ok, let's say we run with it not being a tackle then if you want.
Can we go to Law 13, or is there another interpretation you can bring in?
13 Players on the ground in open play
- Principle
The game is played only by players who are on their feet.
- Players, who go to ground to gather the ball or who go to ground with the ball, must immediately:
- Get up with the ball; or
- Play (but not kick) the ball; or
- Release the ball.
- Sanction: Penalty.
Off feet: Players are off their feet when any other part of the body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
One can see it from a video. I linked a YT video, you couldn't play it. I showed stills from the video. You then showed stills (presumably from a video?). If not, and you can still somehow not see a video of this, just take my word that there is no momentum.
We can go back to NO intepretation of him giving his opinion while not passing verdict on the incident so to remain neutral on referee decisions for his Whistle Watch videos.
after the game, no that was Du Pont. This is what BO'K has to say about that on recollection four months later.
“I took a lot out of it in terms of how I normally review myself, my game. Obviously there was a lot of continued criticism, someone who’s respected so much like Anton Dupont is, the whole country sort of follows his lead.
“I just had to understand what the environment was, what the situation was. It was a little bit uncomfortable the next two weeks in France, in Paris being in public and that but it was an experience that has made me stronger as a referee and has allowed me to go to another level in terms of what I want to add to the game.”
"If that’s our expectation as a referee I think we’re in the wrong business.”
www.nzherald.co.nz
but Galthie is ok to talk to the press about it 6 months later. BO'K seems to say it differently.
https://www.rugbyrama.fr/2024/03/20...de-finale-face-a-lafrique-du-sud-11838415.php
so yes, I call double standards for both player and coach complaining about referee decisions at press conference and to media.
Unsure what is occurring with the formatting perhaps the forum has got bored with it as well?
Is that really open play. I suggest you reconsider that one.
At best it's an offside line from the tackle but I would say offside line from a ruck either way Green 13 is still breaking the law:
Offside at a ruck
4. Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Or
10. Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
You offered earlier to discuss the possibility of a PT, I would still be interested to hear that.
I found the video elsewhere hence my own carefully selected stills that tend to show a different, wider context than the "crude" closely cropped versions you offered. Perhaps you could use these images to work through your points:
2 seconds later still offside:
View attachment Arm2.png
A further 1 second later tackle from an offside position:
View attachment Tackle.png
And another second later referees left arm out for advantage:
Knees not down and an illegal tackle!
And Finally one second later:
View attachment Try.png
Ball clearly and obviously on the ground in goal.
You mentioned momentum in
#38 I merely stated that you cannot see momentum from a still, you still cannot see momentum from a still but if it's not open play and it's not a tackle, less than 3 seconds between picking from the base of a ruck, stepping sideways, lining up and hitting an "offside" defender and grounding the ball, is not brought to ground and held by any sense of the meaning. Hence any discussion about momentum is moot. I did suggest that you see the same situation 80-100 times per game but you did not counter that or suggest why you would treat it differently when within 5m of the goal line to the other 95m of the pitch.
We've discussed St Nigel before and I am still fully supportive, what one referee sees and how it is interpreted might be entirely different to the next referee or even the same referee the next time they see it, that's humans for you. But he still doesn't suggest it was not a try. For broader context perhaps you should consider another comment from NO:
Technology has made people expect that decisions are black and white, but refereeing is about interpreting the massive grey areas in rugby,” Owens says. “Technology has created this environment where we have controversies every week."
Still unsure why you continue to conflate the issues about a try that was scored in 2022 and comments from some of the french players and management after a different game, 12 months later, you must feel so badly done by to have won the RWC, imagine if some of those decisions had gone against SA.
But anyway the link to the French site is, surprisingly, in French and, after translation, I feel it only repeats what has already been offered via other sites.
I had not seen the comments from O'Keefe before but it doesn't present anything new or controversial:
“I sort of took it on the chin really, didn’t I? I understood the situation, the environment. The host nation, a team that was up there either one or two in the world, expected to win, expected to make it to the final lost a one-point quarter final. A game of rugby definitely is grey in terms of some of the decisions that you make, we’re never perfect as referees.”
“I took a lot out of it in terms of how I normally review myself, my game. Obviously there was a lot of continued criticism, someone who’s respected so much like Anton Dupont is, the whole country sort of follows his lead.
“I just had to understand what the environment was, what the situation was. It was a little bit uncomfortable the next two weeks in France, in Paris being in public and that but it was an experience that has made me stronger as a referee and has allowed me to go to another level in terms of what I want to add to the game.”
“If you look at the key stakeholders in a game; players are one, coaches are one, spectators and referees and I think we all need to be working together as a team to grow the sport, the game that we love.
“Times will change, both sides will look back on that experience and I know that we can do things differently and I hope that next time I referee France in the future, whether it’s away or at home we can just get back to enjoying the spectacle.”
I would suggest it recognises that as I have been offering all along that different people see things in different ways and he, O'Keefe, has reflected on his performance in the game and "
taken a lot out of it".
You could also look at comments from NZ about Wayne Barnes and his response:
“So I refereed New Zealand three times during the tournament,” Barnes said.
“Refereed them against Uruguay, refereed them against
Ireland and refereed them in the final but they sent feedback after every game. So they would say, ‘can you clarify these points?’ So writing to complain to World Rugby, as I’ve seen some of the headlines this week, can be very misleading.”
“I’m sure because Ian Foster is very diligent and with Joe [Schmidt] next to him, and they always go into detail after a match. And so after those other two matches, there’s a lot of detail, asking questions of you know, of clarification. So it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve sent those into World Rugby. I haven’t seen those yet.”
I would count both as constructive, well received feedback and certainly a wholly different context to Rassie publicly throwing grenades!
Do we need to keep going round this, will you feel forever persecuted or can we move on as most of us seem to have?
