Latest news with #Tizzano
RTÉ News
11 hours ago
- Sport
- RTÉ News
The Lions have a dated and disregarded law book to thank for second Test victory
By the letter of the law the British and Irish Lions should not have won Saturday second Test, but the problem is those laws have been consistently ignored in the modern game. The dramatic, match-winning try from Hugo Keenan was preceded by a controversial ruck moment by Welshman, Jac Morgan, which was checked by Andrea Piardi and his refereeing team. Piardi got the call right, but there's a lot wrong with why I think it's the right call. The breakdown area is a particular issue in the game at the moment, and a part of the game that I've had a problem with for some time. It's impossible to know what's right and wrong, even when you study the laws and pick out examples. In fact, reading the laws after watching the Jac Morgan incident would actually confuse avid rugby supporters, never mind the casual watcher or newcomers to the game. Law 9.20 states a number of illegal acts that Jac Morgan may have fallen foul of: "A player must not charge into a ruck or maul." I don't believe that what Jac Morgan did in his act of clearing Carlo Tizzano out of the ruck is now considered to be charging. He had outstretched arms in an attempt to wrap them somewhere around the defensive player. In the current game, I think that can be considered a decent enough effort and shouldn't be sanctioned. However, is that action a genuine attempt at wrapping, by the letter of the law? I don't believe so. Rucking has become far removed from what it was originally intended, without anything or anyone stating that the action was allowed to change in this way. The more pressing issue here is the fact that according to law 9.20.c, "a player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul". Maybe more accurately, law 15.12 states that "players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck". These laws might as well not be written down. Jac Morgan didn't attempt to stay on his feet. He's not the only one, it's a common tactic to take other players away from the ruck. In a professional playing capacity, we were always told that it was fine if you took another body away from the ruck with you, and if you have energy for another action, at least try to get back on your feet. We see it repeatedly during games. Yet, the law should be clear. Law 9.20.b says that "a player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders". That's exactly what Morgan did, except in this case, Tizzano's neck was actually below the line of his shoulders, considering he was hinged and practically upside-down in his positioning (below). And this is the big issue with the laws on the defensive side of the play. Tizzano is in a modern 'jackal' position, questionably supporting his bodyweight, with his head below the level of his hips. Therefore, as the attacking player arrives at the ruck, staying low to go below the shoulder level of his opponent meant that Jac Morgan was initiating contact in a more dangerous way. The argument is what is he supposed to do in this instance? He can't make low and meaningful contact without the act being dangerous, we know he can't roll or twist the defender, and he definitely doesn't want to give the ball away. Surely the issue here is with the jackal position being permitted, despite the laws speaking to the contrary. These laws are obsolete and aren't adhered to, so why are they written at all? No wonder there's constant debate after the event, especially after a win in this manner. Research by Scott Mitchell and Gregory Tierney following the 2019 World Cup showed that 37% of all breakdowns had an infringement in them. Of that 37%, 79% of these infringements were not called as penalties or free kicks. The highest frequency infringement that wasn't called was players entering with their heads below their hips. The second highest frequency of uncalled infringements was for players going off their feet. The attacking team was also responsible for 70% of true infringements, but were penalised less than the defending team. If you want to know how exactly we got here, to this level of uncertainty around decisions, then look no further. The referees are doomed to failure. The law book exists, yet the game is refereed through common law, judgements and with an attempt to create a flow. This isn't the fault of the referees, it's the fault of many stakeholders and what we accept within the game. Attempting to find a final piece of evidence showing that the Jac Morgan clearout happens all the time, I went back through some of the Wallabies dominant phases to find a similar instance. I thought it would be very common and easy to find. Yet it's difficult to find an instance in the Wallabies attack. Joe Schmidt coaches a clean breakdown. He demands that his players arrive early and stop the competition without so much as a collision, where possible. They arrive before the tackler can reload to their feet and stand over them to ensure they cannot get up. The contest is normally over before it begins, and therefore rarely relies on sheer physicality. As a result, Schmidt (above) is right to feel aggrieved. He doesn't coach the same tactics in the breakdown, his attacking coaching is done within the laws, and the Morgan clearout isn't legal, by the letter of the law. Despite everything said above, and it's quite contradictory to say, it's still wrong to give a penalty against Morgan for foul play. It's clearly not accepted as foul play in the current game. The result would have been a deciding third Test in Sydney, something everyone but the Lions players and staff would have wanted. The issue is within the laws. What we accept now is not what is written within the laws, so change them or enforce them. What is legal at the breakdown needs a review, with clarity and safety being the main aim. If that means the game will change, then so be it. The 79th minute of a Test match is not the time to decide how the lawbook should be written or accepted. Currently, there's more confusion than ever, and therein lies the problem. Games are won and lost within tactics, moments and the accumulation of actions, yet it could take one decision to tip the scales and that's what we saw last weekend. Continuing with a dated and disregarded law book will bring more controversy and difficulty for referees, which they don't need. We should be talking about Keenan, Finn Russell, the James Lowe offload for Tadhg Beirne's try, the Joseph Sua'ali'i and Bundee Aki line breaks, the Australian turnaround. We shouldn't be this distracted by the laws.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Sport
- Daily Maverick
Wallabies could face a long, bleak winter after ruck controversy is heard around the rugby world
Can the Wallabies save their already imploding season against the British & Irish Lions in the third Test and in the Rugby Championship beyond that? As ever, controversy engulfed a British & Irish Lions tour, this time over whether a last-minute ruck was legal or illegal as they clinched the series against the Wallabies. The Lions won the second Test 29-26 in Melbourne, and with it, took the 2025 series against Australia as they moved into an unassailable 2-0 lead in the three-match slugfest. It all came down to a last-minute attack by the Lions, and a clean-out by flank Jac Morgan on Wallaby flank Carlo Tizzano deep inside the Wallaby 22. The Aussie backrower looked to be in a good position over the ball to win a turnover before Welshman Morgan clattered him off the ball. This is where it gets interesting. The Lions were able to clear the ball from the ruck, and one pass later, fullback Hugo Keenan scored the series-winning try. Cue mayhem. The footage of the clear-out was reviewed by Italian referee Andrea Piardi, who deemed it legal as he said both players arrived simultaneously. Naturally, that was not the end of it, as every expert and pundit has pulled out the lawbook and referred to various sections to prove their point. Was Morgan on his feet, did he bind, did he hit Tizzano on the neck? Anyone with gold-tinted glasses saw a clear penalty for Australia. Those with red blinkers viewed it as play on. Looking from a neutral position, it was easy to understand the angst and anger of Australians as the Wallabies lost the series. Equally, the insouciance of British and Irish reporters and supporters declaring that there was nothing to see here was understandable. Yet, if the roles had been reversed, would they be so quick to dismiss it? Interpretation Herein lies rugby's biggest flaw, or perhaps its greatest strength – the laws can be interpreted differently. The key is to be good enough to eliminate one decision from being the difference between triumph or disaster. That's easier written than done, though, but every ruck in every game has an element of jeopardy. I've looked at a few rucks from earlier in the game and some very similar-looking clear-outs haven't raised an eyebrow. That's the beauty of the sport. As the game nears the end and the outcome remains in the balance, every action and reaction is magnified. Former Welsh and Lions centre Jamie Roberts made a stunningly blunt point in a panel discussion on Australian TV to former Wallaby flank Michael Hooper afterwards. Had Tizzano 'survived' the cleanout, he might have won the penalty. What Roberts was implying was that the Tizzano threw himself back and tried to milk a penalty instead of staying latched on to the ball as Morgan hit him. If he survived the initial contact, he would have given the referee a very different picture to consider. Tizzano, admittedly after being hit hard by Morgan, theatrically flung himself backwards. It was enough to earn a review from the television match official, but not enough to win a belated penalty. Tizzano appears to have gambled with his over-the-top stunt instead of staying in the fight in the battle on the deck. You can't imagine Malcolm Marx or Hooper himself not doing everything to win the ball in such a good initial position. Former referee Nigel Owens, widely considered among the best officials in the world for much of his career, called it the 'perfect clear-out' in an interview with the BBC. This was not a mistake by referee Piardi, regardless of how much Wallaby coach Joe Schmidt and others quote the lawbook. It was an interpretation of an action that happens 50 times a game and that wouldn't raise an eyebrow had it happened in centre field in the 23rd minute. It won't be long before video footage of similar Wallaby clean-outs will emerge to underline the point that it was a 'rugby incident'. Australians are bitterly disappointed about the Wallabies losing after a heroic first 30 minutes. But that's where their real anger should be directed. They should not have been in a position to lose the game in the final minute. How does a quality Test side give up a 23-5 lead to lose the match? The Lions played well, their bench was effective while the Wallabies' replacements were subpar, and their energy was drained after a strong 30 minutes. Rugby matches at this level are an 80-plus-minute effort, and the job is never done until it's done. Australia learnt a hard lesson. Perhaps on another day, the final play might have gone their way, but they should never have been in a position where a 50/50 call would decide their fate. Revival or false dawn? From the comfort of a South African couch, it was good to see the Wallabies being competitive again, but was it a one-off, or is this the start of a revival? The jury is still out on that. The dead-rubber third Test in Sydney next week won't provide the real answer because it's difficult to be sure which Lions team will pitch up. Yes, the tourists have a stab at immortality by becoming the first Lions team since 1974 (against the Springboks) to take a 3-0 series win (the Lions won three and drew one of four Tests in 1974), but in reality, they've achieved their objective by winning the series. Likewise, how do the Wallabies respond? Perhaps the sense of injustice, real or perceived, will drive Australia to end the series on a high and claw back some pride. But I suspect the real examination of whether Australian rugby has turned the corner will be how the Wallabies fare in South Africa for the opening two rounds of the 2025 Rugby Championship in August. The Lions are good, but they are a composite team that hasn't quite found its rhythm yet. The Boks are a purring machine on a seven-Test winning streak, looking to make it nine wins in a row following clashes against Australia at Ellis Park and DHL Stadium next month. The Wallabies beat the Boks 25-17 at the Adelaide Oval in 2022. But, they've since lost 24-8 (Sydney, 2022), 43-12 (Pretoria, 2023), 33-7 (Brisbane, 2024) and 30-12 (Perth, 2024). Since 2022, Australia have also lost to Fiji and been hammered 40-6 by Wales at Rugby World Cup 2023. They last won a Bledisloe Cup Test against the All Blacks in 2020 and went down by a record 67-27 against Argentina last year. Australian rugby needed something against the Lions, which is why there has been such a backlash about the final ruck call. Rugby is in a desperate state in Australia, and now the Wallabies face the daunting task of somehow beating the Boks and All Blacks, as well as the Pumas, to resuscitate the ailing game Down Under. The best way is to win the third Test against the Lions and build some momentum and confidence before the Rugby Championships.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- Sport
- San Francisco Chronicle
Debate over "that" try continues long after the Lions clinch a series win over Australia
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Debate continued Sunday on a hemispheric basis over the last-minute try and absence of a penalty that sealed the British and Irish Lions' 29-26 win over Australia in the second test and a series victory with a match to spare. From the Northern Hemisphere, Jac Morgan's cleanout of Carlo Tizzano at the last breakdown Saturday was fair and perfectly executed. From the Southern Hemisphere, Morgan breached rugby's law 9.20 by striking Tizzano above the shoulders which likely in most matches in the south would have been considered endangerment and would have been penalized. While the Lions woke with the sore heads of celebrants, the Wallabies were left to brood over what might have been. Australia coach Joe Schmidt was emphatic after the match that Italian referee Andrea Piardi had erred in not penalizing Morgan and ruling out the last-minute try to Hugo Keenan which prevented the Wallabies from leveling the series. Piardi and his assistant referees closely studied replays of the final ruck before waving away the entreaties of Wallabies captain Harry Wilson and awarding the try. In explanation, Piardi said Tizzano and Morgan had arrived at the ruck at the same time and their collision was part of the normal rough and tumble of the game. 'You just have to read law 9.20 and I guess you just have to listen to the description from the referee and then watch the vision,' Schmidt told a news conference after the match. 'When two players are described as arriving at the same time, just watch the footage. 'Players make errors. Match officials make errors. Our perspective is we felt it was a decision that doesn't really live up to the big player safety push that they're talking about. You cannot hit someone above the level of the shoulders and there's no wrapping with the left arm, the hands on the ground. That's what we've seen, and we've watched a number of replays from different angles. It is what it is. We just have to accept it.' Some Lions fans even went as far as to accuse Tizzano of 'simulation," by trying to exaggerate the incident to influence the referee. 'I thought it was a brilliant clear-out, honestly, didn't you? It depends on what side of the fence you come from,' Farrell said. 'I thought it was a good clear-out live. I couldn't understand what they were going back for. They seem to go back for everything these days. But I'm so pleased that the referee held his nerve. It was the right decision in my opinion. 'I can understand people's opinions.' Wallabies and Lions fans clashed on social media long after the crowd of more than 90,000 fans — the most ever to watch the Lions — had left the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Fans from the north and south agreed only that this had been one of the great test matches and most memorable of rugby occasions. ___
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Sport
- Winnipeg Free Press
Debate over 'that' try continues long after the Lions clinch a series win over Australia
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Debate continued Sunday on a hemispheric basis over the last-minute try and absence of a penalty that sealed the British and Irish Lions' 29-26 win over Australia in the second test and a series victory with a match to spare. From the Northern Hemisphere, Jac Morgan's cleanout of Carlo Tizzano at the last breakdown Saturday was fair and perfectly executed. From the Southern Hemisphere, Morgan breached rugby's law 9.20 by striking Tizzano above the shoulders which likely in most matches in the south would have been considered endangerment and would have been penalized. While the Lions woke with the sore heads of celebrants, the Wallabies were left to brood over what might have been. Australia coach Joe Schmidt was emphatic after the match that Italian referee Andrea Piardi had erred in not penalizing Morgan and ruling out the last-minute try to Hugo Keenan which prevented the Wallabies from leveling the series. Piardi and his assistant referees closely studied replays of the final ruck before waving away the entreaties of Wallabies captain Harry Wilson and awarding the try. In explanation, Piardi said Tizzano and Morgan had arrived at the ruck at the same time and their collision was part of the normal rough and tumble of the game. 'You just have to read law 9.20 and I guess you just have to listen to the description from the referee and then watch the vision,' Schmidt told a news conference after the match. 'When two players are described as arriving at the same time, just watch the footage. 'Players make errors. Match officials make errors. Our perspective is we felt it was a decision that doesn't really live up to the big player safety push that they're talking about. You cannot hit someone above the level of the shoulders and there's no wrapping with the left arm, the hands on the ground. That's what we've seen, and we've watched a number of replays from different angles. It is what it is. We just have to accept it.' From the northern perspective, Morgan makes contact with Tizzano below the neck and shoulders. It was, Lions coach Andy Farrell said 'brilliant'. Some Lions fans even went as far as to accuse Tizzano of 'simulation,' by trying to exaggerate the incident to influence the referee. 'I thought it was a brilliant clear-out, honestly, didn't you? It depends on what side of the fence you come from,' Farrell said. 'I thought it was a good clear-out live. I couldn't understand what they were going back for. They seem to go back for everything these days. But I'm so pleased that the referee held his nerve. It was the right decision in my opinion. 'I can understand people's opinions.' Wallabies and Lions fans clashed on social media long after the crowd of more than 90,000 fans — the most ever to watch the Lions — had left the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Fans from the north and south agreed only that this had been one of the great test matches and most memorable of rugby occasions. ___ AP rugby:
Mint
3 days ago
- Sport
- Mint
Debate over 'that' try continues long after the Lions clinch a series win over Australia
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Debate continued Sunday on a hemispheric basis over the last-minute try and absence of a penalty that sealed the British and Irish Lions' 29-26 win over Australia in the second test and a series victory with a match to spare. From the Northern Hemisphere, Jac Morgan's cleanout of Carlo Tizzano at the last breakdown Saturday was fair and perfectly executed. From the Southern Hemisphere, Morgan breached rugby's law 9.20 by striking Tizzano above the shoulders which likely in most matches in the south would have been considered endangerment and would have been penalized. While the Lions woke with the sore heads of celebrants, the Wallabies were left to brood over what might have been. Australia coach Joe Schmidt was emphatic after the match that Italian referee Andrea Piardi had erred in not penalizing Morgan and ruling out the last-minute try to Hugo Keenan which prevented the Wallabies from leveling the series. Piardi and his assistant referees closely studied replays of the final ruck before waving away the entreaties of Wallabies captain Harry Wilson and awarding the try. In explanation, Piardi said Tizzano and Morgan had arrived at the ruck at the same time and their collision was part of the normal rough and tumble of the game. 'You just have to read law 9.20 and I guess you just have to listen to the description from the referee and then watch the vision,' Schmidt told a news conference after the match. 'When two players are described as arriving at the same time, just watch the footage. 'Players make errors. Match officials make errors. Our perspective is we felt it was a decision that doesn't really live up to the big player safety push that they're talking about. You cannot hit someone above the level of the shoulders and there's no wrapping with the left arm, the hands on the ground. That's what we've seen, and we've watched a number of replays from different angles. It is what it is. We just have to accept it.' From the northern perspective, Morgan makes contact with Tizzano below the neck and shoulders. It was, Lions coach Andy Farrell said 'brilliant". Some Lions fans even went as far as to accuse Tizzano of 'simulation," by trying to exaggerate the incident to influence the referee. 'I thought it was a brilliant clear-out, honestly, didn't you? It depends on what side of the fence you come from,' Farrell said. 'I thought it was a good clear-out live. I couldn't understand what they were going back for. They seem to go back for everything these days. But I'm so pleased that the referee held his nerve. It was the right decision in my opinion. 'I can understand people's opinions.' Wallabies and Lions fans clashed on social media long after the crowd of more than 90,000 fans — the most ever to watch the Lions — had left the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Fans from the north and south agreed only that this had been one of the great test matches and most memorable of rugby occasions.
