England v NZ

[damo]

On the game.

I think it is fair to say that Nigel Owens had a test he would rather forget, the second in a row (he was pretty ordinary in Argentina v Australia also). However, I think some of the criticism is a bit misguided.

1) It looked to me like the best person to see whether Cruden scored was NO, and not the TMO.
2) I have no issue whatsoever with the YC to Coles. The TMO was plain wrong in recommending just a PK, and NO was correct to overrule him. He has that prerogative, and used it bravely. Personally I may have YCed both the 2's so as to prevent the white 2 from profiting from his being a dickhead but I accept that is likely to be a minority opinion
3) Likewise I have no issue with him rechecking a try after replays made it look like it might have been dubious. Unlike Cruden's, he wasn't in perfect position for the third try, and the replay looked like he might have made a cockup.

Onto the bad* :

1) Sam Whitelock pretty clearly scored. I think the only two options were PK or try. The knockon was a bit of a cop out IMO.
2) The scrum PT was dubious. There was a pretty even scrum, then the front rows popped up. Should have been a reset. The alleged illegality of walking it around had to have happened well after the front rows had popped up. Even if it was a PK it is very dubious to say that a try would probably have been scored.
3) His missing of McCaw having a second fiddle off his feet was pretty ordinary to say the least.

Can't think of much else, but I seem to recall being a bit grumpy at him during the game so there must have been other things.

All in all I thought it was an enjoyable game, and one which the AB's were clearly better, and frankly should have put England away with 20 to go. Poor lineouts and goal kicking were much bigger factors than the odd dubious decision by the referee.


*Note that most of these are those going against NZ - I make no apology for this, as those are the ones I noticed and best remember. I am sure that there are plenty of English fans who can point out mistakes against the English.

 

[crossref]

Whether or not we think Cruden scored, I am sure we can all agree that one was worth going to the TMO for. If you think Cruden DID score it was so close that doesn't justify not going upstairs.

I am sure that NO's failure to go to the TMO played a part in his later going to the TMO beleatedly -- wouldn't want to make same mistake twice.

 

[Rushforth]

Nigel's referee stocks really have fallen.

Ian_Cook, you are right. My world is different to yours. My world involves the image below.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Moderator Comment :

To all posters - either stick to objective factual refereeing debate on this match and NO's performance, or this thread will be closed.

 

[winchesterref]

Whether or not we think Cruden scored, I am sure we can all agree that one was worth going to the TMO for. If you think Cruden DID score it was so close that doesn't justify not going upstairs.

I am sure that NO's failure to go to the TMO played a part in his later going to the TMO beleatedly -- wouldn't want to make same mistake twice.

First point - if NO believed a try was scored, I am quite happy in him making the decision himself, whether it looked close or not. Far more power to the man on the field - if he wants to make those close calls then I will back him, knowing it is a tough job.

Secondly though, I agree that probably played a part in checking the second time when he had no need to!

 

[Ian_Cook]

2) The scrum PT was dubious. There was a pretty even scrum, then the front rows popped up. Should have been a reset. The alleged illegality of walking it around had to have happened well after the front rows had popped up. Even if it was a PK it is very dubious to say that a try would probably have been scored.

In fact, the England THP popped first and unbound; the NZ LHP was still bound.

This should have been a PK to NZ at this point; at the very least a reset!

 

[crossref]

First point - if NO believed a try was scored, I am quite happy in him making the decision himself, whether it looked close or not. Far more power to the man on the field - if he wants to make those close calls then I will back him, knowing it is a tough job

No, that's not the way to ref try/no-try decisions when you have a TMO.
If it's close then always refer the TMO, that's what they are there for.
There's no upside in going it alone: if you are wrong then in about twenty seconds time you are going to be horribly found out.

 

[winchesterref]

Well I disagree. If he feels he can make a decision then if he wants to I will support that. I prefer the referee to call it, not the TMO

 

[Ian_Cook]

No, that's not the way to ref try/no-try decisions when you have a TMO.
If it's close then always refer the TMO, that's what they are there for.
There's no upside in going it alone: if you are wrong then in about twenty seconds time you are going to be horribly found out.

.... and if the decision was against the home team in this case, 82,000 fans are going to let you know about it!!

 

[Phil E]

In fact, the England THP popped first and unbound; the NZ LHP was still bound.

But why did he pop up?
From that picture it looks like the Black LH has driven up underneath him.
If he just popped up the LH would still be down

 

[ChrisR]

From the still pic in post #86 I'd say the the White TH popped first but was driven up and in by the Black TH. PK to White for Black driving up. Questionable PT.

 

[FlipFlop]

In fact, the England THP popped first and unbound; the NZ LHP was still bound.

This should have been a PK to NZ at this point; at the very least a reset!

And the angle of the Black LH - his hips are pointing inwards, his shoulders are inwards. The black LH bind is now in a position that he could never have bound on if he had stayed down and not turned inwards.

The black flanker on this side is staying square to his prop, not the rest of the scrum, and his back shows the angle into the white scrum - not straight. And the black flanker is so far round he is touching the white flanker.

The white scrum is fairly straight (in the photo) to the try line.

So absolutely a clear PK to the ABs.... Now I'm waiting for the explanation of why NO was right in allowing Richie to scoop the ball out of the ruck.....

 

[irishref]

It seems that flankers have carte blanche to not only come into contact with opponents at elite level scrumtime, they're very adept at interfering to a very material level.

 

[crossref]

Well I disagree. If he feels he can make a decision then if he wants to I will support that. I prefer the referee to call it, not the TMO

scratches head : why would you want that?

I can see an argument for eliminating a TMO completely (too expensive, too time consuming, drives a wedge between elite and community games).

But once the TMO is present, I can't for the life of me see any justifcation for making 50/50 try-line calls without using him (and by definition getting 50% of the decisions wrong)

 

[TheBFG]

In fact, the England THP popped first and unbound; the NZ LHP was still bound.

This should have been a PK to NZ at this point; at the very least a reset!

Go for the clear and obvious PK, Black back (with white boots) offside in front of QBE logo :wink:

In all seriousness at pretty much any scrum you could ping either side for something, I'm not sure what NO picked on for this one?

 

[winchesterref]

scratches head : why would you want that?

I can see an argument for eliminating a TMO completely (too expensive, too time consuming, drives a wedge between elite and community games).

But once the TMO is present, I can't for the life of me see any justifcation for making 50/50 try-line calls without using him (and by definition getting 50% of the decisions wrong)

50:50 calls fair enough. But NO was clearly 100% sure and not in any doubt, and thus not a 50:50 decision, so I back his call.

 

[Rushforth]

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTb00ctE5M&t=249 :

View attachment 3072

Note how black 17 (replacement LHP) is standing 2 seconds after the previous picture (clock is 2 seconds different).

Note how black 7 is bound - with one hand pulling the shirt of white 7 so far that he is almost touching white 8.

Note how black 8 is bound. Or rather, how he isn't bound at all.

Note how the scrum moves from in just left of the left post to near the Q of QBE. White remain unrotated, some black at almost a 90 degree angle.

Note how the referee does not whistle immediately, but rather 4 seconds after white 18's head becomes visible.

Clear PT every day of the week, at this level. The first offence is 20.8 (g) "Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards." by black 17.

Referee got this decision right. The referee would also have had this decision right if the colours of the shirts had been reversed or completely different. The referee would also have had this decision right if he had made plenty of "howler" errors earlier on in the game, or in recent games - neither of which happen to be the case, in my own opinion.

All referees make errors in every game - at least I do, so proof by induction is left to the reader. All armchair referees have a right to express their opinions. All armchair referees - myself not excluded - may also make errors.

 

[ChrisR]

After a PT shouldn't someone be getting a YC? Did this happen?

 

[TheBFG]

but who?

 

[Rushforth]

After a PT shouldn't someone be getting a YC? Did this happen?

[LAWS]10.2 Unfair play

(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]

Yes, "someone" should, technically speaking. A player. There were 7 black players bound who prevented the try being scored. Black 17 and 7 were obvious candidates, black 8 was just not bound, so anything from 2 to 7 players could/should have been cautioned and temporarily suspended. Technically speaking.

But realistically speaking, there is not a 7 in the world - black or any other colour of shirt - who would/should not receive a first caution and temporary suspension in the first half of the game, and another not long after he returns from his temporary suspension.

White 2 should have been penalised before a reversal against Black 2 for kicking, and cautioned - with or without temporary suspension - for handling a player not involved.

Black 2 was a clear YC for foul play. White 2 you can argue either way. Had the scrum collapsed - i.e. dangerous play - I'd have wanted to see a YC. The letter of the law requires a YC along with any PT. I think the referee was justified in not applying the letter of the law. My opinion only, but I've done the same in matches where I felt PT was correct, but team offences too spread out to single out an individual.