England v NZ

[Drift]

because
- he could see it was close
- if he was wrong then in about twenty seconds he's going to look a complete prat, and aninjustice as well
- there's no downside in going to the TMO, and lots of potential upside.

So you want to see rugby go down the route of league and have on field referees scared to make decisions around in-goal?

 

[didds]

I don't personally believe this should be the case but was this a "3 strikes and you're out" PT call? the 3 PKs so close to the line were all for very different reasons IIRC so probably difficult to sell a YC... not that a YC with <3 minutes to go was of much problem overall... though then again it must have been coming close to "its getting boring now skipper, I may be running out of options" call?

You guys will understand the protocol better than I.

didds

 

[Crucial]

That all depends on what question he asks the TMO.
If he asks "is there any reason I can't award the try" he is saying, I saw a try and will award it unless you can give me a solid reason not to. If it's inconclusive for the TMO then the try stands.

I agree. This is the danger when the wrong question is asked.

 

[crossref]

because
- he could see it was close
- if he was wrong then in about twenty seconds he's going to look a complete prat, and aninjustice as well
- there's no downside in going to the TMO, and lots of potential upside.

So you want to see rugby go down the route of league and have on field referees scared to make decisions around in-goal?

I don't watch any league so I don't know what that's like,

If you are arguing that the TMO mandate or scope should be kept smaller rather than bigger , i agree.

But we were talking about the referee decision, given the presence of the TMO the irb laid out. I am saying that given a TMO the referee should use it.

 

[didds]

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

It was certainly a card. Personally I think Coles was lucky for it to be only a yellow. Indiscriminate use of the boot...

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.

I totally agree. I'm not convinced from the TV replays that the ball was on the line, but accepting NO was in a better position, and accepting it was, then it can only lack downward pressure if the hand was underneath the end of the ball... which it clearly wasn't.

3) His missing of McCaw having a second fiddle off his feet was pretty ordinary to say the least.

Agree that it was ordinary... but rather than being potentially 3 Enhlish points it actually provided possession that saw NZ within a minute at the opposite end of the pitch and a lengthy period of possession & territory and eventual points. So, yes, a fairly innocuous action in itself, but a game changing one in effect at that juncture.

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.

again - agreed. England got their act together in the final 5 minutes, but much of the previous 35 was spent being shown an object lesson in controlling the ball in, at times, biblical conditions and still creating go forward and pressure.


didds

 

[didds]

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.

100% in agreement.

didds

 

[damo]

Agree that it was ordinary... but rather than being potentially 3 Enhlish points it actually provided possession that saw NZ within a minute at the opposite end of the pitch and a lengthy period of possession & territory and eventual points. So, yes, a fairly innocuous action in itself, but a game changing one in effect at that juncture.

Has my comment gotten lost in translation?

Saying that something is "pretty ordinary" is about as damning a comment as can be made in these here parts.

 

[Dickie E]

Saying that something is "pretty ordinary" is about as damning a comment as can be made in these here parts.

Ordinarily, I would agree.

Which is worse: pretty ordinary or very average?

 

[damo]

Ordinarily, I would agree.

Which is worse: pretty ordinary or very average?

Close, but I'd say pretty ordinary is just worse.

 

[Pegleg]

because - he could see it was close.

There is the point that shows that you are missing the point.

In YOUR opinion (and possibly other people's opinions too) it was "close".

In HIS opinion it was a try and not "close".

Therefore he was correct in awarding a try. If he was in doubt he would have go "upstairs". A referee refs what he sees.

Now, whether of not his opinion was correct is a separate point.

If a ref has to refer all tries "upstairs" "just in case", we are going to have an even longer and more boring afternoon that we have now.

 

[Pegleg]

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

"Clarification" 9 2004 might help. Then again it might not.

 

[FlipFlop]

The suggestion by some here that the White THP popping is caused by his Black opponent driving up might be correct in this instance (although impossible to prove). The way it was dealt with here is a clear departure from what normally happens; when a THP pops in a scrum it is usually because he can't take the pressure and is trying to protect himself (often indicated by the player unbinding from his opposite, which is what happened here). The referee most often PKs that player for "standing up in the scrum", even though we all know there is no such offence, and that what he is really being pinged for is failure to comply with either 20.2 (a) or 20.3 (a).

When referees depart form the norm, it comes across as something of a "gotcha" call.

The "standing up due to not taking the pressure" is a call when a player is going backwards. In your photo - white have clearly gone forward. So it is more likely that the Black LH has turned inwards to avoid the pressure.

At that level, the team going forward will get the decision 95% of the time. (Rightly or Wrongly - i.e. even if the forward motion is only due to illegal actions). This was not a gotcha, but a normal call.

 

[Pegleg]

I've just sat through it. For me:

15m: The award of a try to NZ.

Nigel Perfectly placed. Try for me. No issue with not going upstairs at all.
50 m McCaw off feet / hands in ruck.
Nigel has not called "ruck" Is there one? He plays it as the ruck is formed. It's certainly not C & O. He tqken to ground as he play it. Play on for me.
54: The Non awarding of a try to Sam Whitelock.
That's a try for me. I can see with the ball squirting away why he went upstairs. I think the call was ultimately wrong but I can understand the call by Nigel and the TMO
56: NZ Card
No argument. There was a little provocation from white 2. Could have been anything from no card toRed but a YC is fair enough. Nigel overrules on the card and that is fair enough for me.

65m: The non-awarding of a penalty try to NZ
Not a "probably" try. However a card would have been a fair call.

79m: The Penalty Try
The first scrum prior to the scrum at which the PT was awarded was legitimately turned through 90°. It should have been turnover and scrum feed to NZ. The scrum itself was also legitimately being turned by England through 90°. Again, this should have been a turnover.
Not going to the TMO for the first AB try, but going for one of the later ones, which was clearly a try. Strange. The first one was close, and was expecting a "Any reason I can't award the try" question.


First scrum not C & O for me Would like to see the other side of the scrum (was it called by the AR?)
Second scrum England TH goes across first Not a PT for me.

So (as a Welshman so a slight interest)
6 issues identified by posters.
1 calls against NZ was wrong. The PT against.
1 against England for me perfectly placed and clearly correct.
4 could be right could be wrong. In the speed and heat of a game fair calls. Yes on tv I can disagree with the ref. But I can't see what he is looking at so can't say he's wrong or right.

England never deserved to win that. That they were close at the end says more about a below par NZ that England deserving anything from the game.

 

[didds]

Saying that something is "pretty ordinary" is about as damning a comment as can be made in these here parts.

Ah. Missed that nuance entirely.

didds

 

[Browner]

Not that stats tell the whole story
http://www.englandrugby.com/news/features/tale-the-tape-england-new-zealand-1306351/
Kruis seems to have worked hard.

 

[RobLev]

Originally Posted by Ian_Cook
...1. He was still entitled to promote the ball so long as he did so immediately (and he did) even of it was grounded.

There's a reason why I used the word "eventually". Having landed on the ball, he then had to extract it and reach out. It's questionable whether that is "immediate".
...

I came across this post from only last month, which you may want to consider:

The ball! If the ball is in-goal there is no longer a tackle so the prone player can do what he likes. In the case of the momentum try, if his momentum carries him in-goal then he is fine. If he stops short, I don't think he should be allowed to reahc out and place the ball over the line.

(My emphasis)

Admittedly that refers to a player ending up East/West - but I can't really see how the principle changes. We're not talking hawks and handsaws here...

 

[ChrisR]

If I remember correctly that was Ian offering an opinion on possible law change, not on current law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I came across this post from only last month, which you may want to consider:


(My emphasis)

Admittedly that refers to a player ending up East/West - but I can't really see how the principle changes. We're not talking hawks and handsaws here...

You've taken that out of context RobLev. That discussion was about how we might resolve the issue of the Laws seemingly changing when the ball/tackled player are within a short distance of the goal-line, as you would have seen if you read Marauder's reply

"Ian, that's a rather radical idea and has the merit of resolving this marathon debate."

My post was a suggestion as to how that Law anomaly might be resolved, and was never a suggestion that was how the Law ought to be interpreted in its current form.

There was a similar debate taking place on The Rugby Forum a couple of weeks ago (also in the England v NZ thread), when one not very knowledgeable poster tried to say that there was nothing in Law to prevent a player in that position from repeatedly trying to place the ball over the line until an opponent tried to take the ball off him. My reply was...

The crux of the issue is 15.5 (b) - the tackled player must release the ball immediately. Placing, passing, pushing and letting go of the ball are the four ways in which he is allowed to to release the ball.

[LAWS]15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.[/LAWS]

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.

 

[RobLev]

You've taken that out of context RobLev. That discussion was about how we might resolve the issue of the Laws seemingly changing when the ball/tackled player are within a short distance of the goal-line, as you would have seen if you read Marauder's reply

"Ian, that's a rather radical idea and has the merit of resolving this marathon debate."

My post was a suggestion as to how that Law anomaly might be resolved, and was never a suggestion that was how the Law ought to be interpreted in its current form.

There was a similar debate taking place on The Rugby Forum a couple of weeks ago (also in the England v NZ thread), when one not very knowledgeable poster tried to say that there was nothing in Law to prevent a player in that position from repeatedly trying to place the ball over the line until an opponent tried to take the ball off him. My reply was...

The crux of the issue is 15.5 (b) - the tackled player must release the ball immediately. Placing, passing, pushing and letting go of the ball are the four ways in which he is allowed to to release the ball.

[LAWS]15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.[/LAWS]

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.

You're absolutely right - my apologies.