We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Sat 10 Oct 2015 | 10:00
A look at the Burgess tackle that was overlooked as Farrell smashed Giteau

12
Comments

In the last week emotions have run high, mainly regarding foul play and how it has been dealt with by the powers that be. There have been some strange decisions made, both on and off the field. Here is a look at one that puzzled and annoyed some fans.

It was quite a strange incident as there were two big collisions taking place at exactly the same time. This obviously added to the confusion, and meant that one player in particular got away with having his indiscretion pretty much overlooked.

Michael Hooper was banned this week for his challenge on Mike Brown, and while that is a different discussion altogether, it was he who was the recipient of a high swinging arm by League convert and all round nice guy, Sam Burgess.

Burgess hit Hooper just as Owen Farrell put a big shot in on Matt Giteau. Giteau writhed on the floor in agony so took a lot of focus away from the Burgess shot.

Farrell walked, and while he had a decent excuse for making the tackle, Burgess on the other hand was high and fairly dangerous. He received a brief talking to and later got an official warning from the citing commissioner, but nothing more.

While some England fans have been vocal about Hooper not being carded earlier in the game, the reality is that on another day, England could have easily lost two players at once, as both challenges looked worthy of sin-binning. The communication between referee and TMO could have been better.

So the big talking point is, should both players have seen yellow? Should Burgess have at least been given a proper disciplinary hearing and perhaps a suspension?

By now you probably have your own take on it and at this stage it's all completely subjective and inconsequential, but we're posting this here for reference if you fancy discussing it.

If nothing else, the moment was a great example of the intensity and desperation of the occasion.

Highlights and discussion from England vs Australia

Posted By: Grant Constable

12 Comments

  • drg
    10:48 AM 13/10/2015

    Oliver that was exactly my thoughts on the Farrell incident, had Farrell lined up Giteau and hit and wrapped and gone to ground with him, I suspect nothing would have been made of this, or at worst, 'tackling the man without the ball, penalty', but because he just looked like he saw Giteau in the way and decided to shoulder check him, I think it's almost fair game that he got a yellow..

  • oliver
    8:28 AM 13/10/2015

    let's admit you're right. that doesn't give the England players the right to tackle without wrapping and/or high. Ever heard of a penalty reversed?

  • 3:17 AM 13/10/2015

    What this illustrates to me more than anything was Burgess's complete lack of ability to adequately defend in the midfield. Everyone was seduced by him smacking the french hooker, quite high mind you, in the warm up but this tackle is league style all the way. Predictable from a guy who has played it more than 95% of his sporting life!

  • 45678
    7:24 PM 12/10/2015

    Far from deluded. if you are defending space and someone runs into you with the appearance of receiving a pass it is obstruction. Giteau was fair game as far as I'm concerned.

    Doesn't make a jot of a difference now however

  • oliver
    8:12 AM 12/10/2015

    Penalty to England? talk about being deluded....

  • 45678
    8:26 PM 11/10/2015

    giteau runs a blocking line. should have been a penalty to England.

  • drg
    5:11 PM 11/10/2015

    But then at the end of it all, the match he missed out on was a win anyway, so he just had a good rest before the knock outs...

    But I agree...

    I'm also sick of these incidents receiving yellows IN game, only to result in a ban afterwards?!?! If they're banning players then they're saying the referees got it wrong and it should have been a red card..

  • spicksandspecks
    11:33 AM 11/10/2015

    What really sticks in the craw for us Wallabies fans is that Hooper was subsequently suspended for 1 match for a no arms clean out at the ruck, while Burgess got an off-field yellow for a similar level offence. To be honest, if Hooper and Burgess had both been yellow carded on the day and Farrell let off, we probably would all have been happy enough and none of this post match ruckus would have happened.

  • 10stonenumber10
    10:17 AM 11/10/2015

    He almost had the ball... If it was a legal height hit, he would have been given the special Courtney Lawes "committed to the tackle" benefit of the doubt treatment.

  • drg
    12:45 AM 11/10/2015

    Of course it's a non event... but every single non event in the game are now 'events'... hence why these sorts of things get looked at....

    I can only image the way the game is going these days is the reason for the delays in the TSRB series...

  • reality
    2:05 PM 10/10/2015

    The biggest non-incident ever. It was a high tackle, ok, but...so what? High tackles happen, and this was a fairly tame one. The only thing that makes it mildly interesting is that it happened at the exact same time as another illegal tackle. The fact that Sam 'the second coming' Burgess is involved shouldn't make it any more or less significant.

  • 10stonenumber10
    12:00 PM 10/10/2015

    Hooper did appear to duck slightly into the contact, whereas Burgess didn't sink into the contact at all.

    When the defender's shoulder is above the attacker's, you get a scuffed hit, or a catch and drag. Throw too much weight behind it and you go past the point of contact and have to wrench at the player to get enough rotational torque to bring them down, as the impact has been completely nullified. Hooper's contact base was too wide for Burgess, the hit wouldn't unbalance him, so dragging at the neck was "necessary" to bring him down.

    It was a high hit that rode up even higher, partly through Hooper, but predominantly through Burgess.

    Maybe there was some leniency given as they are both "big strong boys", and in a game like that, 2 yellows would have killed it completely for England and opened up a new channel of complaints/excuses about the loss. With only Farrell in the bin, the loss could only have been blamed on a poor 80 minute performance rather than losing two for the final period and Australia dominating. Call me a cynic, but it seems like it was a bit of self preservation from the officials.

    After all my talk about England needing an enforcer, I appreciate Burgess smashing Hooper for his wrongdoings, but that wasn't quite what I had in mind. 12" lower would have been perfect. You could see that hit was premeditated, he tried to put in a game changer, went high, and it seems he has got away with it. Etzebeth is a pantomime thug, but at least 95% of his brutality is legal.

Related Articles