Phew. France will win, but glad it wasn't handed to them.
Rugby Union 21/22/23 Discussion | RWC time!
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
- Status
I think it just has to be like that, but yes it does drag on and the games feel sporadic. The pace of the comp doesn't feel much different to the six nations.
It's now even longer than it used to be but that is due to how much bigger packs now are. On average players are 14kg heavier since RU turned professional, and that's 14kg in muscle.
Ultimately I think it's the increased size of the players that means they now need five days rest minimum. The physicality of the game is insane after 20 odd years or so of professionalism.
Wow full credit to Uruguay here.
What a try! Gaps, but great finish.
This is making me feel a lot better about Farrell choosing a full strength side. Worry about the game right now and worry about the ones after when they come.
Ugh, then shot them selves in the foot
Dopes.
The line for this game was 53 !
Makes you wonder what it’d have been if France played a full strength team
If Uruguay had just been more composed with their set piece in attack, they could be winning this one.
France really should be down to 14 too.
France really should be down to 14 too.
Subpar game by France.
Taniela Tupou will miss Australia's match against Fiji due to a hamstring complaint.
i think any sane person will now agree that unless you play for england, you don’t get a red card for what tom curry did. it’s already at the stage that the officials and world rugby are the biggest talking point of the tournament so far, just what you want of any sporting event.
Not really. Over the past 18 months most Rugby followers have seen it and complained about it. The likes of Valentini or Ta'avao have been redcarded for this. In fact if you pay attention, you will notice a worse trend, if the ball carrier drops his shoulders while the tackler is already engaged, the tackler will be sanctioned by either a yellow card if he hits around the shoulders-neck area and will be red carded if he hits directly the head.
And when players aren't red carded during the game, they are suspended later by commissions.
Last edited:
my point jprouven.
Amongst England fans, sure.
I think England should have challenged the red card that Curry received. There appeared to be a sudden and significant drop in body height from the ball carrier which constitutes mitigation and thus England would have had a good case to claim a yellow card would have been a more appropriate sanction for Curry.
The drop is from being in the air less than one second before the hit. Unless Curry's intended to catch that player in the air or was somehow allowed, there is no mitigating factor.
That would be the effect of gravity. How on earth could Curry have predicted "a sudden and significant drop in body height" from a player who was in mid-air when he decided to initiate the tackle?
I find it really weird the way so many people can't see what's trying to be achieved with all these red cards? Rugby is facing an existential threat because of all the players who end up with brain injury. The players need to learn to stop tackling so high. They have a duty of care to avoid head trauma., for themselves and other players There was absolutely no reason Curry couldn't have aimed to hit the waist of the player he was tackling. He would have still knocked him down but both of them would have avoided having their face split open (and potential brain damage). So long as player choose to tackle in an upright stance they're going to risk being sent off. There's an obvious way to reduce that risk.
If he bends at the waist before contact there's no problem. The picture conveniently includes another England player showing Curry how he could have made the tackle safely, without any red card or head injury. The crazy thing about all of this is that England, more than almost any other team, had plenty of warning about incidents like this in their warm up fixtures. So playing the victim when the inevitable happens in a WC game is spectacularly missing the point.
If he bends at the waist before contact there's no problem. The picture conveniently includes another England player showing Curry how he could have made the tackle safely, without any red card or head injury. The crazy thing about all of this is that England, more than almost any other team, had plenty of warning about incidents like this in their warm up fixtures. So playing the victim when the inevitable happens in a WC game is spectacularly missing the point.
Last edited:
I think everyone can see that, but it’s not applied consistently enough, which is exactly the same problem with football referees. There’s even less excuse than football with the extra sin bin period to decide on the outcome.I find it really weird the way so many people can't see what's trying to be achieved with all these red cards? Rugby is facing an existential threat because of all the players who end up with brain injury. The players need to learn to stop tackling so high. They have a duty of care to avoid head trauma., for themselves and other players There was absolutely no reason Curry couldn't have aimed to hit the waist of the player he was tackling. He would have still knocked him down but both of them would have avoided having their face split open (and potential brain damage). So long as player choose to tackle in an upright stance they're going to risk being sent off. There's an obvious way to reduce that risk.
If he bends at the waist before contact there's no problem. The picture conveniently includes another England player showing Curry how he could have made the tackle safely, without any red card or head injury. The crazy thing about all of this is that England, more than almost any other team, had plenty of warning about incidents like this in their warm up fixtures. So playing the victim when the inevitable happens in a WC game is spectacularly missing the point.
That's true. And is obviously down to human error. Which seems to be impossible to eradicate, in both sports. But the Curry red card was justified. I wouldn't have any problem with anyone complaining about other red cards that should have been awarded but weren't.
I would assume that’s the main reason you’re seeing England fans as playing the victim, it’s easy to come across that way after seeing similar situations go unpunished. But basically people love to moan when things don’t go their way, that’s just sport generally.
I don’t think there’s an easy fix that will satisfy everyone. It’s not like changing the offside rule. Tackling is a hard enough skill as it is, without having to unlearn decades of muscle memory. We will likely continue to see games being “ruined” with red cards for a long time because the vast majority of these red cards are completely unintentional.
but that is the complaint. in pretty much every other game there’s been tackles with contact to an opponent’s head, with (admittedly subjectively,) less mitigation than curry, that hasn’t been red carded or even cited. how is taofifenua’s tackle last night explained with player well-being in mind? it’s just lucky that england are such a great side that going down to 14 after 2 minutes didn’t affect the result, but imagine if something like that had happened to the frances or irelands of this world?
I’m sure you’re right. I’ve never played rugby but I'm sure it's tough to undo tackling instincts you've honed over your whole career. I just fundamentally think this move is the right thing to do and am prepared to put up with a very small minority of games being "ruined" if that's the price we pay to make it a safer sport.
Yeah I think most sensible people would agree it’s something that has to be done. Doesn’t make it much easier to take when it keeps happening in the third minute of the game
I came in to say i prefer fun rimaldo, over serious rimaldo....then i read the bolded bit
Wait, he wasn't being serious?!?
These "high" tackles aren't the product of habits, standard tackles are far lower than that. These higher tackles are typically made to box the ball carrier, create a maul and force a turnover. Curry simply mistimed his tackle. Now the IRB need to think carefully about that one because these type of tackles that have for goal to restrain the arms of the ball carrier are the only way to force a maul in open play, one way to make them less appealing is to simply not give the possession to the defense when they create a maul and the ball isn't released.
Taofifenua's tackle went to the bunker and the TMO thought that the opponent was falling down while the tackle was executed. It could have easily been a red and France have been on the wrong end of those on many occasions.
I find it really weird the way so many people can't see what's trying to be achieved with all these red cards? Rugby is facing an existential threat because of all the players who end up with brain injury. The players need to learn to stop tackling so high. They have a duty of care to avoid head trauma., for themselves and other players There was absolutely no reason Curry couldn't have aimed to hit the waist of the player he was tackling. He would have still knocked him down but both of them would have avoided having their face split open (and potential brain damage). So long as player choose to tackle in an upright stance they're going to risk being sent off. There's an obvious way to reduce that risk.
If he bends at the waist before contact there's no problem. The picture conveniently includes another England player showing Curry how he could have made the tackle safely, without any red card or head injury. The crazy thing about all of this is that England, more than almost any other team, had plenty of warning about incidents like this in their warm up fixtures. So playing the victim when the inevitable happens in a WC game is spectacularly missing the point.
It's because he wants a man-and-ball tackle to gain an advantage. It's a choice he's made and he had time to make it.
A different choice would have been to momentarily hold back and when his feet hit the ground, smash him with the kind of tackle you're describing. This is what other players have adapted to do and it's an extremely effective skill.
Yup, agreed
It’s not as if the bunker and reviewing committee aren’t aware that he was coming down from a height. You can’t go into those tackles standing upright like Curry was - he obviously didn’t intend to do what he did but they are emphasising players to protect other players that are in a precarious spot. Whether we think that’s right or not is another issue.
No one has a problem with the reds, it’s the consistency which is the problem, the SA player got away with it altogether, the French lock with a blatant elbow no attempt to wrap, but gets away with it because he’s being tackled and that therefore means he’s brain is ok with being hit now. All we want is consistency and with that comes better protection for the players.I find it really weird the way so many people can't see what's trying to be achieved with all these red cards? Rugby is facing an existential threat because of all the players who end up with brain injury. The players need to learn to stop tackling so high. They have a duty of care to avoid head trauma., for themselves and other players There was absolutely no reason Curry couldn't have aimed to hit the waist of the player he was tackling. He would have still knocked him down but both of them would have avoided having their face split open (and potential brain damage). So long as player choose to tackle in an upright stance they're going to risk being sent off. There's an obvious way to reduce that risk.
If he bends at the waist before contact there's no problem. The picture conveniently includes another England player showing Curry how he could have made the tackle safely, without any red card or head injury. The crazy thing about all of this is that England, more than almost any other team, had plenty of warning about incidents like this in their warm up fixtures. So playing the victim when the inevitable happens in a WC game is spectacularly missing the point.
We want the rules to be consistently applied and with 100% accuracy. The holy grail. We’re definitely closer to that in rugby than we are in football (in my opinion) but I also think fans need to stop expecting perfection from officiating, in any sport. The human factor means that will never happen.
I could agree with that if the issue didn't largely apply within games. I don't mind a bit inconsistency from one referee to an other or from one game to an other but I have a big issue with two teams being reffed differently within the same game.
Curry mistimed it. He didn’t even start initiating the ‘tackle’….he’s a world class flanker who’s played at the top of the game for years….so you really think he tried to tackle with his face?
I laugh when I hear people say ‘he should tackle lower’ for these face on face ones. He doesn’t even start the tackle because it’s a complete mistiming. I don’t think these are ever going to go away.
This is opposed to, say, the Faz shoulder a few weeks ago where he’s initiated an upright poor quality tackle and hit someone’s head. They’re completely different
I laugh when I hear people say ‘he should tackle lower’ for these face on face ones. He doesn’t even start the tackle because it’s a complete mistiming. I don’t think these are ever going to go away.
This is opposed to, say, the Faz shoulder a few weeks ago where he’s initiated an upright poor quality tackle and hit someone’s head. They’re completely different
Who's fault is the mistiming?
The world class flanker’s, who tackled with his face?
Last edited:
I’m not saying it isn’t his fault am I.
I’m saying he’s fecked up the timing and timing errors will continue to happen. Bear in mind this game is played at a breakneck pace (no pun intended). I’m also not arguing it isn’t a red….I’m trying to make the point that there is a distinction between when someone completes the tackle action and it’s too high, or doesn’t wrap or something….and a situation like this and some others where a tackle hasn’t even happened
- Status