Well Done Portugal!

[Chilli]

My favorite team after the Springboks.
Great result.

[Gumboot]

Yep, they did themselves proud.

[convoluted]

Could never ever have imagined that it would be Portugal who'd totally reignite my love for rugby.

[inactionman]

That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

[ASMO]

That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

The mitigation was the last second change of direction

[inactionman]

That was very good fun.

And the Portugal hooker's name is Tadjer. What's not to love.



As an aside, I'm still utterly at a loss as to what the TMOs consider a red card offence to be - I really couldn't see the dip into contact mitigation.

The mitigation was the last second change of direction

I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

[C69]

Well done

Awesome

[assfly]

I would love to see them play more.

Let's hope the Boks can add them as a fixture for their EOYT.

[Mahoney]

I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

[inactionman]

I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

Surely we're expecting the ball carrier to be trying to avoid being tackled? I've seen a few reds where the tackler has been caught out by the ballcarier not doing what they expected, although to be fair the most egregious - Steward vs Ireland - was overturned. I'm just a bit confused as to how these are being interpreted.

Anyway, my confusion on interpretations of red cards notwithstanding, I'm glad it didn't detract from a very, very enjoyable match.

[Sandstorm]

I thought I heard it was a change in height.

I am cloth-eared though.

Without trying to make a big thing of this, I find a change in direction an odd reason to excuse a high tackle.

I thought this a rather good exemplar of it - if the step doesn't happen, he hits with the shoulder underneath the tackled player's shoulder, and his head doesn't hit at all, so it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate tackle. Because of the step it suddenly becomes a front on tackle and the top of his head collides with the tackled player's chin.

That's still risky in 2023. Just go lower.