnt part of this maul hence it is a pass.
It hasn't "left the lineout". It's not passed to the received and no player who was part of the lineout has left yhe lineout either. It's simply passed from one player in the lineout to another. I'm sure Jaco Pyper would have reviewed this play in training and given it the green light
All things considered . . . I think the standard of refereeing in rugby is getting better. Think about it this way, soccer is a simple game with a handful of rules . . . look at the VAR controversy there. We are on the right track, change takes time.
What is a flying wedge. The number eben looked to have the ball then auz made contact turning in to a mual? But l have never heard of a flying wedge rule
Here's a simple solution to the Marx tackle. He should pull out of it entirely. His teammate is more than able to tackle or halt the momentum of the ball carrier on his own, so Marx doesn't need to assist in anyway. Or he could stand upright rather than go low, because if he receives the head of the ball carrier into his chest, he can simply absorb the hit and shift backwards.
I don't understand why, in those instances, especially when there is another tackler involved, the defender doesn't just push downward on the attacker's shoulders (a bit like we do in wrestling/grappling/judo)....if you do it well enough, the attacker just falls flat on the ground, and his head is never in danger.
@@mateiyu-4082 moight need to play against some of these big boys in those positions to understand why that doesn't work... these guys can leg press like 500kg plus, that's planted and being pushed forward with forward pace at optimum angles... it's not just being pushed over like judo lol, sorry man, off pace on that one for sure... maybe if it's a little back or something, but especially the bok boys, some of the strongest in the game... no chance
Coming in as the second tackler is always dangerous. One thing I don’t understand is how that can be called a mitigating factor ! It’s a hit to the head and you are the second in, the onus should be on you to avoid the head at all costs!
That's a terrible solution. So the best idea is to stick as small a guy as possible in there and he just runs around crouched and noone is allowed to tackle him. Just admit these rules are dumb and if any one player is forced to not attack any other player the rules are broken
Law 31: Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball. Now how many times did we see Aussie players creeping around to the Bok side of the maul? Until they were on our side and preventing the ball coming out?
So the lineout throw was illegal, gd job pointing it out.. shame the ref didn’t know the laws , as well as Le rouxs part in the danger to reinach , he lacked duty of care.
While I agree with many of the points here, the last two points about the "flying wedge" are nonsense. The question of whether the lineout is over or not is irrelevant. The question is whether a legal maul has been formed before the ball is passed back. Remember that mauls can be formed at any time, not only from lineouts! The real question then, is whether the jumper (SA #4) is in front of the ball carrier at the time of the first AUS player attempting to tackle. If so, then it is obstruction (or "flying wedge", "truck and trailer" etc.) If not it is a legal maul. In both these examples as AUS player makes contact with Etsebeth almost immediately upon landing and before - or whilst - he passes the ball back to Kolisi. (In the first clip the red scrum cap of the AUS player is just visible.) The moment that happens, it is a maul and the ball can be legally transferred back to the tail of the maul.
I did understand Gardners explanation for the High contact. Problem with the Yellow for Aus was the fact the tackler could not control the tackle and in fact it was his own player who made it dangerous not Willie. There is always missed calls by refs that what makes it human as for the Lineout there is nothing wrong as Aus went for the Maul if they pulled away then yes Penalty. Willies one you said he should of released show have pinged Aus as they did not release him to go for the ball.
Early on when they got crazy with the cards for tackles with new laws, they would say if the ball carrier ducked that it was mitigating circumstances. Now it's just a card no matter what. With the experimental 5 seconds for the scrumhalf to pass, it is too easy for opposition hands from both sides and the middle to interfere with the ball, whereas before the ball carrying team could have time for players to bind and make a barrier. It's not going to be pretty unless they disallow Maro Itoje type of nuisance at the rucks.
What’s your view on what Willie is doing to Kellaway. Is he playing a player without the ball ? Can you tackle a tackler ? (i dont believe you can ) or should he be binding in on his own player. At the stage before his he plays kellaway, it is lot a tip tackle as his feet were always below.
Amazing how people always complain about South Africa Rugby. FYI they actually have referee part of the team they consult. So, the line out wasn't illegal!!! Still love your video's keep it up.
And what did Jesse Kriel do as well.? Isn't the crocodile tackle banned as well? But he got away with it again without penalty? Like his head contact in WC as well? My veiw of inconsistent officials. Not that it had influenced the outcome.of the game. But again,one got away,other got yellow card. And some players are banned,? Same offence,3 different outcomes!!??
Marx tackle makes me think why Sam Can got a red in a final and Marx got a yellow here. Jessie Kriel stepped and changed direction which in real time makes it harder to adjust as a defender. Marx was tackler assit makes it worse and only gets a yellow. The inconsistency is a problem. You just need the right ref on the day
Should it, should lifting be a red, or should it be a yellow only. You might just lift a player in tackle accidentally. I think each case needs merit and danger
I have a feeling that teams often check with the referees in the days leading up to matches. I know Rassie has done this in the past. They create a move but check with the referees before, eg Willemse calling a mark vs France
Flying wedge was set up when people supported A RUNNER and made it dangerous due to contact by having a support player each side of the ball carrier with momentum going forward.. What the start of the Kolisi try is, is a start of a new mall. LEGALLY so. Same as the midfield one the Boks did in 2019 WC final . Only extra is the fact it went to a lineout jumper. Callaway is a yellow all day. The rule is very simple. If you lift the player he has to come down safely ? Can you tell me he came back down safely? What Willie did was at that time Ball carrier in the air as in Not on the ground, Dixon joined and 9 Aus. That means this is now a Mall. Australia are not allowed to bring it down but if Willie collapses our mall ref would say " Down by green " and play on. Clean catch means that the ball shouldn't bobble up and then be recaught. This Write caught it so cleanly that an impact with his team mate did not dislodge the ball.I was on the same train of thought as you were till I saw the replay that clearly shows the clean catch.
You’re wrong on the line out call mate. You don’t think they’ve reviewed it and checked it before using it. They have Jaco Peyper in the coaching staff
How can you say lifting and inverting is not cardable just because WLR twas pulling him off resulting in all going down, he could have let CR go before as he felt other players engaging. Nobody should lift & invert any player, thats dangerous already before landings are even discussed..
Those missed penalties by the ref where game changing moments for the Wallabies. It changed the momentum of the game and put the Wallabies on the back foot early. It was incredible the leeway by the ref and TMO for the Boks on the penalties early on, then always you will see this rubbish from refs even up the penalty count towards the end of games to remove any hint of bias or lets say their mistakes.
You're stretching with the Marx tackle. Everything you mentioned are mitigating factors which stops the red. The fact is is that there was head contact and thats yellow, if you have a problem it's with the rules not the ref...
I don't agree with your statement. If any head contact is a yellow card, why was the New Zealand player not yellow carded? There was clear head contact as per the TMO of that match. It seems that as per most cases, you are correct where any head contact is a yellow card, but then you get good old Mr Gardner in the NZ vs ARG game making up his own rules.
You don't have to be behind the kicker but the ball and Le Roux may have been behind or in line with the ball. Lineouts are debatable and at best a grey area. However, im not convinced it is that useful. Perhaps just a confusing tactic Rassie is experimenting with to do something else. The other inconsistency between the games was the different application of rolling away.
@TASanalytics going on your Mark call. The “clean catch” part of the law was written out a good few years ago. It no longer has to be a clean catch, just a fair catch. Normally I’d agree with you on a lot of things but the “wedge” and “mark” points aren’t correct.
@TASanalytics also there is nothing in law to say you cannot dive or jump over a ruck to make a tackle. The new law trial, however, does state that a player who is part of the ruck/maul cannot play the 9 within a meter of the ruck/maul.
OMG I can't believe rugby has come to this. Every small little thing is being analyzed. Circling every little thing. I understand that "certain" tackles are dangerous. It feels like a bunch of men complaining about a load of crap. One of these days every country will have a legal team to analyze each game at the end and they will have some sort of hearing just to find someone guilty. They just sound like a bunch of old ladies with wet panties😅
Rugby being shred to pieces with all these stupid laws and referees to being inconsistent ,with dishing out yellow and red cards. Why not add some other coloured cards for punishment. Like kicking the ball to hard perhaps or diving to dangerously when scoring a try, i mean its all about the safety of the players isn't it?
First thing if you understand from SA in the line out was fone but the best ref in the world being on the SA squad so they tend to take the rules to the limit hence you see SA with different strategies in this championship
Obviously the two pod lineout is the controversial bit here. All the other examples you gave were bad calls, ref misses etc. This one however, I feel goes down to interpretation of the law. So on the day, the referee, the touch judges and the TMO all interpreted the laws in such a way that would allow the move to pass as legal. This is obviously not a slam dunk argument to say that it should be legal. I do however, have a bone to pick about when a lineout ends. It does not end with the ball being passed to the scrumhalf or any other player; it ends when the lineout jumper is safely on the ground (as the lineout jumper is under no obligation to pass the ball, or he could just touch the ball or miss it completely). Even if the jumper passes the ball while in the air, the opponents are not allowed to infringe either the jumper or his support players. To my knowledge, there is no law stating that only one jumper is allowed to go up. That - according to my interpretation at least - means that the rules of the lineout are still in force. Etzebeth's support players had the duty to bring him down safely and it just so happens that they were in perfect position to do a bind. Consider this: imagine that the ball was thrown to Etzebeth and he only got a finger on it, while the ball traveled on its original trajectory. So Dixon, behind Etzebeth, goes up and catches the ball. His support players then form a maul. That would count as a clean catch, correct? The only difference in this case is the fact that the touch was very much deliberate.
When Koch makes the first hit on the player it shifts his head across towards Marx which results in the head contact. Another mitigating factor. Should never have been a yellow.
Dude. That's no flying wedge. It's a maul. No movement was made by the ball in yardage whilsti etzebeths possession Before contact was made by Australian player.
I can understand what you saying about the flying wedges. But if you watch both those line-outs, look at the actual line-out where the ball first goes. How do the Aussies get away with ploughing through the line-out before the player is brought back down to the ground safely?
4:00 You're wrong. The ball is still in the lineout. The ball hasn't left the line of touch and is still between the 5 and 15M lines. Just because the jumper gave the ball to someone else the lineout has not ended. Even if a maul is formed the lineout continues until the maul is moved beyond the line. It's also not a flying wedge because the defending hooker makes contact with the jumper and lifters as the jumper hits the ground.
The only way to counter the lineout maul is to not get involved in it.. then after few steps one defender just touches the maul then it would be a penalty to the defenders. Just step away from the the maul. Easy peazy
i ask myself, is it possible that the rules are just too complicated and we expect mere humans referees to get it right under the pressure of international rugby. On the other hand it sure feels at times that consistency in a referee's decisions making between certain nations is found to be somewhat lacking too. If so, why the hate on Springboks? What's the motivation and drive here? Diverse bunch of guys from all walks of life making it against all odds and becoming world champs. Is this not a good thing anymore? Springboks are damn good to watch and sure feels good as a supporter all things considered.
The tackle on SA 9 is red and suspension all decade long, player safety takes president over anything else, the dangerous act was not SA 15 pulling AUS 14 but AUS 14 lifting SA 9, that's not accidental, it's on purpose and done with nothing else but desperation and malicious intent and at minimum with zero regard for a fellow player. No player deserves to spend life after rugby in a wheelchair no matter how much people complain that rugby has become "soft".
Im not too fond with all the new kak rules either but knowing Rassie i dont think he would have done that move unless it was approved by Jaco Payper as he is working with the Bokke now. Dont forget Rassie is a genius at finding exploits in rugby so i doubt it was illegal.
I definitely think Peyper and Rassie worked on this together. Because it's a massive grey area in the game. So hats off to them. We're lucky to have Rassie as a coach. But yeah just using logic, I don't think that should be legal. Will be interesting to see if World Rugbt changes the law because SA is exploiting the bad wording of the law book
@@tasanalytics oh yeah most definitely! Everything South Africa does seems to be an issue for World Rugby. They will do anything and Everything to neutralise us. And they're not even trying to hide it😂😂 but having a 300IQ director of rugby is what makes me confident no matter what changes they bring.
I am so glad I only know half of all the rules. Won't enjoy it otherwise. Those that studied all the rules and knows everything ..... good luck enjoying rugby !!
The Ref in the NZ game that ruled out a card on Blackadder was correct. Thats how these dubious potential card infringements should be handled. Now the difference for me between the marx taxle and Blackadders one is there was no force in the blackadder tackle (more by the attacking player than defender) whereas Marx clearly was aiming to do a dominant tackle. All of these incidents including the red card on Cane in the WC final should all be penalties as they are generally all mistakes or not intentional. IMO there was far more intent in the Marx tackle than either the Blackadder or Cane tackles. Rugby needs to follow leagues example and have a tribunal after the games to ban players for the next match over plays like this not this crap during the game because its all just a lottery on the refs whim atm. And I have been saying you saffas eventually would end up on the wrong end of these calls but you got lucky this time that it was in a game you won comfortably. Eventually you'll get done out of a match like NZ were in the WC final (both the Cane red and Frizzel yellow were complete BS) and you'll be filthy about it like we were.
not sure about the line out area... think that can be argued both ways until it's cleared up, but some of those mid games decisions were shocking, for both sides, and at really crucial times. The mistakes around the ruck, consistently., were pretty bad. imo, stackable. He shouldn't;t be doing that job if he an't get the ruck right 98% of the time... and the TMO has no excuse, he should be sacked full stop
The Argentina game call of low degree of danger because the blue players head made contact with the black players shoulder is the most ridiculous abuse of the laws I have seen for years, "if this then that, but if we choose then that is this". Absolutely ridiculous, and the New Zealand commentary around this decision was so biased it was almost diabolical. Total absurdity all round.
Yes, they probably did. And Peyper probably told them that there is a grey area in the laws regarding when it ends or not. Common sense would suggest when the ball gets passed to another player and not transfered, then the lineout is over
@@tasanalytics i don’t think your watching the right sport if you want common sense hahaha - rugby departed from common sense a while back. Still very fun to watch though 😅 thank you for your game analysis it is always very welcome and interesting to watch. Thanks mate 😊
Aus makes contact with eben it becomes a maul....that simple and anyone can loft a player in or outside a linout.....SA would never have attempted it otherwise so nothing wrong with it
@TASanalytics , thanks for the awesome videos . I dont know why so many people jump onto this channel to give you so much k@k 😅. If the public dont like your videos then just stop watching them ....go support someone else's channel who does content like this ....oh wait ....there isn't actually anyone else out there that's as Clear , Professional and Understandable as what TASanalytics videos are . Much respect from a Die Hard Springbok Fan and Big fan of your work.😎
" If the public don't like your videos then just stop watching them " . Well that's just silly. When any person publishes any content in public then anyone is free to comment on it. It's like saying oh I don't like what that politician is saying so I'm not going to listen to said politician. Of course you are. I've made comment on these videos at various times in the past because much of the content is simply wrong or finicky.
@clarke1319 100% , I agree with you , however I feel that a lot of people don't comment on the channel to " Discuss / Chat " but rather to " Attack / Negatively Comment " on whatever topic is at hand... I just get annoyed when people are " Lus " for Social Verbal Warfare .
@@richardvanschalkwyk4274 problem Is that channels like his criticise refs for so called wrong decisions when in fact he has woefully misinterpreted the laws to make it seem that way. In this video he only got 2 things right but yet this video will be used as evidence that refs are doing a good job. It’s embarrassing and as a fellow Bok fan, he is embarrassing us all with this tripe
@notenoughstones3873 Fair Point 👍. Is it fair to say that if we are meant to be more lenient towards ref , shouldn't we be more lenient towards his channel and opinion ? I guess no one is perfect ( Except for Rassie ofcourse 😆😉 )
@@richardvanschalkwyk4274 no I don’t think so. Being a ref is a super tough job and they get more than enough criticism online without unnecessary (and inaccurate videos) adding to it. The fact the SA haven’t produced a decent ref since Peyper says a lot too. Who would want to be a ref when you have everyone telling you how kak you are week in week out?
SA fan here. Marx should have been lower. You say he's dipped as low as he can but that's just plain not true. Gold is dipped lower than green at the very least, so if Marx physically can't dip lower than gold he should work on his flexibility. He also went in with the shoulder. Kellaway is yellow all day. Clearly picks the player up into a dangerous position from the offset. Reinach body past horizontal before Willie even enters the scene. Gold was all over second jumping pod, especially in the second one, before it became a flying wedge. Slow news day for you nitpicking these decisions today. Common, dude.
I used to enjoy this channel when they actually looked at the laws. Passing the ball does not end a lineout. The liberty ends when the ball passes the 15m line, or goes back between touch and the 5m line, or when the ball goes backwards or forwards 5m. Why pretend that passing the ball ends it?? Then why draw an offsides line from the trailing foot of the kicker instead of from the ball? Why try to manipulate something into something it isn’t? As for lifting someone in the tackle, once you lift and tilt past horizontal (in this case through to vertical), it’s the tacklers responsibility to bring him down safely. Even if 15 pulled the mail down, it was still the tacklers responsibility, since he was the one who lifted. Pathetic attempt at decision reviews…
buffalo! how else do you want a forward to run? - stand up so he can be cut into half. look at the tackler's position approaching with his arm(straight to the head) if the runner stands up it will be even worse straight to betw waist and chest or just straight to the chest which will be a red card! be objective!
Thank you TAS Analytics for all the work you do to get these videos out! You're my go-to channel after all the big games... please keep doing what you're doing.
I feel like the Kellaway on Reinach tackle is a yellow . . . regardless of Le Roux’s actions, that was a reckless move that deliberately put Reinach in harms way. You can’t lift a player like that . . . period.
and invert hold inverted that you created, defo Yellow
100%, his illegal pickup created the dangerous scenario which then occurred. Very easy yellow card decision.
Yup that was the correct call, cause of AU 14 didn’t break the law there wouldn’t be a dangerous situation. Leroux’s actions aren’t illegal as you can bring a player held up to ground but you can’t lift a player vertical like that for very obvious reasons.
Once again no consistency. Absolutely shocking
when Ireland players lifted up Etzebeth there was no foul even if it was potentially more dangerous
Flying wedge point is just flat out wrong, read Law 18.37... a lineout only ends if someone leaves the lineout or if a ruck/maul forms. Since the receiver from the catcher was still within the lineout, the lineout hasn't ended yet... fair game
Please research the laws before complaining
Research you say. Haha so explain the process of the ball going from SA 7 to SA 4, what happened? The ball was passed, not transfered through the hands. That makes SA 4 a ball carrier, not a lineout option.
I'll ask you this. If we apply your logic to the 2 first clips I showed with the ball being passed to the scrumhalf. using your logic, the lineout is not over when the receiver gets passed the ball. So using your own logic there, the scrumhalf can have the ball for an infinite amount of time and Australia can't approach him until he goes past the 15m line. See why that would be an absolutely stupid law if we apply it like that?
you fucked in your head, pushing your own laws...
@@tasanalytics - Actually, he could be right.
The conditions for ending a lineout are as follows:
Ball or Player Leaves the Lineout: The lineout ends when the ball or a player in possession of the ball leaves the lineout.
Neither the ball nor the player in possession of it left the lineout. Although the ball was passed to another player, it could be argued that player was still part of the lineout. Not so?
Maybe Luke Pierce didn't get it wrong....however in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the match. The Aussies were going to get a hiding no matter what. 😁
@tasanalytics you sound like Terence Howard. You make so many assumptions which are not defined at all. Here is the full 18.37
The lineout ends when:
a. The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
i. leaves the lineout; or
ii. enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
iii. goes beyond the 15-metre line.
b. A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
So lets through this.
i) does the does the ball or player in possesion leave the lineout? No.
ii) enter the 5m zone? No
iii) Goes beyond the 15m line? No
b) does a ruck or mall form? No.
Now what consitutues a lineout forming in case you say passing the ball leaves the lineout.
18. 9 A lineout is formed on the mark of touch.
18.10
Each team forms a single line parallel to and half a metre from the mark of touch on their side of the lineout between the five-metre and 15-metre lines. The gap between the lines must be maintained until the ball is thrown
The ball is passed "parallel" and therefore never leaves the lineout.
Seriously, you do some good analysis but this one youre really reaching here.
Guys please man... book a meeting face to face these long messages and laws etc... is too much 😅
I don't think the boks would have done the two pod lineout withou clearing it with Peyps beforehand
They definitely talked to Peyper about it beforehand. And I'm prettys ure Peyper told them that it was a big grey area, which they exploited. Nothing wrong with that. But yeah pretty sure if common sense is used, World Rugby will change that. But then again, we're talking about World Rugby, so good chance they do nothing about it
@@tasanalyticshow very Rassie to exploit a grey area!
It’s within the laws (law 37) as long as the ball carrier is still in the line out it’s not over. Here they passed it flat to another jumper which is legal and still on the line out make and in the line out so it ain’t over. If you pass to 9 then the ball carrier is now out of the line out hence why it’s over. The law also says the line out is over of a maul forms and all the feet of the players involved leave the mark, if there’s a ruck or the ball becomes unplayable. If the ball leaves the 5m or 15m line it’s over.
@@dreammaker9642 Have to agree with you here. The front pod is still inside the lineout, thus the ball never leaves the lineout. The law doesn't state anything about passing the ball inside the lineout, it does state that if the ball or ball carrier leaves the lineout, the lineout is over.
@@christruternieuwoudt4809 I mean for now 😂 I expect WR will be swift at changing the wording
This kid should learn the rules
Agreed I did understand Gardners explanation for the High contact. Problem with the Yellow for Aus was the fact the tackler could not control the tackle and in fact it was his own player who made it dangerous not Willie. There is always missed calls by refs that what makes it human as for the Lineout there is nothing wrong as Aus went for the Maul if they pulled away then yes Penalty.
Laws*
Unfortunately your interpretation of the laws is lacking in many areas yet again. Firstly for the head contacts, the only incorrect decision was Angus Gardner's decision. That should have been a yellow as low degree of danger only mitigates to a yellow, not a penalty. Marx's one was unfortunate but is in line with the protocol. Could have been mitigated to a penalty but we have seen yellows for plenty of tackles like that so it is consistent overall. Tip tackle on Reinach was a yellow. Regardless of what Willie does, the tackler takes all the responsibility when lifting a player and not getting him safely to the ground. Even if Willie was in the wrong, this doesn't take away from what Kellaway did. The fact that he stayed on a yellow means that they likely did take it into account otherwise that was a pretty straight forward red card. So yellow was the right call there too. So now you have criticised 3 decisions when in fact only one was incorrect. The other two were called perfectly fine.
On the so called flying wedge, you have completely misinterpreted what a flying wedge actually is. A flying wedge is when a ball carrier is charging forward, usually towards the goal line, with 2+ players latched to him. A ball carrier turning his back to set up for a maul in open play is not, in any way, a flying wedge. I'm sorry but you are just 100% wrong here. There have been several mauls attempted in open play and nobody would ever call those a flying wedge. All you have done is read the definition of a flying wedge and then applied it to a maul in open play. You have completely ignored the context in which that definition was developed and the relevant application guidelines for both the wedge and mauls. There are literal videos about open play mauls to watch and the Maul Working Group Outcomes clearly stated that open play mauls are to be refereed the same as mauls at the lineout. So far, you have got 4 out of 5 wrong in this video. Not a great start.
The Aus no 9 did knock that ball on and to his credit, Luke Pierce actually acknowledge this was a mistake and that he didn't see it. Fair play to him for owning up. However you then drum up a few 50/50 decisions and then criticise these as if they were 100% wrong. On the mark call, the player caught the ball, called the mark and was then clattered into by his own player. At the point of calling the mark and touching the ground, the game is stopped so anything after that is inconsequential. You then claimed Eben knocked on when it is not clear if it was ripped or knocked on or whether the ball was ripped when Eben was already on the ground on not. This is a classic 50/50 which can go either way and neither would be wrong yet you are so sure your version is correct and then use it to bash the referee again.
You have saved the worst for near the end. It is just laughable that you think Willie was offside. This alone tells me and others that you have no idea of how offsides work in open play and also just adds further to my point that you fundamentally do not understand the laws. The offside line from a kick in open play is the point where the ball is kicked, not the hind most leg of the kicker. According to your made up laws, Am was also offside for Mapimpi's try at the 2019 WC because he definitely wasn't behind Mapimpi's hind leg either. This was also reviewed and funny thing is they didn't apply your made up laws but applied the actual laws. I am just embarrassed for you at this point.
Overall this was a hopelessly poor video which shows a vast, gaping lack of knowledge of the laws of the game and how they are interpreted. You seem to think because you read the laws and definitions you are now an expert of sorts but it is rather obvious you have completely missed all the related guidelines, outcomes of working groups, explanatory videos etc. and yet you now think you are adept enough to criticise referees week in week out and stir up this "inconsistent refereeing" narrative when the only reason you see it that way, is because your lack of knowledge makes it that may way.
I suggest you take a referees course and read up ALOT more before making another video because this is just an absolute shambles now.
Jesus Christ, leave the man some dignity after his silly videos 🔥🔥🔥
I had a look at the world rugby framework. For degree of danger it has 3 options after head contact with Low being PK not yellow. the red had the right to make that call.
@@katcraigthomsen3429 a PK is normally reserved for when there is indirect head contact and low force. Gardner’s decision is very inconsistent with how it has been reffed over the last few years. Of the 4 criteria for low degree of danger, this tackle maybe meets one of them so it’s very unusual for it to be a PK only. But if he saw a very low degree of danger yes he can call a PK only but this is certainly an outlier
@@notenoughstones3873 i did love the way he dominated the TMO. That was super rugbys aim this year to put refs back in control. Wasnt long ago a heavy impact broke Rettalils cheek and that was just a yellow due to being passive. This was very soft impact
It’s a shame. It looks like TASanalysis reply’s to most comments but didn’t reply to this one.
Your offside line is drawn incorrectly. It is not at the back foot of the kicker. That attacking player was in line with the kicker, and behind the ball.
You are wrong. "The offside line is an imaginary line that runs across the field, parallel to the goal lines, and is located at the kicker's back foot when the ball is kicked."
@@leoncosgrove4138 You seem to have used a direct quote from somewhere. Where is that from?
@@kkgman4459 law 10.4.c
@@kkgman4459 law 10.4.c
When you have 2 players bound and the defending team touches the player with the ball its not illegal,because the ball did not transfer. If he shits the ball before making contact with defenders then It would be a penalty to AUS,
But the ball was "transfered" the moment it was passed from 7 to 4
I would like to see him shit the ball
@@tasanalytics fair enough,that is a very tactical thing and I personally think it will differ from ref to ref how the see it
Just one question: Why didn't any of the officials call or pundits talk about the flying wedge? And why wasn't it called in the game? The line out wasn't over at all according to the current laws of the game. You're applying your opinion, that's all.
Ahh okay so because the pundits missed it, that means I'm wrong. Maybe check the laws on flying wedge, and comment again. As for the officials, I don't know how they missed it. They probably thought it was a trick play, and just thought it was okay. Which is a problem because you would want an international referee to be able to spot stuff like that.
@@tasanalyticsHave you even read all the comments factually saying you are incorrect?
@@Steynbruweradventures "Factually"?? Mate, we're reading different comments then. All I'm seeing is a few try to copy paste the lineout laws, and proving my point as to how this is a very grey area. The ball never "transfers" from SA 7 to SA 4, it directly gets passed to him. Meaning he is a ball carrier. If They were bound to the same maul, and then it gets tranfered to him, yes then it stays a lineout and a Maul. But as I clearly showed in the clip, the ball gets passed. Much the same like when SA 7 would pass the ball to the receiver.
So it is nowhere close to being "Factually". It's a clear grey area that Rassie exploited with the help of Peyper. Good on them, but if common sense is applied, World Rugby will fix that flaw in the law book.
@@tasanalytics You're annotations are wrong. They say the lineout is over when SA4 passes the ball and SA9 gets the ball. Two different moments in time. which is it?
@@tasanalytics I have read all this with interest, and I have a question: The two players ( 7 and 4) are in the lineout, correctly. And at the moment the ball moves from 7 to 4, both are in the air, not on the ground. In that circumstance since this is happening in the lineout and it's clearly still in progress, I am not Certain you can say it's a pass. If it's not a pass, it has to be a transfer. If its a transfer, and its not forwards....its legal. No? Your point rests completely on your observation that the Lineout is over because the ball was passed. BUT if the line out is not over it seems to me the play follows is legal.
To say he cant go any lower to tackle and has no other options is not correct. He can tackle the legs. 16 SA also pushs up into the tackle which is into the head contact obviously. There's nothing stopping him driving forward or downward.
AUS 14 can lift players that's not illegal you just can't then drop them on there head or turn them feet over head into the ground. If he was attempting a croc roll off the lift then that's obviously different and highly illegal.
The ball being pass back in the line out. It is the same as a player making contact with his hand and the player behind him or several people on catching the ball. It is still inside the line out. hence all the liner rules still apply.
If anything this video shows reffing is really hard as both teams had wrong calls against them.
The “he caught it first” mark was hilarious though. 😂
Its been quite a few years since I've handeled a whistle and the rules might have changed since then. I understood the lineout ends when the ball leaves the box formed by the outer shoulders of the players in the line. That 2nd pod was still part if the line-out. So no flying wedge. I stand to be corrected though
Once the ball is thrown in, the lineout area is where the contest for the ball occurs, and the lineout is officially over when the ball or a player carrying the ball leaves this designated area. The lineout area also consists of two lines of players from each team, who must be at least half a meter apart from each other. So once the ball is received this the new lineout area. So passing the ball to the front of the lineout means it has left of the lineout area of contest and the line out is over.
Reply
@@leoncosgrove4138 Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post .I had a quick look at Rule 19 and nowhere can I find any indication that the line-out shrinks to the catcher and his 2 supporters the moment he catches the ball. I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction.
All I can find on the ending of a line-out is the following:
When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the line-out, the line-out ends.
When a line-out player hands the ball to a player who is peeling-off, the line-out ends.
When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the line-out ends.
When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touch-line.
When a ruck or maul develops in a line-out, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line-of-touch, the line-out ends.
When the ball becomes unplayable in a line-out, the line-out ends. Play restarts with a scrum.
What about the last try before half time? SA deserved a penalty from the scrum.
But instead the winger ran through the forward pack while using multiple blockers and scores untouched. What is the TMO looking at?
1. Law 19 refers in detail to the Lineout and to quote the law: The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout. This includes the following: a) When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
Would this not cover the line out, does not say once it leaves the receivers hands or you would have immediate accidental offside at any "maul" that isn't formed 🤔 (This is not a rule I am well versed in)
2. Marx could of gone lower in his tackle, a Yellow was harsh but I do feel that if we want to make sure these things don't keep happening we need to penalize both parties when it is clear that the attacking player is dipping into a tackle. Just because they have the ball does not make it any less dangerous and NZ should of seen a 20min red at least with very little there to mitigate
3. Kellaway yellow - He decides to lift the player that's the foul play this was also the second foul in a very short time as there was also a tackle near the 5m line on Le Roux without the ball. I don't like what Le Roux does on Kellaway but as far as he can see we still have the ball and this could become a maul? Hence the attempt to bring it down 🤔
You could give a 20min red for Kellaway for the creation of the dangerous play and then Le Roux a yellow for tackling a player without the ball? But then you have the problem of this same attack you had Aus tackle Le Roux without the ball near the try line.
Cannot have this in Rugby and take away the lift and you take away the danger
4. The Le Roux offside is very difficult from our angles to decipher this isn't football where you have lines drawn on offside often from the angle he looks off but not sure it is worth the highlight in the video as it's not by a mile either
5. Le Roux isolated not letting go, he attempts to put the ball down and then grab it again
At the time I thought it should be a foul for holding but in your video it looks more like a release and then an attempt to get up which fails and he is essentially playing it on the ground. So either way it's a penalty to Aus imo
6. Good video overall - would have liked a bit more on the consistency issues we see in Rugby. Felt it was harsh that SA saw 3 yellow cards for accumulated fouls, when you compare the territorial dominance SA had in the first half and how many fouls Aus gave away in their own 22. As well as the Kriel knock on being so central and what seemed like a genuine effort to win the ball something I have seen constantly not be given as a yellow. Will bring back the review on field by the ref on the tackle off the ball on Le Roux near or on the 5m line.
What about SA vs All Blacks last WE? Knock on, high tackle, off side, no repo
Will u say something about this? SA was clearly helped by ref
What about all the other matches where the ref helped the All Blacks and the Springboks just had to accept it ? Buddy let me tell you whats good for the goose is good for the gander😉
TAS - Can we get Gayton McKenzie to assist in you posting more recent updates. We hate having to wait weeks befor we see your excellent feedback. This channel is an excellent learning platform for all of us.
I have asked about what constitutes "ahead of the kicker" previously on a ref's panel (I am an ex-referee) as there is no mm-precise definition, like there is in soccer. The consensus is unless the whole of the chaser is ahead of the kicker, play on. From the lines drawn in your video, at the time of the ball leaving the foot of the kicker, there is at least some part of the chaser behind the ball. It is not torsos like in Olympic sprinting - there is simply no clear definition in the law book.
Law 18: The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line. As soon as the scrumhalf picks it up out of the ruck, players can go for the ball (from an onside position). This why a scrumhalf needs a quick clearance.
Law 37: The lineout ends when:
The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
leaves the lineout; or
enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
goes beyond the 15-metre line.
As far as I am aware when the ball was passed to Eben, it has still not left the lineout, nor the other two.
so no it is not a flying wedge. Eben still has the ball in his hands at the front. A flying wedge is when the ball is passed back to the players supporting the wedge before the tackler has a chance to engage the man with the ball. Because the Aus player engaged with Eben before he passed it away, it is perfectly legal.
As copied from World Rugby.
Forming a maul:
1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.
2. It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.
A player ripping the ball from the ball carrier must stay in contact with that player until they have transferred the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.
3. Once formed, a maul must move towards a goal line.
That Line Out piece was simply Rassie & Co knowing the rules better than everybody else.
Wrong on the wedge actually the ball has not travelled one metre from the line out hence the lineout is not over!
Wrong again. Once the ball is thrown in, the lineout area is where the contest for the ball occurs, and the lineout is officially over when the ball or a player carrying the ball leaves this designated area. The lineout area also consists of two lines of players from each team, who must be at least half a meter apart from each other. So once the ball is received this the new lineout area. So passing the ball to the front of the lineout means it has left of the lineout area of contest and the line out is over.
1st one is the right call the player had time to adjust tackle position or not tackle at all.
Kellaway Yellowcard was the right call i believe he did pick the player up. however was put in a position where he couldn't bring the player down safely as SA 15 was pulling him down, so he wasn't able to place him down gently.
It was reviewed and if and the TMO did recognize there was not much he could done. so it stayed a yellow and not changed to red.
The yellow was a ridiculous call and should have been a penalty only. It was very obvious of the other players actions in not allowing Kellaway to place the player back down. The on-field ref and TMO were incorrect
The lineout is over when the ball leaves the line NOT when the halfback gets the ball! There is NOTHING illegal in the flying wedge
1) The ball did NOT leave the line though there is reason to argue the lineout is over considering the pass from 7 deviated from the line therefore the Wallaby defenders can come off the line!
2) The support players bound to the side and behind the jumper/catcher therefore since there is NO support player in front of the jumper/catcher of the wedge then there NO infringement for offside
3) if the jumper/catcher of the wedge delivers the ball to the 4th support player of the wedge before the Wallaby player defends and makes contact to the wedged maul then the jumper/catcher of the wedge is in a offside position
4) The ball cannot be transferred from the front of the wedged maul till a defender has engaged in the wedge maul - if the transfer to the back of the maul has happened before a defender makes contact to defend the maul then the jumper/catcher is offside!
That tackle on Valentini would have been a red card last year
It don't agree with it, but thats what I think would have happened.
After the world cup final a lot of fans weren't happy watching 15 guys play 14 guys after 4 years of hyping things up, for what was a pretty minor head contact not requiring a HIA.
This year the referee's have let things slide a little more.
Turns out by having super strict head contact laws it actually incentivizes players to dip into tackles head first in the hopes of getting their opposition sin-binned.
7:12 you need to actually learn the Laws. Law 13.3 The players from the kicking team must be behind the ball when it is kicked otherwise those players are offside.
The SA 15 doesn't have to be in front of the KICKER to be offside. He has to be in front of the BALL. Which he is not.
@@mikezog1030 mate this guy thinks forming a maul in open play is the same as a flying wedge so that says a lot. The Laws are not his strong point I’m afraid
Wrong. The offside line is an imaginary line that runs across the field, parallel to the goal lines, and is located at the kicker's back foot when the ball is kicked.
@@leoncosgrove4138 looks like we have found TAS’s alternate account lol. So TAS can you please provide exactly where it states in the laws that players must be behind the kickers back foot?
@@mikezog1030 law 10.4.c
@@notenoughstones3873 law 10.4.c
Question - On the lineout, as the player is lifted does that influence the binding? He has a right to be put down safely?
Law says the ball must leave the lineout. Has it left the lineout ? They are still in the lineout ?
well if the lineout is over when it gets passed to the scrummie, shouldn't the same logic be applied to when you pass it to someone else? Because it wasn't transfered through their hands, he directly passes it to another player. To me that means he is passing it to a ball carrier.
with that logic, malls don't exist in rugby @@tasanalytics
@@tasanalyticsThe short answer to your question is "no". Law 18(37), entitled "Ending a Lineout" is clear:
"The lineout ends when:
(a) The ball or a player in possession of the ball:
(i) leaves the lineout; or
(ii) enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or
(iii) goes beyond the 15-metre line.
(b) A ruck or maul forms and all of the feet of all of the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the mark of touch.
(c) The ball becomes unplayable."
None of these things happened when the ball was passed to Eben, so the lineout was not over.
@@RobertHerbst93 In Mauls you are meant to rip it back whilst being bound. Here the issue is that the player isnt part of this maul hence it is a pass.
It hasn't "left the lineout". It's not passed to the received and no player who was part of the lineout has left yhe lineout either. It's simply passed from one player in the lineout to another.
I'm sure Jaco Pyper would have reviewed this play in training and given it the green light
All things considered . . . I think the standard of refereeing in rugby is getting better.
Think about it this way, soccer is a simple game with a handful of rules . . . look at the VAR controversy there.
We are on the right track, change takes time.
What is a flying wedge. The number eben looked to have the ball then auz made contact turning in to a mual?
But l have never heard of a flying wedge rule
Here's a simple solution to the Marx tackle. He should pull out of it entirely. His teammate is more than able to tackle or halt the momentum of the ball carrier on his own, so Marx doesn't need to assist in anyway. Or he could stand upright rather than go low, because if he receives the head of the ball carrier into his chest, he can simply absorb the hit and shift backwards.
I don't understand why, in those instances, especially when there is another tackler involved, the defender doesn't just push downward on the attacker's shoulders (a bit like we do in wrestling/grappling/judo)....if you do it well enough, the attacker just falls flat on the ground, and his head is never in danger.
@@mateiyu-4082 moight need to play against some of these big boys in those positions to understand why that doesn't work... these guys can leg press like 500kg plus, that's planted and being pushed forward with forward pace at optimum angles... it's not just being pushed over like judo lol, sorry man, off pace on that one for sure... maybe if it's a little back or something, but especially the bok boys, some of the strongest in the game... no chance
Coming in as the second tackler is always dangerous. One thing I don’t understand is how that can be called a mitigating factor ! It’s a hit to the head and you are the second in, the onus should be on you to avoid the head at all costs!
@@josephgerrardselfdefencebut the other player is changing their point of balance which should help!
That's a terrible solution. So the best idea is to stick as small a guy as possible in there and he just runs around crouched and noone is allowed to tackle him. Just admit these rules are dumb and if any one player is forced to not attack any other player the rules are broken
Law 31: Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched the player or the ground, the offside line for lineout players is the mark of touch. After that, their offside line is a line through the ball. Now how many times did we see Aussie players creeping around to the Bok side of the maul? Until they were on our side and preventing the ball coming out?
The rules is becoming rediculius. WE can point out a number of things, this is not RUGBY
So the lineout throw was illegal, gd job pointing it out.. shame the ref didn’t know the laws , as well as Le rouxs part in the danger to reinach , he lacked duty of care.
While I agree with many of the points here, the last two points about the "flying wedge" are nonsense. The question of whether the lineout is over or not is irrelevant. The question is whether a legal maul has been formed before the ball is passed back. Remember that mauls can be formed at any time, not only from lineouts! The real question then, is whether the jumper (SA #4) is in front of the ball carrier at the time of the first AUS player attempting to tackle. If so, then it is obstruction (or "flying wedge", "truck and trailer" etc.) If not it is a legal maul.
In both these examples as AUS player makes contact with Etsebeth almost immediately upon landing and before - or whilst - he passes the ball back to Kolisi. (In the first clip the red scrum cap of the AUS player is just visible.) The moment that happens, it is a maul and the ball can be legally transferred back to the tail of the maul.
Someone will have to adjust the wording on the law I feel . Hasn’t this been done before ? I swear I have seen it before years ago?
I did understand Gardners explanation for the High contact. Problem with the Yellow for Aus was the fact the tackler could not control the tackle and in fact it was his own player who made it dangerous not Willie. There is always missed calls by refs that what makes it human as for the Lineout there is nothing wrong as Aus went for the Maul if they pulled away then yes Penalty. Willies one you said he should of released show have pinged Aus as they did not release him to go for the ball.
Early on when they got crazy with the cards for tackles with new laws, they would say if the ball carrier ducked that it was mitigating circumstances. Now it's just a card no matter what.
With the experimental 5 seconds for the scrumhalf to pass, it is too easy for opposition hands from both sides and the middle to interfere with the ball, whereas before the ball carrying team could have time for players to bind and make a barrier. It's not going to be pretty unless they disallow Maro Itoje type of nuisance at the rucks.
There is a significant difference in the degree of danger of the first two tackles. One was a cushioning blow the other.the tackler leant into it.
How is picking up a player "after a linout" any different to picking up a player from a kickoff and creating a maul?
What’s your view on what Willie is doing to Kellaway. Is he playing a player without the ball ? Can you tackle a tackler ? (i dont believe you can ) or should he be binding in on his own player. At the stage before his he plays kellaway, it is lot a tip tackle as his feet were always below.
and was there not already a maul formed when Willie put in the 'tackle', which in itself should have been a pen for Aus
WRT AU's 6 Vs SA 16: at times It looks to me like some players are charging head down to milk yellow cards....
Amazing how people always complain about South Africa Rugby. FYI they actually have referee part of the team they consult. So, the line out wasn't illegal!!! Still love your video's keep it up.
And what did Jesse Kriel do as well.? Isn't the crocodile tackle banned as well? But he got away with it again without penalty? Like his head contact in WC as well? My veiw of inconsistent officials. Not that it had influenced the outcome.of the game. But again,one got away,other got yellow card. And some players are banned,? Same offence,3 different outcomes!!??
Marx tackle makes me think why Sam Can got a red in a final and Marx got a yellow here. Jessie Kriel stepped and changed direction which in real time makes it harder to adjust as a defender. Marx was tackler assit makes it worse and only gets a yellow. The inconsistency is a problem. You just need the right ref on the day
If the Rynach tackle is not a red then I do not know what is?
Mitigating factor on springbok 15. If he didnt touxh him..would have red. Green touched player made it yellow
Should it, should lifting be a red, or should it be a yellow only. You might just lift a player in tackle accidentally. I think each case needs merit and danger
I have a feeling that teams often check with the referees in the days leading up to matches. I know Rassie has done this in the past. They create a move but check with the referees before, eg Willemse calling a mark vs France
Flying wedge was set up when people supported A RUNNER and made it dangerous due to contact by having a support player each side of the ball carrier with momentum going forward.. What the start of the Kolisi try is, is a start of a new mall. LEGALLY so. Same as the midfield one the Boks did in 2019 WC final . Only extra is the fact it went to a lineout jumper.
Callaway is a yellow all day. The rule is very simple. If you lift the player he has to come down safely ? Can you tell me he came back down safely? What Willie did was at that time Ball carrier in the air as in Not on the ground, Dixon joined and 9 Aus. That means this is now a Mall. Australia are not allowed to bring it down but if Willie collapses our mall ref would say " Down by green " and play on.
Clean catch means that the ball shouldn't bobble up and then be recaught. This Write caught it so cleanly that an impact with his team mate did not dislodge the ball.I was on the same train of thought as you were till I saw the replay that clearly shows the clean catch.
You’re wrong on the line out call mate. You don’t think they’ve reviewed it and checked it before using it. They have Jaco Peyper in the coaching staff
How can you say lifting and inverting is not cardable just because WLR twas pulling him off resulting in all going down, he could have let CR go before as he felt other players engaging. Nobody should lift & invert any player, thats dangerous already before landings are even discussed..
Those missed penalties by the ref where game changing moments for the Wallabies. It changed the momentum of the game and put the Wallabies on the back foot early. It was incredible the leeway by the ref and TMO for the Boks on the penalties early on, then always you will see this rubbish from refs even up the penalty count towards the end of games to remove any hint of bias or lets say their mistakes.
You're stretching with the Marx tackle. Everything you mentioned are mitigating factors which stops the red. The fact is is that there was head contact and thats yellow, if you have a problem it's with the rules not the ref...
Especially since Koch actually tackled the same player without any head contact ! If Koch can do it, then Marx should be able to as well.
I don't agree with your statement.
If any head contact is a yellow card, why was the New Zealand player not yellow carded? There was clear head contact as per the TMO of that match.
It seems that as per most cases, you are correct where any head contact is a yellow card, but then you get good old Mr Gardner in the NZ vs ARG game making up his own rules.
Again willie was in front of the kicker but was not clear for the ref....it was very close
Allowing that mark to be called was egregious.
That aus 15 caught the ball and called mark before he lost control of that ball....you really need to look properly friend
You don't have to be behind the kicker but the ball and Le Roux may have been behind or in line with the ball.
Lineouts are debatable and at best a grey area. However, im not convinced it is that useful.
Perhaps just a confusing tactic Rassie is experimenting with to do something else.
The other inconsistency between the games was the different application of rolling away.
I'm pretty sure one of the SA tries also had an obstruction. Did nobody else see that?
@TASanalytics going on your Mark call. The “clean catch” part of the law was written out a good few years ago. It no longer has to be a clean catch, just a fair catch.
Normally I’d agree with you on a lot of things but the “wedge” and “mark” points aren’t correct.
@TASanalytics also there is nothing in law to say you cannot dive or jump over a ruck to make a tackle.
The new law trial, however, does state that a player who is part of the ruck/maul cannot play the 9 within a meter of the ruck/maul.
Can we have your thoughts on that try from the NZ SA game yesterday?
some of these laws are fairly basic but are not applied consistently
OMG I can't believe rugby has come to this. Every small little thing is being analyzed. Circling every little thing. I understand that "certain" tackles are dangerous. It feels like a bunch of men complaining about a load of crap. One of these days every country will have a legal team to analyze each game at the end and they will have some sort of hearing just to find someone guilty. They just sound like a bunch of old ladies with wet panties😅
Rugby being shred to pieces with all these stupid laws and referees to being inconsistent ,with dishing out yellow and red cards. Why not add some other coloured cards for punishment. Like kicking the ball to hard perhaps or diving to dangerously when scoring a try, i mean its all about the safety of the players isn't it?
First thing if you understand from SA in the line out was fone but the best ref in the world being on the SA squad so they tend to take the rules to the limit hence you see SA with different strategies in this championship
He is retired now
Obviously the two pod lineout is the controversial bit here. All the other examples you gave were bad calls, ref misses etc. This one however, I feel goes down to interpretation of the law.
So on the day, the referee, the touch judges and the TMO all interpreted the laws in such a way that would allow the move to pass as legal. This is obviously not a slam dunk argument to say that it should be legal.
I do however, have a bone to pick about when a lineout ends. It does not end with the ball being passed to the scrumhalf or any other player; it ends when the lineout jumper is safely on the ground (as the lineout jumper is under no obligation to pass the ball, or he could just touch the ball or miss it completely). Even if the jumper passes the ball while in the air, the opponents are not allowed to infringe either the jumper or his support players.
To my knowledge, there is no law stating that only one jumper is allowed to go up. That - according to my interpretation at least - means that the rules of the lineout are still in force. Etzebeth's support players had the duty to bring him down safely and it just so happens that they were in perfect position to do a bind.
Consider this: imagine that the ball was thrown to Etzebeth and he only got a finger on it, while the ball traveled on its original trajectory. So Dixon, behind Etzebeth, goes up and catches the ball. His support players then form a maul.
That would count as a clean catch, correct? The only difference in this case is the fact that the touch was very much deliberate.
When Koch makes the first hit on the player it shifts his head across towards Marx which results in the head contact. Another mitigating factor. Should never have been a yellow.
Don't know about the rules but that hand tapping the forehead to draw attention to the head contact was pure Nic White... 😅😅😅
Dude. That's no flying wedge. It's a maul. No movement was made by the ball in yardage whilsti etzebeths possession Before contact was made by Australian player.
Hi mate where is the RWC FINAL analysis Alot there to go over........Also the semi and quater finals
I can understand what you saying about the flying wedges. But if you watch both those line-outs, look at the actual line-out where the ball first goes. How do the Aussies get away with ploughing through the line-out before the player is brought back down to the ground safely?
Wouldn’t there be a flying wedge on every kick off when players are lifted? Penalties on every kick off?
3:05 do you really think Jaco Peyper and the rest of the world would miss these “illegal throws”???????
That was not a flying wedge.... the Aus. Players bind while 4 is still in the air .
4:00 You're wrong. The ball is still in the lineout. The ball hasn't left the line of touch and is still between the 5 and 15M lines. Just because the jumper gave the ball to someone else the lineout has not ended. Even if a maul is formed the lineout continues until the maul is moved beyond the line.
It's also not a flying wedge because the defending hooker makes contact with the jumper and lifters as the jumper hits the ground.
The only way to counter the lineout maul is to not get involved in it.. then after few steps one defender just touches the maul then it would be a penalty to the defenders. Just step away from the the maul. Easy peazy
Best way to avoid head contact is to go for the legs. Even better, goes for the ankles.
i ask myself, is it possible that the rules are just too complicated and we expect mere humans referees to get it right under the pressure of international rugby. On the other hand it sure feels at times that consistency in a referee's decisions making between certain nations is found to be somewhat lacking too.
If so, why the hate on Springboks? What's the motivation and drive here? Diverse bunch of guys from all walks of life making it against all odds and becoming world champs. Is this not a good thing anymore?
Springboks are damn good to watch and sure feels good as a supporter all things considered.
Best comment!
Because, overall, Springbok supporters are the most toxic, arrogant, and just plain annoying fajs in world rugby - coming from a Springbok supporter.
Kellaway did exactly what Wiese did to get a red and a 6 match ban. Don't talk about consistency!
At this point I feel like in the pursuit to tighten up the games been let loose on things like high tackles and such
Aus keeps taking out the lifters while the jumper is still in the air at line outs.
The tackle on SA 9 is red and suspension all decade long, player safety takes president over anything else, the dangerous act was not SA 15 pulling AUS 14 but AUS 14 lifting SA 9, that's not accidental, it's on purpose and done with nothing else but desperation and malicious intent and at minimum with zero regard for a fellow player.
No player deserves to spend life after rugby in a wheelchair no matter how much people complain that rugby has become "soft".
Im not too fond with all the new kak rules either but knowing Rassie i dont think he would have done that move unless it was approved by Jaco Payper as he is working with the Bokke now. Dont forget Rassie is a genius at finding exploits in rugby so i doubt it was illegal.
I definitely think Peyper and Rassie worked on this together. Because it's a massive grey area in the game. So hats off to them. We're lucky to have Rassie as a coach. But yeah just using logic, I don't think that should be legal. Will be interesting to see if World Rugbt changes the law because SA is exploiting the bad wording of the law book
@@tasanalytics oh yeah most definitely! Everything South Africa does seems to be an issue for World Rugby. They will do anything and Everything to neutralise us. And they're not even trying to hide it😂😂 but having a 300IQ director of rugby is what makes me confident no matter what changes they bring.
I am so glad I only know half of all the rules. Won't enjoy it otherwise. Those that studied all the rules and knows everything ..... good luck enjoying rugby !!
The Ref in the NZ game that ruled out a card on Blackadder was correct. Thats how these dubious potential card infringements should be handled. Now the difference for me between the marx taxle and Blackadders one is there was no force in the blackadder tackle (more by the attacking player than defender) whereas Marx clearly was aiming to do a dominant tackle. All of these incidents including the red card on Cane in the WC final should all be penalties as they are generally all mistakes or not intentional. IMO there was far more intent in the Marx tackle than either the Blackadder or Cane tackles.
Rugby needs to follow leagues example and have a tribunal after the games to ban players for the next match over plays like this not this crap during the game because its all just a lottery on the refs whim atm. And I have been saying you saffas eventually would end up on the wrong end of these calls but you got lucky this time that it was in a game you won comfortably. Eventually you'll get done out of a match like NZ were in the WC final (both the Cane red and Frizzel yellow were complete BS) and you'll be filthy about it like we were.
not sure about the line out area... think that can be argued both ways until it's cleared up, but some of those mid games decisions were shocking, for both sides, and at really crucial times. The mistakes around the ruck, consistently., were pretty bad. imo, stackable. He shouldn't;t be doing that job if he an't get the ruck right 98% of the time... and the TMO has no excuse, he should be sacked full stop
Why not show what Jessie Kriel did? This one was penalized, Kriel was walking away unpunished,just like his headcontact in WC.
❤very very inconsistent. Poor Andre Esterhuizen must be wondering of the injustice.
The Argentina game call of low degree of danger because the blue players head made contact with the black players shoulder is the most ridiculous abuse of the laws I have seen for years, "if this then that, but if we choose then that is this". Absolutely ridiculous, and the New Zealand commentary around this decision was so biased it was almost diabolical. Total absurdity all round.
Re: the lineout. I’m pretty sure they would have run that move past Jaco Peyper.
Yes, they probably did. And Peyper probably told them that there is a grey area in the laws regarding when it ends or not. Common sense would suggest when the ball gets passed to another player and not transfered, then the lineout is over
@@tasanalytics i don’t think your watching the right sport if you want common sense hahaha - rugby departed from common sense a while back. Still very fun to watch though 😅 thank you for your game analysis it is always very welcome and interesting to watch. Thanks mate 😊
Aus makes contact with eben it becomes a maul....that simple and anyone can loft a player in or outside a linout.....SA would never have attempted it otherwise so nothing wrong with it
The reinach tackle should have been red
@TASanalytics , thanks for the awesome videos . I dont know why so many people jump onto this channel to give you so much k@k 😅. If the public dont like your videos then just stop watching them ....go support someone else's channel who does content like this ....oh wait ....there isn't actually anyone else out there that's as Clear , Professional and Understandable as what TASanalytics videos are . Much respect from a Die Hard Springbok Fan and Big fan of your work.😎
" If the public don't like your videos then just stop watching them " . Well that's just silly. When any person publishes any content in public then anyone is free to comment on it.
It's like saying oh I don't like what that politician is saying so I'm not going to listen to said politician. Of course you are.
I've made comment on these videos at various times in the past because much of the content is simply wrong or finicky.
@clarke1319 100% , I agree with you , however I feel that a lot of people don't comment on the channel to " Discuss / Chat " but rather to " Attack / Negatively Comment " on whatever topic is at hand... I just get annoyed when people are " Lus " for Social Verbal Warfare .
@@richardvanschalkwyk4274 problem
Is that channels like his criticise refs for so called wrong decisions when in fact he has woefully misinterpreted the laws to make it seem that way. In this video he only got 2 things right but yet this video will be used as evidence that refs are doing a good job. It’s embarrassing and as a fellow Bok fan, he is embarrassing us all with this tripe
@notenoughstones3873 Fair Point 👍. Is it fair to say that if we are meant to be more lenient towards ref , shouldn't we be more lenient towards his channel and opinion ? I guess no one is perfect ( Except for Rassie ofcourse 😆😉 )
@@richardvanschalkwyk4274 no I don’t think so. Being a ref is a super tough job and they get more than enough criticism online without unnecessary (and inaccurate videos) adding to it. The fact the SA haven’t produced a decent ref since Peyper says a lot too. Who would want to be a ref when you have everyone telling you how kak you are week in week out?
The ref did everything he could to make sure australia got some points😂😂😂
SA fan here. Marx should have been lower. You say he's dipped as low as he can but that's just plain not true. Gold is dipped lower than green at the very least, so if Marx physically can't dip lower than gold he should work on his flexibility. He also went in with the shoulder. Kellaway is yellow all day. Clearly picks the player up into a dangerous position from the offset. Reinach body past horizontal before Willie even enters the scene. Gold was all over second jumping pod, especially in the second one, before it became a flying wedge. Slow news day for you nitpicking these decisions today. Common, dude.
rugby union officiating is guess work at its truest, the amount of laws in the game is madness.
I wonder what ball carriers do when carrying the ball
the person who made this video should become a referee and see how tough it is in real time.
Touch judges and video ppl need to assist the referee and get the right decisions, this vid shows they are hopeless
I used to enjoy this channel when they actually looked at the laws.
Passing the ball does not end a lineout. The liberty ends when the ball passes the 15m line, or goes back between touch and the 5m line, or when the ball goes backwards or forwards 5m. Why pretend that passing the ball ends it??
Then why draw an offsides line from the trailing foot of the kicker instead of from the ball? Why try to manipulate something into something it isn’t?
As for lifting someone in the tackle, once you lift and tilt past horizontal (in this case through to vertical), it’s the tacklers responsibility to bring him down safely. Even if 15 pulled the mail down, it was still the tacklers responsibility, since he was the one who lifted.
Pathetic attempt at decision reviews…
buffalo! how else do you want a forward to run? - stand up so he can be cut into half. look at the tackler's position approaching with his arm(straight to the head) if the runner stands up it will be even worse straight to betw waist and chest or just straight to the chest which will be a red card! be objective!
If a Springbok did that it was a red card. Referees are not consistent.
Not a flying wedge as the line out ACTUALLY didn’t end(check the laws if you don’t believe me)
Jasper Wiese got a 6 game ban for a much softer one. Double standard continues.
Thank you TAS Analytics for all the work you do to get these videos out! You're my go-to channel after all the big games... please keep doing what you're doing.