The WORST And Most INCONSISTENT Refereeing You Will Ever See | Ireland vs New Zealand 2022
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2022
- How much videos is enough before World Rugby will finally start taking accountability for bad officiating? How many games have to be ruined by World Rugby's strict red card policy surrounding head clashes? How long before we actually start seeing refs use common sense and context before handing out red cards for rugby incidents? More importantly, how long before we actually see consistent refereeing in international rugby?
Don't get me wrong, The New Zealand vs Ireland series was a good one and one where Ireland deserved to win. But I'm sure Ireland fans would agree that the head clash in the last match was exactly the same as the one in the previous week where the All Blacks got a red card. All Blacks fans have the right to be absolutely livid at World Rugby for being inconsistent with it's officiating. Had Andrew Porter gotten a red card for his hit on Brodie Retallick, which left him with a broken cheek bone, then the game would've been completely different. So how is it that one weekend, we have a head clash and it's red card. Then the following week, the framework simply just changes and the ref can use context? How is that good for the game of rugby? Every week the laws change and it's just ridiculous.
What makes me angry is that this game might be the one that results in Ian Foster losing his job, yet World Rugby won't say a damn thing because they are cowards. They'll just sugarcoat this mistake as "Player Safety" and Northern Hemisphere fans will most likely buy into that excuse. When will this ridiculous framework for head contact stop? How many games must be ruined?
Just to be clear, I don't blame the refs in this. Jaco Peyper did what World Rugby requires him to do. In my opinion, I prefer the way Wayne Barnes dealt with it. But we all now that is not how head clashes have been dealt with these past few years. These types of incidents are always red carded. So what has changed within a week? - Спорт
They are different tackles. The Ireland guy wasn’t accelerating into the NZ player. That is what Barnes says.
His head was moving upwards, no mitigation. Red.
It’s probably more of a red since the Ireland player isn’t accelerating into it. He has more of a chance to dip his head - there’s no real sidestep or change of movement from the NZ player.
Take your beating
All blacks Maori islanders team
Take your beating
Be Quiet please
The Ireland player was not upright...look at his knees!
@@blazescup follow suit please🤡
Pretty ironic New Zealand fans complaining about yellow cards when it was statistically proven only a few years ago that the ABs infringed 3 times as much before receiving a card than most other teams, they infringed more than any other international team 5m from there own line. Quick examples would be South Africa 1 card for every 11 penalties, Australia 1 card for every 12 penalties, New Zealand 1 card for every 43 penalties. Where was the consistency there? Thankfully refereeing gotten better of late but if I was an AB fan I probably wouldn't be shouting too loudly about refereeing if I was them, people in glass houses & all that.......
Where's your source for that? And we are watching a South African video. Don't make unsubstantiated claims champ. Or produce it
I mean, what are you on about? Just enjoy the win and leave the conspiracy theories for the flat earthers
Show us the proof??!!
Most of these infringements are spread out over games, and cards are only shown for repeated infringements or foul play. The repeated infringement rule does not apply since the infringements have to be in a row, with one every minute or so (offside, intentional knock-on, etc.), and the foul play rule is the only likely source of cards for the All Blacks. I'd also like to see your source as a reference point, since you haven't provided one (makes you look stupid). Also, pay attention to the cards per penalty in this series, and not over the 2011-2015 years as World Rugby has gotten a lot stricter (and it is run out of Dublin... ). If you look at the game in Dunedin, the All Blacks conceded the same amount of penalties but had a 3 vs. 1 card count, which shows that the All Blacks really only face cards for foul play, and not for repeated infringement. That is why NZ has such a good card for penalty ratio is because the previous decade's All Blacks did not offer up much foul play to be carded for. If you look at South Africa and Australia, they both play very aggressively on defense, and often are penalised for high tackles.
Nice...The All Blacks have had their fair share of things go their way over the years..Swings and roundabouts.
Massive difference is Brody runs into a still standing player while the first one was a full speed tackle.
no the rules are clear leading with head and head on head contact will get you a red. FYI Brody is almost 2m tall the tackler was suppose to get low those are the rules.
Ahh he was moving
Go rewatch the sideline angle. The Irish player steps into the tackle as much as the All Black player does. Also it doesn't matter. Head to head contact and the TMO even said NO mitigation. It should have been a red.
@@DarkJonas33 wah wahhh
@Albert van Lingen No, look again, both ran into the carrier at the same speed! It doesn't matter if tall or short runners collided head-to-head, it's a RED CARD. Simple as it is!
Whining NZ fans, I don’t remember any of these rugby channels highlighting the inconsistency in the refereeing of the breakdown in test 1. You may also want to take a look back at the test in the Aviva back in 2016 and how that was officiated (pretty disgracefully being the short answer) there wasn’t any whining from Irish media then. Ireland overall deserved the test series win 100%, we’re fully aware this isn’t the best NZ team right now and despite the ranking I’d still have France as No 1 over Ireland, but none of that should takeaway from the achievement, this is particularly for players like Sexton and O’Mahoney those legends deserve every bit of praise they get
Same Incident 1 week later, Ireland deserved all the praise and Winning the series, But if its apples one week and oranges the next, Then its not good for the sport.
what are you talking about? I've not seen any whining about the Irish winning. they're talking about head clashes here and consistent reffing. get your head out of your rear.
Maybe people are upset at world rugby? If you've played this sport you know that having red card for an accidental head clash is ridiculous. Why penalise the entire team for something that basically can't be avoided? Are you telling me if brodie was knocked out in the 5th minute and the All Blacks had a one man advantage the whole game that you would swallow that?
Not the point.
He isn’t a kiwi toss pot. If you actually read comments from kiwis we praise The Irish for a well deserved series win, shit media exist in every country pal take the rose tinted glasses off.
Did you not hear the ref's explanation or are you just too bloody-minded to accept it?
Absolutely- the TMO and ref explanations clearly explain why the two decisions were different.
I don’t necessarily agree with the laws but they were applied correctly in two different tackle scenarios
The difference is "He steps into him" (red) vs "He absorbs the tackle" (yellow). Fine lines but there's undoubtedly a difference there.
Like, this lad is giving out about the lack of consistency while ignoring the differences in what the referees are discussing. This is rage bait, it's obvious that these are different situations.
That's a matter of opinion. Facts are the same. Too much inconsistencies
@@richard-king- he also says context doesn’t matter while showing that context does matter, with the refs change of mind after seeing the first one again
@@richard-king- @Richard King its his form. Lad hasn't a bloody clue about Rugby and generally just posts shite. He's a wannabe analyst without the required understanding of the actual game. Some of his post during the URC are just cringeworthy frankly.
@@Will-ej9qv it's not inconsistencies, both contacts are not the same. The contact on Ringrose by Ta'avao was a driving hit, he brought forward momentum into the contact. The contact on Retallick was Retallick driving in to Porter who's only movement was lateral to get in front of him.
Both are reffed within the Framework of the law, and entirely consistent. If the circumstance leading to the contacts had been exactly (movement for movement( the same, then you could say it was inconsistent...
The NZ player actually moves forward in to the tackle, there’s no real execution of a “wrap” and he doesn’t brace himself and accept the tackle. The Irish player is moving sideways, stops, gets somewhat of a “wrap” and embraces the tackle. These are very similar incidents and I could see how a NZ fan could be annoyed, but there are a few small differences. I don’t know if it’s enough to warrant 2 different card colours. However, Mealamu and Umaga purposely seriously injured BOD to no consequence at the time or after so Ireland will feel they’ve been owed some favourable decisions 😂
The key difference was the degree of danger in the two incident, the low degree in incident 2 was enough to mitigation down to a yellow.
You are so right. There are subtle differences. Head on head contact is the same regardless. The one on Brodie is much worse cause the Irish player actually had time and intent. Ta'avao never had a chance to pull out of someone running head first into his head.
@@aj-qj4lt Because of the force he brought to the hit, not the force Porter brought.
You are already breaking another rule in rugby and basing the decision on the result rather than the actual hit, its quite clear when you look at the rules and look at the hits why Porter only got a yellow and Ta'avao got a red.
@@MJOLNIR2269 You are completely missing the point, the Ta'avao incident was a more dangerous hit as he went in with force whereas Porter didnt, any danger caused to Brodie was because of the force Brodie brought to the tackle rather than Porter.
@@aj-qj4lt Yep and there you highlighted it.
Incident 1 : High degree of danger
Incident 2 : Low degree of danger
hence the difference in sanctions.
By that he meant there wasnt mitigation to downgrade the yellow. Once it was an absorbing tackle Barnes wasnt giving a red but there wasnt enough to give less than a yellow.
The degree of danger was low as Porter isnt going into the tackle with force so its not a red all day long.
"He step into him, direct headbutt"
"He's obsorbing the tackle".
That's your mitigation. Not inconsistent at all but sure have a whinge.
Hence the cut of the TV commentary when they were about to explain why they thought the 2 were different. But it’s served the purpose we’re here having given it a watch.
It genuinely is that simple.
Wouldn't Bridie Retallic as the attacking player in possession be 'absorbing the tackle' of the defending Irish man. Isn't it a world rugby directive that the onus is on the defending/tackling player/s to place their bodies in such a way as to not make contact with the head of the player in possession of Gilbert. World rugby said no mitigating context matters, head = red.
Ferkin auto correct, sorry Bridie you're Brodie🤦♂️.
for the red: the phase he steps into him accelerates into him. For the Yellow, it is described as an absorbing tackle, that doesn't accelerate into him. that's the difference
@Mick Birmingham, Please do explain and tell me when on Gods Green earth is a "absorbing tackle" and when those words were used by any other official across the world?! I will say this, World Rugby will be quick to give a Red card to the Southern Teams due to their actions of foul play and then receive a 3-4 week ban, Let a Northern Team do exactly the same offense a week later, and then you get words used for the 1st time such as "absorbing tackle" Word Rugby is messing up this game and like Duane Vermeulen said to the ref and Lukhanyo Am, "think we need to start play touchies"
Let me not take away how rugby is meant to be played, Ireland were amazing, fantastic and tactically on point across the 4 games they played besides the 1st test at Eden Park. They outplayed, outsmarted the All Blacks and they had no answers at all for any of the tactics that were thrown there way!
@@chestlynabrahams879 the level of danger in the two tackles was different. I think that explains the difference in the punishment
@@birmingm Head collision is head collision whether you are "absorbing the tackle" or stepping into the tackle, so World Rugby is and are the problem, Rugby is becoming soft
@@chestlynabrahams879 still looks pretty brutal to me. In the professional era players are bigger, stronger, faster. Its always gonna be a dangerous game. But if parents think it's unsafe they won't get their kids playing and it will damage the game in the long run. I don't need to see brain damage to enjoy the game
yeah just a broken cheekbone
As a neutral thought both decisions were bang on to be honest, first one comes
Flying in leading with the head and does some some serious damage to both himself and ringrose. 2nd incident Porter is way to upright but is completely passive in the tackle.
Agreed...Porter was backing off where in first tackle where as Ta'avao was stepping into tackle and raised final contact. Porter would just have been blown away if head contact didn't occur...totally passive tackle
Retallick has a broken cheekbone so I’m not sure how passive he was. For me Ta’avoa has less than a step by the ball carrier to react whereas Porter has about 3-4 steps to react which in my mind makes the Irish one much worse. None of that takes away that Ireland played much better rugby than the All Blacks across the series and thoroughly deserve the win. As a rugby fan though, I just wish we were talking more about tries than cards
BS
Under the current laws of the game they were both a bit orange which leaves a lot of interpretation and agreement between referee and TMO.
I thought Barnes referred the game a lot better than Pejyper.
Utter nonsense. The mere fact that both players were in an upright position making contact with the head, should both be red, as was ruled consistently in the past. In both cases, the defender we t in for the tackle, that's why both's arms were wrapped. A standing and waiting tackle is no different from taking ons step or even running to perform the tackle. As you could see, both tackles are equally dangerous. The strangest thing is that, in both those tackles, if the players were to execute the exact tackles but head contact wasn't made, the referee says play on, all legal. So here is not a matter of HOW, it's a matter of contact.
I do think they were very similar. But, Barnes said that porter was absorbing the hit while the AB was going in with force. Big difference and correct call imo.
He broke his jaw.... if one a red they're both red, full stop.
@@sammacculloch446 Well said 👏
@@flipacoin3593 As a Kiwi I agree completely I just hope they don't peak like bk in 2018 B4 the RWC 2019 congratulations 👏 on the Irish
@@flipacoin3593 Don't stress to much the Irish are on fire 🔥 right now Love my All Blacks but the Irish were the better team and hope they continue this momentum I'll be watching 👀
@@flipacoin3593 The issue isn't the result of the game - the issue is your statement. Why should refs interpret the rules differently? That shouldn't be acceptable in any sport, otherwise you are playing a different game depending on who is reffing, which means you are no longer playing rugby.
Peyper- "he's upright, STEPS INTO HIM" ie. High level of danger
Barnes- "He's upright, ABSORBING THE TACKLE" ie. Lower level of danger
Exactly that. I’m not saying it’s right, but there is a clear difference between the 2 tackles. Both players are at fault for being too high.
Lower level of danger,but Brody got broken bones??
Brody took a knee, Ringrose literally did the KO dance a person does when Ngannou hits them…bit of a difference. Porter didnt accelerate into tackle, ringrose literally got lifted off his feet by the power AB player accelerated and stepped up into hit
@@cruzerblack8789 I got broken bones from perfectly legal tackles, rugbys a tough sport.
But to your point there's a much higher level of risk charging in upright head first than there is with Porter where his feet are planted in front of his body when collision occured. That doesn't mean luck doesn't play a part in the severity of the outcome.
Where is that difference in the rule book?
Still doesn’t take away from how good Ireland have been in NZ the best team in all 3 games imo. And shines the light on how the ABs haven’t learned anything from the WC loss to England. I’m a Kiwi and love the ABs but have been well and truly outplayed out coached and out classed in this series. Congrats to Ireland and there supporters on making history in this tour.
Not the point.
@@fractalnomics exactly 🤦🏽♂️
No one is denying Ireland were the dominant team in this series they were awesome but the fact Barnes went with a yellow and not a red card totally contradicts the previous week’s decision for an exact similar if not worse because there was no mitigating factors
@@davidhopoi9590 They got both calls correct. There's no dip from ringrose and the player steps in. Referee nails it "no change of direction, no change of height and he steps into him"
Retalick is 7 inches taller than porter
There's no change in direction but a significant change in height. Porter also doesn't step into the challenge he gets ran into.
Fine lines, you can say it's unfair etc and we can have a conversation about why the rules are stupid, unfair etc but the refs applied the laws correctly here
@@jeffrey89095 Your right
Yes, blame the referee now. In my opinion Ireland were the better team and deserved to win the test.
who said they did not? read with understanding fella
@@groundhogguns5828 I am referring to the title of this video. Can you please translate it for me?
Porter is standing, absorbing the tackler's momentum. His feet are planted. The other tackle is aggressive and "he stepped into him". All the difference in the world if you understand the guidelines given to refs at this level.
Also, if you ever actually been involved in a tackle. Standing passive, to absorb the contact and drag the carrier down is VERY different to driving into a carrier to force him backwards.
you are full of it. so he absorbed the tackle with his head? it was head first, then body. RED CARD. not about where he leaning in or just standing still, or just picking his nose while it happened.
Absolutely. You've saved me writing this post!
Agreed, that slight difference in absorbing the tackle and driving into the tackle should and does make a big difference.
I agree. Retalick dipped down to put the shoulder in. If he hadn’t there wouldn’t have been head contact. Porter as still, passive and didn’t change direction. Yellow. The NZ red was different because the player changed direction to tackle the play er and was aggressive in the tackle.
If you listen to Barnes, he gives his reason why it is a yellow not a red card.
I agree with the comment below. NZ player is moving forward. The Irish player is going backward. That is the mitigation and hence drops it from red to yellow. The referee clearly says it was an absorbing tackle.
Rubbish they both practically identical with the defending player changing direction at the last second and going in at the wrong height. Its an accidental tackle at the end of the day and the fact this contributed to NZ loosing the game and a BAN for 3 Bloody games is totally absurd. These head knocks happen game after game the law changes have not stopped a single head knock. Not one. Its going to be hilarious to watch if this happens to the irish in the world cup final.
Moving backwards 💩
@@austingtir have you ever watched a game of rugby before? Or just complaining because you lost? They couldn't have explained it any clearer!
@@austingtir Keep crying
Going backwards my arse it was the force of the tackle that made him go backwards. Irish coaches need to teach how to tackle lower
Here we go, typical and inevitable Kiwi bad sportsmanship. Ireland thoroughly deserved the series win!
Are you the authority on that is appropriate responses from fans whose team lost?
Most AB fans know the Irish are better. That's obvious. The red and orange card incidents are are whole different issue.
Give us a bit of space mate. When it's your turn, we'll see what you are like
Video is from South Africa champion
this channel is from SA lol
Nice try mate, check my channel before saying that
Can you get the replay if tana umaga tipping up O'Driscoll? That was HORRENDOUS reffing
mate you need to stay relevant. The video is about the call that was made yesterday and last week. He is showing 2 calls that are identical by what = red card.
AB fan here. Totally agree that was a bad call 17 years ago. But you sound like a child arguing to mum about why you should keep your privileges when your sister pulled your hair first.
@@ivanmynhardt it was a red card and huge ban 17 years ago. New Zealand have had the rub of the green with refs with foul play for years until that french guy red carded sonny Bill in 2017, now the AB's feel aggrieved that they get treated like everyone else
@@mikebrennan2776 just using same logic. Looking backwards and complaining about shit ref calls, just like the video is.
@@johnryle4249 mate I wont argue you on that point, they have gotten away with murder for to long
1:16 NZ red
3:50 IR yellow
Difference is very clear, NZ player accelerated into the tackle, Irish player absorbed the tackle
Unbiased ?
Rubbish he changed direction against a back. The only difference between the two tackles is forward on forward and back vs forward. Both should be yellow cards at absolute worst. What's really ridiculous is NZ looses the prop for 3 games through additional suspension including the effect it had the game (effectively no contest). Now we've also lost Retallick for two months with cracked cheek bone with a now crucial two test series against south africa coming up. Its put us in a very difficult position as we are already short props with moody and others out. The boks must be licking their lips. This could be one of the worst seasons in NZ rugby history coming up for us.
Yep
gotta love the fact that Brodie made a metre after contact and presented the ball back - with a broken cheekbone!
Making a meter after contact is why they reckon it was a yellow
Strange that, no one talking about the fact the NZ should have been down to 13 and a penalty try awarded against them in the 2nd test? The ref might as well have had an AB Jersey on.
Ireland would have put a cricket score up against them only for the ref being so one sided.
Ireland were head and shoulders the better side against NZ, this isn't new, they have been for quite a few tests.
NZ should have actually been down to 12 players.
What a funny sense of humor you have, ya gotta be a POME. Stick with your national game and leave Rugby to fans who appreciate tough struggles and officials who are only human but generally get it right most of the time.
@@jameslast7555 Careful now, I'll put you over my knee, like the Irish did to the ABs.
There won't be a ref to help you there either.
Difference was that the NZ tackle went straight in for the tackle whereas Andrew Porter absorbed the tackle and stepped back. There is your difference.
Who stands up straight and first point of contact with your opponent is your head, in current rules and no leniency it is red straight away
@@kaizen2095 don’t think ta’avau saw him coming. No one would intentionally put their head there
New Zealand prop came forward to make an aggressive hit and I think Wayne Barnes was correct. Porter absorbed the hithe was not the aggressor. Very different hits. But I do agree red cards are killing the game
what rubbish lol
@@RandySavageization Explain?
Bulldust they were both change of direction tackles and practically identical even the second one the irish player only realized at the last moment that he had to tackle Retalick and had to make a last second direction correction. The only difference was the first one was on a back vs forward and the forward should of been given a slight leeway there as he's never going to make the change of direction like a smaller back. Both should of been yellow cards at the end of the day at worst and a three week suspension on top of that is just absurd given the impact its had on the AB's. World rugby is a fuking disgrace and its been obvious this chit is complete rubbish since they started it. Nothings changed not a damn thing we still get the same head on head impacts game after game which is the dead giveway 99.99 % of these are not foul play in any way whatoever.
You cannot say that the result to Brodie Retallick is any different to Ringrose. They were both tackled by props. They both ran into their tacklers. Both their tacklers could not react adequately, the difference with Ringrose, he stepped in and A Ta'avao was following the initial direction. Not the direction Ringrose stepped into, Ringrose is a back, and much more mobile.
The Irish tackler (Porter) stood firm, as most tacklers do and Retallick dipped toward him. You could argue the Irsh tackler should have taken a softer stance and let Retalick run over him, and grab him- instead of standing firm. Again, he's a prop- difficult to adjust.
Sorry, but this is cut and pasted- there is no mitigating factors when collisions are that high speed to head.
Intent should not come into it- as proven by Ritallick going off. But as above, both intents by the tacklers were to tackle, and tackle hard.
The Irish prop intent was the same as Ta'vaos. You can't have one law for one team then the next is different.
"aggressive hit" 😂😂😂.... what's that supposed to mean?! aggressive hit with the head or whatttt ....if so then you're saying it was intentional
"ThE WoRsT aNd mOsT iNcOnSiStEnT rEfErEeInG yOu WiLl EvEr SeE" - Bryce Lawrence's refereeing the quarterfinal in the 2011 rugby world cup between South Africa and Australia has entered the chat.
Yup that was Highway robbery, paid for by New Zealand, who gave Brycey boy a best Ref rugby award, after RWC2011, so they could Rob France for the dodgiest Home RWC win ever in Rugby History. But .. but.. but Christchurch earthquake. Saffa Ref Jordan in final was scandalous too must be said, Richie McCaw invisibility blanket. The try scoring "Forward Pass" calls.
I can smell a sour kiwi fan all over this video. Two completely different collisions. And it's concerning you can't tell the difference
Its not a kiwi that runs this channel or does these videos
@@slayerbot1394 sure. But it's still concerning how they can't tell the difference between the two hits.
The loss is really killing you.Love the funeral dirge.Wallowing in misery is of no benefit to AB’s..Best get back in the race .
🤣🤣🤣🤣
If only I was an AB supported
@@tasanalytics I wish you were. It might take the mantle of "whinging South Africans" off of us for a while.
@@tasanalytics - I am in absolute sync with you on this - World.Rugby is NOT consistent. I *KNOW* that outspoken Rassie was right!
@@thesaxon2266 honestly, as long as we win, we cares 😂 stay salty
Find a neutral who hasn't watched the games. Tell them that one of these incidents results in a yellow card, the other a red. Ask them to guess which.
The clear difference to me is Ta'avao stepped into the tackle
The Irishman was on the back pedal, less severe
Where's the inconsistency sorry? I'm a Kiwi and I'm happy that they're not the same situation.
I don't think that is the issue here... in the first test the reason given for the red card is due to head contact which is indeed how WR wants the game to be played which in turn means head = red, not whatever the ref is feeling on the day.
Ta'avao stepped forward and led with his head, arms by his side. Porter stood his ground/soaking and wrapped his arms in a tackle. Very different. Head on head isn't an automatic red. TAS is wrong. In both games the same framework was followed and the correct decision was made in each case.
@@BacanoDes agree 👍
@@dreammaker9642 read the Head Contact Process. It's literally been around since March 2021. So it's not "whatever the ref is feeling on the day"
I think we hear the difference from both refs.. on the first, the offending playing is moving into the tackled playing (meaning the force of impact is increased) whereas the second, the tackler is moving in the same direction as the tackled playing (decreasing the force and the risk). There really isn't an inconsistency.
ITs forward vs forward and back vs forward thats the difference. The speed and direction change of the two is different but both should of been a yellow card at absolute worst.
Angus Ta'avao never accelerated and when he looked Infront of him he had no time at all to change the detection he was running.
It the match last night the Irish player had alot of time to do something.
Yes , there very much is inconsistency- a bs decision not to apply red given the decision made in the previous weeks game which effectively ended the contest and I should add was made worse still by further incompetence from the officials which barred NZs best player from returning to the field- world rugby as the governing body for the game are a pathetic sham of an organization- incompetent, inept and arrogant- what a combo.....
@@Jordan-du6fu he absolutely did, head moving in a forward directly into Ringrose. He wasn't passive. I thought Porter was lucky and I was expecting a red but the video is asking for the difference and that's what it was. Realistically, you hit in the head, you are at the refs mercy. Players need to change, not the ref
The difference was exactly that, the referees of each game. Barnes refused to look at it even when requested until the video producers at Sky TV or whoever was in charge started replaying the incident on the big screen. If Retallick wasn't such a tough nut and instead laid there unconscious after that hit, the outcome would've been entirely different. The inconsistency here is that both were head on head clashes, the context does not matter. Both should receive the same consequence. It's proven that head injuries never reveal themselves fully until later in life, well past their time in the jersey.
What I find funny is that if this had been an AB who did the absorbing tackle, AB fans would say 'Great, they learned from last week, no red card.' But because the issue was 'fixed' so to speak yet it was Ireland that benefitted, it's shit. Let's not forget the ABs should have been down to 12 men when they had to go to uncontested scrums, same as the Ireland vs Italy game. Or maybe the fact that Scott Barrett got away with a red card offence in a clear out? Or that Carbery's try was disallowed in the first test? When does it end? If the ABs could have won, they would have won. They didn't.
There is a difference between those tackles. For the first,the tackler is running to the irish and don't controle his tackle, red card.
For the second,the irish is standing on his feet and the black is especially come to him and bend down.
You can see the irish knocked out and the black who continue his run.
Haha...what the hell are you talking about...in the second the Kiwi got a busted cheek bone which will keep him out for weeks, no lasting damage in the first.
The porter tackle was so passive in normal time that it looked like a standard tackle and breakdown, even the players around the incident didn't notice, the ringrose incident you knew immediately that was a huge collision, the film clearly show two very different situations and to try and compare them to set a certain narrative of why is just wrong
Rubbish they were very similar change of direction tackles only difference was back on forward and forward on forward. Of course your going to get more speed involved in the back on forward collision. But brodie retallick has a cracked cheek bone so who came out of all this worse off? Clearly the AB's. we've lost a much needed prop for 3 games and our best lock for the coming two test series in south africa partially because of russian roulette like decisions from reffs and authorities.
As a Saffa this was shocking. Ireland should’ve gotten a RED!!! The law is quite clear. Sorry AB, you got the bad side of that call.
Learn the rules.
JUST HAPPY YOU GUYS BEAT WALES, CAN WE BORROW RASSIE AND SEND FOZZY TO YOU GUYS, MAYBE USE HIM AS A ZOO KEEPER OR LEAVE HIM ON LION RESERVE
Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between being passive and active in a tackle....
Please learn the rules mate....
@@killerangel4613 Heartbreaking to see the mighty All Blacks lose like this. Respect from South Africa 🇿🇦.
@@mtnstrand2819 Ireland were the better team on the day - Wll played Ireland !
How do you "absorb" the tackle if you are the tackler? There does seem to be a slight difference in the two situations, but I would argue in the first case the All Black is surprised by the "change in direction" of the ball (due to the inside pass) - even if there isn't a change of direction by the player with the ball. The All Black seems to be bending his knee in order to come down and forward at the same time but he is later than he needs to be because he's taken by surprise (this is only clear from the angle shown at 0:29). In the second case, the defender has a lot more time to lower his body position but he seems to make a conscious decision not to. It's as if he wants to wrap the ball up in the tackle or maybe prevent his own head from hitting Retallick's elbow. Anyone else seeing it the same?
Exactly
You absorb a tackle if you are the tackler and opposition player with the ball runs into you ending in a head collision, which Retallick did 'while lowering his head' !!
Last week the tackler ran into the opposition player with ball causing the head collision !! Watch the two incidents and it's clear the difference between a red and yellow, Ring rose didn't run into Ta'Avao with ball, Ta'Avao ran into him with a clumsy tackle causing head on head !!
I don't know how people can't see the difference 🤔
A 204cm lock lowers his head & charges into your head like a bull. Do you a) spin out of the way like a matador & let him through your defensive line? b) headbutt the bull? c) stand your ground, brace for impact & try to wrap your arms as best you can?
@@oldoddjobs the defender runs ACROSS into the way of the ball carrier to get in his way. Watch it carefully. Retallick's head lowers as he picks up the pass (the pass seems slightly low), but then raises his head subtly from that point on. Retallick is running for the hole but the defender closes it as I said. Retallick even pulls his head away once he realises the defender is going to collide with him but it's not enough because the defender does nothing to lessen the impact. I have no problem with the player's intent - the point of the video is about consistency.
@@dbuckley100 Retallick doesn't lower his head into the tackle. He lowers his head when he takes the pass. From that point, his head comes up. His body is at a slight angle which is normal when you are trying to prepare to be tackled and present the ball. But if you watch it in slow motion you can see his head actually 1) raises from the point of picking up the pass and 2) turns to his left in an effort to avoid contact with the defender. Retallick runs for the gap in the defence, but the defender closes it by running across the field into his path.
Last week you can see the defender was coming forward and down at the same time. A split second later his head would have been further down. Neither tackle is safe. Both players make different mistakes. One was late, one was careless - or at least didn't make any effort to avoid a clash. Perhaps you could argue both were too slow to respond appropriately to what was happening.
The difference is the all black forward is moving forward into him, the Irish guy is standing his ground.
The Irish prop wasn’t going forward. His stance shows this , his body was effectively stationary . The AB runs into him . Accidental and not comparable to the previous weeks red card
WTF - Same as Last week you idiots… The Irish man was completely upright! TMO is an Aussie and ref is Pommy is that correct!! I feel so much inconsistency in the total 3 games. How many minutes was the Actual ball in play for the total 80 minutes!! I read somewhere it was only 36 or so minutes f… me what a complete joke and excuse for referees!!
Joker is note the word I would use. A Joke is Funny. That is NOT. What a difference 1 player makes in t he outcome of a match. How much difference would the loss of a specalist player made towards the final result in the third test. We can only speculate, but no dought in my mind two games stuffed by bad refs. Plater safety is important, yes, but reducing the great game into this powderpuff crap is not the way to deal with injuries in contact sport like rugby.
Ireland kicked your yous ass..move on
The degree of danger is clearly not the same in the 2 situations. Taavao comes with a lot of speed, Porter is static.
There are two foul plays, but not the same ones.
Say "two similar fouls, two different sanctions" is almost always stupid. And it is in that case too
Yet it is Retallack has a broken cheek bone.
Agreed!
ITs forward on forward and back on forward thats the only difference and thats why theres more speed involved in the back vs forward tackle. Both a yellow cards at absolute worst and should be just play on chit happens. Instead the AB's are now down another prop for 3 weeks and Brodie is out for two bloody months with a cracked cheek bone with a two test series against the boks coming up who will be loving it. This has put the AB's in a very bad position and its not all their fault.
@bloke from new zealand The tackler has the responsibility. He has to get down. It's clearly unintentional from Taavao but his action is far too dangerous. The level of danger is an essential point in the decisions.
No honest person will say that the level of danger is the same in the two situations.
Good lad. Two entirely different tackles. The first? Aggressive and clearly steps forward with the weight of his body into the tackle = red. The second is an absorbing tackle with Porter going backwards = yellow.
What part of that do you not understand?
No inconsistency.
Ireland battered the All-Blacks who were a disorganised shambles for most of the final two tests.
You're just trying to deflect from that and make yourself believe the ABs were robbed. They were not. Clearly the inferior team. even in the game they won.
In every game I've watched the ABs play against Ireland over the years, they deliberately targeted key Irish players to take them out of the game. Deliberate foul play. Every game.
They do it in most tests against most teams and spend a considerable amount of time in offside positions.
Foul play is always easier to see and penalise when you're getting your arse handed to you.
That's what happened here
If you try to go backwards in making a tackle attempt the ball carrier will just use your backwards momentum against you and barge through, so your talking poppycock. A force in motion can only be stopped by an equal and opposite force in motion. May all your halftime oranges be zesty.
"Foul play is always easier to see and penalise when you're getting your arse handed to you.." Well that's correct at least. Hence why turkeys like yourself constantly rave about AB foul play. Otherwise known as sour grapes. This channel is a South Africans as well. Don't think he needs to deflect.
You talking about new zealand being offside is a bit rich, Ireland are up 'flat' every game, you must be having a laugh
The simple fact is that Ireland knows nothing about rugby so you can't argue with someone who believes their own lies
Forward vs forward and back vs forward you are never going to get the same speed of collision and change of direction. Thats the only difference between the two tackles. Both were yellows at absolute worst and even that is bulldust and is ruining the game.
These two incidents were similar but clearly different in the intent of the tackler at the moment of contact.In my view Barnes was right. In fact it was probably red under the old laws before the head on head protocols.
The intent of both tacklers was the same - to tackle the ball carrier. To say otherwise would require mind reading capabilities.
😑..
@@fidget2020 This comment contains too much sense..
Inconsistency is a big issue
Corruption is Wirld Rugby's issue ..
Abs fans being such bad losers is the only issue here
@@craiggoodwin7556
Yep.. More sit-ups is the only way to improve your Abs..
Unfortunately nothing improves a low IQ pal ..
On a day when a recent British Lion has disclosed he has early onset dementia at 41, without doubt brought on by repeated head contact, it does not look good to complain about any tackles or inconsistencies.
Tacklers have to get lower, for everybody's sake. Forget about the dominant chest tackle, we are talking about players health and safety here.
What are rugby values really worth if we dont care about the future health of our top players.
Come on guys, we should be better than this.
the rules need to be changed to pout some onus on the carrier for their own protection.. yes tacklers need to be lower, but if the tackler is stationary & upright, it should be on the carrier to avoid head contact.. there is an incentive for ball carriers to lead with their head and look for contact..
I think it was pretty well explained by the refs in both instances! And correct in both instances.
How can you say that? You would need a microscope to tell the difference. Both should have been yellow card (at the worst) only.
@@mikewilloughby1103 it’s the laws. Look it up! The microscope is the tmo
@@jerrycronin7278 at this point, it's beneficial to just milk the fucking hit and get that red by your logic.
Get over it we were outplayed simple as that. Ireland were up 22 - 3 at halftime. Time for a change of Coach and Sam Whitlock as Captain.
Personally, I think Ardie should get the captaincy. Sam Cane was piss poor the entire series. Remember when NZ open sides used to win turnovers? I can't either because its been 7 years since we had a good one lol
The new Zealand player rushes into the Irish player at head height.
The Ireland player is standing still. So I think it right.
But I do think something needs to be done in rugby. Too many cards are being given out
Here's what needs to be done: teach players to tackle legs and not skulls.
Rubbish he had less than half a second to change direction to make a tackle on a back. both these incidents were practically identical only difference is first one was back on forward second was forward on forward and imo far worse than the first one given how messed up retallick was after it. Both are yellow cards at absolute worst and should been accidental impacts and play on chit happens. The fact the NZ player got 3 weeks for this bulldust on top of destroying the game and basically stopping any chance of the game being a contest is fuking absurd.
Something needs to be done but some countries/clubs are not coaching discipline. Seen it before where players didn’t seem to understand the changed rules 18 months on.
@@edwinsunderland4629 Rubbish these sorts of collisions will always happen and trying to legislate it out of the game is simply retarded it hasnt worked and will never work. Muppets are watching the slow mo and thinking the guy had ages to get in the correct position when in reality at full speed it was way less than half a second.
@@austingtir difference was Retallick had a run and gained pace and ran into the tackle with more force than the tackler who tackled him, hense "absorbed the tackle" Ringrose had just recieved the ball and was tackled with more force from the tackler because he didn't run into him..hense tackler didn't absorb the tackle.
It's pretty simple if you look at both, Brodie Retallick ran into porter like he was making a tackle, no intent to avoid or get through and make ground, as soon as he recieved the ball he put his head down , shoulder forward and ran full force into porter.
Ringrose recieved a pass and got a tackler run into him causing a head collision.
It's baffling how people can't see the difference between the 2 🤔
There are differences between these two incidents, and there are similarities. In the first incident, the AB can clearly be seen looking ahead and charging head first at the Irishman who has just received the ball. All the momentum of the clash came from the AB.
In the second incident, the AB can be seen, looking in the direction of the tackler and head straight for him. For some reason or other, the AB lowers his head (he must be at least a foot taller) and charges forward at the Irish prop. The prop does not contribute to the momentum of the clash, it all came from the AB.
I have seen a ball-carrier receive a card when his momentum caused a clash of heads
What should Retallick have done? Run away from the tackler back towards his own goal line? Of course he's going to run hard and try and break the tackle and make some metres. The key thing you say though, is that Retallick ran 'straight' for him. What I think you're trying to say is - given Retallick was running straight and upright, there was therefore much more opportunity for Porter to mitigate the situation and avoid the head clash, than ta'avao getting sidestepped by a back. Instead Porter sees him coming, gets his head in the way and breaks Retallick's cheekbone. Ta'avao got it wrong too, but the fact Porter had opportunity to see and avoid this collision, and doesn't (injuring the player in the process), is arguably more clumsy and deserving of a card that Ta'avao.
garbage atempt to create differentiation, tackler came forward, managed to head butt the taller man, straight RED by the rules.. Bottler ref'ing. Irish were value for the series win, nought to do with that.
@@stuartstafford6875 Maybe he should have charging without having his head in front? Just a little tip to survive...
Porter makes a foul, he was sanctioned, he should have tackled lower than that. But he is static and doesn't put force in the impact. Retallick is the one who creates the hit.
you are talking bull, head clash, red card, as the tackler the player must bend down to make tackle. Not stand upright to tackle
@@lucasproust9706 so he must run like a loony tunes character with his lower body in front of his upper body? These people are so comical, dont think at all before writing.
Either both red or both yellow but not one of each.
Don't let this distract from a wonderful Ireland tour and deserved winners
Amazing how quickly you came out with this, still waiting on the awful refereeing decisions that favoured the all blacks in the first two games, i.e. the two penalty tries, the other red card new Zealand didn't get and the time they should have been down to twelve when they had to replace two props... Maybe you should try be consistent yourself instead of giving out about other people's consistency.
Maybe you should try to stay on topic.This should have been a red card. end of
@@groundhogguns5828 i agree but the topic is up for debate, is it inconsistency or is it refereeing, or both? either way i think I'm staying on topic.
We can also rattle of numerous things missed by the referee that were to the advantage of Ireland. But here we have an example of an incident that was identical that happened over 2 games but was treated completely differently by the referee. Just a disclaimer I think they were accidental head knocks on both occasions and it should have just been play on
@@groundhogguns5828 There's no 'end of' about it.
Barnes clearly stated why he chose to give a yellow and not a red.
The difference is that last week the defender steps in to make the tackle so when the head on head collision happens there is forward momentum from both the attacker and the defender. Yesterday the defender did not deliberately step forward to make the tackle and because he isn't going forward he has no momentum so the momentum is coming completely from the attacker who runs into him.
Steven so he should create content when you want it and about the games you want. Here is a suggestion, go make a video about all the calls that bother you. The fact that he doesn't show every inconsistency in every game doesn't mean these calls where therfore less inconsistent. O boy you guys are salty.
Wouldn't be an All Black defeat without a referee to blame......
Seems pretty obvious to me and he's not a kiwi that does these videos
Exactly and of course it’s Wayne Barnes 🤣
True. crying their hearts out now🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@marioadams8931 Oh shit really 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Sad bastards
Can definitely see the difference, I personally didn't know the absorbing tackle mitigation before this incident. I knew changing direction, and ducking into the tackle were mitigating factors but not absorbing rather than stepping. Pretty clear to see the difference between these two challenges though.
I think you're right. In the previous match the NZ tackler steps into the tackle, leading with his head. In this case the Irish tackler is upright and almost back peddling, he is not leading into the tackle with his head. It's still up to the tackler to make sure there is not going to be head on head contact but the difference is clear enough.
It's the degree of danger in this case not a mitigation:
(case 1 - case 2)
Head Contact? Yes - Yes = Penalty
Foul Play? Yes - Yes = Card
Danger Degree? High - Mid = Red - Yellow
Mitigation? No - No = Card color stays
Therefore the color difference is due to the considered degree of danger: First case "accelerates, steps into him", second case "absorbs".
Mitigation can then reduce the color by a degree but there is none in either case.
Totally agree. There’s a clear difference between the two incidents.
And I hope World Rugby stay hot on this, tackling high is never taught at any level so why do top athletes in the sport do it?
Because they’re lazy bastards and were probably big for their age in school this got away with crappy high tackles, not knowing that a full low tackle is more effective and powerful too as well as being more easy really!!!
The similarities are far, far greater than the differences - outcome should have been the same, either both are Red or both are Yellow.
Test 2 the defender gets badly injured and gets 3 weeks suspension, Test 3 , the attacking player was badly injured and is out with injury for 10: weeks but the defender only a Yellow and NO SUSPENSION, biased referees or what !
Can't wait for your interpretation of England v New Zealand yesterday evening!😂😂.
That’s perfect reffing actually. They’re very different because with the first instance the NZ player smashes into the tackle thus literally striking his head into the Irish players head like an unintentional head butt. Then in the second instance the Irish player is planted, quite a lot lower than the NZ player too and then the NZ player travelling into him so that his chin strikes the Irish players head. In such a case the foul is passive thus yellow whereas with the first case the foul is active with an active strike of the head to the player during contact.
very well explained. thank you
Bull*hit. You ought to be ashamed of your blatent bias. Direct contact to the head was the standard, I think it's stupid, but if that is the law then fine. Replay the contact a few times and it just looks worse and worse. This was direct contact and with much greater damage no less, so to try and explain it away is disingeneous at BEST. It should have been red by the standard set and it wasn't.
Considering it shattered Retalick's cheekbone I think you may need your eyes checked...
Come on guys let's give Ireland this one.
You don't have to give Ireland anything. THEY TOOK IT. It was always a matter of time before these videos surfaced by a bunch of sore loser All Blacks.
The Irish won fair and square, and done brilliantly- but it was still a red card.
No
It should have 100% been a red, go back to the 6 nations too when nick isiekwe was shown red. Ireland are the luckiest team out there
Red card for 18 AB an
Chokld be red card for 1 Irish
When something is described as ' the worst ' you know the argument is going to be weak
Every new Zealander is so butt hurt that they are making pointless videos on refereeing decisions that were clearly explained
Very different tackles. NZ player leads in with his head, no change of direction, no slowing down, nothing. Just charges straight in.
Irish player changes direction immediately before tackle and is trying to pull his head away from the impact.
World rugby needs to not be stubborn and adapt the 20 minute red card + review/ report process.
We're tired of 15 vs 14 games because world rugby's lack of ability to apply common sense refereeing.
Or 15 vs 12 in the 1st test SA v Wales!
You're just ignoring one of the World Rugby guidelines that you put up right there on screen - "what is the degree of danger?" Wayne Barnes obviously felt this contact was with less force, primarily because retallick stays upright and keeps on running. Not sure what you're so confused about, it's right there in the law - the ref decides on how dangerous/forceful the contact was. You have to have that autonomy/room for interpretation because if you softly tap someone on the head it obviously can't be a card...and when there is room for interpretation there will always be differing opinions...that's sport.
The difference is porter attempted a tackle and was already crouching where the new Zealand player was standing tall with no intention to wrap
Ta'avao got beaten by the attacker's change of direction that happened at speed its nigh impossible for a prop to adjust accordingly
Also Retallick is 2 meters tall htf a small Porter can not get low enough is beyond me
Ardea Savea's facial expressions at 4:08 are on point
Thanks for putting both videos and with their referring commentary together. It perfectly highlights the difference between both incidents and why one was red and one was yellow.
Exactly. Big difference. One clearly ran forward!! Other one absorbed thr tackle. I'm a NZ fan but IRELAND 🇮🇪 was just a better team. Till next time
It highlights that they should either BOTH be red or both be yellow. One guy gets 10 minutes off the field , the other gets about 50 mins and a 3 match suspension. Utterly ridiculous.
The onus is on the player to not clash heads. Both instances, the tacklers had little chance to do that- interesting they were both props- which makes their agility to maneuver upper body and core, just that little slower.
You cannot say that the result to Brodie Retallick is any different to Ringrose. They were both tackled by props. They both ran into their tacklers. Both their tacklers could not react adequately, the difference with Ringrose, he stepped in and A Ta'avao was following the initial direction. Not the direction Ringrose stepped into, Ringrose is a back, and much more mobile.
The Irish tackler (Porter) stood firm, as most tacklers do and Retallick dipped toward him. You could argue the Irsh tackler should have taken a softer stance and let Retalick run over him, and grab him- instead of standing firm. Again, he's a prop- difficult to adjust.
If it sours the Irish win then so be it, because it was unfair. However, its clear the Irish team is better than AB's at the moment- so they may have won anyway.
Your interpretation based on commentators or the ref or whatever just means you agree with those decisions- not whether they were corrrect
@@vagalN Exactly, well said.
Can evidently see a significant difference, Rettalick is a 6’8 man, Porter is a 6’0 man. How has Retallick’s head managed to make contact with Porter’s? He’s literally gone down 8 inches trying to milk/look for a penalty, I’m glad the referee saw through that with common sense.
Even at junior rugby levels they teach you to bend down and lower your center of gravity when running into contact
@@kahnsweetman6564 this is true but tends to be more relevant when close to line, not when running straight into someone in middle of pitch. they tell you to use footwork before taking contact.
Refs decisions entirely consistent with the law. In both cases. You might not like the law but it has reduced the incidence of head contact in the game.
Where is it? I've watched this video a couple of times but I still haven't spotted any poor refereeing. It's beyond me how anyone can fail to understand the difference between the two tackles. Blame WR for creating the process which the refs follow if you like but don't blame the ref.
I'm pretty sure that is exactly what I did? Did you even watch the full video or read the description?
@@tasanalytics ...but you state that context doesn't matter and it absolutely does. That's why the ref is going through a step by step process before comming to a decission. The context of outcome doesn't matter but the context around the tackle does absolutely matter and that context is clearly and significantly different between the two tackles
The irony of New Zealand fans complaining about inconsistencies in officiating. How does it feel to be on the other side of bewildering and frustrating decision making for once?
Not for once it happens regularly now. It's the whole world vs the all blacks everyone wants to see them lose these days because of the history they have. Referees have 2 eyes for the all blacks only one eye for the opposing side.
For once? It has always gone both ways if you've followed rugby your whole life. That's part of it. Go back to the pre-Internet, pre-slow-mo days and the refs were outrageously biased. Everywhere. Don't let this game devolve into the shite nationalistic garbage that you have to listen to as a matter of course in football. Every nation has its Karens. I have no time for my compatriot Karens; their verbal, textual input always turns me off.
They don't say the luck of the Irish for nothing.
It's pretty clear the reason first one ran into ringrose with force so high and force is red, second was high but static not to mention retallick ducks his head before contact. It's been seen before Gibson park against Connacht head contact but was absorbing tackle so yellow
Agree. The music attached to this video, presumably from a mourning kiwi, is just embarrassing.
And I, stupid me, thought head-on-head contact law is clear like sky above Sahara.
Being argentine, I gotta tell you the inconsistent against us since so many years were gross. I can tell thousands. But I'm agree with this. Number 18 from AB had no time to low his body and no intention. Number 1 Ireland had much more time and his technical attitude was very bad. I would say first case yellow card, second red.
bruh what? theyre both clearly red
@@teocarre4026 nope. Last weeks was yellow. Had a split second to change his body height. This weeks was red. Did nothing apart from “taking the hit”
@@fazertace6837 In both instances the tackler just rams straight into the ball carrier face first so regardless of circumstance thats a red due to poor technique/thought from the tackler
@@teocarre4026 I respect your opinion. For me the first it's a yellow card.
The Argentinian team has been playing reckless rugby for years. Lavanini alone commits more malicious actions on the field than entire countries teams combined.
Sliding knees is very common for argentinian defenders, even after the players scored the try.
They're a good team by skill and athleticism, but if anything it seems like Argentinas barbarism on the field often goes unpunished.
TASanalytics - never mind the inconsistency, tell me what the music was that you added, and where can I find it. Love it
Andrew Porter runs towards Brodie Retallick to tackle him and stays high. There was no change of direction from Retallick. There is no mitigating factor and after the head clash Porter falls backwards, absorbing the force of Retallick's charge. A case of a forward on a forward in a straight line.
The first tackle is a reflexive, reactive tackle from Ta'avao after Ringrose's sidestep with very little time to react which is the mitigating factor here. Clear inaccuracy and inconsistency in the refereeing.
Tackling backwards is not the same as tackling forward with regards head collisions and cards. That is how it is.
People running around backwards making tackles now 😨
Both of these are very good and well experienced referees, we need to respect that. Forwards often put their heads down when they run, if they get hit it should be their look-out. I agree with red for deliberate fouls but not for accidents. Rugby is not ballroom dancing, it's a collision sport.
Bulldust its totally inconsistent reffing week to week. Ireland is the better team no question but the detrimental effect this result is going to have on NZ rugby cant be understated. NZ lost the prop for 3 weeks aswell as the red card deciding that game. Now we've also lost Retallick for 2 fuking MONTHS because of this accidental tackle cracking bones in his face!! NZ rugby is in big trouble and not all of it is their own doing. We have a two test series in South africa next and we are already short moody and retallick aswell as this prop that got redcarded and probably others injured I have forgot. They got a massive hole to dig themselves out of and im doubtful they are going to do it. If the boks get us in the first game which is highly likely I can see this season going to hell from there pretty quick.
Well one of the refs had it right, the other didn"t. Both are red cards, or both are yellows.
Having the the job to ref and TMO doesn't make your decisions automatically correct.
My opinion is that W Barnes was wrong. That was a red card
Totally agree. They can't eradicate head knocks so why are they handing out red cards? Atleast bring back the 20 minute rule then.
Will you be doing a video on the Awful referring in the game today against Argentina?? Will the upload have funeral music as well??
No, I am pretty sure the worst and most inconsistent refereeing we have seen (or downright biased) was at the RWC 2011 final in front of a partisan home crowd. During a 3 test series, all the decisions won't go against you, you still have a chance to win the series and Ireland with the fatigue of playing at the end of the year just showed the steel they are made of. They were better across 3 test matches. During a final, the impact of a Craig Joubert cannot be compared. We're not talking about a forward pass, we are talking about constant infringements being referred one way for one team only. It is a final, when the ref has decided he is not the one who's going to upset the odds, he made the World Champions. That's far worst. 3 test, you can come back, if you don't it is on you. Well done Ireland and well done all New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, England, South Africa, Wales, Argentina, Scotland for giving us a superb end of the year tour. I cannot wait to see the Rugby Championship and 6 Nations. It has been a while since we have seen all the teams be so close. And judging by the performance from Georgia, Japan and Fiji, RWC 2023 is going to be maybe the most competitive we have seen in decades.
Spot on. ABs won the first test and weren't complaining. Suddenly they cop a few penalties and cards and they start sulking about the ref. They lost
I watched almost every All Black test from 1987 to 2015. I was a huge rugby fan. Fast forward to today and I haven't watched a single game in many years. There's lots of reasons why I became disinterested, but the biggest one by far are the ridiculous rules, and the amount of yellow and red cards that get dished out in games. The game has become a lottery as a result. Congratulations to Ireland by the way, the better team won.
I can relate to that
Wish they would have an Amateur series along side professional
Wonder where the viewing would be??
Wow I feel like you do. They are messing up the game with their "soft" stupid , we are the boss rules. Not making the game safe, killing the game.
I’m exactly the same. Hardly watch rugby anymore as a result.
No the dirty team won
@@thomaspollock5709 zzzz
I've noticed something about this channel for a while now. You seem to have some sort of agenda against referees. You keep saying that we ruin games, making it sound as if we enjoy making a side a head shorter and making the contest weaker. I'll tell you one thing. If you find a referee who enjoy diminishing a contest, then that referee should not be doing the job. I referee at amateur level with my federation there's not a single referee who enjoys sending people off. Because a contest is far more enjoyable to referee than one side running in 23 tries to nil.
Also we referee the laws that are set for us. Not what we make up. If you cared to read the news, you'd see that reckless, continued and uncontrolled head-head, head-body collision are really dangerous. Seven months ago, Steve Thompson and seven other Welsh and English players sued the RFU, WR and WRU after their dementia and post-concussion syndrome diagnoses. They have since been joined by 150 rugby union players and 75 rugby league players with fifty more announcing they may join the massive lawsuit.
Further, just yesterday Ryan Jones, the former Wales captain and 2008 Grand Slam winner had an interview published that disclosed his early-onset dementia.
Every single one of these players are in their early forties and they suffer from terminal illness brought about by uncontrolled head-body/head-head collisions in rugby.
And just to make sure you get the message: DEMENTIA IS TERMINAL, the pronosis for sub-60-dementia is around 10 years.
So: What do we do about that: We ask players to tackle low and NOT INVOLVE THE HEAD. It's very simple. Tackle around the waist, be safe, no head contact, good tackle, play on.
But to enforce this we have to have a sanction. And in rugby that sanction is a red card.
And this may come to a shock to you but SAFETY COMES BEFORE THE CONTEST. Rugby is a very dangerous sport and with humans becoming faster, bigger, stronger we're running a great risk tackling upright and to the head. If this continues then it won't stop until someone on the professional stage gets killed and THAT will be the end of contact above the waist in rugby, because then it's a red card and season-long-ban or even life-ban for any player who does that.
Now I know that's not the topic of the video, but if I addressed this video as well it would take me forever to finsih this already unbearably long message and I'm fed up of you just bullshitting yourself around the internet. I've seen enough of your videos to support my claims above and I hope this puts a little perspective back into you.
"Absorbing the tackle' will be a difficult one to police. It's often just going to be the difference as to whether the tackler is bigger and can make the dominant hit
I think this should be red for that reason - I agree with you here. Retallick just like Kolisi in that other video you've got was absolutely whacked here. In both cases they're just hard motherfs that kept moving their legs after taking head contact.
There's no way you can prevent accidental head clashes in a collision sport. Look at the RWC 2019 world cup final when Itoje knocked out Sinkler. Rugby, league and NRL are on limited time.
As a neutral, it seems clear to me. The AB was moving forward, the Irishman was static.
I suppose the rest of us will have to get used to these paranoid excuse videos now the ABs aren't top of the tree
Bit like kiwis got used to the paranoid AB foul play excuses every time they won I guess. This is a South African's channel BTW
New Zealand fans used to their players nearly paralysing the opposition deliberately and then getting no sanction during it after the match.
Lol now NZ supporters are getting desperate after for years being favoured and when refs are consistent in their decisions they feel they are on the receiving end. 15 years other teams was on the receiving end
Aye I still remember that Brian O driscall Spear Tackle.... the 2 AB could of broken his neck !!! Scott free !!
Ireland fan here. I have to say that when I saw it. I was thinking he would give red. Either they were both yellow or both red . Same exact incident . Different ref different rules . We still were the better team over all . 3 great game from 2 great teams.
Porter was in the way rather than tackling, not quite the same. One is leading with the head dangerously, the other is a head clash.
@@johnmc3862 true my man, that‘s why i agree 100% with it being a yellow.
Very true mate, hey Ireland played well and myself and my mates love how they played. What got under our skin though were some weird calls from the refs but thats not to say we haven't won games off the back of bad calls too, it happens and needs to be addressed and also not saying that we are saints as even kiwis hate seeing our boys acting like idiots on the field and we used to hold ourselves better and expect better. It was fucked up to watch that whole series, but again Ireland are a great team we all respect but that ref is lucky to get out of nz alive hahahaha Hey, our coaches are the real head clash for nz though! Wait til we get some leadership back and get the boys on form. Cheers mate!
@@johnmc3862 Porter ran across into Retallick's path and Retallick pulls his head to his left but Porter does nothing equivalent to that. Ta'avao is clearly surprised, leans in but is too late. Both defenders put themselves into a position causing a head clash.
Thanks for that! Yes, except for 15 minutes in the first game, Ireland were clearly the better functioning team throughout the series. Congratulations! See you again next year! :)
Karma, years of NZ getting away with taking out players off the ball
Well said !!!
Hey, it's Rassie. Good to have you back, nice editing job!
The second tackle the new Zealand player dips into the contact very different from the first.
I see a lot of people talking about the mitigating factors. But what about the instigating factors at play, retalic is a really tall player running at at short player standing still, that had plenty of time to lower his tackle. But did he? He stood up right as tall as he could and made head contact with one of the tallest players on the field. So to me the mitigating factors are canceled out by the instigating factors. There's really no reason there should have been head contact, it was a very reckless tackle attempt resulting in a head clash, red card for consistency
Height difference makes things tricky to ref
@@oldoddjobs If they can figure out collision force/impact, I'm sure they can figure out height difference. My understanding thats the main reason for the red card in the previous collision.
So different interpretations of the law by two different refs. By the logic of all the whining from NZ fans about the first sending off, how would the second incident be anything other than a yellow card. Barnes made the correct decision, right?
Weird logic, fans can't expect consistency on similar incident 1 week apart. Your "whinging" description is a clue to your prejudice against the ABs. Did your team loose to them a lot?
Whining fans are passionate fans about what was perceived to be an incorrect decision. Not the result of the game.
NZ rugby fans know a good team when we see it- and that is the Irish team.
But Retallick got taken off, because of a head clash. There is no mitigating factors when that happens. The tackler needs to make the adjustment- or not tackle to avoid that head clash.
Isn't the point of the law to try and reduce thos exact injury?
Holy chit are you really this stupid? The red card was the wrong decision. Even these yellows are ridiculous though the thing is not only did this contribute to NZ's loss but we loose a player for 3 games (crucial games as it turns out for us too) this incredibly poor decision could destroy the AB's for the next couple of years if they end up firing the coach and half the team over it which is looking likely if South Africa gives us another hiding in SA in the coming two test series. We just want the rules to be implemented at least vaguely similar game after game but here we are with practically identical tackles and totally different interpretations of the law (to be fair barnes got that one almost right going off the laws but the wording the clown was using was ridiculous). Its ridiculous and its ruining the game. I cant wait to watch all you irish swearing and cursing when this law comes back to bite you in the world cup semis or final.
@@craybro NZ fans whinging? Now there's a surprise - not!!!
So your saying the red was a wrong decision you can't have it both ways 😴
I'm looking forward to your dissection of Barnes in yesterday's Ire:NZ game!
As a Welshman who is green with envy at the Irish performances against the All Blacks,I'd like to thank them to showing the world that the team that has pushed and bent laws for decades are just petty sore lovers when the shoe is on 5ne other foot.
Sore lovers? Lol
You can’t ask for “accountability for bad officiating” and also say you don’t blame the refs… all this is because of a grey area that’s been around for a while now. There is a clear difference because of the degree of danger. With that said I feel sorry for the NZ player in the first incident, the guy came at him out of nowhere and there’s nothing really he could’ve done except maybe permanently run around in a low stance (terrible).
World rugby have to accept that head clashes will happen, they are petrified of the lawsuits coming and public perception which doesn’t really add up when you see MMA growing in popularity all over the world. Anyway
He ran at him to make the tackle but got his timing completely wrong. The first one was red because he was moving towards ringrose at a high speed and force, the 2nd was yellow because Porter stood and retallick was the one running into him. Now Porter deserves the yellow because as the tackler he shouldn't be as upright, but it's not seen as a red because there was no force from Porter hence the absorbed the tackle ruling.
I got to be honest here it's like new Zealand are only hearing about this stuff for the first time?? You guys not play rugby before?
@@jeffjefferson3364 The only difference is backs are pussys. Back tackled by a forward = red, forward tackled by forward = yellow, forward tackled by a back = unknown (backs cant tackle)
@@jeffjefferson3364 Exactly, that’s what a lot of ppl seem to think and i‘m more and more in agreement. It was the significant difference between the yellow this week and the red last week. I think the calls were spot on overall and even if the ‘usual suspects’ don’t agree & just complain their usual weight, at least others like me learnt something for later life.
@@jeffjefferson3364 thats it Adam- create another ficticious rule for the process and then stand behind it- Barnes can use that one next time
I played rugby. Heads clashing against something happens regularly. The referee must have some capacity to take context into consideration. That was no red card. Hopefully this micromanagement will cease before the world cup.
it was most definatly a red card under the head clash rules
@@hamish556 nope, there was mitigation in the fact porter was not moving forward into the tackle, he absorbed the tackle, completely different from last week, with the mitigating factor, the incident only checks 2/3boxes for red card, therefore a yellow card is the correct call, the same exact process saved Leicester Faingaanuku from a red card after the Mack Hansen high tackle last week
agree
@@wide2thebuzz lol, he was moving forward…it was exactly the same but let’s be fair neither of the clashes had malicious intent.
Actually id argue both should be reds if anything. Again consistency is the issue but both those head contacts were avoidable if the tackler goes low.
Some head contacts are essentially unadavoidable however
The problem in Rugby now, and it's been like this for some time, is that players can no longer tackle low in face-on tackles. If they try to go low, the players are so big and strong now that the tackler just gets bounced. Tackling higher is the only way to stop a big player who's running straight at you and because of that there are always going to be accidental head clashes. If you want to stop the head clashes by forcing the tacklers to go low again, you need to stop the runners from pushing the tacklers off with their arms or knees and from lowering their shoulders or chest into the tackle to stop the tackler from getting a grip. Without this rule change, tackling lower is disadvantageous tactically and dangerous for the tackler.
Interesting point
Andrew Porter got cited by World Rugby on monday. So yes both should have been red.
The majority of comments on this video is about how NZ are a bunch of cry babies or complaining. When in actuallity, most Rugby fans here in NZ are complimenting the Irish and saying how they fully deserved it.
Keep throwing around those comments please people, if you think the AB's are buried and this will reflect on next years World Cup. Just keep on talking :)
Other than that. Regardless of whether it should have been a yellow or a red, it still wouldn't have changed the outcome. Ireland out-played and out-coached the All Blacks, and therefore fully deserve and should celebrate what they have accomplished.
Pretty fine line between the two. As evidenced by Ta'avao ultimately only getting a 1-week suspension. During the broadcast, the commentators asked "what's different from last week?". The answer of Barnes versus Peyper is right. Maybe Eddie Jones' comments about "refs ruining games" was in Barns' head?
Will be interesting to see if Porter gets a ban - whether Retallick's broken cheekbone will factor. Also interesting to see if Bundee Aki gets cited for his shoulder knockout of Ofa Tu’ungafasi. Hard to understand why the refs didn't even look to see how the player got a concussion?
See Andrew Porter didnt get suspended after the tackle on Retallick which has put him out for two months!!???? World rugby is a joke at this stage with some of the utter bulldust they are coming out with. AB's are already short props we loose another one to this red card suspension for three games (two of which are now crucial games) and we've lost Retallick through no fault of his own and Ireland walks away scott free....... Disgusting stuff.
Read the Head Contact Process. It's been around since March 2021. Just because the majority of Kiwi commentators can't be bothered to keep up with the laws doesn't mean either referee was wrong.
Two different incidents, two different outcomes
Regardless of absorbing, head contact is head contact. You can be standing still and head butt someone and knock them out!!? Head contact in an upright tackle should be automatic red card. There is no excuse for it
NZ seem's to be the only country that can't grasp the rule, meanwhile everyon else been enforcing it for years now! 😂