England v NZ

[Rushforth]

but who?

Je N'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter.

 

[dave_clark]

but who?

all 8 of them :biggrin:

 

[RobLev]

all 8 of them :biggrin:

Works for me...

Now, how do we go about retrospectively resetting the clock?

Actually, now I come to think about it, if the AB pack had been YC'd en masse we can pretty much guarantee some expression of dissent after the PT was scored, so shouldn't the restart have been a white PK? A quick tap, given a potential 8-man overlap, would then give a reasonable chance of a White try.

So it was NO that lost it for England by not properly enforcing the Laws.

Or something like that.

 

[RobLev]

...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".

2. You have the wrong game. The word "fumble" is an American Football term. It does not appear in the Laws of our game.

So far as I am aware, the word "fumble" still appears in the OED. Or do you suggest that the phrase "a quick fumble around the back of the bike-sheds" can only refer to an unsuccessful NFL practice? The point, again, is immediacy.

3. There was never any separation between Cruden's hands and the ball as he placed the ball on the goal-line, so, there was no knock on.

I didn't suggest there was.

...Perhaps you've spent so much time in Holland that your English language skills have atrophied?

My experience of the Dutch is that his English language skills could only be enhanced by spending more time among them.

 

[OB..]

And now for something completely different (but still on the scrum sequence prior to the PT).

If my proposasl for restatting with a scrum after a kicking a penalty had been in effect, things woud have been rather different. NZ would not have dared risk giving away a penalty, because after the 3 points had been kicked they would have been back to the scrum, but only 7 points ahead instead of 10. Now England could draw with a try. One more PK and England could win with a try.

As it was, NZ benefited from the penalties by using up a lot of time, even to the point of conceding a PT with the only real risk to the result at that stage being a Yellow Card - and even that was not serious because there was little time to restart the game.

 

[crossref]

I think the ABs were deliberately taking up time at the end.

Someone else suggested this in a different thread: I'd like to see an EVL where when there is a reset scrum, for any reason, the clock stops until the ball emerges successfuly from the new scrum.
So that you can't waste time by disrupting scrums.

 

[Phil E]

I think the ABs were deliberately taking up time at the end.

England would have done exactly the same if the situation had been reversed.......as would any other team.

 

[crossref]

England would have done exactly the same if the situation had been reversed.......as would any other team.

of course - as it's legal under the Laws, hence my proposal to experiment a change the Law with an ELV rather than suggesting anyone should be PK'd for it.

I guess the downside would be that if the clock was off the referee might sit on the fence and allow more resets, rather then having to make a decision and PK someone as is the case now.

although that might be an updside!

 

[ChrisR]

I can't remember a citing for dangerous front row play, such as driving up. Has it happened?

 

[didds]

As I understand it parts of this forum are open to non referees ( although I do not see any "proof" being required before being considered a ref is is just a "trust" thing? Some of the stuff posted leads me to question the qualifications of some) what would these folk thing of some of us from some of the bombastic rantings on here?

Well, I am a non-ref, spent 30+years in the front row all rond the world, 14 years a a coach now, and i know what i think of refs already ;-)

didds

 

[dave_clark]

I make absolutely NO apologies for bringing up those decisions where I think the referee has been harsh on the All Blacks, and I leave the job of bringing up decisions where other teams were hard done by to the supporters of those other teams... its their responsibility to do so, not mine.

Ian - thanks. useful clarification.

(no sarcasm intended)

 

[Pegleg]

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.

Agreed. If you are sure it is not a 50:50 call in your mind so why would you go upstairs?

 

[Crucial]

I think the ABs were deliberately taking up time at the end.

Someone else suggested this in a different thread: I'd like to see an EVL where when there is a reset scrum, for any reason, the clock stops until the ball emerges successfuly from the new scrum.
So that you can't waste time by disrupting scrums.

You are neglecting the fact that taking the scrum was a choice made by the attacking team. They saw the scrum as their best chance despite the time situation.
Your proposal would also mean that the same would have to be done for every scrum from a penalty and every lineout.
Making decisions in the heat of the battle is part of the game and part of good captaincy. Removing this aspect degrades the fabric of the game by removing the need for tactical decisions from both sides.
If the defending team evaluate the situation and decide that infringement and even cards are a better tactic and time eater then that's no different to sports like basketball (except the decisions need to be made by tired battered players rather than sideline coaches).
On the flip side it is up to the attacking team to make the best decision to help their chances under the situation. In this instance I was amazed that Robshaw was opting for a scrum, knowing how much time it would eat off the clock. I'm certain that in the same situation the ABs would have instinctively taken a tap and backed themselves to score that way.

As for the Cruden try, while it may seem the best option for veiwers that the TMO is used, remember that TV camera angles will often make it difficult to see. It is quite possible that NO had seen a legit try yet if he had referred it for clarification it would have come back as inconclusive.

Here is the try confirmation (potential "double movement" notwithstanding)

 

[Rushforth]

Well, I am a non-ref, spent 30+years in the front row all rond the world, 14 years a a coach now, and i know what i think of refs already ;-)

:=epper::biggrin:

 

[Phil E]

It is quite possible that NO had seen a legit try yet if he had referred it for clarification it would have come back as inconclusive.

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.

 

[crossref]

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.

and that's exactly what NO should have done for the Cruden try.

 

[winchesterref]

Why? He was in no doubt

 

[crossref]

Why? He was in no doubt

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.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The only thing that seems clear and obvious to me about the scrum leading to the PT is that it was anything but clear and obvious. For every infringement you can find by Black, you can find one by White.

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.

 

[Crucial]

What happened in that scrum is quite normal and is certainly what all front rows are trying to do in every scrum. FR's never meet the letter of the law and the ref just manages things the best they can. There isn't a decent LHP in the world that doesn't try and get under the opposite THP and force him up. The England LHP would have been attempting the same on the other side, just wasn't as successful.
This doesn't make it any the more legal but the PT only becomes acceptable (to players) if the ref is being consistent. If he has allowed FRs to compete against each other in this manner all game without insisting on level and flat engagements then it's a bit rough to shift the onus and award a PT rather than a reset. He will be legally correct and within his rights but unless he has warned the FRs that he expects no shenanigans when near the line then that's poor management.