Eng v SA: Kholisi YC

[belladonna]

Kholisi YC - fair or harsh? To me he looked like he was going for the ball and had eyes on it the whole time, and if you take the Eng player out of the equation he would have likely caught it. Or is this not how it's reffed?

 

[Flish]

Did he not wrap his arms round the white player, whilst in the air? That was my recollection at least, and its all downhill from there

 

[belladonna]

Did he not wrap his arms round the white player, whilst in the air? That was my recollection at least, and its all downhill from there

Yeah he did, so it's not a good picture.
But tbf the player was where the ball was going to be and the arms were coming round to gather the ball.
Or is this a case of "accidentally on purpose"?

 

[Flish]

That’ll be the ‘not in a realistic position to catch’ comment, he went for the ball, fine, but the white player got their first, and then in the tangle of arms he took him out and created a dangerous landing. Greens actions caused that so pen and YC seems reasonable and expected to me

 

[Cross]

Yeah he did, so it's not a good picture.
But tbf the player was where the ball was going to be and the arms were coming round to gather the ball.
Or is this a case of "accidentally on purpose"?

The actions involved catching a ball vary quite considerably from those required to tackle someone mid air.

Both happening on the air and involving arms and hands does not mean they are the same. I dont believe, for a second, that Kohlisi thinks he is not at fault.

I cannot see how this is not a YC. I disagree with quite a few of today's calls. This was not one of them.

 

[BikingBud]

Always a tough one when competing in the air and my frequently stated personal preference is to prohibit jumping for catches but it will no doubt be allowed to continue until someone is seriously injured.

I was more concerned about the knee drop from Pollard on Smith. Yes the game was all but over but that is back to old school SA thuggery and should be removed form the game.

 

[crossref]

I was more concerned about the knee drop from Pollard on Smith. Yes the game was all but over but that is back to old school SA thuggery and should be removed form the game.

yes, I noticed that - the TMO actually tried to tell Andrew Brace about it, but the message was lost somehow - as Brace didn't take it in.

Not sure if it was poorly communicated, or Brace wasn't really listening/didn't want to hear. Perhaps a bit of both.

But it seemed to me (admittedly on one viewing) potentially a RC incident. Perhaps it will get cited

 

[didds]

I was quite amazed at the lack of chat about it by To4.

 

[Phil E]

I was more concerned about the knee drop from Pollard on Smith. Yes the game was all but over but that is back to old school SA thuggery and should be removed form the game.

Yep, saw that and thought straight away, he's off. Was amazed they never reviewed it.
I thought the ref had an overall good game, but there were a few "none-decisions" from the TO3 that had me raising an eyebrow.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

A lively debate between me and the people I watched the game with involved a proposal to allow option of FK or Scrum for a Knock-on offence.
Rationale is that sometimes, 1 team dominates the scrum and so is 90% sure they'll get the PK at a scrum:
(a) New Law e.g. goal-line drop-out seem to be trying to decrease the number of scrums in a game. It has been widely known in that focus-groups don't see the scrum as "entertaining" enough to attract increased new sport-audiences.
(b) Is it desirable that 1 team can knock-on and be fairly confident they'll win a PK at the scrum ?

Arguments followed along the lines of "Well its not SA's fault that they're better at scrummaging than England" etc.
Ironically, England have a history relying on dominating the set-pieces but were overwhelmed in that 2nd half against SA. ( both scrum and line-out looked fragile )
In the end, I could see an argument in favour of allowing the non-offending side the option.
Any downsides ?

 

[dave_clark]

yeah, it devalues the scrum as a weapon. and i say that as a former (very, very poor) loose head or hooker.

in a similar vein, would any of your group support a FK rather than lineout if a side is clearly superior in that regard?

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

yeah, it devalues the scrum as a weapon. and i say that as a former (very, very poor) loose head or hooker.

in a similar vein, would any of your group support a FK rather than lineout if a side is clearly superior in that regard?

I don't think it removes the scrum as a weapon. Not if its an option. Taking England V SA , for example:

If England knock-on, SA choose the scrum. i.e. SA are rewarded by being afforded an opportunity to deploy their scrum-as-a-weapon.
When SA knock-on, England choose the FK option ( i.e. SA are not rewarded for knocking-on ).

As a side-effect, the game is made quicker and visually more appealing and sellable.
( I am cognizant that I may be half-accused of turning this into Rugby-League.)


EDIT: This is on the wrong thread now. I've accidentally hijacked it. Let me start one on this topic.

 

[SimonSmith]

FKs are next to useless as a tool.

 

[shebeen]

That’ll be the ‘not in a realistic position to catch’ comment, he went for the ball, fine, but the white player got their first, and then in the tangle of arms he took him out and created a dangerous landing. Greens actions caused that so pen and YC seems reasonable and expected to me

not exactly, because this "realistic position to catch" it is so problematic.
white jumps early, knocks it on with the leading hand and in the collision he is the one that comes down harder, so it looks terrible.

both in a realistic position to catch it. White doesn't catch it, so why is he protected, because he jumped earlier? is that what we're trying to do here, a highjump contest?
lots of camera angles and slow-mo here
https://youtu.be/f5_Dhs6SYf0?t=369

because that becomes problematic again when you look at the final play.
2nd angle available here, once again is this not a contest in the air?
https://youtu.be/f5_Dhs6SYf0?t=745
white doesn't catch the ball goes straight out the breadbasket, and ref determines neither green 4 or 20 in a realistic position to catch the ball.

gets reviewed by TMO, and decision is that neither green player could have caught the ball (even though 20 does gets his hands to it, despite some possibly unintentional blocking by white 4). This issue is not going away, as if there is going to be a contest in the air, then more than one player has rights to it.

The only way to make it black and white is to look at each player individually. If they were close enough to make a catch, then they have rights to go for it. If the other player gets there marginally first, fair contest. This will result in midair collisions which obviously comes with higher degree of risk to both players.


but hey, if we're talking definite yellow cards, how about a swinging arm to the head?
https://youtu.be/f5_Dhs6SYf0?t=242

TMO + ref interpretation= "Green4 fell into the swinging arm". and then once contact is made with the head white continues to apply more force to the neck area. Any other day of the week that is a YC, especially once seen by ref and TMO. similar but different incident called in the Aus v Wal game.


So yes, we're at the stage where videos are being made about bad calls from onfield match officials and TMO adding nothing to the equation. This one is just from the final 20minutes of this game, and there's also one on the Aus v Wal game too. Some will say that you could make a video on the bad calls going the other way, well that was said in July for the 1st BIL test, and we're still waiting for it.

It's no coincidence that this comes against the backdrop of SA DoR now suspended and Aus coach possibly facing sanction for airing his thoughts.

What's the solution, make refs more accountable for bad calls?
Use expert trained TMO rather than referees?
Throw the rulebook away and start from scratch?

No matter what, there is a big problem here and Worldrugby ignores it at its peril.

 

[Rich_NL]

TAS Analytics is a blight on the game. I've never seen such a consistently misinformed and one-eyed source. It's toxic, bases its entire worldview on referee incompetence, and is more often incorrect on law than not. If you find yourself nodding along and agreeing with their videos, this may not be the appropriate forum for discussion IMO.

To go to your points - on the first kick, is this a high-jumping contest? Yes. That's basically how the contest is adjudicated. It might not be what you want, but it's what the players are expected to play to... personally, I think a ruling that the receiving team have priority under the high ball would make for a clearer and less tedious game.

Second point, I don't think green were realistically in a position to challenge, and given white was jumping from an almost stationary stance, they could have been expected to know what they were doing. No sympathy, clear penalty.

Third: I don't think you can disagree green fell into the tackle, can you? White is also dropping as he goes in. This is unclear and could go either way, either side would be aggrieved by the call. I suspect this would split any given crowd of referees too.

"We're at the stage where videos are being made about bad calls from onfield match officials"... "It's no coincidence that this comes against the backdrop of SA DoR now suspended and Aus coach possibly facing sanction for airing his thoughts"
Directors and coaches have found that screaming injustice and oppression works on the fan base, and there are always people willing to play into that. The stage wasn't reached by referee performance, which as far as I am aware is only improving, it's been reached by Trump-like claims of victimhood and "they're out to get you" messaging, painting the fault as being somewhere else. "Referees aren't accountable" has been all over the SA junk media as a mantra for the last months, despite being patently untrue - as has "WR is biased against South Africa".

 

[didds]

FKs are next to useless as a tool.

absolutey 100% spot on.

tactically as an award to the non offendoing side they are only really of any use in one's own 22 where they can be leared directly to touch.

Everywhere else the only options are are a garryowen kick and hope, a tap and go, or a scrum. Unsurprisingly teams usually opt for the scrum because generally they are guarnteed the ball with half the oppo team tied up in a very small space. The tap and go only really features as an option if their sscrum is under pressure or possibly close to the line.

FKs are useless.

 

[Phil E]

FKs are useless.

You missed out the new option of a 50/22 (if in your own half)

Does that change the dynamics?

 

[BikingBud]

Next you will be wanting to remove 2 players and do aways with rucks and mauls:frown:

 

[shebeen]

TAS Analytics is a blight on the game. I've never seen such a consistently misinformed and one-eyed source. It's toxic, bases its entire worldview on referee incompetence, and is more often incorrect on law than not. If you find yourself nodding along and agreeing with their videos, this may not be the appropriate forum for discussion IMO.
was an easy video to use as all the clips have been edited already, obuvously there are errors in it. I could probably challenge you on saying that more than 50% of the points are incorrect but i don't think that would achieve much.


To go to your points - on the first kick, is this a high-jumping contest? Yes. That's basically how the contest is adjudicated. It might not be what you want, but it's what the players are expected to play to... personally, I think a ruling that the receiving team have priority under the high ball would make for a clearer and less tedious game.
so you agree there could be a better process here, great. For now we have to work with what we have, and nowhere does it say it's a highjump contest. Both of these clips the player didn't even catch the ball anyway.

Second point, I don't think green were realistically in a position to challenge, and given white was jumping from an almost stationary stance, they could have been expected to know what they were doing. No sympathy, clear penalty. If your hands within the trajectory of the ball, you're in a position to catch it. It's a contest, it will never be black and white but close enough is close enough.

Third: I don't think you can disagree green fell into the tackle, can you? White is also dropping as he goes in. This is unclear and could go either way, either side would be aggrieved by the call. I suspect this would split any given crowd of referees too.
at the point of contact, the 2m+ green player's head was at the level of white's shoulders. it's a swinging arm that connects with the player's forehead and then nose, and he continues the force. This is not unclear in anyway, as there is plenty of precedent for this being yellow/red. This one not even a penalty in this instance.

"We're at the stage where videos are being made about bad calls from onfield match officials"... "It's no coincidence that this comes against the backdrop of SA DoR now suspended and Aus coach possibly facing sanction for airing his thoughts"
Directors and coaches have found that screaming injustice and oppression works on the fan base, and there are always people willing to play into that. The stage wasn't reached by referee performance, which as far as I am aware is only improving, it's been reached by Trump-like claims of victimhood and "they're out to get you" messaging, painting the fault as being somewhere else. "Referees aren't accountable" has been all over the SA junk media as a mantra for the last months, despite being patently untrue - as has "WR is biased against South Africa".
If you're going to bring Trump into it, then I might as well bring in the 2023 RWC voting? :smile:Either way this is where we are, the relationship between SA rugby and World Rugby is incredibly fractured for a variety of reasons. Not very healthy for the game. Interpretations of the laws have always had a north/south swing, form my perspective it is not getting better.

replies in blue

 

[Rich_NL]

Thanks for your reply!

so you agree there could be a better process here, great. For now we have to work with what we have, and nowhere does it say it's a highjump contest. Both of these clips the player didn't even catch the ball anyway.

My point was that it's refereed correctly according to the guidelines. They don't say it's a highjump contest, but the practical effects of what they do say make it so.

If your hands within the trajectory of the ball, you're in a position to catch it. It's a contest, it will never be black and white but close enough is close enough.

No, your hands have to be in a position to contest for the ball, not just in the trajectory. We've seen many cases of a defender on the ground in a great position to contest, getting clattered by a jumping chaser and being found at fault - there were a couple in this year's 6 Nations, as I recall. Again, not ideal and always a point of complaint, but the correct call.

With the second jump though, I don't think they were close enough - it's a judgement call, I'll give you that. Even if they were, they weren't high enough - and a second-rower like me knows not to try to outjump a fullback Where Kolisi could have got the benefit of the doubt, being on the receiving team and focussing on the ball, the same applies to Steward here. So in theory, with "my rules" it would have been one apiece; with the current implementation green needs to get higher to challenge for the high ball. Given that box kick chases are a big part of their game plan, you'd expect them to train this a lot!

at the point of contact, the 2m+ green player's head was at the level of white's shoulders. it's a swinging arm that connects with the player's forehead and then nose, and he continues the force. This is not unclear in anyway, as there is plenty of precedent for this being yellow/red. This one not even a penalty in this instance.

That's step 2 in the decision tree - was there foul play? If the tackle position is judged as not being reckless, it's an incident, play on. This was brought in to clarify that not all head contact is cardworthy. "Reckless" is still a judgement, of course.

As for RWC voting, I stay well away from the politics, I'm in this for the sport