France Vs Wales

[KoolFork]

Having looked at the video to hear what LP said regarding the non-award of a PT, I also looked at the Liam Williams Yellow (around 72:40). What was going on here? LP penalised LW for being off his feet, but (to me) he appears to have got back to his feet. What am I missing?

On reflection a YC seems a bit harsh too - or should every penalty at this stage be a YC?

 

[didds]

That LW YC was after a team warning for too many PKs IIRC. so it wasnt a YC for his actions, other than it was one PK too many as per team warning.

 

[KoolFork]

That LW YC was after a team warning for too many PKs IIRC. so it wasnt a YC for his actions, other than it was one PK too many as per team warning.

Possibly, but LP didn't say so and as others have commente elsewhere, not all penalties are the same. If this were true, teams conceding 15 penalties would hardly have anyone on the field.

I'm still not sure what the offence was. LW looked like he was trying to make another tackle to me.

 

[KoolFork]

At the risk of disagreeing with everyone apart from belhysys, I thought LP was calling Use it/Jeu too early. At times, the ball was visible, but clearly not playable immediately.

More generally, officials rarely enforce time wasting. Personally, I don't see a need for a second warning. If it were enforced, it would stop.

The law here (for a ruck) is: When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds.

I think LP's interpretation of 'and is available to be played' was harsh and very different to that of most referees. As soon as you could see the ball (nowhere near seagull) LP called 'Use it' on several occasions.

In many ways I prefer LP's interpretation as it would clearly put a stop to the caterpillar.

 

[didds]

Possibly, but LP didn't say so

????

At 67:26 (game clock - time off while LP deals with the French RC etc) after dismisisng the Frecnh red card, LP very clearly says

"Alun Wyn, just to be clear, you are now under a warning for penalties in this area so if you do another one they go."


Then Falatau is offside in the 71st minute and gets a YC (issued at 71:09) as LP has already called for persistent PKs in the red zone

The PK goes to a 5m lineout and the phase of play form that lineout at 72:46 Liam williams is off his feet, YC under the same too many penalties chat.

Then wales frankly and IMO (others MMV) they then get away with not losing two more platyers similarly as first Wyn Jones collaspes the scrum at 75:04, 5m out, then at 79:09 sealing off ... beign fair maybe that was just in the French half so may not have counted. I really feel Wyn jones was bloody lucky to stay on.








LP defintely said to AWJ "too many PKs " or somesuch.

 

[crossref]

there were several very big (match critical) decisions made - I am not sure all of them were right. Lots of talking points anyway.
LP is a great ref

 

[chbg]

I think LP had a "good game", and i like him as a ref full stop. very calm, measured, and clear in his comms.

However, it would be naive to not consider some calls yesterday as not being important/game critical

* The on field call of try for Adams try seeme incongruous in the light of LP's normal approach. I honestly cant see how he could make a soft call of "try" requiring definitive evidence to overturn it.

* the lack of referral for a PT for that immense driving maul.

* the lack of continued cards as Wales continued to offend in the red zone after a warning. Others MMV but "making a mockery of the game by doing so" is not a defence. I appreciate LP is not alone in this scenario.


I reiterate he had a good game. But there are some areas that are less clear as to what the proccesses were.

It would be a great pity if he had nothing to (self-)learn after a top international game - where to go?!

You make three very valid points, in a thoroughly decent manner. They are definitely calls/decisions that could have gone the other way without any greater disagreement. That's the joy and challenge of refereeing!

On the maul, from another unfocused quick view, there seemed to be two Blue defenders binding on correctly who should have been given the chance to shine without B3 joining in at the side and collapsing it. But we'll never know if they would have succeeded!

 

[Zebra1922]

The law here (for a ruck) is: When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds.

I think LP's interpretation of 'and is available to be played' was harsh and very different to that of most referees. As soon as you could see the ball (nowhere near seagull) LP called 'Use it' on several occasions.

In many ways I prefer LP's interpretation as it would clearly put a stop to the caterpillar.

If you can see the ball generally it is available to be played. I like LP interpretation here, you don’t need to wait for the SH to move the ball to the back of the caterpillar before it is ‘available’ and call use it.

 

[Zebra1922]

Really? Examples? 5 secs is (approximately): "thousand and one, thousand and two, thousand and three, thousand and four, thousand and five" not "one ... two ... three ... four ... five". If being pedantic, it needs to be timed from when the SH hears 'it', not from the spoken 'U'. And of course '5 secs' is for the ball to be out of the ruck, not for it to be kicked!!

Yes really.

 

[belladonna]

On the maul, from another unfocused quick view, there seemed to be two Blue defenders binding on correctly who should have been given the chance to shine without B3 joining in at the side and collapsing it. But we'll never know if they would have succeeded!

To be fair though, those two blue defenders hadn't had any effect up to that point in stopping the maul. So unless red tripped up over their own bootlaces it's hard to see any probable outcome apart from a try.

It's true Wales could have got more cards - and so could France. In the same ruck that the red card was issued for eye-gouging, AWJ was cleared out by a charging French forward who covered distance at speed before connecting. That should have been a yellow, shouldn't it? And possible red if there had been head contact. But it wasn't reviewed.

 

[didds]

LP is a great ref

^^^ This.

 

[didds]

only if there was no attempt to bind/wrap surely?

 

[Rich_NL]

There were so many big calls in the match, and I think LP (and his team) did an excellent job in being clear and communicating their decisions. His communication has always impressed at international level.

I think the Welsh try was held up - having to give an on-field decision is good, IMO, in that it defines which side of the decision has to be clear and obvious. But in cases like this, it's still guesswork which way to go. Perhaps the default should be on-field decision is held up - most tries are nothing like held up, and clear grounding should be shown for a try?

I also thought the Welsh should have had a PT from the collapsed maul. Strange decision.

It's hard to manage the repeat offences when you've already sent two men to the bin, without opening yourself to accusations of ruining the match or forcing a win for one side. I suppose he could have given a clear warning that further cynical penalties would be met with cards regardless of the current situation - it at least paints a picture for the viewers that it's really on Wales.

 

[crossref]

I think the Welsh try was held up - having to give an on-field decision is good, IMO, in that it defines which side of the decision has to be clear and obvious. But in cases like this, it's still guesswork which way to go. Perhaps the default should be on-field decision is held up - most tries are nothing like held up, and clear grounding should be shown for a try?

.

There were two 'held-up or try' decisions.

In both cases the videos were inconclusive (no grounding could be seen, but no definitive held up either, it was impossible to tell for certain)

So in both cases went with the on-field decision, one was a try, one was no-try


Both those two were OK for me in isolation but it was quite hard watching them one after the other. The evidence was very very similar. It was hard to be completely happy about the differing results. Semed a bit random, was it completely equitable?

Has the process led us astray ?

I can't help feeling that for both of those, it would have been better to NOT have an on-field decision, but go back to allowing the ref to ask the TMO :"try or No try"
That would have led to No-try in both cases, and felt more equitable.


(don't get me wrong, in general I quite like the concept of on-field decision. But in those two instances, looked at together, it raised questions in my mind)

 

[belhysys]

Agree with Crossref : don't get me wrong, in general I quite like the concept of on-field decision. But...

As a French, there is an obvious difference between the England France and France Wales, where the TMO did and didn't override the ref call but I dont think the video evidence were different (in term of clear and obvious)

 

[crossref]

There were so many big calls in the match, and I think LP (and his team) did an excellent job in being clear and communicating their decisions. His communication has always impressed at international level.
.

THIS ^^^ is very pertinent. LP and his team communicated and sold every decision brilliantly - - so you felt you were in safe hands all along, and so did the players (I think)


In reality, when looking back, there were a large number of critical decisions / non-decisions that could be argued with - that could in fact have gone the other way.

I would love to be at their debrief - I suspect they'll decide there were some important mistakes (how could there not be in a game where so much happened) -- as well - of- course - as 100s of correct decisions.

But that's not the point: LP made you feel that everything was under control, and all would be well. It was great, hence all the plaudits everywhere.

And I love the way he hurries everyone along whenever he can. His games move faster, and are more exciting than most other refs.

 

[KoolFork]

Yes I suspect LP contributed to the spectacle. Certainly to the drama.

One incident which is still bugging me is the Liam Williams Yellow (around 72:40). LP penalised LW for being off his feet, but (to me) he appears to have got back to his feet and onside before attempting a tackle. As far as I can see no ruck is formed and France have already 'won' the ball. What am I missing?

Separately, I could understand a YC for another offside or other offence in the red zone and for persistent offending, but this seemed a bit unwarranted to me?

 

[belhysys]

T
And I love the way he hurries everyone along whenever he can. His games move faster, and are more exciting than most other refs.

I know I am the only one but I disagree, the ref should be a facilitator not a dictator. He should allow the player to play their own style (from within the law). If a scrum half wants to slow the game (within the law) he should be allowed.

More importantly his constant use of "use it " is unnecessary. At some point in the game, it was at every ruck, when there were no indication that the scrum half was slowing the game.

 

[belladonna]

only if there was no attempt to bind/wrap surely?

Just watched it again, and to be fair it looks better than at first viewing.

Although straight off feet - and LP immediately extends the arm.

And, it's the same player who gets red carded for the eye contact.

So looks like good officiating all round on this one.

4:18 into this clip https://youtu.be/v7VxqrZKa70

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I know I am the only one but I disagree, the ref should be a facilitator not a dictator. He should allow the player to play their own style). If a scrum half wants to slow the game (within the law) he should be allowed.

More importantly his constant use of "use it " is unnecessary. At some point in the game, it was at every ruck, when there were no indication that the scrum half was slowing the game.

The Law is that when the referee decides the ball is available then the 5 second applies. So your point makes little sense.