The ball is in play, no time is being 'wasted'. This has been on the cards for years, so WR could have legislated to prevent it.Not a great advert, and the crowd were not appreciative but I think the commentator sums it up perfectly - “It might be gamesmanship, but this is the game.”
Could an argument be made that this is foul play:
[LAW]
9.7 A player must not:
d. Waste time.
[/LAW]
Tell him to use it, otherwise free kick to the oppo?
Acts contrary to good sportsmanship?Maybe not. But in the context of that individual game, I don’t see what the players did that merits sanction.
in this case, both teams were happy with it....Acts contrary to good sportsmanship?
Would you be happy if they did this after the first 10 seconds for the rest of the half?
I think it’s less nefarious than out and out fixing, more a case of both teams knowing the rest of the draw and deciding that this silly little episode, whilst embarrassing, ensures a better path in the next rounds for both of them so why not ease up and leave plenty of gas in the tank.Not entirely clear on the reason for this action/inaction.
However it seems to imply some form of match fixing!
My memory - possibly flawed - was that the guideline was the attacking team were under no obligation to ground the ball, and that any obligation was on the defending team to provide the chaser to force the issue.The ball is in play, no time is being 'wasted'. This has been on the cards for years, so WR could have legislated to prevent it.
I seem to remember that referees used to, in practice, require players to ground the ball within a reasonable time, but the lack of a requirement in Law put a stop to it.
And therefore it must be an accepted part of the game. Until ...To @chbg point - this has been around for a while and WR have decided no explicit law, ruling, or guidance is necessary.
in this instance both teams were content to let time pass -- as both were set to qualify for the next round.My memory - possibly flawed - was that the guideline was the attacking team were under no obligation to ground the ball, and that any obligation was on the defending team to provide the chaser to force the issue.
I'm waiting for new guidelines to come out of this.
The underlined bit is a crucial difference which, for me, destroys your argument.Seems fine to me. No different to a team trailing by 8 when time is up and the oppos have scored 3 tries electing to tap and kick out to deny a bonus point chance rather than playing on
Apparently the score meant both sides went through at the expence of Canada.Not entirely clear on the reason for this action/inaction.
However it seems to imply some form of match fixing!
and the eleventy billion scrum resets interspersed with a front rower taking a knee etc etc to take the rhythm out of a game, that also has the effect of running the clock out? Huddles before lineouts and taking a minute to set up a simple front ball lineout ?I
But even in 15s, how many examples do we see each match? A kicker taking almost the full 90 seconds to get the ball setup just right on the tee for a conversion directly in front of the posts, or the SH "struggling" to get the ball out of the ruck and then very gingerly rolling the ball back along the (inevitable) caterpillar and then taking time to marshal the troops before taking 4.5s after being told to use it, or a team slowly jogging back to the center for a restart, etc., etc... ?
which is of cousre all they ever do, between the soup and fish courses.... rather than rush out a quick fix and leave us to deal with ambiguities in the language and their unintended consequences.