RWC Aus vs Sco

[crossref]

Back to the main point; I have no problem with WR clarifying the incorrect decision that lead to the final penalty but they could have worded it so much better. How about the following;

"With hindsight and the benefit of mutiple slow-motion replays that are not permitted to be used by the referee we can confirm a contact between the ball and a Gold player was not seen and this should have resulted in a scrum to Gold rather than a penalty to Gold. At live game speed with so many players in proximity to the ball and rapid changes of it's direction this omission by the referee is completely understandable ; no blame is attributed to the referee and he correctly applied the laws of the game in the situation as he saw it. Players make mistakes throughout the game, many players are willing to deceive the referee, even cheat at times, so the missing of one contact between ball and player is not considered a serious failing notwithstanding the affect on the result of the game. In an otherwise excellent display this referee will sadly only be remembered by many for this one moment. Media commentators could take a lesson from the Scottish captain and coach in how to behave in moments of deep disappointment at losing such a close game they were never expected to be competitive in."

World Rugby should have acknowledged that the RWC protocol for use of TMO is rubbish, and they should have been using the protocol in use in SA, which would have allowed CJ to go to TMO..

 

[splidge]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. 3 must be off the table if 1 is on it. It is either an intentional knock forward or it is not. One cannot hope not intentionally to knock forward. If you are hoping not to knock forward you are not intending to knock forward.

I think this is a continuum rather than a black and white situation. At one end of the scale, the interception is clearly on, the player goes for it and either catches it or fumbles it. At the other end of the scale, there is no hope of catching the ball and the player slaps it down deliberately to stop an opponent catching it.

But there's lots of situations in between as it gets harder and harder to catch the ball. And in many of these situations it is clearly the case that giving away a scrum is a much better outcome for the would-be interceptor than allowing an opponent to catch it and continue the attack (such as the situation we are discussing).

So no, the exact literal meaning of "intentional knock forward" doesn't apply, because the player isn't thinking "right I'll knock this forward," rather it's more like "I'll have a go at catching this, if it comes off then great, if I fail it's just a knock-on/scrum which is much better than allowing the opponent to catch it." In those situations it doesn't seem just (to me) to allow the defender to take a no-lose lunge at the ball because he "intends" to catch it, however slim his chance of success. You might call such an action "careless," but the word "cynical" may also be appropriate.

Applying the sanction for intentional knock forward seems a valid solution to me - it's intentionally making an attempt at a catch which has a high probability of failing and causing a knock forward. In other words, yes in my view it is possible for options 1 (successful catch) and 3 (intentional knock forward) to be on the table at the same time. It's up to the referee to judge whether the interception was plausible enough to justify having a go at it (2 - scrum) or not (3 - PK). And it's up to the player to decide whether going for it is worth the risk.

 

[menace]

Splidge - let me be the first to welcome you to the forum, and what a thread to enter into the fray....better still what a well considered and eloquent response and input to the 'debate'.

Well said that man!:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Camquin]

So where on that continum would you bring out the yellow card.

It seems that WR have a very fixed view, YC for all Intentional Knock Ons. Even if they are not C&O and only get spotted by the TMO.
Indeed it often appears to be the only thing the TMO is actually looking for.

Camquin

 

[RobLev]

I think this is a continuum rather than a black and white situation. At one end of the scale, the interception is clearly on, the player goes for it and either catches it or fumbles it. At the other end of the scale, there is no hope of catching the ball and the player slaps it down deliberately to stop an opponent catching it.

But there's lots of situations in between as it gets harder and harder to catch the ball. And in many of these situations it is clearly the case that giving away a scrum is a much better outcome for the would-be interceptor than allowing an opponent to catch it and continue the attack (such as the situation we are discussing).

So no, the exact literal meaning of "intentional knock forward" doesn't apply, because the player isn't thinking "right I'll knock this forward," rather it's more like "I'll have a go at catching this, if it comes off then great, if I fail it's just a knock-on/scrum which is much better than allowing the opponent to catch it." In those situations it doesn't seem just (to me) to allow the defender to take a no-lose lunge at the ball because he "intends" to catch it, however slim his chance of success. You might call such an action "careless," but the word "cynical" may also be appropriate.

Applying the sanction for intentional knock forward seems a valid solution to me - it's intentionally making an attempt at a catch which has a high probability of failing and causing a knock forward. In other words, yes in my view it is possible for options 1 (successful catch) and 3 (intentional knock forward) to be on the table at the same time. It's up to the referee to judge whether the interception was plausible enough to justify having a go at it (2 - scrum) or not (3 - PK). And it's up to the player to decide whether going for it is worth the risk.

Are you going to apply that logic to a player trying to catch a wildly thrown pass from a teammate? If Scotland had been trying to run the ball out of defence, how many here believe the TMO would have given it a second glance?

 

[menace]

Are you going to apply that logic to a player trying to catch a wildly thrown pass from a teammate? If Scotland had been trying to run the ball out of defence, how many here believe the TMO would have given it a second glance?

That's a really good point
There's been lost if talk over the years of negative and positive play - lunging to save your own ball is not negative play.
While lunging to spoil the oppositions play, though hoping to catch, can be classified as negative play.

I'd say that's the difference.

 

[Ian_Cook]

How about a lineout player jumping on the opponents throw and trying to win the ball with one hand (inside arm of course) but he knocks the ball on?

1. one handed
2. failed to catch it
3. Disrupting opposition ball

Some would have you believe that is always an intentional knock-on & YC!!

 

[RobLev]

That's a really good point
There's been lost if talk over the years of negative and positive play - lunging to save your own ball is not negative play.
While lunging to spoil the oppositions play, though hoping to catch, can be classified as negative play.

I'd say that's the difference.

Whereas I'd say that taking the (tactically) high-risk option of coming out of your line to make the interception and keep the ball in play, as opposed to backing off and trying to put the opposing winger into touch to force a line-out and slow the game down is positive play. Everyone suffers from gout, as the French say.

 

[OB..]

I think this is a continuum rather than a black and white situation. At one end of the scale, the interception is clearly on, the player goes for it and either catches it or fumbles it. At the other end of the scale, there is no hope of catching the ball and the player slaps it down deliberately to stop an opponent catching it.

But there's lots of situations in between as it gets harder and harder to catch the ball. And in many of these situations it is clearly the case that giving away a scrum is a much better outcome for the would-be interceptor than allowing an opponent to catch it and continue the attack (such as the situation we are discussing).

So no, the exact literal meaning of "intentional knock forward" doesn't apply, because the player isn't thinking "right I'll knock this forward," rather it's more like "I'll have a go at catching this, if it comes off then great, if I fail it's just a knock-on/scrum which is much better than allowing the opponent to catch it." In those situations it doesn't seem just (to me) to allow the defender to take a no-lose lunge at the ball because he "intends" to catch it, however slim his chance of success. You might call such an action "careless," but the word "cynical" may also be appropriate.

Applying the sanction for intentional knock forward seems a valid solution to me - it's intentionally making an attempt at a catch which has a high probability of failing and causing a knock forward. In other words, yes in my view it is possible for options 1 (successful catch) and 3 (intentional knock forward) to be on the table at the same time. It's up to the referee to judge whether the interception was plausible enough to justify having a go at it (2 - scrum) or not (3 - PK). And it's up to the player to decide whether going for it is worth the risk.

Well said. You saved me the trouble - thank you and welcome.

 

[OB..]

How about a lineout player jumping on the opponents throw and trying to win the ball with one hand (inside arm of course) but he knocks the ball on?

1. one handed
2. failed to catch it
3. Disrupting opposition ball

Some would have you believe that is always an intentional knock-on & YC!!

No they woudln't. The situation is entirely distinct and context is vital.

Nor is it true that a deliberate knock forward always merits a YC. That also depends on context - in this a case, being in the red zone with an unmarked attacker clear to receive the pass. The possibility of a penalty try was discussed and rejected because there were defenders coming across.

 

[Blackberry]

At 61.00 minutes did anyone see the Australian player ahead of the ball struck by it when kicked by a team mate? just a scrum

 

[Pegleg]

Might be amusing IF it was funny.

 

[Dickie E]

How about a lineout player jumping on the opponents throw and trying to win the ball with one hand (inside arm of course) but he knocks the ball on?

1. one handed
2. failed to catch it
3. Disrupting opposition ball

Some would have you believe that is always an intentional knock-on & YC!!

I assume that is a passive-aggressive reference to my view.

No, that is unlikely to be a penalty offence if a genuine attempt to win the ball. But if he knocked it forwards out of the opponents grasp then probably would be a penalty. A YC would depend on a number of factors. Context is important.

 

[Dickie E]

I think Dickie was using shorthand to make a point. I think you're over reading it.

I treat this issue in a similar way to the way we treat a lifting tackle (which is start with red then work backwards).

If I see one handed contact by the team that is not in possession that goes forward I will be thinking penalty unless there is a good reason to decide otherwise.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can't agree that lack of intent can be treated as intent if a player takes a chance on catching a ball.

Go take a look at the first minute try in the Australia v Argentina match. What Simmonds did when he intercepts the pass and scores was a carbon copy of what Maitland tried to do. I won't be interested discussing some nitpicking details of how they might differ, the fact is that BOTH players took a chance, BOTH players stuck their hands out and hoped for the best...

In Simmonds' case, the ball stuck and he is rewarded with a try
In Maitland's case, the ball didn't stick, he is rewarded with a PK and YC

Sorry, but this bloody well offends my sense of justice and fair play!!

 

[RobLev]

I treat this issue in a similar way to the way we treat a lifting tackle (which is start with red then work backwards).

If I see one handed contact by the team that is not in possession that goes forward I will be thinking penalty unless there is a good reason to decide otherwise.

And one-handed contact by the team in possession, that goes forward?

 

[Dickie E]

I can't agree that lack of intent can be treated as intent if a player takes a chance on catching a ball.

Go take a look at the first minute try in the Australia v Argentina match. What Simmonds did when he intercepts the pass and scores was a carbon copy of what Maitland tried to do. I won't be interested discussing some nitpicking details of how they might differ, the fact is that BOTH players took a chance, BOTH players stuck their hands out and hoped for the best...

In Simmonds' case, the ball stuck and he is rewarded with a try
In Maitland's case, the ball didn't stick, he is rewarded with a PK and YC

Sorry, but this bloody well offends my sense of justice and fair play!!

Are you suggesting that Simmonds lunged forward, knocked the ball forward with one hand and, by the grace of the gods, regathered the ball? If so, I'll have to have another look.

 

[Dickie E]

And one-handed contact by the team in possession, that goes forward?

99 times out a 100, knock on and scrum. But if a Blue player threw a forward pass which Red were about to catch and a Blue player stuck a hand out to deny him - quite likely a PK.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Are you suggesting that Simmonds lunged forward, knocked the ball forward with one hand and, by the grace of the gods, regathered the ball? If so, I'll have to have another look.

No, I'm saying that he stuck his hand out, just like Maitland did, in the hope of intercepting the ball, just like Maitland did, but the ball stuck for him and it didn't stick for Maitland.

Simmonds was lucky and got a try, Maitland was unluckly and got PK and a YC!

 

[The Fat]

At 61.00 minutes did anyone see the Australian player ahead of the ball struck by it when kicked by a team mate? just a scrum

Judging from the time you posted this, I assume you are talking about the Aus v Pumas game?
If so, Folou grubber kicks and the ball hits a team mate in front of him. Are you saying you don't see this as accidental offside?
Not sure what Pegleg's response means. Need to clarify?
Definitely accidental offside if it's the Folou kick