Has anyone heard anything from Campo this week?

Some form of sanity seems to has finally prevailed with it looking like Super Rugby in 2022 returning to 12 teams and SA remaining in the Rugby Championship.

5 NZ teams, 5 Australian teams and Fiji and Moana Pacific.

It looks like the Aratipu report is in the bin.

This weekend's team:

Starting:
Ofa Tuungafasi, Codie Taylor, Karl Tu'inukuafe
Sam Whitelock, Scott Barrett
Ardie Savea, Sam Cane (c), Akira Ioane
TJ Perenara
Beauden Barrett
Rieko Ioane, Ngani Laumape, Anton Lienert-Brown, Sevu Reece, 
Jordie Barrett

Reserves:
Asafo Aumua, Alex Hodgman, Tyrel Lomax,
Patrick Tuipulotu,
Cullen Grace,
Brad Weber, Damian McKenzie. Will Jordan.

Pretty disrespectful of the Wallabies, I reckon
No Dane Coles; no Aaron Smith; no Jack Goodhue; no Richie Mo'unga; no Sotutu, Papalii or Frizell
Four uncapped players
This is 'New Zealand A', not an 'All Blacks' team

When Rennie announced his team last week, it seemed to me he had decided to prioritize the blooding of new players over winning the Bledisloe (or all but given up hope of taking it out). It seemed so unlikely that an Australian team with so few established players could reasonably compete with what was near on our first choice team, but in contrast, this week we have put forward a few new players, though very few to start, but only after the Bledisloe was tucked safely away. It would have made more sense to me, to have played his strongest team last week and weakest this week when we were likely to experiment. I understand some of those were injury forced, but I would have had the majority of them off the bench as we have done.

I don't think it's disrepectful of Australia. Don't forget, that all teams are at the very start of a 4 Year cycle building toward the RWC 2023 and as such, expect to see more of our players of the future, ala Jordan, Grace, Aumua on the field in coming months.

PolicyGuy:

 

This is 'New Zealand A', not an 'All Blacks' team

 

I totally disagree that it is "not an 'All Blacks' team".

The starting lineup is an All Blacks team.

All the players are in the 35-strong All Black squad.

If all the players you listed as not playing were to be injured then we wouldn't be saying it is NZ A team.

Terrible game, for everyone and all involved. Main thoughts:

1) First head-high: Yes, probably a card. No way a red - both players had bent knows so falling into contact and another adjusting. If that's not mitigation then I don't know what is. This was a tackle that inadvertently involved high contact, as opposed to...

2) The shoulder charge on Whitelock. This was only ever going to be a shoulder charge. In 1) there was clear wrapping and the tackle was still actually made. This was a flat red, by any definition, even though Whitlock had also run lower (also missed by the ref, but irrelevant due to it being a shoulder charge, not a tackle). 

3) Australian Broadcaster showing incidents repeatedly immediately after they had happened in slow motion. I thought we had been told this was going to be looked at because it meant broadcasters end up influencing the game a few years ago. Sky on the other hand, will show you plays for two or three phases before an actual or potential infringement - the actual replay only coming after a try has been converted or a penalty kicked. This needs to be standardised or else the TV director effectively becomes a TMO. 

4) Cane and Whitlock lost their cool today, and the Australian strategy was clearly to niggle them. Unsurprising to see NZ discipline collapsing when Cane was constantly pushing and shoving. Can't really recall McCaw ever being so rattled across an entire game.

5) The Barrett yellow shouldn't have been a card and shouldn't have been given 30m out. There was no similar yellow when the Australians slowed down a ruck cynically in the last minute of the game and a penalty was given.

Dishonourable mention: Kirwan for suggesting Red Cards for head-high incidents be abandoned for an 'On Report' system. We have cameras everywhere and four officials. If they can't make a decision in five minutes then god help us. Let's not change the laws of the game because the refs can't consistently apply it match-on-match. Also, the idea that there should be fewer consequences for deliberately dangerous play in an arena with four refs and TV cameras will send the wrong message to club and schoolboy levels, who won't have the same resources to enforce an 'on report' system - and there will be more of those incidents if the international players can suddenly start throwing high shots on field and staying there. Rugby already has some serious issues with head injuries; what on earth is he thinking? 

GV27:

 

Terrible game, for everyone and all involved. Main thoughts:

 

1) First head-high: Yes, probably a card. No way a red - both players had bent knows so falling into contact and another adjusting. If that's not mitigation then I don't know what is. This was a tackle that inadvertently involved high contact, as opposed to...

 

2) The shoulder charge on Whitelock. This was only ever going to be a shoulder charge. In 1) there was clear wrapping and the tackle was still actually made. This was a flat red, by any definition, even though Whitlock had also run lower (also missed by the ref, but irrelevant due to it being a shoulder charge, not a tackle). 

 

3) Australian Broadcaster showing incidents repeatedly immediately after they had happened in slow motion. I thought we had been told this was going to be looked at because it meant broadcasters end up influencing the game a few years ago. Sky on the other hand, will show you plays for two or three phases before an actual or potential infringement - the actual replay only coming after a try has been converted or a penalty kicked. This needs to be standardised or else the TV director effectively becomes a TMO. 

 

4) Cane and Whitlock lost their cool today, and the Australian strategy was clearly to niggle them. Unsurprising to see NZ discipline collapsing when Cane was constantly pushing and shoving. Can't really recall McCaw ever being so rattled across an entire game.

 

5) The Barrett yellow shouldn't have been a card and shouldn't have been given 30m out. There was no similar yellow when the Australians slowed down a ruck cynically in the last minute of the game and a penalty was given.

 

Dishonourable mention: Kirwan for suggesting Red Cards for head-high incidents be abandoned for an 'On Report' system. We have cameras everywhere and four officials. If they can't make a decision in five minutes then god help us. Let's not change the laws of the game because the refs can't consistently apply it match-on-match. Also, the idea that there should be fewer consequences for deliberately dangerous play in an arena with four refs and TV cameras will send the wrong message to club and schoolboy levels, who won't have the same resources to enforce an 'on report' system - and there will be more of those incidents if the international players can suddenly start throwing high shots on field and staying there. Rugby already has some serious issues with head injuries; what on earth is he thinking? 

 

Pretty much bang on. 

Teams should get penalised for foul play, but this was very card heavy.

Barrett should just know better, that was stupid and little incidents like this all add up to the overall game score.

Tackling with no arms isn't tackling, it's just shoulder charging to the head ==> instant red.

A really sloppy game all round really.  Did nothing for the sport IMO, in a time when it's one of the few games still going and getting a lot of attention.

GV27:

Terrible game, for everyone and all involved. Main thoughts:

1) First head-high: Yes, probably a card. No way a red - both players had bent knows so falling into contact and another adjusting. If that's not mitigation then I don't know what is. This was a tackle that inadvertently involved high contact, as opposed to...

2) The shoulder charge on Whitelock. This was only ever going to be a shoulder charge. In 1) there was clear wrapping and the tackle was still actually made. This was a flat red, by any definition, even though Whitlock had also run lower (also missed by the ref, but irrelevant due to it being a shoulder charge, not a tackle). 

3) Australian Broadcaster showing incidents repeatedly immediately after they had happened in slow motion. I thought we had been told this was going to be looked at because it meant broadcasters end up influencing the game a few years ago. Sky on the other hand, will show you plays for two or three phases before an actual or potential infringement - the actual replay only coming after a try has been converted or a penalty kicked. This needs to be standardised or else the TV director effectively becomes a TMO. 

4) Cane and Whitlock lost their cool today, and the Australian strategy was clearly to niggle them. Unsurprising to see NZ discipline collapsing when Cane was constantly pushing and shoving. Can't really recall McCaw ever being so rattled across an entire game.

5) The Barrett yellow shouldn't have been a card and shouldn't have been given 30m out. There was no similar yellow when the Australians slowed down a ruck cynically in the last minute of the game and a penalty was given.

Dishonourable mention: Kirwan for suggesting Red Cards for head-high incidents be abandoned for an 'On Report' system. We have cameras everywhere and four officials. If they can't make a decision in five minutes then god help us. Let's not change the laws of the game because the refs can't consistently apply it match-on-match. Also, the idea that there should be fewer consequences for deliberately dangerous play in an arena with four refs and TV cameras will send the wrong message to club and schoolboy levels, who won't have the same resources to enforce an 'on report' system - and there will be more of those incidents if the international players can suddenly start throwing high shots on field and staying there. Rugby already has some serious issues with head injuries; what on earth is he thinking? 

There was no clear change in height for the Tuungafasi tackle. The Australian player slipped a little earlier in the movement so was low but if anything was going back up on contact. From when Tuungafasi began his tackle to making contact the Australian player was at a consistent height. Him bring lower than a normal height is absolutely irrelevant under the framework, only a change in height matters. It's a fairly straightforward red card.

Barrett's card was also exceptionally clear. It was a deliberately cynical act with absolutely no way it could ever be legal. It was straight cheating. That is totally different from a ruck infringement. If you want to go down that route Reece should have been carded as well.

The cards were 100% correct under law but the law is crap. There is no differentiation between a rugby act gone wrong like Tuungafasi and an eye gouge or stamping. It's dumb.

I did wonder if the combination of new players in, a humbled Australian side with something desperate to restore some pride, and the weird travel arrangements on match day may prove to make things pretty hard for the AB's. 

Of everything that happened last night, the thing that really annoyed me the most was the completely stupid unnecessary action taken by Scott Barrett which was 10 minutes in the bin. I don't get it. totally deserved.

There is a bit of that we have seen over the years from all 3 Barrett brothers. They are all exceptionally talented, but prone to crazy and cynical play as well. 

Akira looked like a man possessed last night. He was the only option to remove but was set for a pretty decent debut. 

Koribete was man of the match for Australia I think. He is a genuine threat and talent.

Rennies trademark niggle instigation is coming through early. The Aussies were full of it. Reminded me of the Chiefs under his leadership in the worst way. Though it was pretty obvious, the AB's were really targeting Nic White.

Wow, what a performance by Canterbury, led by a man of the match/competition performance by Luke Romano! I had a feeling after 5 minutes we were seeing a side with something to prove. To hold the top attacking team in the competition to zero with some excellent defence was something quite special. 

Cynical play is more of a Crusaders trademark than a Barrett one. I don't recall Jordie or Beauden making cynical plays (dumb plays for sure but not cynical) but it's quite amazing how often a Crusaders player makes a "mistake" in a ruck when the opposition breaks. Kieran Read and Whitelock were/are the masters at it, Reece was another example last night.

It went from being a very enjoyable game to one that was ruined by the red cards. It's unfortunate.

Oh for God Sakes. BBarrett was carded multiple times over multiple games for the AB's for blatant interence with the ball on the AB's own try line.

If the Crusaders do it, they are dirty, if anyone else does it, it's fair play they were just playing the game

/me Rolls eyes.

The 'Canes, and Chiefs are just as guilty of such things.

Lol. Beauden Barrett got one yellow card in 2014 and one 2017. Two yellow cards in 9 years shows he's cynical? Mmmkay.

If you have evidence to the contrary please produce it.

https://www.rugbypass.com/internationals/teams/new-zealand/players/beauden-barrett/

The Crusaders are very cynical and are very good at it. So are the All Blacks. That's not dirty, that's just rugby. Dirty play is trying to injure someone, not taking advantage of the rules.