NZ v England

[didds]

All understood Ian, and I appreciate your time to explain it all. Yarde's YC was a YC - no issue at all. The problem with the "I don't think you did it intentionally etc etc " is that next week this subjective viewpoint won't necessarily be reciprocated, and whatever the reasoning the net result is still the same. The attacking side have been deliberately (because the i-think-its-a-maul but means the action was deliberate) denied quick ball to continue the attack against a defense in disarray, in "the red zone".

Its a bit like Haskell's take-out. maybe it "wasn't his fault" - but next week with a different ref it will be. How can we expect players, coaches and spectators to understand such subjective nuances?

didds

 

[Browner]

As a slight aside ......When NO calls "release white" Brodie Retallick has his right arm over the shoulder of Yarde seemingly holding him there. So Yarde was prevented from rolling away from the ball, which doesn't appear to be an offence, unless I've missed it?
Reference anyone?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lOOByLUMjNQ.
68.56 on game clock

From 62.00 ogc #22 goes to ground to regather the ball & fails, he only gets to his knees before he tackles May( who is the BC) a material 14.1(d) offence.

I can only assume that NO as he is arriving is assessing the picture, he's decided tackle not maul, and he's decided deliberately held not released, and th4 considering the field position and the desperation actions of AB defenders then YC has to be the call surely.

I don't think its a 50/50 decision once he's made his game state assessment, its a 80/20 call, that the best refs should make 80% of the time.

Love to be a fly on the wall of the debrief

 

[crossref]

"it wasn't intentional" is a load of bullocks. He gave a PK, so it should have been a YC

At any level of rugby, anyone who commits a PK offence 1 metre from their own tryline is expecting to go to the bin. He must have been astonished to be let off. All the NZ team must have been astonished

 

[Camquin]

15.7.c prevents people falling on those near a tackle.
I am not sure if that applies to preventing the tackler rolling away.

Camquin

 

[Ian_Cook]

I wonder.

If Fekitoa had been carded, and Yarde had not been carded, whether the level of whining and outrage from some of the English posters on this forum would be as high as it is.

I think not.

Also, could some please have a look at my post #77...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17789-NZ-v-England&p=275520&viewfull=1#post275520

.. and offer opinions as to who was penalised and why?

 

[winchesterref]

I don't think anyone has said Yarde didn't deserve a card

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't think anyone has said Yarde didn't deserve a card

True, but not the point.

There is another thing I would like explained by someone who has experience dealing with Yellow cards in a situation where there is an official timekeeper and a TV/ground game clock. Someone on another forum has asked why Marlan Yarde was sent off at 69:26 and came back on after the restart to the All Blacks try at 79:04, less than 10 minutes on the game clock. I think part of the answer may be that the TV game clock is not the official game time. However, does "time-off" by the referee stop the YC countdown clock ticking?

 

[Toby Warren]

I wonder.

If Fekitoa had been carded, and Yarde had not been carded, whether the level of whining and outrage from some of the English posters on this forum would be as high as it is.

I think not.

Also, could some please have a look at my post #77...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17789-NZ-v-England&p=275520&viewfull=1#post275520

.. and offer opinions as to who was penalised and why?

I thought that the one in #77 wasn't a PK at the time and still don't see it as a PK.
There was one as well when Manu T was pinged for offside and it appeared to me there was only a tackle - would like to see that one again but can't find it (it was a PK bang in front that the AB's kicked)

I also saw England 'hold on' a lot
I also saw a lot of contact in the air by both teams
I saw a lot of blocking support runners
I saw a lot of ABs 'filling the space'

Some of these went in England's favour some the AB's.

That said THE talking point of this refereeing performance was lack of yellow card. It still mystifies me how that one wasn't given.

I would be (rightly) slaughtered by an adviser/coach/assessor for not giving that one at my lowly level.

 

[RobLev]

...

Also, could some please have a look at my post #77...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17789-NZ-v-England&p=275520&viewfull=1#post275520

.. and offer opinions as to who was penalised and why?

My guess is that NO saw Black 13 as joining from the side; he seems to have his right hand (at least) on White 9's shirt while his feet were still well forward of the BLack HMF. He then swivels around so his feet are behind the HMF, and drives from that position. If the hand was on the shirt, and if that is to be deemed to be joining the ruck, then there's your answer. Marginal if not questionable (given Law 16.2(c)) for me, but not totally mystifying.

 

[RobLev]

True, but not the point.

There is another thing I would like explained by someone who has experience dealing with Yellow cards in a situation where there is an official timekeeper and a TV/ground game clock. Someone on another forum has asked why Marlan Yarde was sent off at 69:26 and came back on after the restart to the All Blacks try at 79:04, less than 10 minutes on the game clock. I think part of the answer may be that the TV game clock is not the official game time. However, does "time-off" by the referee stop the YC countdown clock ticking?

NO started indicating advantage for Yarde's offence at 69:00 dead...but that shouldn't be relevant.

 

[Browner]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4VnAjtmH9f4

Ive got it.........
2.56 on vid No leaves the changing rooms heading towards the pitch
3.03 England follow
3.35 NZAB follow
3.56 NO's back, he now follows the AB out

WTF .....He'd been waiting to get his interpretation reminder notes from RM , look carefully and you'll see him looking down at them

Shocking !

 

[Ian_Cook]

My guess is that NO saw Black 13 as joining from the side; he seems to have his right hand (at least) on White 9's shirt while his feet were still well forward of the BLack HMF. He then swivels around so his feet are behind the HMF, and drives from that position. If the hand was on the shirt, and if that is to be deemed to be joining the ruck, then there's your answer. Marginal if not questionable (given Law 16.2(c)) for me, but not totally mystifying.

There are a few points here

1. Cipriani wasn't tackled, he was knocked off his feet by an attempted tackle by Black 13 (C. Smith) but he was never "brought to ground and held" as the Law requires. Therefore, it was not a tackle, but in fact a Law 14 situation, and accordingly, no gate; players in a Law 14 situation can approach from any direction.

2. The first player first player to him was Black 20 (Vito) and almost straight away, White 18 binds onto him (ruck formed) and saddle rolls him to the ground. At the same time, White 9 arrives and NO calls "ruck now" followed immediately by Black 13 joining legally into White 9. He joins directly over the ball (which is right in front of Cipriani on the ground) and from behind the HMF. NO did not signal advantage when Black 13 joined, and in and case, the PK would have been for offside (Law 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK). It wasn't.

[LAWS]16.5 (c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the
foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost
player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost teammate,
the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player
is not otherwise offside.[/LAWS]

3. Black 16 (Mealamu) takes a step to the right to line himself up behind the ball comes in right next to Black 13 and directly behind the ball; so directly in fact, that he propels the ball forward with his knee.

4. NO awards PK for "in the side", makes that secondary signal and says "not through the gate" .

How can there be a "gate" when he has called "ruck"?

I just don't get what NO is thinking here

 

[crossref]

Actually Ian the law says "held and brought to ground" (not brought to ground and held)

There is a difference, and if you have the wrong version in your mind you may well be dismissing genuine tackles

 

[RobLev]

...

2. The first player first player to him was Black 20 (Vito) and almost straight away, White 18 binds onto him (ruck formed) and saddle rolls him to the ground. At the same time, White 9 arrives and NO calls "ruck now" followed immediately by Black 13 joining legally into White 9. He joins directly over the ball (which is right in front of Cipriani on the ground) and from behind the HMF. NO did not signal advantage when Black 13 joined, and in and case, the PK would have been for offside (Law 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK). It wasn't....

4. NO awards PK for "in the side", makes that secondary signal and says "not through the gate" .

...

How can there be a "gate" when he has called "ruck"?

I just don't get what NO is thinking here

Black 13 started his approach to the group of players from the left, not the right, of your stills. Wind the video back a frame or two from the first still you've shown; you'll see that Black 13 first makes contact (but only with his hand and lower arm at best) with White 9 while his backside and feet are pointing towards the Black player just beyond the ruck. Your still is from after Black 13's shuffle round to get his feet behind Black's HMF. Black 13 does not enter from behind HMF; but probably only binds once his feet are behind HMF.

 

[The Fat]

Black 13 started his approach to the group of players from the left, not the right, of your stills. Wind the video back a frame or two from the first still you've shown; you'll see that Black 13 first makes contact (but only with his hand and lower arm at best) with White 9 while his backside and feet are pointing towards the Black player just beyond the ruck. Your still is from after Black 13's shuffle round to get his feet behind Black's HMF. Black 13 does not enter from behind HMF; but probably only binds once his feet are behind HMF.

I think you have nailed it RobLev.
It's a 50/50 call, but I think that NO has pinged Conrad Smith (#13) for side entry.
Tough call but that is what I think has happened.
From all of the videos of this game that I have seen over the last couple of days, I wouldn't be surprised if NO was not 100% fit as in unwell.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Actually Ian the law says "held and brought to ground" (not brought to ground and held)

There is a difference, and if you have the wrong version in your mind you may well be dismissing genuine tackles

True, but the ball carrier must be held ALL THE WAY to the ground, therefore, when he is on the ground he still has to be held, even of momentarily. If he is released before he is brought to ground as per Law 15.3, then a tackle has not been made and the player is free to get up and carry on.

However, when a ball carrier is already on the ground, a tackle cannot occur. That is why we have Law 14, to deal with two situations....

1. A loose ball on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather it, and

2. A ball carrier goes to ground without being tackled (e.g. slips over, is ankle tapped or pushed over etc)

Cipriani was not tackled, he was knocked off his feet when Black 13 attempted to tackle him, therefore, he was not held and brought to ground, therefore he was not tackled, therefore Law 14 applies, therefore no gate.

Black 13 started his approach to the group of players from the left, not the right, of your stills. Wind the video back a frame or two from the first still you've shown; you'll see that Black 13 first makes contact (but only with his hand and lower arm at best) with White 9 while his backside and feet are pointing towards the Black player just beyond the ruck. Your still is from after Black 13's shuffle round to get his feet behind Black's HMF. Black 13 does not enter from behind HMF; but probably only binds once his feet are behind HMF.

I think you have nailed it RobLev.
It's a 50/50 call, but I think that NO has pinged Conrad Smith (#13) for side entry.
Tough call but that is what I think has happened.

1. Black 13 clearly goes around behind the hindmost foot (Vito's) on the ground (remember you are viewing at an angle of about 30°.
2. He clearly aligns himself directly behind the ball.
3. Nigel Owens called "ruck now" a fraction of a second BEFORE Black 13 joins so the side entry/gate is no longer an issue. The gate ONLY applies to the tackle (and there wasn't a tackle anyway)
4. Its a ruck so Black 13 is only required to join alongside a team mate or bind to an opponent (which he does) from an onside position (which he clearly does)
5. Finally, NO does not call or signal advantage when Black 13 joins, in fact he is more concerned with getting the Black "pillars" to take a step back, which to me, indicates that he is happy with everything else up to that point. When he did blow for the PK, he certainly did not point to Black 13.

If that is a side entry then I'll go "He". IMO, this is a very poor effort from NO. He obviously forgot that he called it a ruck when he said "in the side, not thorough the gate".

 

[RobLev]

True, but the ball carrier must be held ALL THE WAY to the ground, therefore, when he is on the ground he still has to be held, even of momentarily. If he is released before he is brought to ground as per Law 15.3, then a tackle has not been made and the player is free to get up and carry on.

However, when a ball carrier is already on the ground, a tackle cannot occur. That is why we have Law 14, to deal with two situations....

1. A loose ball on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather it, and

2. A ball carrier goes to ground without being tackled (e.g. slips over, is ankle tapped or pushed over etc)

Cipriani was not tackled, he was knocked off his feet when Black 13 attempted to tackle him, therefore, he was not held and brought to ground, therefore he was not tackled, therefore Law 14 applies, therefore no gate.

...

If Cipriani wasn't tackled, then what's Black #20 doing at 4:51? He's fallen onto Cipriani. If Cipriani's already on the ground, then #20 should be pinged under Law 14.2(a); if he's not, #20 thereafter holds and brings him to ground - ie tackles him. I think NO gave Black #20 the benefit of the doubt and ruled it a tackle rather than a deliberate falling onto a player on the ground.

 

[RobLev]

...

1. Black 13 clearly goes around behind the hindmost foot (Vito's) on the ground (remember you are viewing at an angle of about 30°.

...

I'm sorry, but he clearly does not go around behind the HMF. He first makes contact with White #9 while alongside the ruck, facing the camera. It's only after that that he swivels around that point of contact to a position where he has a foot level with the HMF, and then drives in.

 

[Browner]

FWIW , this decision surprised me.
Expected the PK for dropping on the BC as he attempted to get to his feet having been knocked to the ground.

So, NO got the right award for the wrong reason, at this level and at that speed the counter ruck looked fine to me.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm sorry, but he clearly does not go around behind the HMF. He first makes contact with White #9 while alongside the ruck, facing the camera. It's only after that that he swivels around that point of contact to a position where he has a foot level with the HMF, and then drives in.

Its not a tackle, and NO has not yet said "ruck now", so Black 13 is entitled to consider it as still a Law 14 situation, so he can approach from any direction and make contact with White 9 if he so chooses. By the time he does call "ruck now" Black 13 has moved into a position directly behind the ball. I argue that he is clearly behind the ball and behind the HMF, you argue that he isn't. That's fine, you're seeing it through your English Rose coloured spectacles; I'm seeing it while wearing my All Black eye-patch.

However, even if it is marginal, I would not expect any player about to join a Law 14 situation (or a tackle for that matter) to have to take a step back and then forward again, nor would I expect any referee in such a dynamic part of the game to demand that.

If Cipriani wasn't tackled, then what's Black #20 doing at 4:51? He's fallen onto Cipriani. If Cipriani's already on the ground, then #20 should be pinged under Law 14.2(a); if he's not, #20 thereafter holds and brings him to ground - ie tackles him. I think NO gave Black #20 the benefit of the doubt and ruled it a tackle rather than a deliberate falling onto a player on the ground.

What, you're hedging your bets now?..."if he didn't ping "A" for this, he must have pinged "B" for that"

If you can find me ANY footage that shows Cipriani on his feet, and Vito holding him and bringing him to ground, then I'll agree it was a tackle.

If NO really did Ping Black 13, Why did he not call and signal advantage

You see, you're trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to let you do that. Even taking as read, that NO thought Cipriani was tackled, then there was no offside and no HMF to consider, so Black 13 joins from directly behind the ball (even YOU have to acknowledge that). If it was a ruck, then why did he say "in the side, not through the gate" when he had already called "ruck now". Did he forget he called ruck?