Saturday Jun 16, 2018 Benjamin Fall sent off for flipping Beauden Barrett as All Blacks secure series win

Benjamin Fall sent off for flipping Beauden Barrett as All Blacks secure series win
81
Comments

A controversial red card for French winger Benjamin Fall in the 12th minute helped New Zealand claim a 26-13 victory in Wellington on Saturday, wrapping up the three-Test series with a match to spare.

Fall was sent off after a careless in-the-air challenge on Beauden Barrett, which ended with the All Black fly-half landing on his head. From then on, it seemed the home side would romp clear.

Things didn’t look good for the visitors after Joe Moody crossed for the first try of the game. Ben Smith and Jordie Barrett added further scores as the home side took a healthy 21-6 lead in at the half-time break.

The younger Barrett bagged another in the second half but France held firm and battled admirably until the very end to keep the scoreline largely respectable.

Cedate Gomes Sa finished off a terrific move in the final minute after Kélian Galletier was released into space following a great offload from scrum-half Baptiste Serin.

Jules Plisson added the conversion to end what could have been a mauling from the current world champions, but instead showcased the determination from Jacques Brunel’s men.

For the All Blacks, they continue what is essentially a preparation series for the Rugby Championship with another victory over the visiting French.

The Fall red card was viewed as harsh by some fans and former players, who felt that he had his eyes on the ball and made an effort to contest. For others, it was a clear cut red. Your thoughts? 

UPDATE:

Fall’s red card has been rescinded after video evidence proved that he had his eyes on the ball at all times and only ever had the intention of contesting it.

“The line that the Player is running is then altered by his collision with NZ #13. This collision then causes the Player to lose his balance, stumble and be propelled or pushed towards the path of NZ #10. By reason of those matters the Player’s attempt to contest the ball was compromised.” Read more..

Fall sees red for clumsy challenge on Barrett

Match Highlights

81 Comments

  •  pete
    pete

    Yeah Barrett went off with concussion, didn't return and is out for the next game also.... but I'm not saying we all shed a tear for him. Just suggesting the comments go crazy but when AB injures someone but when an AB is injured, it seems far more subdued. Anyhow, Benny has kindly added some info around the bias argument, so I will leave it at that!

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Did Barrett come off injured? I was under the impression all the hubbub was due to the fact it looked nasty but I thought he was fine... Grosso on the other hand did have a fractured skull which I believe was mentioned in the title of the article surrounding his incident. My point regarding Pacific islanders was not really to highlight the token guys in a few teams, Italy, Wales, Ireland, England and of course NZ, it was to state that as you're clearly aware there are certain teams - Samoa and Tonga being the two obvious, that get very raw deals. You accept that, but that means that there is a bench mark for understanding, it SEEMS like Samoa + Tonga etc get "above" the medium treatment there are other teams which seem to get some "above" some "below" decisions - maybe Ireland(?), So it would make sense that there would be a team or a few teams that appear to be "below" the normal....

    Reply
  •  benny
    benny

    In case you'd like to see some more reasonable stats over a longer period of time, have a browse at this article. NZ is middle of the pack at 6.3 penalties per card. France is actually on 10 so based on your original logic, France gets off lightly. Personally, I think penalties and cards are barely related but you were the one that brought it up. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/104800313/all-blacks-and-england-are-world-rugbys-most-foul-but-they-dont-escape-punishment

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    look if you have time to waste you can look at my comments on the first game. I said the ABs are the number one bc they are the best. is that hateful now? (anyways the comments are out of order and its getting impossible to follow so i suggest we all move on)

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Further more, your fellow Frenchman said.. "I'd say the Herald's sentiment pretty matches the public as a whole. Cane should have been carded. The French were screwed over by a bad law. Those things have ruined the series. The only thing most AB fans object to is the idea that the refs are somehow biased in their favour, given the numerous incomprehensible decisions going against the ABs (see the Lions series in general)." To which i simply replied "agree" HOW IS THAT ONE-EYED???? you should know as you then responded. I agreed for christ sake and you still immediately responded banging on that AB's only see 10% of calls against them etc. i just didn't agree about the tin hat theory of bias. The counter argument was that the Islanders were over punished, to which i pointed out we are both - so where does that leave us?

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Right i don't know if it's language thing or what, but you really aren't getting it?? i'm not talking about the incidents themselves, I said myself they were harsh (checks my posts). the Crotty yellow in particular was a bad call. I also said I hope Grosso is ok. Please read and absorb that!! even I felt the plight of the French...... although, you have helped me move past that. I'm talking about the SUPPORERS who's sole goal is to bag the AB's. When Grosso was injured, like i mentioned. i said on here "I hope he is ok" (check it). when it was REVERSED and Barrett was injured, not one peep or concern - just how the French were hard done by in the call - ARE YOU SERIOUS. he nearly broke his neck. that was point!!! people love to hate us and it gets old real quick! i'm the one being balanced and can say when we have done bad, you mentioned Andrew Here (he is a thug, I don't like him) I can admit that. You however are on some sort of hate crusade against the AB's.... and that's all you see and comment on. I'm going hazard a guess and say you have not had a single good thing to say about them. So who really is one-eyed! my post after the first game said "i can see why the french might be upset" or words to that effect, that's called a balanced perspective. When you can do the same about the AB's - then we can talk!

    Reply
  •  felipeg
    felipeg

    It might sounds pretty stupid but this idea of an "orange card" is interesting: http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/rugby-orange-card-92576 Clearly, there must be a way to treat differently an unintentional offense on one hand and foul play on the other. Straight reds for "objective" reasons (head, mid air...) not considering malice is always gonna be messy.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    again: are you serious?! Last week the situation WAS reversed. Grosso was much more badly injured than Barrett. And there was no yellow, no red, no ban. Yet you guys are the ones unfairly treated? It's absolutely unbelievable how one-eyed some of you are.

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Apologises typed on the go, few errors.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Pete, Oliver's issue is that he is a passionate French fan and I hope this doesn't sound patronising or condescending because his English is brilliant (and far better than my French) but I can only assume that his frustrations come out very black and white in English than perhaps they would do in French. He is mad about some farcical decisions which are constantly given against the French. I would halt there and say the issue and frustrations then perhaps means Oliver includes every incident regardless of how the rest of the world views it - talking about Grosso here. Cane should have been carded, and really in this day and age Tu'Ungafasi should have been also. I think in the game I started playing Tu'Ungafasi would have been deemed accidental and would go unpunished, Cane would have been yellowed. Anyway, moving on. No one is expecting the AB fans to come out with the reasons as to why their team hasn't been carded more, however to simply argue an excuse that does not appear to apply to all nations is like blocking your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalala".... Yes, if you travel the world over you will see countless incidents which have been missed from all nations, but over and over and over again, I have mentioned Pacific islanders. How many times have we seen them harshly treated by referees when sometimes they have actually not done anything wrong?? So again, if one team appears to suffer punishment more than others, it's completely conceivable that there is some teams or A team that doesn't appear to be on the wrong side of the referee very often, despite not being innocent. It doesn't detract from skillsets or anything, it just raises questions. If you deny there is any bias towards the AB's, do you accept there is any bias AGAINST Pacific Islanders?

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Actually Rich, AFAIK there is no law regarding jumping into/over a tackle, the actual outcome is normally "dangerous play" or "act contrary to good sportsmanship"...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    When they say something about 'tact' being like great footwork to avoid stepping in the wrong place, World Rugby is about as tactful as a pissed up scrum made up entirely of props... Exactly as you said they could either say "sod off" or they could explain the situation - like the potential after the Aus-Sco game. It's as I've said above, if you were a total Franchise fanatic fan (as is the most tamest ordinary French fan), this type of shit will not "make it all better now", it just heightens their frustrations and views of being shafted at every opportunity. Far better for them to say "the laws were applied correctly in their current standing, however a review will take place to consider any amendments" or just say, "nope, no argument referee was right!"

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    Oh man you kiwis should really learn not to bring up the 2011 final. Most biased reffing ever. All the neutrals worldwide said so. Did NZ admit it? No. May I also remind you that McCaw fractured Parra's eye socket. Supposedly "accidental", yeah right. Anyways you're just deliberately avoiding the point and dancing around it.... Did I say the AB's are dirty and the French are angels? No, I've played the game and I know all teams use the dark arts... This is about how offenders are punished. Right I'm done talking about this, no point going any further. PS: Hey Pete, the huge sucker punch from behind? That's the patented andrew Hore technique!!

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Here's a clip of the French at their "passionate" best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ_0aRfkasw huge sucker punch from behind, pretty sure he fractured his eye socket (Like Grosso except obviously deliberate) and yet no red card....... must be a world wide conspiracy protecting the French! Come to think of it, it was a French ref who denied the All Blacks a win in the final seconds of the last Lions test - now it's all coming together!

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    How do you feel about this as a referee? To me the worst bit is that they are shafting the referee who did everything correctly to placate the baying mob. They did this to Peyper for the Aus-Scotland game at the RWC. He had to make a split second decision without replay assistance. Given those criteria, it looked a reasonable decision at the time. I though it was correct until it was replayed 16 times in ultra HD slow motion. Rather than patiently explaining this, they just turfed Peyper under the oncoming double decker. Something has gone wrong here. Back in 2007 when NZ'ers (not the AB's) were screaming for Wayne Barnes head on a pike, the chief of referees backed Barnes unconditionally and politely told the NZ public to go do one. And Paddy O'brien was a kiwi.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    The whole of world rugby can think whatever they like. You say they aren't penalised the same as other teams - well you are right - they are penalised and carded more. That's based on numbers and actual events - not perceptions, prejudices. As for the red cards - why I should have to explain that. There have been a few that should have been given but were missed at the time. Apart from BOD, they were mostly dealt with. I wish they would punish AB's twice as hard just to silence the hypocritical whining. I can think of a couple of French red cards that were missed too. I can think of a certain RWC final featuring eye gouging French players. "I fear for my team's safety. If this continues, we will leave the field, we will just leave the field" John Eales to Andre Watson, 1999. Might have happened in the semi-final too. And at another RWC final. FFS man. You support France and over the years your boys have just as bad as the All Blacks and, at times, a lot worse.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Why not make it something like "hanging testes up to nipple"... Or "tip of the cock"... Albeit I know this will make the tackle target area larger, and potentially unfair for the African descendents, but it'll certainly help to fuck the whole thing up.... I know a few props where it basically means belt line XD

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Issue is, balls are always competitive until someone decides to jump, players cannot avoid someone who jumps from 1-2 feet away. I haven't ever seen the jumper injured, or badly injured from this sort of action, but I have seen plenty of chasers get knocked out from last second jumpers... So which is the more dangerous person this way? 0 paraplegics, multiple concussions... Ban jumping

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    yeah sorry my bad. The whole rugby world is wrong and the Kiwis are right. How dare I forget my place!! PS: still no explanation for that sole red card in 50 years?

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    I'm very sorry that actual data don't support your hypothesis, I'm sorry that, based on a robust sample size, the All Blacks are on average the All Blacks are 20% more likely to be carded or penalised than whomever they are playing against.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    Ok but then you need to do this for other teams to have a comparison.... Not just "opposition". If not your stats are just as meaningless.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    "once every 43 penalties." - This was from the first 5 games of the 2016 season. Its a meaningless statistic because of a tiny sample size. Frankly its embarrassing that anyone even published it. Actually its not - the source was Bob Dwyer - and he is always happy to embarrass himself. So lets pick a more meaningful sample size. How about 4 All Black seasons 2012-2016 - 59 matches AB penalties = 616 Opp penalties = 569 AB Yellow cards = 28 Opp. Yellow cards 22 AB - pen / YC == 22 Opp. pen/ YC == 26 And 2017, 16 matches - 8 yellow cards + 1 red

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    I was being facetious. It would be fucking stupid.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    Nobody and nothing. Piss ups in breweries and getting laid in brothels. BTW, I agree that its kind of an unfair rule. The first time I saw it applied I was thought it was fucking tough. But then I thought about what they are trying to avoid - effectively spear tackles from 8 feet up. And I reflected on how I was seeing this happening more & more often due to the increase in number of Gary Owens and more dynamic players. So I decided fuck it, it I feels wrong, but I can see that they attempting to force players to stop charging down the field with eyes on the ball and no consideration for their fellows. Its a strict liability duty of care situation. At least the players know what they need to do about it - the interpretation is unambiguous. Well it was unambiguous.

    Reply
  •  flanker2712
    flanker2712

    Great post. This is the way the laws are going. Just one observation. The "thigh" is too easy to identify. For consistency, it needs to be a point on the body that is hidden by clothing and that is marginally different on each player... like "nipple line".

    Reply
  •  rich_w
    rich_w

    You're deliberately over complicating things. There is currently a law that you can't jump into a tackle. This causes no problem with players running into tackles.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    That is because most AB fans focus on the 10% of decisions that do not go their way and ignore the 90% that do. Now you being a ref, how do you explain these figures: - "South Africa have received a yellow card for every 11 penalties conceded. For Australia it is every 12 penalties. However, for New Zealand, a yellow card is brandished on average only once every 43 penalties." http://www.punditarena.com/rugby/gbrennan/shocking-statistic-suggests-the-all-blacks-are-treated-differently-regarding-yellow-cards/ - One red card for the ABs in 50 years.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I think you're giving far too much credit. At this rate the sport will either be found in the form of non contact air touch, where to tackle you just shout touch. Or it'll be banned and found underground as some sort of mad Max blood sport with the inclusion of weaponry... Something along the lines of "first rule of rugby club is don't talk about rugby club"

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Oh thanks for the association clause. The difference between those old rugby heads and myself is that I recognise when a decision is moronic or not. To create a law that can be interpreted in that manner is moronic. To fault a referee for applying the law in that manner is moronic. To then create a reason why that referee is wrong and 'make everything ok and fine again' by rescinding the card is moronic. Who exactly has been benefitted here? The player? Well, his record is cleaner I guess.. France? No. NZ? No. You, me, any other players who could potentially be in this same position? No.

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Agree!

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Yeah was said tongue and cheek

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Yup, as much as we disagree on the whether the law was right or wrong, we both agreed that with the laws today it was a red card. ....and we were both wrong...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Incredible isn't it? However this just goes to follow the narrative that piss off so many people. Perhaps world rugby listened to the disappointed views of Hansen, NZ media, French, rest of the world and thought "ah! I totally know the perfect answer to make everyone happy, we'll rescind the card and it'll be the end of it".. *Rolling eyes* This is more likely to piss the French off than anything else..

    Reply
  •  katman
    katman

    We'll eventually, through a gazillion small mutation of the laws, get to a point where no dangerous situation may take place to contest for the ball. In other words, the possession will always automatically go to one of the teams. Laws for the 2031 RWC could look something like this: - No ruck clean-outs - attacking team must be guaranteed the ball. - No scrum collapses - uncontested scrums. - No dangerous falls from line-out interference - defending team may not also jump. - No aerial contest for high kicks - chaser must stand back until possession has been secured. - No risky tackles - all tackles must see both arms wrap somewhere between thigh and nipples. Just kidding. But not really.

    Reply
  •  colombes
    colombes

    Let's not be fool, it was cancelled for compensation reason. The result stays the same, France had to play 80 minutes with 14 men. But let's hope World Rugby is slowly beginning to understand the absurdity of the rule. When 2 players are competing for the ball, you can't ask them to jump and contest the ball at full speed, and in the same, care about the safety of the other player. They expect the contact, not the outcome of the contact, even the most awkward... The rule should more clearly indicate the difference to run under a player without jumping, and jump for the ball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ajwpqh1NyE

    Reply
  • I'd say the Herald's sentiment pretty matches the public as a whole. Cane should have been carded. The French were screwed over by a bad law. Those things have ruined the series. The only thing most AB fans object to is the idea that the refs are somehow biased in their favour, given the numerous incomprehensible decisions going against the ABs (see the Lions series in general).

    Reply
  • rememberthemerJune 17, 2018 11:13 am - "Fine. That is the opposite solution. No Jumping for the ball." --- This sounds like a great solution, apart from the fact that it would cause even more confusion and would be impossible to enforce. If a player is sprinting to catch the ball, he might have both feet off the ground at the moment he first touches the ball. Is that a jump? - If so, that means that the only way to catch a ball without risking a penalty will be to plant your feet, leaving you more exposed to getting smashed, and incentivising speculative kicks, which is the last thing rugby needs. - If not, then how do you define a "jump"? If it's ok to have both feet off the ground sometimes, then what are the limits? Does a certain minimum clearance off the ground need to be achieved? If so, how is that measured? Will the ref carry a tape measure? Does the TMO get a measuring laser? And what if a player dives forward to catch a ball, so that his feet are higher off the ground, but his head is closer to the ground - does that fall foul of your new rule? And what if a pass is fractionally too high? Must the receiving player simply let it sail over his head even if there is no tackler around? Or can he jump for the ball?

    Reply
  • Well, now it's been rescinded. So back to square one. Up to yesterday, my advice to players had been: "If you chase a high ball, it is your responsibility to take a look, work out who is around you, and make sure you either: (a) win the ball in the air; or (b) pull out of the aerial challenge and then smash the catcher when he lands". However, I now have no idea what to tell them. My best guess, based on World Rugby's latest decision, is: "You can run like a bloody idiot and take no responsibility for any career-ending injuries you may cause, just as long as you look only at the ball. Definitely don't look for any other players, because if you do then that might still be a red card, maybe." If anyone can clarify, that would be much appreciated. Thanks.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I was one that begrudgingly stated it was a red card (according the the laws) are you surprised it's been cancelled?? I'm extremely surprised? Especially when you look at previous red cards for similar things: https://youtu.be/JgNPQZEBisM

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    Its a clear red by their own guidelines to referees. But the world body has a habit of shafting their referees in the face of public criticism. Rather than stating that the public should take issue with them because they drafted the rule, they throw the referee under the bus. I wonder if they will now be retrospectively quashing the red card of Kwagga Smith and his 4 week ban. How about Jared Payne and his 2 week suspension? .

    Reply
  •  pickay
    pickay

    You mean the 90 meter try from just outside the opposition 22?! :D Sure must have felt like 90 meters to Moody, good stuff!

    Reply
  •  pickay
    pickay

    Btw just in case anybody interested here some more details on the committee's statement: http://www.allblacks.com/News/32583/benjamin-fall-red-card-hearing-outcome

    Reply
  •  colombes
    colombes

    For all the "clear red", "it was the right call", "the ref is always right", "there is no controversy", "move on" etc... Benjamin Fall red card has now been cancelled by World Rugby. Good luck with that.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Of course it would, but the French contingent have a knack of over reaction. Last week laws were applied both badly and not at all. French card was no card, second incident involving Grosso, in this day and age could have (and I know the French would argue should have) possibly resulted in 2 reds. In days gone by, Came possibly a red for forearm to the jaw, Tu'Ungafasi possibly yellow, possibly nothing, he looked not at fault. This week, the laws were applied correctly, it's just a shitty law when it comes to accidental collisions, or no malice, no recklessness collisions... But whatever your views, or whether you're French or not, it's hard to deny that given the history of "this" sort of incident, that a red card is anything less than a pretty sure outcome

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    The guy has a head injury, no wonder he's talking nonsense.

    Reply
  •  ruckinmaul
    ruckinmaul

    what if Barrett miss the catch (he actually miss it though) and Fall win the ball,and Barrett still fall like a sack of potatoes. Does it constitute of a red card? or even a foul? If yes, whoever jumps higher and fall head first will win his team a foul, correct? Even he loses the ball altogether. What a shit law.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    Grosso himself says Tuungafasi could have avoided the hit. And I'll take his opinion over yours, sorry! https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/xv-de-france/2017-2018/xv-de-france-remy-grosso-s-exprime-pour-la-premiere-fois-apres-sa-grave-blessure_sto6807407/story.shtml

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    I'm surprised nobody has suggested that Barrett deserved this because BOD 13 years ago.

    Reply
  •  pete
    pete

    Red ruined the game but probably the right call. Worth noting Hansen, NZ media etc. have all been fair in their assessment of the unfortunate incidents. Felt the plight of France, even though it was on a key player. Had a AB taken out France's play maker for the rest of the game, I dare say this thread would be 5 pages long on how dirty the AB's are.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Interesting potential there... But I guess that would only lead to a general expectation of coach/managers to all do the same thing and those that don't would be labelled "cowards" or something...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Wrong actually.. this was not always illegal. This used to be viewed as just an accidental collision, whistle was sometimes blown in order to check players "health", but nowadays accidents however faultless are always punished and a blame must be apportioned however unrealistic.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    He didn't catch the ball...

    Reply
  •  rdump0
    rdump0

    Given that Hansen thought such decisions are nonsense, I would have loved to see him go to the ref and say: "OK, it might be red according to law, but we'd rather continue playing the 70 minutes 15v15 and have proper test instead"

    Reply
  •  rdump0
    rdump0

    Clearly the ref applied the law, so no discussion here. What is ridiculous is the law itself. Couldn't there be red cards only for clearly intentional fouls?

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    The onus is on the kick chasers not to go ploughing through where people will be jumping. The catcher should not have to play assuming that he will be clattered while in the air. This has always been the rule and Fall's actions have always been illegal. The only thing that has changed is that you will now get at least yellow card for it and a red card the player gets dropped on his head. We'll just have to disagree on this. You think he was innocently going for the ball. I think he was going for the ball too, but in a way that would have endangered anybody who was leaping.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    The onus is on the kick chasers not to go ploughing through where people will be jumping. The catcher should not have to play assuming that he will be clattered while in the air. This has always been the rule and Fall's actions have always been illegal. The only thing that has changed is that you will now get at least yellow card for it and a red card the player gets dropped on his head. We'll just have to disagree on this. You think he was innocently going for the ball. I think he was going for the ball too, but in a way that would have endangered anybody who was leaping.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Mate genuinely you have to get over the Grosso incident. The only foul play based on the laws YOU AND I know, was from Cane with the swinging arm. The Tu'Ungafasi impact was totally accidental and unavoidable. In this idiotic modern game, then sure, it's a red card at worst. Hole in forehead is nasty but not much to avoid there..

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Oliver, the reason there is no controversy is because a shit law was applied correctly.. Last week a shit law was applied incorrectly. Rememberthemer, this law has been applied in the past so that forward jumping defenders are being given the right to have a free gap after they land (whereby instead they come down on the kick chaser, tip, and the kick chaser gets a card), so it is an ass of a law and as we have seen, there are numerous injuries from a vast array of plays on the field which are not protected by laws. To be totally honest I've witnessed more injuries to the guy in the ground caused by the jumper than injuries to the jumper caused by a seemingly bad looking fall. Again, going back to this incident, 0:05 seconds these two players are just over 10m apart, less than a second later, they've collided. Suggesting that this should be policed in a manner that is red card worthy is lunacy. This is just as dangerous play for a guy to get airborne right in front of a charging kick chaser. The problem with the whole thing is that once again, the laws have been created then twisted then created again. This was not our traditional taking a man out in the air, this was clearly an attempt to catch resulting in an accident which is ridiculous to result in a red card...

    Reply
  •  leggaj5
    leggaj5

    I agree...the fact is there is a potential for a red card in every collision in rugby and red cards really mar the outcomes in my opinion. For instance, does it cheapen the B&I Lions win in NZ knowing that they only barely won the second game after SBW was sent off pretty early. Whether or not it does in one's eyes, people are always going to bring that up.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    There is no controversy here because they are two separate incidents. They are unrelated to each other in any way. You treat each one separately. That's how laws work.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    Its a tough law, but Fall was late to where the ball was going to land and never got off the ground until after he was clattering Barrett. Yes he could have caught it and run to the tryline - except for the small fact that Barrett was there first. The way Fall ran into this situation made it inevitable that he would run under anyone actually jumping and flip them upside down. If he had jumped to compete then any collision would not have been below Barret's centre of gravity and the potential for flipping someone like this would greatly reduced. You may think the law is an ass but its there for a reason that guys landing on their head from great heights is dangerous. Players need to be able to leap for a catch safe in the knowledge that there not being someone barrelling through underneath them. Fall is not the first guy sent off for this and I doubt he will be the last. It will keep happening until players work out that (1) they must assume that someone will be leaping high to catch a Gary Owen and (2) if they cannot get there to jump high themselves, then (3) they need to GTF out of the way. Or wait till the guy lands and flatten them with a legal tackle.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    Grosso has a hole in his forehead above the eye and will have to get surgery. This is something that actually happened, not what if. No card and no ban.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    you are not sure why there is any controversy? Really? After all that talk last week of Tuungafasi had no intent, therefore no card, now that a French player does something unintentionnally, it's a warranted red? Ok right.

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    "This refereeing madness has to stop before test rugby sees its credibility, or what's left of it, disappear as quickly as the semblance of a second test contest did." "Rarely if ever has an international side been so badly shafted as they have been in this series. Their treatment has been farcically bad. A wrongly shown yellow card cost them the game last week and then a ludicrously harsh red cost them in Wellington." "the French should indeed be angry and looking for answers as to how they have been so appallingly treated by the officials in this series." Horribly biased, anti-All Black, paranoid pro-French source: the NZ Herald. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12072156

    Reply
  •  oliver
    oliver

    well we finally agree on something....... ;-)

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    Sorry just to add/clarify. In the eyes of the law in its current abysmal state, this decision was 100% correct, no arguments there, the referee .add the right decision according to the laws. It's harsh, but it's correct. My argument is how "the law is an ass". It shows how ridiculous this law can be. Sure it's designed for safety, but tackles that have the same forces as a car crash can't being doing our (or their) bodies any good either... But we've yet to ban tackling.... (Yet being the word!)

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I managed to go through this frame by frame. At 0:00 video starts, between 0:00-0:05 the ball is passed, a kick is taken and the players run for the ball, first frame or so of the 0:05 mark, Barrett is on the NZ half of the pitch right by the half way line, Fall is the French tryline side of the 10m line at the first frame in 0:06 there is maybe 2 metres between Fall and Barrett, a few more frames into the 0:06 mark you can see Barrett has one foot in the ground and the other in the air, Falls' front foot, is planted appx 1 foot from Barrett's back foot (which is still on the ground), the next frame they collide, and I think Barrett hits the deck in the early frames of 0:07 and so on, we know the rest. My point is that at 0:05 they were running towards each other, at 0:06 they went from being 2 metres apart, to 1 foot apart, to a collision in the air... All within that 1 second mark, you're talking half a second. When you consider the fact that if Fall looked at 0:05 seconds, he'd be able to see that he was over 10m away from Barrett (if he could see past the kiwi running in his way that is). It's ridiculous to assume someone can make decisions in the middle of a game like that. If Fall gets a clean catch he could be away! This was not one of those tackle a player in the air situations, there was no wrapping or anything from Fall this was a simple case of players bouncing off each other and one landing badly.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    Barrett did not jump on Fall. Fall ran underneath Barrett. That's what makes this dangerous. If you are not going to jump for the ball then it is your responsibility to not stay fixated on the ball. You are talking as if Fall has no control over this situation and is completely innocent. There were 6-7 seconds from kick to catch and Fall ran 30+m. Are you telling me that Fall couldn't have looked down at any moment? He was never going to make it in time to put in a proper jump. Its on him to recognise this and adjust his actions accordingly. The players have had plenty of warning about what they need to do in this situation and what the consequences will be if they don't. "If a scrum collapses and a player breaks their neck.. who gets red carded? Should be ban scrums? Or do we need to chalk it down to a horrific accident?" That depends doesn't it. If the collapse happens due to a slip or one team being overpowered then no because that does not arise from an intentional act. But, if you are, say, boring in (e.g. like Castrogiovanni) or deliberately binding illegally to destabilise the opposite prop (e.g. Dan Coles's favourite trick) then yes. Those things are illegal because they make scrums unstable and likely to collapse and that is bad because players end up being quadriplegics.

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    Fine. That is the opposite solution. No Jumping for the ball.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I'm torn, on one hand I like the idea of a team being punished due to their "brothers" indescretion, it makes it a tighter unit. On the other hand, red cards for complete accidents are disappointing..

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    The argument surrounding this is that another player has been ejected from the game for routine playing... He was fixated on the ball, tries to catch it and a kiwi jumps on him... I agree there is zero controversy when we look at the laws and the referee and the incident/outcome.. but the controversy is with the law! If a scrum collapses and a player breaks their neck.. who gets red carded? Should be ban scrums? Or do we need to chalk it down to a horrific accident?

    Reply
  •  foxtrot
    foxtrot

    Or maybe the defender should not put themselves in a dangerous situation by jumping in the first place?

    Reply
  •  finedisregard
    finedisregard

    Abolish the red card. It ruins the contest. Rugby union is the only sport I know of in which players are routinely kicked out of the game for routine accidents. There was nothing malicious in this play.

    Reply
  •  petersam
    petersam

    Clear red, had Barrett turned through another 5 degrees he would have broken his neck - genuinely no idea why anyone would try to argue otherwise. What is, however, extremely disappointing is the total lack of puns on the French player's name appearing here - surely he should be the fall guy, not the ref! ;)

    Reply
  •  petersam
    petersam

    Clear red, had Barrett turned through another 5 degrees he would have broken his neck - genuinely no idea why anyone would try to argue otherwise. What is, however, extremely disappointing is the total lack of puns on the French player's name appearing here - surely he should be the fall guy, not the ref! ;)

    Reply
  •  rememberthemer
    rememberthemer

    I'm not sure why there is any controversy or debate about the red card or the ref. This has been an automatic send off for a few years now - and there are plenty of videos on this site to prove it. The reason this is a red is because its really fecking dangerous - in terms of outcomes it is on par with the worst spear tackles. The powers that be want this to stop happening so they will keep red carding players until it does. Its harsh red for sure, but it is one the players can easily avoid. Jump to catch high kicks. You won't get sent off and you won't flip people upside down and send them head first into the ground from 6 feet.

    Reply
  •  nui_johnson
    nui_johnson

    Thats a red card unfortunately. And it did spoil the game. But referees cant win! Last weeks ref was criticised for getting all the critical calls wrong. This week hes criticised for getting it right! I think the law book definitely needs an overhaul though as looking at an opponent with cruel intentions is a 6 week suspension nowadays. Sad really what our game has become, and im speaking generally now and not specifically about this incident.

    Reply
  •  thefrontrow
    thefrontrow

    Totally agree.

    Reply
  •  thedoctor
    thedoctor

    I saw a very good comment on Facebook, saying that rugby union should copy league in this cases. It's a red for the french player, but the team after 10 minutes (like a yellow card) can replace the player and have again 15 men.

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    In fact, it's even worse when NZ played badly, and Steve Hansen even said it ruined the game...

    Reply
  •  drg
    drg

    I think rugby is in a terrible state when these are worth red cards!

    Reply

Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Training Videos

View All

Player Features

View All
Benjamin Fall sent off for flipping Beauden Barrett as All Blacks secure series win | RugbyDump