England's first try against South Africa

[AMGS]

Cute, but hugely illegal? Farrell, Barrett and May all joined the maul while it was still on the line of touch, so England had 10 in the maul to SA's 6 after Matfield's YC. Critical incident for Mr Walsh's report, or did I miss something?

 

[The Fat]

Video link?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I'm watching it in installments - I haven't seen England score yet! :biggrin:

What I did notice was another bit of cute play by Farrell after 4 mins or so.

He passes to Eastmond then alters his line of running to "obstruct" the drifting RSA defender. It was he incident where Eastmond breaks the line then knocks on when trying to get his arms free.

Not sure if it was material but a definite change of line to gain advantage.

I would also suggest Hollywood gets this removed.

View attachment 3085

And this put this in it's place although I appreciate he'd need arms like Popeye to fit it all on.
[LAWS]
5.7 (e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.
[/LAWS]

 

[AMGS]

Highlights here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503577&gal_cid=1503577&gallery_id=146703

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

L/o is at 31 sec, and yes it did not end as 3 players joined. Offside England

Detached Maul at 1:08 was obstruction. Can't see why it wasn't called either

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Pet hate, virtually all maul laws at the top level are ignored. Whenever any team gets a rumble on, the commentators drool yet all I get in the bar is, he,s clearly detached, they're binding in front, that's truck and trailer, etc etc.
Deliberately ignored at the top level. They must be instructed to do so, when everyone in the ground and watching on TV can see these blatant offences

 

[didds]

agree with the point about farrell and barrit joining.

Not realkly convinced about the T&T bit for the maul... there's a green shirt attached to bthe front area of the phalanx at all times... and faiklinmg that its a case of green shirts falling off it rather than a group detaching from the initial maul, and IIRC defenders leaving the maul do not stop it being the same maul?


SA 6 tries to collapse the maul, but succeeds only in collasing one part of it where the ball isn;t, and the players left on theior feet continue to rumble... green 12 comes in from the side, and then what is left after the continued srive to teh side crashed over the line. Looks more like two potential YCs against green, and a "the same maul" ciontinuing as green defenders fall off it.

Could have been 15 v 12 after that...

Which also then raises a point... had England failed to score the try at the last moment, how likely would it have been that those two YCs would have occurred? The collapse of the maul actually was successful to some degree in that bodies were dragged to the floor. And the in at the side was targeting the ball (unsuccessfully as it happened). Clearly both were immaterial as it happened, but that is not to say they were not deliberately illegal acts?

And why weren't they YC'd anyway?

didds

 

[Rushforth]

Pet hate, virtually all maul laws at the top level are ignored.

We all have pet hates. Mine was the way the scrum feed was ignored if not straight down the middle in the era of the hit (which had removed me from playing until now, perhaps). People might have thought my pet hate was forward passes being ignored; if they still think so then they can hang their heads in shame.

Players want to play. Yes, of course they want to win too (I only cared about winning scrums, hence my own pet hate). As long as matches are refereed safely above all, and with both continuity of play and fair contest in mind, why care about the laws?

For my own part, I care about the laws deeply for the 165 hours of the week I am not refereeing. I am too busy while I am refereeing to worry about if I have it right or not. Similarly when I watch international matches, I cannot be arsed to give a shit, as Ian_Cook might put it, if the elite referees are consistently incorrect by the letter of the law - any law. I do give a shit (I'd give a shiite if I had enough bowels I mean vowels) about safety, fair contest, and continuity of play. The only one which is actually important to me at the elite level is safety. That is where the example needs to be set for consistency at all levels. And yes, if an elite referee allows a collapsed scrum to continue because the ball is "almost out" I will be as candid as Ian_Cook in my assessment. Try, yes or no? I couldn't even give a Sunni.

 

[Pegleg]

We all have pet hates. Mine was the way the scrum feed was ignored if not straight down the middle in the era of the hit (which had removed me from playing until now, perhaps). People might have thought my pet hate was forward passes being ignored; if they still think so then they can hang their heads in shame.

Players want to play. Yes, of course they want to win too (I only cared about winning scrums, hence my own pet hate). As long as matches are refereed safely above all, and with both continuity of play and fair contest in mind, why care about the laws?

For my own part, I care about the laws deeply for the 165 hours of the week I am not refereeing. I am too busy while I am refereeing to worry about if I have it right or not. Similarly when I watch international matches, I cannot be arsed to give a shit, as Ian_Cook might put it, if the elite referees are consistently incorrect by the letter of the law - any law. I do give a shit (I'd give a shiite if I had enough bowels I mean vowels) about safety, fair contest, and continuity of play. The only one which is actually important to me at the elite level is safety. That is where the example needs to be set for consistency at all levels. And yes, if an elite referee allows a collapsed scrum to continue because the ball is "almost out" I will be as candid as Ian_Cook in my assessment. Try, yes or no? I couldn't even give a Sunni.

Can anybody translate this for me?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Seen the try in the OP. I'd agree that the LO was not over when OF and BB joined the maul. Should've been a PK to RSA. A minor issue (in this case) was that Hollywood awarded the initial PK to England on the 15m line. Matfield had pulled the maul down about 7m out and 7m in.

I'd also view Burger's break off the back of the maul (leading to his try) with Coetzee in front of him as obstruction.

SW never looks at ease speaking to/with non English speaking (as a first language) TMOs and ARs

 

[didds]

SW never looks at ease speaking to/with non English speaking (as a first language) TMOs and ARs

ISTR him looking quite petulant/patronising/"of FFS" faced when speaking to the TMO at one stage...


didds

 

[SimonSmith]

Did you get the "you got to look at me mate" chiding of one of his ARs?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I would also suggest Hollywood gets this removed.

View attachment 3085

And this put this in it's place although I appreciate he'd need arms like Popeye to fit it all on.



[LAWS]
5.7 (e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.
[/LAWS]

That reminds me of a joke about a white man in the West Indies at the urinal on a public toilet...:biggrin:epper:

 

[The Fat]

that reminds me of a joke about a white man in the west indies at the urinal on a public toilet...:biggrin:epper:

wendy

 

[Ian_Cook]

wendy

Yup !

 

[AMGS]

The England backs were also offside for the line-out immediately prior, when Matfield got his YC, so there's an argument that England's was the first offence

 

[didds]

which begs the question, do refs (alite level only?) only ever check for defending backs 10m?

Clearly this illegal move by England gave them an enormous advantage.

didds

 

[AMGS]

I remember being picked up by an assessor on the point many years ago!