That was a clear shoulder charge, regardless of wether he got the timing to attempt to wrap his arms wrong by accident. This would be penalised 99 times out of 100 and would probably have been penalised if it had occurred earlier in the game and wasn't on the last minute to decide the match, the ref succumb to the pressure of the home crowd
It would be penalised 99.9/100, yellow-carded 50/100 and probably red-carded 10/100 times. The ref got it completely wrong, it happens the problem is that World Rugby don't talk about controversial decisions enough after games.
Jordan Pargeter the other 2 told him what he was implying by the words he said, which is exactly what I thought, but then he kept telling them no, & was then confused himself almost
Mate I’m sorry but clearly you don’t listen to the pod that much- Goodey is a good bloke but very rarely says anything against England; the bloke has the worst case of rose-tinted goggles I’ve ever seen
Shoulder charge without the wrap around arms and was a bit high around the neck area. Should have been a yellow or at least a penalty. The message to players is a high shoulder charge was OK. We shall see if this disastrous decision sticks during the week end when the All Blacks roll into Twicker.
Yes, as a South African, I agree that Pollard probaly would have missed the penalty, if Farrell were penalized. I, like most South Africans, blame the Springboks' loss, on their own dismal performance. But one can be almost certain, that the ref would have called a penalty, if the same thing happened at any other point in the match. If Farrell carried out the exact same shoulder-charge, at the death f the match, with the same scoreline....but with the match being played in front of a South African crowd, then the ref would dare not ignore the penalty. Farrell should have been penalized, and yellow-carded. I'm a big fan of huge hits...but big tackles can be made legally. Earlier in the match, Esterhuizen put in a huge hit on Farrell....and it was completely legal. Thus, making shoulder-charges illegal, doesn't mean that big hits are being done away with.
The springboks out played England in multiple aspects of the game but lacked the finishing and final finesse. I think there lack of hand speed let them down as they were mainly the better side. Neither team were at there best. I agree with you that you cant pin a teams lose on a last minute close call. I feel South Africa let themselves down as they had the potential to run in many more tries and to be honest England were let off the hook slightly. Both teams played well but both lacked an aspect to their game with South Africa's being the inability to finish and England's being breakdown work.
Bottom line the attempt to wrap arms, if there was any, was minimal enough that this debate has echoed through both hemispheres over the last week. As a Professional and International rugby player you should be making it clearer. Personally I think Farrell knew what he'd done when he took his glance up from the ground, he appeared concerned enough to look over and check, why?
Edward Ford if it was borderline, why is almost everyone in agreement that it was illegal, a few no comments, & only a few if the most biased English fans saying it wasn't a pen
Neutral fan here who watched the game and I think there is a wider issue on the Farrell tackle situation which I don't think has been addressed by anyone. When I watch the tackle in real time to me it seems like an obvious penalty. When I watch it slowed down however it looks more like a legal tackle, there seems to an attempt for Farrell to wrap his arm. This is a big problem with TMO how reviews only look at the slowed down footage and it happens in many games. Often the slowed down footage can make something look a lot worse then it was or a lot better. A number of commentators have mentioned this, how challenges happen in real time so refs should be made to review them in real time. With Farrells tackle in realtime there doesnt really look like any attempt to wrap and his arm only flung around the back due to the impact of the collision. In slow mo however it looks like an attempt to wrap.
As annoying as he can be Austin Healey often makes this point and its a very good one. A tackle often looks worse in slomo but in this case it just looked outright different
Its a Sonny Bill Williams-style straight sin bin yellow card penalty. Its a Bismarck du Plessis-on-Dan Carter straight sin bin yellow card penalty. Wanker ref!!!
@@andygreen1677 Bismarck tackle on Dan Carter was 100% legit, but he got sin binned; thats my point you tosser! Owen Farrell got nothing. That ref is a legitimate wanker. You shouldn't fuck up on big game decisions like he did, plain and simple. Keyboard warrior? Eff off!
I think a yellow card is definitely debatable, however it's a penalty all day every day....except for that day. I think Rassie put it best, 'it's an extremely effective legal tackle which we should be employing all the time'.
Beauden Barrett was penalised 3 weeks ago against SA, and he had his lead arm clearly around the player. This tackle was a clear penalty, but not red card unless your SBW. #ABs
As a Bok fan, the tackle should have at least been a pen. However the Boks lost the game with mistakes through out the game. Farrel the clone of Butch James lol
As an England fan, I agree that it should have at least been a penalty, but I was expecting a card. The boks didn't play well but they should have won to be honest, England were just as bad, if not worse.
As a south african i think that should have been a pen no card but a pen. I was just shocked that the ref missed 2 other pens before the tackle jonny may was offside and he made a high tackle(his arms slipped up),but it was SAs poor performance that lost them the game too much handeling and lineout erros. I also think the boks kicked the ball away to often even Eng. Both teams can play alot better with ball in hand
It's pretty clear no one know if it's correct or not, not even the the experts. World rugby need to draw a line in the sand. This is high and that's that. Them keeping quiet brings the tackle technique into a huge vague area.
Nick Fury if you want to see 'tackling' you should have watched the rugby league tests between England and NZ last couple of weeks, I've put the word tackling in inverted commas as it looked more like assault to me than tackling !!
By my estimation, there are three types of Rugby laws: 1) Laws that define the game 2) Laws that correct situations that would otherwise render the game unplayable 3) Laws that ensure participant safety. Human's are endlessly creative and we are really good at finding ways to skirt regulations both on and off the pitch. As a result, the laws to ensure player safety seem to become increasingly complex to account for new techniques that follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. This complexity means that referees have more influence on the outcome of a game then they should. Furthermore, it also seems to skew the game in favor of the offense who, in general, do not have to worry as much about player safety.
Don't get Jim's point here. Sure everyone loves to see big contacts and tackles but not when when there is a high risk of a player getting injured. Sure the counter argument would be there's risk of injury in every tackle....fair play. The issue with Farrels particular tackle was that he used his shoulder and shoulder only. Although in this occasion the contact wasn't to the head, the point is if that type of tackle goes wrong and contact is high the opposition player is put at serious risk of injury. Jim arguing he wants see more of this type of tackle is crazy. Take SBW's sending off vs the Lions, exactly the same style of tackle but it went wrong and Watson was lucky not to get injured.
If you put a hit like that on sexton or Barrett or another "star player" it's a straight penalty. Even Farrell stayed down acted injured looked up and saw nothing happened christ even he knew it was illegal
dude yes he was crouched pre contact, but his projected force was upwards not horizontal which is why this tackle(ahem shoulder charge) to the chin would be outlawed. Yc/wc/rc if it were a southern hemisphere game. moreover a tackle would necessitate a hold, something which was never attempted. games should be reffed minute 1 to 80 regardless of any pressure.
Sonny Bill Williams got red carded for a shoulder charge to the head with no attempt to wrap his arms on a player who was already being tackled. Completely different thing
Jeez are we seriously going with the 'he didn't mean to do it' excuse..? Gimme a break...If Bakkies Botha or Schalk Burger did that it would have been red and a ban...
As an Irish man I am a big fan of Farrell. I think 10 is his best position full stop. I do think that hit warranted a yellow and a penalty under the latest laws of the game but I do agree the game is getting soft.
Farrell and sonney bill etc lead with the shoulder regular... that was a penalty against Farrell but the ref bottled it due to time scale of game . I agree that if that happend in 1st half ref would have given penalty...
He knew it was an illegal tackle. That rat, Owen Farrell, was laying on the floor knowing full-well what he did. World Rugby should be ashamed of these “refs”. Just praying for a cricket score against the Poms!
The player changed direction at the last minute and ran into his shoulder meaning it was impossible to wrap the right arm. The left arm was forward ready to wrap. Borderline penalty, I'm not surprised they didn't give it
I thought this at the time.. the ref and tmo bottled it because eng were at home and it was at 80mins.. if that was 30 mins into game farrel would have been pinged by ref resulting in boks penalty...
Is this guy thick? It’s not high! It’s no arms. He wants to see more of these tackles? Who follows this clown? Do you know how much damage you can do? Remember kids will try and copy what they see at international level.
Heres my view, possible penalty yes, but I dont even think it requires a card. As much as I dislike Farrel there is an attempt to involve the arms. But he tries to hit his man so hard the arm is almost a few seconds behind the tackle. you sometimes see it when someone goes for a smash like that the collision is so big the other guy has bounced of before the arm engages, more than anything else he just gets his body position wrong. at that point its up to the ref as to weather Farrels done enough to call it a tackle. Besides which Its not a high shot so all those saying it should be a red are talking nonsense anyway.
IF that shoulder tackle had happened 20 minutes before , no sweat ,penalty......but because it may have resulted in another result...THAT IS WHY IT IS A talking head situation ......
Absolutely 100 right, not using the arms, period, it is a penalty and a yellow card though. I want to see punching like once used to be....really !!, that is your statement?, the penalty was not given because the ref didn't have the balls !!, bad referee. anyhow Karma was alive vs All Blacks.
The tackling laws brings too much attention to irrelevant technique. I don't believe an arm being wrapped changes the result of two blokes colliding at the speed they did.
This is where everything turns to crap, when the law is being dilated and there's total confusion. The law is there, why do we want to put our personals to it.
It was a penalty, not a red card. Wasn’t given because it was the 80th minute of the game. The tackle was illegal, the ref made a mistake, but that’s part of rugby
The problem with lowering the tackle height is that then players like SBW can get offloads away, teams like Ireland are less effective at mauling, and taller lads face an even more difficult tackle technique to accomplish. I personally like huge hits, they are more exciting to me than a try and always will be. Removing them from the game will be a crying shame.
Perhaps the dispute is more about whether or not it is a penalty rather than a red or yellow card.....more likely the referee did not award a penalty because of the timing and the fine balance of the game.....England at home with a narrow lead in the last minutes of the game, chcikcened out of the penalty or card decision because the penalty kick would have won S.A. the game.....as Andy was saying, it was a penalty all day even if the referee ignored the yellow or red
OK. If you reckon the tackle is legitimate, all future games should be treated the same. So the Wallabies, All Blacks, and Springboks should not be blown for a tackle like that. BUT, in my opinion it is dangerous and we will see more serious injuries. Nevertheless make the rules clear globally and we will all play like that. Level the playing field.
riki ellia what?! SBWs tackle was nothing like farrells! Farrells was a shoulder to the chest, should have been a penalty and nothing more. SBWs was a shoulder to the face.
Farrel did what he had to do. Stop the attacker. Officials,even with the TMO, could'nt do what they had to do,penalise Farrel for not wrapping. Well done Farrel. But,they will have marked his card for the next time and he will be under a lot of scrutiny now from officials.
Jim Hamilton is talking nonsense.. he is making a separate point, which I agree with, some of the interpretations of new laws are on a tangent toward football... but the Farrel tackle was a shoulder, not high and lesser shoulders have been penalised/yellow carded in the past. Totally agree that if it was a Safa or AB or not a game changing moment and the end of the game its getting penalised at the least.
How can anyone in their right mind genuinely not say that should be a penalty... I understand we all want to see a physical game, and there sure have been a string of red cards that were in no way red cards. But for christ sake call a spade a space... Led with the shoulder, arms not wrapped, simple penalty.
Penalty allll day long, same with Ken Owens catching that ball clearly offside in G3 of the Lions tour, in what fucking universe is that NOT a penalty!?
The reason the ref hasn't given (didn't give). He BOTTLED it. Like players, refs also have off days. The rules ate black and white. Penalty all day ... neutral fan. Pity for South Africa. They were robbed !
hahaha ok. the ref said he made an attempt to wrap his arms which we all seen and HE SAID for me that enough of an attempt . you cant say south Africa have been robbed they couldn't even do a lineout
@@callumpeers2806 hahaha!! a little childish? The ref was terrified to give a penalty considering time was up. A more experienced ref would have called it as it was! The All Blacks will maul them on Saturday anyway.
If it was a South African, he would be red carded and band for at least 2 games. If your argument of he did it for his country, he broke a law. The fact that the world rugby body did not condone it, makes this legal and give Rassie the right to say that they should practice that tackle. If you want to justify this, we can start using baseball bats to stop an opponent, because it is for our country.