England v NZ

[ChrisR]

Can't ground with the foot.

Ground only by "presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive."

 

[FlipFlop]

True - my bad!

So it is Try or PK decision then. Still think Try. But can't work out the knock on.....

 

[Dixie]

Just read the thread start to finish. I agree with Pegleg that it's a shame we can't maintain a civilised discussion about these crucial games any more.

For what it's worth, I though NZ controlled the second half superbly, and the loss of Lawes spelt the end of England's challenge. ABs did what great sides do - refuse to panic, crank up the intensity and execute with precision.

St Nige was off his game generally. I don't believe that the TMO was in a position to award the Whitelock non-try; I agree with those who say it was either a try or a PK. For me, Care's foot was on the line but behind the ball. However, the TV angle was not great so I believe there is too much doubt to award the try. That being so - PK, no card due to uncertainty - it was certainly probably that W believed himself to be in the right.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't believe that the TMO was in a position to award the Whitelock non-try; I agree with those who say it was either a try or a PK. For me, Care's foot was on the line but behind the ball. However, the TV angle was not great so I believe there is too much doubt to award the try. That being so - PK, no card due to uncertainty - it was certainly probably that W believed himself to be in the right.

I think you are missing a really important point of Law.

Nigel TOLD the TMO that the ball was on the line. This has two implications

1. The TMO did not need to judge whether the ball was on the line or not, because he was told that it was. This removes the need to judge that aspect in his remit; his only task was to judge if there had been downward pressure.

2. The ruck was over the moment the ball touched the line. Therefore there was no offside (provided that Whitelock was initially onside when it was still a ruck, and Nigel said that he was). This means the position of the ball in relation to the feet of Care/Youngs and the the feet of the players in the former ruck is irrelevant.

 

[The umpire]

I don't know how you can say the ball was clearly on the whitewash,

1. Cos I could see it. 2 Nigel said it was.

however, it is clear that Whitelock's hand is touches the upper side of the ball (doesn't simply knock/propel the ball forward from the end of the ball).
If that ball WAS on the goal line, I would find it hard to argue that Whitelock didn't press down on the ball at all.

You may be right, I'll try and watch it again.

 

[Crucial]

NO said ball was on line and SW was onside. The only judgement then to make was whether there was downward pressure.
How they both then judged that a player touching the top of a ball with enough force that it propels forward and shoots up (from equal and opposite reaction) shows that they both needed to pay more attention at school to their physics teacher.

 

[Drift]

Look to be honest it wasn't Nige's best game but England lost that game when they didn't convert the other chances they had when the Kiwis were rusty in the first 15-20. We had all the pressure and we couldn't convert.

When the rain came NZ showed us how to play wet weather rugby, instead of aimlessly kicking the ball away, keep it tight and pick and drive it up the pitch to score. Sure I could pick 3-4 key decisions from Nigel that I could perceive as going against England, however I could do the same for things going against the Kiwis.

The key decision that cost England the game was not changing their game plan to suit the conditions well enough.


On a side note sure Ian says some things that can be taken as being biased but some does everyone else on here, especially some Aussie and English posters.

 

[Crucial]

When both sides supporters are claiming they were the most hard done by then you know the ref has had a bad one.

We all see things through different specs. For example the post above refers to NZ keeping the ball close yet I was screaming at the TV when they were a man down and trying kicks into space rather than keeping the ball in hand. It took a kick to the corner from Crotty to calm things down.

England certainly didn't adjust. They wasted far too much time while a man up (and at the end by nominating scrums) by persisting with driving mauls in their own half. I suspect this was a pre match decision to try and milk PKs and get field position off the resulting kick.

 

[Rushforth]

When both sides supporters are claiming they were the most hard done by then you know the ref has had a bad one.

I disagree with that statement. I disagree even more with the concept, to the degree that disagreement is not the right word.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I disagree with that statement. I disagree even more with the concept, to the degree that disagreement is not the right word.

 

[Ian_Cook]

When both sides supporters are claiming they were the most hard done by then you know the ref has had a bad one

Agree 100% with that.

 

[Rushforth]

Cute Smiley, Ian.

I happen to support England. I am fully aware that there may be some England supporters who feel that England were 'hard done by'. I am not one of them. England utterly outclassed the ABs for the first 10 minutes of the match. After that it was even.

The reason that you are scratching your head, Ian, is - Occam's Razor - really simple.

For one thing, in any close loss, there will be complainers. These do not represent the losing team.

I'll tell you a little secret: In any game played by NZ ABs, there will be supporters complaining.

Yes, they - the idiotic supporters - complain about being 'hard done by'. When 'their' team loses by a big margin, or win/lose in a close game.

 

[Crucial]

Cute Smiley, Ian.

I happen to support England. I am fully aware that there may be some England supporters who feel that England were 'hard done by'. I am not one of them. England utterly outclassed the ABs for the first 10 minutes of the match. After that it was even.

The reason that you are scratching your head, Ian, is - Occam's Razor - really simple.

For one thing, in any close loss, there will be complainers. These do not represent the losing team.

I'll tell you a little secret: In any game played by NZ ABs, there will be supporters complaining.

Yes, they - the idiotic supporters - complain about being 'hard done by'. When 'their' team loses by a big margin, or win/lose in a close game.

I'm certain that if you frequent Rugby Forums either NZ or England based you will find plenty of discussion around some of the decisions and methods to reach those decisions from this game. In fact, more than the usual picking over and questioning.
Most knowledgeable fans will not be complaining but they will be discussing.
You are correct about the idiotic supporters that 'blame' the ref but totally incorrect in apportioning that comment only to AB fans.
You may even find that the percentage of knowledgeable fans in NZ is the highest, due to Rugby Union being our main sport, being printed about, talked about, played and (over) analysed everywhere. We may not always be right and our opinions come from a different viewpoint, but are hardly the only perps. Your comment " In any game played by NZ ABs, there will be supporters complaining" is very true but fails entirely to mention that the same statement can be made against England.

I would guess that Ian's head scratch is in reply to your post that expresses 10 ways that you disagree with my post but fails to explain why.

The noise around NOs performance in the game is high in the media on both sides of the world from the viewpoints of both sets of 'rugby public'. That seems to point toward him not having the best of games.

 

[menace]

I don't do sarcasm online. I learned not to more than a decade ago. I don't pretend to have great literary skills in any language.

Cute Smiley, Ian.

I happen to support England. I am fully aware that there may be some England supporters who feel that England were 'hard done by'. I am not one of them. England utterly outclassed the ABs for the first 10 minutes of the match. After that it was even.

The reason that you are scratching your head, Ian, is - Occam's Razor - really simple.

For one thing, in any close loss, there will be complainers. These do not represent the losing team.

I'll tell you a little secret: In any game played by NZ ABs, there will be supporters complaining.

Yes, they - the idiotic supporters - complain about being 'hard done by'. When 'their' team loses by a big margin, or win/lose in a close game.

Looks like you just did....
Though I guess being condescending is better than being sarcastic?

But I am finding the pissing contest quite amusing.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would guess that Ian's head scratch is in reply to your post that expresses 10 ways that you disagree with my post but fails to explain why.

You'd be right. The statement didn't make any logical sense to me or was too obscure. It looked like Double-Dutch to me...

(See what I did there?)

I guess in Rushforth's world, no-one is allowed to question anything an elite referee does, or discuss the errors he might have made in a match, because that is disrespecting the referee concerned; its especially the case if you are a Kiwi and the referee isn't. Well I say bollocks to that. The facts are that referees make mistakes and on this forum we discuss those mistakes and we use that discussion to learn about the game, both by pointing up where referees get things right, and where they get things wrong.

I make absolutely NO apologies for bringing up those decisions where I think the referee has been harsh on the All Blacks, and I leave the job of bringing up decisions where other teams were hard done by to the supporters of those other teams... its their responsibility to do so, not mine.

I once had an idiot on this very forum whose sole basis in accusing me of bias was that half the referee errors I bring up for discussion involve the All Blacks. I tried to explain that this is hardly surprising since the ONLY test matches I watch in full are ones that involve the All Blacks, so half of all the decisions in those matches will involve the All Blacks. This explanation was utterly lost on him.

I don't recall ever watching a 6N match in full. For those, and all other matches, including the RC, I watch the 10 minute highlights packages only; usually on youtube.

 

[Chogan]

Oh FFS!
Would the two of you ever just give it a rest. It is beyond tiresome and is ruining the forum for so many.

Anyone else who picks sides in trying to back the other up at this stage is only exacerbating the situation.

Neither of you should be mentioning / replying to each other.

Now please grow up and hold your tongues or if you feel compelled to have this sort of interaction in your lives, exchange emails and do it privately.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oh FFS!
Would the two of you ever just give it a rest. It is beyond tiresome and is ruining the forum for so many.

Anyone else who picks sides in trying to back the other up at this stage is only exacerbating the situation.

Neither of you should be mentioning / replying to each other.

Now please grow up and hold your tongues or if you feel compelled to have this sort of interaction in your lives, exchange emails and do it privately.

I would like, to have stuck to discussing the three issues I raised in post #20....

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18280-England-v-NZ&p=285842&viewfull=1#post285842

Plus any other issues relevant to the match raised by other members. It was not my fault the thread was derailed by some who chose to attack the arguer rather than the argument. I'd like to have stuck to it Chogan, I really would, but I will not take insults lying down. Sorry, but that just isn't how I am!

Perhaps we can to return to the refereeing issues now?

 

[Ian_Cook]

From my post #20

79m: The Penalty Try
The first scrum prior to the scrum at which the PT was awarded was legitimately turned through 90°. It should have been turnover and scrum feed to NZ. The scrum itself was also legitimately being turned by England through 90°. Again, this should have been a turnover.

I have looked at this again several times

First Scrum
The NZ LHP came forward while the England THP went backwards, around to his left and then he collapsed to his knees. The NZ THP never went backwards at all and the scrum only started to go toward the NZ line after it was turned 90 degrees. To me, this looked like NZ legally wheeling the scrum. The only possible PK I can see here is against England for whip-wheeling. Otherwise, a turnover & reset with NZ to feed

Second Scrum (the PT)
Both Front rows popped at the same time. This should have been a reset scrum.

 

[The Fat]

From my post #20

79m: The Penalty Try
The first scrum prior to the scrum at which the PT was awarded was legitimately turned through 90°. It should have been turnover and scrum feed to NZ. The scrum itself was also legitimately being turned by England through 90°. Again, this should have been a turnover.

I have looked at this again several times

First Scrum
The NZ LHP came forward while the England THP went backwards, around to his left and then he collapsed to his knees. The NZ THP never went backwards at all and the scrum only started to go toward the NZ line after it was turned nearly 90 degrees. To me, this looked like NZ legally wheeling the scrum. The only possible PK I can see here is against England for whip-wheeling.

I haven't seen the scrum we are discussing here but for me, the parts I have highlighted that deal only with the actions of the AB's FR, do not describe a legal wheel. I am happy to be corrected here but my understanding of a legal wheel is one where the "wheeling" pack move forward and around. The description that the THP "never went backwards at all", paints a picture of the AB's scrum pivoting on a stationary THP. If the THP had also moved forward, then I would reward them after going through the 90 degrees. As for other actions by England in this particular scrum, I have no comment. I'll wait till I see a video.

Edit:
Just watched it. The scrum is at 77:50 on the game clock. Correct call by NO IMO.

 

[menace]

Anyone else who picks sides in trying to back the other up at this stage is only exacerbating the situation

Sorry to upset you, but perhaps unlike you, I don't sit back and let the bully have their way. Ignoring what the bully does is tantamount to accepting and condoning bullying behaviour. Your choice to step aside and let it happen. Apologies that I dont.