England v NZ
- Thread starter Browner
- Start date
50mins and Vunipola makes a break, is brought to ground but RMC stays on his feet, goes for the ball but loses contact as ruck forms. RMC then has another go and rakes the ball back to ABs who promote the ball some 40m down field. NO calls that RMC is 1st man there. If I can see it first time at full speed, I'd have thought NO would have got the correct decision considering his positioning.
Whitelock no try should have been a white PK. There is no way they could say that ball was definitely on the goal line.
Now if NO is convinced that the ball WAS on the line, then he should have awarded the try.
No problem with Coles getting a YC for kicking but a PK would probably been a fair decision under the circumstances. AR could have done better job by staying with NO to relay a clearer message from the TMO.
Shite TV replays after the SBW break doesn't show if 6 white actually touches the ball (65mins). Anyone got a video? If NO penalises 6 white for interfering, he should have given him a YC as well.
Whitelock no try should have been a white PK. There is no way they could say that ball was definitely on the goal line.
Now if NO is convinced that the ball WAS on the line, then he should have awarded the try.
No problem with Coles getting a YC for kicking but a PK would probably been a fair decision under the circumstances. AR could have done better job by staying with NO to relay a clearer message from the TMO.
Shite TV replays after the SBW break doesn't show if 6 white actually touches the ball (65mins). Anyone got a video? If NO penalises 6 white for interfering, he should have given him a YC as well.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,687
- Post Likes
- 1,773
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Except that NO actually says the ball was on the line. You can hear him say so on the audio
NO to TMO "I'll tell you what I have seen. The ball is on the line, so its not offside....".
Last edited:
The umpire
Referees in England
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 870
- Post Likes
- 29
Going against the grain here a bit, but, having just watched the highlights once, I think NO got it right. Ball was clearly on the whitewash and the touch pushed the ball forward, not downward pressure, as required. Clever work, though, if only the defenders had been so knowledgable they wouldn't have pulled it back so far.
[/QUOTE]
My first sentence is my opinion. My second sentence basically agrees with what you are saying about NO's response except that if the ball was on the line as he says, then it should have been a try.
I don't know how you can say the ball was clearly on the whitewash, however, it is clear that Whitelock's hand is touches the upper side of the ball (doesn't simply knock/propel the ball forward from the end of the ball).
If that ball WAS on the goal line, I would find it hard to argue that Whitelock didn't press down on the ball at all.
Pretty much what I said. The Richie McCaw decision was amazing. No idea why NO didn't spot it. If I didn't give that in one of my games, the assessor would shoot me. It was C&O at full speed, and in slow mo....
Agree with the rest of your post as well...
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,687
- Post Likes
- 1,773
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
In the replay, you clearly see the ball go down first, then forward. The action was like squeezing a fruit pip, and the mean pressure was applied. m
There is no candidate amount of downward pressure that has to be applied. If Whitelock's hand contacts the ball anywhere above the midpoint of the ball (and it does) then downward pressure has been applied. I have seen tries given with much less downward pressure than this.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
In my match analysis sheet, I had that incident marked down as a NC (non compliance clear with obvious material effect) for both hands on after ruck formed and hands used whilst off feet - both against Black 7.
If I were to be writing a report for a L5 referee based on this match's evidence sheet, it would not be happy reading with lots of C and NYC for Q3 and Q4 in particular after a reasonable Q1.
leaguerefaus
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,009
- Post Likes
- 249
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
You must be a hoot to watch the footy with!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Messages
- 12,848
- Post Likes
- 189
Please don't make assumptions and ridiculous statements, about someone you know nothing about.
I watch an elite match live like anyone else whether it be at the ground, at the club on big screen or at home on TV as a spectator, but then later I go into Match Observer mode (assessor in your language) to watch a recorded version - looking at the refereeing aspects of the match and doing the same evidence sheet I use for L5 Group Refs.
As I have aspirations to be a Match Official at higher levels than I currently work at (National Panel), I am advised to practice on Elite matches (internationals, premiership, championship, etc) by two MOs I respect - one is ex IRB MO, the other current RFU Panel doing Championship Level2 as MO, so pretty informed mentors.
Anyone else watch this in the pub, missing the haka and first two minutes while waiting for Liverpool v Chelsea to end?
It was pretty frustrating watching as they played out 5 mins of injury time.
The barman changed the channel the second the final whistle went and you had to laugh at the football fans at the end of the pub
Chelsea, chelsae, Chelsea, chels.. Engerland, Engerland Engerland..
They didn't skip a beat.
It was pretty frustrating watching as they played out 5 mins of injury time.
The barman changed the channel the second the final whistle went and you had to laugh at the football fans at the end of the pub
Chelsea, chelsae, Chelsea, chels.. Engerland, Engerland Engerland..
They didn't skip a beat.
leaguerefaus
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,009
- Post Likes
- 249
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
'Twas a light-hearted jibe. Nothing to spill your tea over.
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I was a little too drunk maybe, but didn't the white SH touch with his finger the ball just before the try attempt? If so, wouldn't it be a touch down by a defending player and 5m scrum attacking side?
4eyesbetter
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,320
- Post Likes
- 86
What atrocious disrespect!!! I hope everyone in that pub is ashamed of themselves.
Ashamed.
MrQeu
Avid Rugby Lover
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 440
- Post Likes
- 37
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Why not? AFAIU the rules don't list intention:
[LAWS]22.5.a) Touch down. When defending players are first to ground the ball in their in-goal, it results in a touch down.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]22.1 Grounding the ball
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a)
Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b)
Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive. [/LAWS]
ChrisR
Player or Coach
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2010
- Messages
- 3,231
- Post Likes
- 356
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
From FlipFlop Post #33: "And the PT at the end. the previous scrums - NO clearly said he PKed Black back row and second row for walking it round. It looked like that to me. Was surprised when NO went under the sticks thought. Thought he might have just PKed it - but White were going forward, and the try was likely. So probably right, but certainly not a clear cut PT. "
"Illegal wheeling" and "Walking it round" - Neither appear in the Laws. Please, can someone point me to the origin of this and how this is supported in law.
I know this is old but it still rankles me.
"Illegal wheeling" and "Walking it round" - Neither appear in the Laws. Please, can someone point me to the origin of this and how this is supported in law.
I know this is old but it still rankles me.
Must confess - when watching live, I did wonder if when Care (or was it Youngs by then) brings the ball back with his foot, was worried he would be called for grounding it, and it would be a 5m scrum to NZ. Think this would probably the the right call, if NO though the ball was on the line, as England 9 clearly had downward pressure with his foot, and clearly took it back over. Was wondering why he needed to get it that close to the line.
For me - I can see the following outcomes now: 5m scrum to NZ, PK to England and Try to NZ. Still can't understand the knock on call.
Think ST nailed it - As the game cranked up, I think NO got left behind, and he ended up being involved in too many "incidents". It is not often I yell at the TV, and even on replay fail to understand a call. (not necessarily agree, but can see normally can see why). Happened a fair bit too often for a game at that level, by a referee who must be targeting a RWC final. As we get to year to go - I currently can only see NO getting the final if SA make it, and even then he has fallen back to the pack, so not a C&O choice.
For me - I can see the following outcomes now: 5m scrum to NZ, PK to England and Try to NZ. Still can't understand the knock on call.
Think ST nailed it - As the game cranked up, I think NO got left behind, and he ended up being involved in too many "incidents". It is not often I yell at the TV, and even on replay fail to understand a call. (not necessarily agree, but can see normally can see why). Happened a fair bit too often for a game at that level, by a referee who must be targeting a RWC final. As we get to year to go - I currently can only see NO getting the final if SA make it, and even then he has fallen back to the pack, so not a C&O choice.