Happy Wednesday dear GAGRs. Another week of reflection, but this week does not give hope for a weekend result. We take a short break and prepare ourselves for the naming of teams for the Rugby Championship. What will this be like for “Our” team? Our coaching group prejudice Is it an informed opinion, or will they take a path we did not expect? Only time will tell.

I’ve got a few referee tips from last week and then a few news items you may have missed/don’t care about. The photo was taken at Eden Park just before the final game against England. I had a blast with about 15 of my Army mates before, during and after the game. It’s great for the soul.

Referee Corner

So there are a couple of RCs this weekend and depending on your bias it’s either a fair call or an absolutely disgusting example of refereeing. One of the things I like about the new process is that the referee can call it a Yellow Card – but under review so he doesn’t have to spend time reviewing it again during the game. It’s a good move and the referee now has to decide whether it’s more than just a penalty and then let someone else look at it from all angles and get on with the game. It’s a huge improvement and while I don’t often praise World Rugby they certainly deserve credit for it. This process has reduced stoppages significantly and has been much better for the game.

The first was the Red Card to Daugunu. It was interesting to listen to the podcast “other site”. Matt Tou’omua was very critical of this call and said that it was just a “rugby incident” and should never have been a Red Card. So let’s examine this incident from a referee’s perspective (as opposed to a biased one-eyed Wallaby fan’s perspective). The Georgian winger received the ball from the centre and then kicked it down the pitch. Daugunu jumped into the air to block the kick and when he landed he made contact with the Georgian winger’s head with his thigh. So what is the referee’s process in this type of incident?

The first thing the referee looks at is “Was there contact with the head and was it foul play?” Now this 2nd question can be very subjective – like about 70% of all refereeing decisions – and like the slap down intercept, it is based on both the probability of the scrum being successful and the player’s need to jump to avoid creating a dangerous situation. The laws around this are vague and don’t really offer much, so the referee also has to take into account World Rugby’s guidance on how these things should be decided. The real laws around this are Law 11.5.a which states: “The ball is not kicked and play continues when: A player kicks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (Downward attack).” And, law 9.25 says: “A player must not deliberately charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball” So there’s not much in it, although “willful” words cause some problems. However, World Rugby’s guidance is very clear. The player who jumps the ball is absolutely responsible Negative creates a dangerous situation for the kicker. The reason behind this is that the kicker is not charging at his opponent and the person trying to block the kick is not charging, in this case the person moving towards the kicker has the responsibility of not making the situation dangerous. So if a player charges down the kick, if he has not been able to charge down the kick And If they make contact with the batter, they are considered reckless and liable for the outcome. So even if it wasn’t intentional, they are still liable.

In this case, Daugunu jumped about 7 meters in front of the forward running kicker as he kicked. He never got close to the ball and braced himself by raising his right knee as he came down. The fact that he actually failed to kick down means that there was no realistic chance of him doing so (if he had, he would have). Furthermore, his jumping forward into the gap the runner was moving into and raising his knee to protect himself were actions that led to head contact.

Now we can all debate this, like Matt To’omua, and put forward our opinions on why this was or was not the wrong decision, but World Rugby’s guidelines are clear and in my unbiased (if slightly biased) opinion this was absolutely the right decision.

The second incident is the red card shown to Andre Esterhuizen. fishing rod About Jose Lima. Obviously the main group of fans who condemn this call are the one-eyed South African fans who see every call against their team as foul play in itself. So let’s examine that a little bit. The procedure for this is definitely set. It’s been around for a few years now and all the players, coaches, referees and managers at this level fully understand the process and what to look for. Very simplified, there are four questions. Was there head contact? Was it foul play? How much danger was there? Are there any mitigations?

The last question seems to be the most subjective (at least to fans). The other three questions are easy. Yes, there was contact with the head. Yes, it was a foul because the tackler was standing upright and wasn’t aiming lower. Yes, there was a high degree of danger (based on the speed of both players and the direct head-on collision). The reduction is a bit problematic with some people saying that both players had reduced their body height and therefore should have counted. The issues set out by World Rugby for reduction are; Line of sight (was the ball carrier in the tackler’s line of sight at all times), Sudden and significant drop or movement ( both of them sudden and important Negative (one or the other), an overt attempt (by the tackler) to reduce height, level of control, passive tackler (i.e. not attacking, but instead lowering the tackler to the plane they are running on)

Unfortunately for Andre, none of the mitigating factors were met. Yes, he was slightly crouched, but he didn’t try to reduce his height at all, yes, the ball carrier also crouched on contact, but it was neither sudden nor significant, and Andre always had full visibility of the ball. In my opinion, this was absolutely the right decision and well-managed by the officials.

Rugby Sevens: Origins and Differences from 15-a-side

Really nice article Here Rugby.com.au explains the differences between XV and 7s rugby and why players are more likely to be exposed in these games.

Rugby sevens originated in Melrose, Scotland in 1883 when a butcher couple started a fundraising tournament. Rugby sevens’ popularity has spread, but its real start came in the 1970s with the development of Hong Kong Sevens. The sport was first included in the Commonwealth Games in 1998, and the Rugby World Cup Sevens was first held in 1993 for men and 2009 for women. The men still compete in the Melrose Cup, named after the aforementioned Scottish Borders town.

Under the auspices of World Rugby, the annual World Rugby Sevens Series for men was launched in 1999, while the women’s series was established in 2012.

The new format showcased the top 12 men’s and women’s teams, culminating in a Grand Final weekend where the top eight teams competed to be crowned Series champions. France triumphed over Argentina in the men’s competition, while Australia won the women’s final.

The 15-a-side version of rugby union was last played at the 1924 Paris Olympics, where the United States beat the host nation for the gold medal and are still the official XV Olympic champions. The game returned at the 2016 Rio Olympics, but in a sevens format, with Fiji’s men and Australia’s women winning gold medals at those games.

The basic rules remain the same: five points for a try, two points for a conversion and three points for a penalty. The ball must still be passed backwards and kicked behind the goal line for a try. Three-man scrums and lineouts are also part of the game. The size of the pitch for both disciplines is the same (70x100m), but there are seven players per team instead of 15, and the playing time is adapted accordingly: each half is seven minutes instead of the 40 minutes of the 15-a-side rule. Penalties and conversions are not kicked from the ground using a tee, but are scored as drop goals.

Rugby sevens requires speed and responsiveness, a level of athleticism that often sees attacking play go the length of the pitch. In defence, players need to be able to tackle well and also play for turnovers, an extremely tiring task.

There is very little room for error, especially in defence. There are plenty of XV players who shine in the sevens circuit, but less so with far more talented sevens specialists in the game today.

I love the 7s game, especially the women’s 7s. The talent is incredible and it’s more about playing the game than playing the player. Australia has an incredible women’s 7s team and for me the highlight of the year will be the Olympic finals where I hope the NZ women win gold and the Australian women win silver. To be honest I’d almost be happy if it was the other way around, but not quite, because the game itself is so great.

Springboks winger Sbu Nkosi tests positive for banned substance

Well, you surprised me! reported Here A South African player has tested positive for a banned substance, according to a report in South African newspaper Rapport. Nkosi was tested alongside three other Springboks in May. It was reported that Sample A tested positive for anabolic steroid use and if Sample B also tests positive, he could face a four-year ban from rugby.

Four Springbok players have reportedly tested positive so far, with Nkobi joining Dyantyi, Ralepelle and Jantjies, who have tested positive in the past.

Nkosi has had some trouble in the past with a missing persons case being opened against him after he left the Bulls training squad in 2022. He was later found at his father’s home in Emalahleni, about 100km east of Pretoria.

He later said the mental pressures associated with professional rugby had forced him into hiding. They had been building up for a long time “a few years” and needed a break.

Now, I feel sorry for the guy and I hope he gets the help he needs, the South African doping regime seems to be competing with China’s at the moment. It was reported on July 23, Here The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has suspended Africa’s only accredited drug testing laboratory due to “numerous non-compliance” with international standards, News24.com reported.

WADA said in a statement that it had suspended the accreditation of the South African Doping Control Laboratory in Bloemfontein for up to six months. The Bloemfontein laboratory had been allowed to continue with other anti-doping activities after some restrictions were imposed in September last year. But WADA said experts had recommended the agency suspend the facility’s accreditation. “Multiple non-compliances with the International Laboratories Standard.” “The suspension … prohibits the laboratory from conducting any anti-doping activities, including analyses of urine and blood samples, with the exception of analyses related to the haematological module of the Athlete Biological Passport,” WADA said in a statement. WADA said the laboratory would be allowed to reapply for readmission once it demonstrates that all identified “non-compliances” have been resolved.

There have been rumours, insinuations, complaints and outright accusations for a number of years that South African rugby, particularly university rugby, is rife with drug use and banned substances. Now I have no doubt that all countries have some sort of problem with that and it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if a New Zealand player was caught. But I think the pressure on South Africans is greater than some other countries and it saddens me that it is such a problem. Maybe we need to look at ourselves a bit and what we expect from these players and whether we are actually contributing to the situation.