Nigel Owens loss of form

[Ian_Cook]

Mate, I heard him say what I heard him say - after several replays. Perception is reality.

Perception is not reality when it is clearly wrong!

Try listening without your G&G sunglasses. This is EXACTLY what he said, word for word - verbatim

"You were in the air when the ball has left. You've got high tackle, high tackle. I've asked you
for discipline and you're not listening"

He said NOTHING about "disobeying". That word was not used at all.

And it is still a PK for making contact above the line of the shoulders.

The opponent slips and the point of impact is above the line of the shoulders, the tackler/striker is responsible
The opponent ducks and the point of impact is above the line of the shoulders, the tackler/striker is responsible
The point of impact is on the chest of the opponent and the arm slips up above the line of the shoulders, the tackler/striker is responsible.

The mantra is the that tackler/striker is ALWAYS responsible for where he makes contact with the opponent. Jumping in the air does not absolve him of this responsibility!!!!!

And, by the way, the 2nd high tackle was not by Hooper. He was involved in the conversation as captain. Please try to get facts correct.

Then that is even worse, because as captain it is his responsibility to maintain the discipline of his team. If he cannot even keep his own discipline in check, then is a very poor show, and a bad example for his team-mates.

 

[RobLev]

If Phipps still had the tackled player by the collar, then he must have arms as long as his legs,; they would have to reach under the Argentine player lying on top of the tackled player's torso!

Besides which, the PK was for side entry.

At 50 seconds on the clip, left hand still attached to the tackled player's collar, left boot kicking the ball.

I can't see the secondary signal, or hear the explanation of the PK.

 

[Treadmore]

At 50 seconds on the clip, left hand still attached to the tackled player's collar, left boot kicking the ball.

I can't see the secondary signal, or hear the explanation of the PK.

I'd guess G9 didn't release tackled player though I can't tell for sure from either angle in the clip.

However, after the tackle there is a quick ruck formed between the G7 and B2, G9 stands off-side looking at NO and grabbing the B2 shirt. NO then signals. Maybe he was penalised for the ruck offence?

I can't hear what NO says either other than it sounds like it ends in "you".

 

[menace]

No, it was for his third head high contact in a row after two previous warnings.

If you are going to put words in quotes, at least do us all the service of quoting exactly what he said, not your own revised version of it!


"You were in the air when the ball has left. You've got high tackle, high tackle. I've asked you
for discipline and you're not listening"

Hooper hit the Argentine player head high, having previously been warned for two head high tackles, so YC is an excellent call. There is nothing wrong with hitting him late in a situation like that, but the lateness and the fact he was in the air are not the issue. The contact above the line of the shoulders is!

If, instead of hitting him in the head with his buttocks, Hooper had caught him in the face with a forearm after the attempted charge-down, would you still be arguing that YC wasn't the correct call?

If Hooper had not jumped for the ball at all, and instead had caught him in the face with a forearm after the attempted charge down, would you still be arguing that YC wasn't the correct call?

Jumping in the air does not relieve him of responsibility for striking his opponent in the head. If you run directly at a kicker to charge him down, you are responsible for whatever happens next, If you hit him below the line of the shoulders, play on, but if you hit him above the line of the shoulders, its a head high tackle and a PK,

Thanks Ian_c, that's the first reasonable explanation/reasoning for the Hooper penalty for the charge down (and subsequent YC for repeated infringements). Id already thought the YC was for repeated and not the charge-down on its own, but I'd focused so much on the jumping action itself that I admit I overlooked the point of contact being the head. My initial thoughts were that it was on the chest area and didn't even warrant a PK (and therefore not a YC). But fair enough for them head contact.

Despite peglegs little rant above about my being bitter. He is right, I am bitter we lost (I guess that is "pathetic" over a mere game of rugby :shrug: ) but I still maintain I thought NO had a major impact on the result because of the way he refereed the game, especially the Phibbs YC, but I also know the Aussies didn't help themselves and infringed way too often at the breakdown (which I'd said in the SA v NZ thread).
Now I'm off to Movieworld to "man up" on some of the kiddy rides with my kids!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'd guess G9 didn't release tackled player though I can't tell for sure from either angle in the clip.

However, after the tackle there is a quick ruck formed between the G7 and B2, G9 stands off-side looking at NO and grabbing the B2 shirt. NO then signals. Maybe he was penalised for the ruck offence?

I can't hear what NO says either other than it sounds like it ends in "you".

Really?

I have gone frame by frame over that action and the only frame where G7 and B2 are in contact over the ball is when they both try to pick it up. This is after Phipps kicked the ball and NO has already called advantage, so offside at the ruck is definitely NOT what the PK was for.

I have absolutely no doubt that NO got this call wrong. Even if Phipps still has the tackled player by the collar (and I don't believe he has), its not material because

1. the tackled-player released the ball immediately so Phipps holding him would not be preventing release.

2. a team-mate of the tackled player is lying on top of him, so Phipps holding him would not be preventing him from rolling away (and no attempt is made to do that anyway)

The ball was loose so Phipps was entitled to play it.

IMO, NO has not seen that Phipps was the tackler, and as I said earlier, he has form for getting this wrong...

Listen to what he says here and then watch the replay.(sorry about the poor quality of the footage but is clear enough to see what happened).

 

[Treadmore]

Really?

I have gone frame by frame over that action and the only frame where G7 and B2 are in contact over the ball is when they both try to pick it up. This is after Phipps kicked the ball and NO has already called advantage, so offside at the ruck is definitely NOT what the PK was for.

Really?



There they are tussling for the ball after it has moved away from the tackle area, with G9 behind B2 and no signal from NO yet.

The signal comes very soon after and I'm not stating that NO gave the penalty for this possible ruck offence, it's just that there was more going on than NO clearly being confused about a side-entry.

 

[menace]

Really?

View attachment 3032

There they are tussling for the ball after it has moved away from the tackle area, with G9 behind B2 and no signal from NO yet.

The signal comes very soon after and I'm not stating that NO gave the penalty for this possible ruck offence, it's just that there was more going on than NO clearly being confused about a side-entry.

No no no and no.
You need to look at that again.

The very next frame NOs arm comes up. G9 is standing there and does not go back 'in' to the new ruck (nor even touch them).

What I've also learnt with elite referees is they generally do not put the arm out instantaneously if they see an infringement, they will often take a good pause before deciding if they could play advantage (or PK). Essentially it's advantage in their head until they see if the ball can stay in play and they can avoid blowing the whistle. I bet NO has already made his firm decision a second or two earlier, and as the ball was loose he was seeing if Arg could regain it. It wasn't until hooper had a firm grip on it in that frame that NO knew Arg was not likely to get the ball to that he blew it up. So it could only have been the previous actions of Phibbs that he penalised.

The decision was wrong , and probably for the reason Ian has point out...NO 'forgot' Phibbs was the tackler. I'm sure NO will be kicking himself when he reviewed the tape!

 

[Treadmore]

No no no and no.
You need to look at that again.

The very next frame NOs arm comes up. G9 is standing there and does not go back 'in' to the new ruck (nor even touch them).

read what I wrote again versus what Ian wrote

This is after Phipps kicked the ball and NO has already called advantage

 

[The Fat]

Jonathon Kaplan makes some interesting comments in Rate The Ref. Maybe someone could copy them to here? Currently using my phone sorry

 

[Ian_Cook]

No no no and no.
You need to look at that again.

The very next frame NOs arm comes up. G9 is standing there and does not go back 'in' to the new ruck (nor even touch them).

...So it could only have been the previous actions of Phibbs that he penalised.

The decision was wrong , and probably for the reason Ian has point out...NO 'forgot' Phibbs was the tackler. I'm sure NO will be kicking himself when he reviewed the tape!

In a nutshell!

Fastest human reaction time is around 0.1 sec (that is the stuff of Top Gun fighter pilots). For us mere mortals, its around 0.25 to 0.3; or 7 to 9 frames of video. For NO to be putting his arm up in the next frame, he would have to be reacting to the offside in about .03 sec, able 3/100ths of a second. That is, simply put, an impossibility.

 

[Dickie E]

Jonathon Kaplan makes some interesting comments in Rate The Ref. Maybe someone could copy them to here? Currently using my phone sorry

http://ratetheref.co.za/2014/10/06/kaplans-comments-rugby-championship-round-6/

Last week I was singing Nigel Owens praises after the match at Newlands. He has really shot to the fore after the 2011 RWC in NZ but I thought he was poor on Saturday. He was strangely hesitant in his decision making, once even asking the assistant referee whether there was hands in after he penalized Aus and had pulled his cards out already. He then put the cards back in his pocket. What was the point?

Not so lucky was Aus 9 Nick Phipps who got a card for a brilliant piece of play where he was the tackler and didn’t infringe at all. What should have been a turnover to Australia resulted in a yellow card which was a disaster for Aus who then conceded a penalty and a try in his absence. Not great!! They would have been spitting mad as that decision had huge consequences for this test match. Towards the end of the fixture, with the game still in the balance, the ref stopped the game when Hooper attempted a charge down, was airborne and in the process fell on top of Sanchez, the kicker. He was also carded (incorrectly, as there was little he could do once he was airborne). Argentina converted the penalty and wound the clock down to record a historical moment for them and the tournament. My opinion of Nigel hasn’t changed. To say he was poor would be an understatement, but I know from personal experience that we all have these days (I had my fair share), and he will bounce back. I do feel for the wallabies though and I thought they deserved better.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree with Kaplan on the Phipps YC, but not on the Hooper one.

 

[menace]

Kaplan is my new favourite referee of all time! :biggrin:

I feel I'm in good company now that he agrees with me on Hooper!

 

[Dickie E]

Kaplan is my new favourite referee of all time! :biggrin:

Somehow he seems to have gotten better since he gave up the whistle

 

[Ian_Cook]

I still think he's wrong on that one.

The logical consequence of Hooper's actions being legal would mean that all a player has to do to legally hit his opponent late and head-high is to launch himself recklessly towards a kicker, and he's off the hook for whatever happens when he collides with the opponent's head. Can you imagine how players like Butch James, Troy Flavell or Corne Krige would use that sort of latitude?

 

[Browner]

Somehow he seems to have gotten better since he gave up the whistle has time to watch on slow mo frame-by-frame several times

Translated for you ...

Any Auzzie feeling bitter should take comfort in the fact that when NZ lose hospital admissions increase, feeling bitter is mild compared to that

 

[ChrisR]

In US football (gridiron) if a player attempts to block a kick, misses the ball but makes hard contact with the kicker it will result in a penalty. If the blocker makes contact with the ball he's free to go.

 

[crossref]

I still think he's wrong on that one.

The logical consequence of Hooper's actions being legal would mean that all a player has to do to legally hit his opponent late and head-high is to launch himself recklessly towards a kicker, and he's off the hook for whatever happens when he collides with the opponent's head. Can you imagine how players like Butch James, Troy Flavell or Corne Krige would use that sort of latitude?

I agree with this.
In my mind it was reckless and dangerous play - he launched himself ino the air with complete disregard for safety.

 

[winchesterref]

All those in favour of YC, if his hand had touched the ball would he have been fine?

If he had charged the ball down but still ended up making contact with kicker, what then?

 

[crossref]

All those in favour of YC, if his hand had touched the ball would he have been fine?

No.
It was simply dangerous play.
What if he did that to someone who was running with the ball, or to someone who had just caught the ball, or to a scrum half just as he picks up the ball. I don't think you can hurl yourself in the air, backwards, at another player at head height, even if he is just about to make a kick.