Australia v England 3rd test - unusual occurences

[L'irlandais]

Not the first time the overhead camera has been hit in an International match.
France v Wales 2009 Six Nations, it happened twice in one game.

Cannot find the discussion in the forum's archives, but am sure we discussed it previously. Ian it is stretching it to suggest the spider cam is in touch. If the impact is material, it should perhaps be considered like the ball touching the match referee.
[laws]6.A.10 The ball touching the referee. (a)
If the ball or the ball carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues. If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.[/laws]

 

[Ian_Cook]

I suppose that when you lose 0-3 when you expected to win 3-0 you have to look for excuses?

When "I" lose. Why would I care who won?

However you say pushed and the article says tapped.

Pushed? Tapped? Moot!

There should be no contact at all

 

[Pegleg]

As a neutral. Seeing that, the line out should have been retaken 3-0 / 0-3 or whatever. Very poor from a test match AR. I would imagine of the it was an England throw there would be protest too. Just bad form from the AR.

 

[crossref]

As a neutral. Seeing that, the line out should have been retaken 3-0 / 0-3 or whatever. Very poor from a test match AR. I would imagine of the it was an England throw there would be protest too. Just bad form from the AR.

The AR should have alerted the ref, you mean?

 

[Pegleg]

The AR should have alerted the ref, you mean?

Yes or even the TMO should be able to do so. I presume the ref is highly unlikely to see it. So either the AR say " I dropped one" or the TMO does it for him.

 

[RobLev]

Yes or even the TMO should be able to do so. I presume the ref is highly unlikely to see it. So either the AR say " I dropped one" or the TMO does it for him.

What did the Aussie skipper say to NO about it?

 

[Drift]

I think he was telling Moore that his toes were over the line. <fx: ducks and runs>

In the grand scheme of things, especially when throwing to number 4 jumper, does that matter? The ball is clearly going 5m and his heels are on the sideline, which is in touch.

 

[Rushforth]

In the grand scheme of things, especially when throwing to number 4 jumper, does that matter? The ball is clearly going 5m and his heels are on the sideline, which is in touch.

The picture doesn't have some toes over the line.

 

[Drift]

Think "big picture" stuff, is that really something you need to get involved with. If a foot is in the field of play then it needs to be stopped, however if the majority of the foot is on the line then that player is in touch.

Are you really going to hang your hat on making sure someone's toes aren't over the line?

 

[Rushforth]

Think "big picture" stuff, is that really something you need to get involved with. If a foot is in the field of play then it needs to be stopped, however if the majority of the foot is on the line then that player is in touch.

Are you really going to hang your hat on making sure someone's toes aren't over the line?

The last (and admittedly only) time I AR'd an international match, I reminded the hooker politely where he should be standing, at the next line-out. Only U19, mind, and I missed a punch (not at line-out time).

You can make up your own laws if you like, what with being Australian and all that, but I prefer to ATP. That is: Ask, Tell, Pen. That means that when I see someone ignorant of those bits of law that specifically apply to them, I first ask (to check) then tell (to make sure) that they do what they are supposed to, before I "hang my hat".

There are certain cases in the laws where the position of the back studs may make a difference - for example when the ball is still moving and picked up by a player who is "technically" in touch, or in goal. This isn't one of them, and there is no great element of skill in attempting to steal a foot - literally - by using back studs in touch as an excuse - which was your previous post, not "majority of the foot".
'

 

[Drift]

The law states the player needs to be in touch. Standing on the line, even with toes in-field, is in touch. What more do you want?
Would you pull this player up? He is clearly standing on the line, and therefore in touch.

What about this guy?

How about this one?

In every single one of those the players foot is on the line and therefore in touch.


Also, just because I am in Australia doesn't mean I am Australian.

 

[Rushforth]

How about this one?

Ok, your second picture was at training with the ball already gone 5m, but this one is funny.

Is the other hooker standing 2 metres from the line of touch? Unlikely but possible. Is he standing 2 metres from the 5m LO line? Is he my arse.

WTF is getty images? Pictures of lineouts without jumpers?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The picture doesn't have some toes over the line.

Well, so what? The picture also has the corner flag inside the touchline on the goal line.

The field of play is defined as the area INSIDE the touchlines and the goal line...

[LAWS]Law 1 DEFINITIONS
The Field of play is the area (as shown on the plan) between the goal lines and
the touchlines. These lines are not part of the field of play.[/LAWS]

...therefore it is logical to conclude that unless the whole of either foot is in the field of play, then the player has not stepped into the field of play (as per your diagram)

 

[Drift]

Ok, your second picture was at training with the ball already gone 5m, but this one is funny.

Is the other hooker standing 2 metres from the line of touch? Unlikely but possible. Is he standing 2 metres from the 5m LO line? Is he my arse.

WTF is getty images? Pictures of lineouts without jumpers?

Yeah, but as the ball is clearly getting thrown to the player that number 5 is turning to lift, does it matter where 2 is? Manage it at the next lineout but for this one the AR has dropped to ball on the opposing hooker.

 

[Pegleg]

What did the Aussie skipper say to NO about it?

No Idea. Not sure what that has to do with the AR coming clean that he messed up mind.

 

[Dickie E]

Tell you what - lucky we didn't play Iceland :holysheep:

 

[Camquin]

Yes but it was the whole of Iceland.

The radio is now saying the Soccer side needs to find an Eddie Jones clone to turn the side round.

But back to the matter in hand- if you want the players to stick to the laws, you have to enforce them.Otherwise they will take whatever liberties they are given.Be that flopping at a ruck, everything at the scrum or stepping in to reduce the distance thrown.

 

[Phil E]

When "I" lose. Why would I care who won?

I was referring to the article, not to you personally. Maybe I should have made that clearer.

Pushed? Tapped? Moot!

I'm sure if I go into a bar and tap some one on the back, then push them in the back it wont be a moot point!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I was referring to the article, not to you personally. Maybe I should have made that clearer.

Fair enough

I'm sure if I go into a bar and tap some one on the back, then push them in the back it wont be a moot point!!

Wow! You have bars on your rugby fields? Can't you least wait until you get to the Clubhouse? epper:

FWIW, I am totally against any intentional physical contact between officials and players between kick off and no-side. Mike Fraser ought to have known better; there is no up side to what he did... tap or push!

 

[crossref]

FWIW, I am totally against any intentional physical contact between officials and players between kick off and no-side. Mike Fraser ought to have known better; there is no up side to what he did... tap or push!

On this point, Ian, I firmly agree with you, and as I have said in other threads it's exactly the reason why I think it was a bad idea to introduce the protocol of the referee tapping the scrum half on the back to signal ball in.

Sadly, tapping a player on the back to give an instruction has become something almost every referee is doing every game, and once it's normal in one context, it's easier for it to creep into other contexts.