Ireland v AllBlacks #2

I

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
Ok this time without the silly accusations of bias so we can discuss a couple of things.

I thought Mr Barnes was lenient towards the AllBlacks in the first half, his warning could have come earlier in my humble one and the 2 incidents previously mentioned -
high tackle on Stander and cynical interference whilst on the ground from Whitelock - warranted a card on their own.

Having said that, we didn't turn our physical dominance into enough points in the first half, we were under the cosh most of the second half and in general Wayne Barnes' communication and most of his decisions contributed to a fantastic test match.

Proud of our first victory on Irish soil against the AllBlacks but you can never take your foot off the pedal against the black machine.
 
Dickie E

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,138
Post Likes
2,155
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I was quite surprised that Whitelock didn't get the cheese.

There was a forward pass given in 2nd half that suggests that WB might want to have a look at the momentum video.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
Dickie E said:
I was quite surprised that Whitelock didn't get the cheese.

There was a forward pass given in 2nd half that suggests that WB might want to have a look at the momentum video.
Click to expand...

Did the AR call that in ?
It looked like play on to me.. .(but I haven't studied the video)

I
 
M

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,779
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Interestingly A couple of big "anyone but the All Blacks" guys I know were please to see: "A referee reffing the Alblack properly" I guess it is all about perception. I didnot watch any of yesterday's rugby so cannot comment on specifics.
 
C

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
498
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
About 25 mins in first half, there was a TMO review for an Irish try that ended up being denied for a knock on. This looked correct to me. However I was intrigued why WB appeared to ignore the TMO hint about the Irish player not getting back to his feet before he played the ball and attempted to score. It did sound very much like the TMO wanted to say 'no try. Player on the ground is out of the game '. Try was disallowed anyway so outcome the same but just wondered if anyone else spotted it
 
L'irlandais

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Joe Schmidt said as much in the post match interview
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
CrouchTPEngage said:
About 25 mins in first half, there was a TMO review for an Irish try that ended up being denied for a knock on. This looked correct to me. However I was intrigued why WB appeared to ignore the TMO hint about the Irish player not getting back to his feet before he played the ball and attempted to score. It did sound very much like the TMO wanted to say 'no try. Player on the ground is out of the game '. Try was disallowed anyway so outcome the same but just wondered if anyone else spotted it
Click to expand...
Yes, I did (on video, not live).
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
CrouchTPEngage said:
About 25 mins in first half, there was a TMO review for an Irish try that ended up being denied for a knock on. This looked correct to me. However I was intrigued why WB appeared to ignore the TMO hint about the Irish player not getting back to his feet before he played the ball and attempted to score. It did sound very much like the TMO wanted to say 'no try. Player on the ground is out of the game '. Try was disallowed anyway so outcome the same but just wondered if anyone else spotted it
Click to expand...

Anyone got a link to the incident
 
didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
well this is just the old chestnut about the player on the ground playing at the ball or the ball coming to him to be played.

didds
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
didds said:
well this is just the old chestnut about the player on the ground playing at the ball or the ball coming to him to be played.

didds
Click to expand...
The law is now much clearer.[LAWS]13.3
  • A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
    • Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
    • Not play the ball.
    • Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
[/LAWS]
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
OB.. said:
The law is now much clearer.[LAWS]13.3
  • A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
    • Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
    • Not play the ball.
    • Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
[/LAWS]
Click to expand...

indeed.

In 2017 I would have argued - and often did - that he had the right to play the ball
But in the 2018 Law book it's clear: having fallen over he was out of the game.

Those of you who believe the old Law Book takes prcedence over the new one might think differently :)
 
T

Toby Warren


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,431
Post Likes
57
crossref said:
indeed.

In 2017 I would have argued - and often did - that he had the right to play the ball
But in the 2018 Law book it's clear: having fallen over he was out of the game.

Those of you who believe the old Law Book takes prcedence over the new one might think differently :)
Click to expand...

More evidence of anti Irish bias by Wayne Barnes...........
 
P

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,521
Post Likes
192
For me I thought the ball had gone forward off Carney's head, so not a knock on or lost forward as he never was the ball carrier. Not quite sure what the TMO was on about about a clear and obvious loss forward, except that given that the on field decision was a try he had to say that, but it was not C&O lost forward to me. One might have questioned whether he was off his feet and thus out of the game, but it looked to me more like he had gone to ground to gather the ball, headed it forward, but then grabbed it and grounded it, so I would have awarded the try. But then they don't ask me to be a TMO!
 
D

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
Pinky said:
For me I thought the ball had gone forward off Carney's head, so not a knock on or lost forward as he never was the ball carrier. Not quite sure what the TMO was on about about a clear and obvious loss forward, except that given that the on field decision was a try he had to say that, but it was not C&O lost forward to me. One might have questioned whether he was off his feet and thus out of the game, but it looked to me more like he had gone to ground to gather the ball, headed it forward, but then grabbed it and grounded it, so I would have awarded the try. But then they don't ask me to be a TMO!
Click to expand...

You're now deemed to be 'in possession' if you are trying to take possession of the ball - ergo he 'lost possession of the ball and it went forward'
 
M

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,779
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
OB.. said:
The law is now much clearer.[LAWS]13.3
  • A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
    • Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
    • Not play the ball.
    • Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
[/LAWS]
Click to expand...

Well said, clearer not changed!
 
D

davidlandy

Getting to know the game
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
310
Post Likes
31
On the video posted, Barnsey clearly asks the TMO to check two things, and two things only:

a) Contact in the air and
b) Possible knock forward

- with the on-field decision being "try".

Re the player-on-the-ground issue, which clearly none of the team of four considered (strangely?), is the TMO allowed off his own bat to investigate other possible (non-foul-play) infringements? I thought he wasn't. And playing the ball while being on the ground is not foul play...

PS. I don't hear any word of a hint from the TMO about the player-on-the-ground issue - where did this come from? In any case it wouldn't have mattered anyway as there was already PK adv to green...
 
Last edited:
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,811
Post Likes
3,149
It does seem like the team were ignoring 13.3

I wonder if that is because it wasn't in the 2017 Law Book and no-one has drawn their attention to the new Law ? :pepper:
 
Flish

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,535
Post Likes
355
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
From https://rugbyreferee.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TMO_Protocol_Nov_18_Tier1_Hosted_Matches_EN.pdf

Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with TMO protocol in place at the time which will be available on worldrugby.org/laws
Click to expand...

and situations relating to

.....
  1. Where match officials believe an infringement may have occurred leading to a try or in preventing a try providing that the potential infringement has occurred no more than two phases (rucks or mauls) after the potential infringement and before the ball has been grounded in in-**goal
Click to expand...

So not just foul play for a try, so I would suggest yes, a TMO can suggest it, and it's within this protocol. Of course if he didn't suggest it then again kinda academic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top