Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[The Fat]

Then you're ignoring the law as well as the footage. He clearly caught it. If you're having difficulty seeing that from the footage, discussing the relevant law is pointless.



There isn't a question of materiality. The relevant law is clear. It has two tests and "materiality" isn't one of them.

But for the sake of argument, Owens did deny the All Blacks the ball because he caught it and carried it back towards his DBL.

So would you have played advantage or blown immediately for offside because it had the two elements?

 

[Dickie E]

Do you have footage from before the ball is kicked?

No, at the instant of the kick the TV camera only had Barrett in frame. There was better footage on foxtel's Kick & Chase but I don't have a copy

 

[_antipodean_]

So would you have played advantage or blown immediately for offside because it had the two elements?

Advantge. And if none accrues, I'd come back for the obvious penalty.

No, at the instant of the kick the TV camera only had Barrett in frame. There was better footage on foxtel's Kick & Chase but I don't have a copy

Then since you don't and Read still has a foot behind the line after the ball has been kicked, it's safe to state your assertion that it's a penalty to the Lions doesn't hold.

 

[Dickie E]

Then since you don't and Read still has a foot behind the line after the ball has been kicked, it's safe to state your assertion that it's a penalty to the Lions doesn't hold.

well, it would never be a penalty (scrum). And he needs his whole body behind the ball, not a foot behind the line. And Rod Kafer reckons he was in front. :bday:

 

[The Fat]

Advantge. And if none accrues, I'd come back for the obvious penalty.



Then since you don't and Read still has a foot behind the line after the ball has been kicked, it's safe to state your assertion that it's a penalty to the Lions doesn't hold.

One foot behind the line doesn't constitute being behind the line but I get what you're implying. The sanction for being in front of the kicker would be a scrum at the centre, not a PK

 

[The Fat]

Great minds.......

 

[Dickie E]

Great minds.......

Wot? You & Rod Kafer???

 

[The Fat]

Wot? You & Rod Kafer???

You just went down a few rungs Dickie.
Was commenting on Dickie Quick Fingers getting almost identical response back in less than normal human reaction time.
See what I did there?

 

[_antipodean_]

well, it would never be a penalty (scrum). And he needs his whole body behind the ball, not a foot behind the line. And Rod Kafer reckons he was in front. :bday:

You have no evidence he wasn't and from the still you've posted he is behind the ball.

And Rod Kafer has descended into the delusional space previously inhabited only by Marto and Kearns.

One foot behind the line doesn't constitute being behind the line but I get what you're implying. The sanction for being in front of the kicker would be a scrum at the centre, not a PK

Yes, my error. Mentally still on the first issue. My point still stands.

 

[crossref]

He also shared the translation of what JC said to RP - doesn't really put either of them in a great light

was it along the lines of 'mate, you're right: technically it's a PK, but there's some wiggle room on this one and it's not the sort of thing that should decide a test match. Mate, you don't have to give it : it's not too late - do everyone a favour and give the scrum'

 

[crossref]

However,
Not consistent with info I've had from those in higher places

I imagine that there is no single 'official' World Rugby view (what would be the forum and mechanism to make such a determination, and what for? ) but rather that the senior people in World Rugby have different views completely along the lines of the discussion here, and in every discussion I have been party to, and in every other place on the internet that I have seen it debated ! .

 

[Camquin]

I love the fact that we ignore players in front of the kicker, player standing a metre offside at the ruck, kickers taking penalties metres ahead of the mark - yet will spend several minutes letting a TMO check if the ball touched a blade of whitewash on the goal or touch lines.

 

[didds]

Whatever the nuances of

* KR being in front of the kicker - or not
* KR clattering Williams in the air - or not
* KR knocking on - or not
* Williams knocking on - or not
* Ball going forward off/from Williams - or not
* KO deliberately playing the ball - or not

what is clear is that between Poite, Peyper and Ayoub, they cocked up massively. Not on what they saw - or didn't see - but on how they handled and dealt with the entire thing.

I'm a bit confused about the point about Garces and Poite's chat/interaction - Garces wasn't involved in any chats unless there was some unbroadcast 1-to-1 over comms?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDnkqIv4Mk&feature=youtu.be&t=6230

didds


didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Whatever the nuances of

* KR being in front of the kicker - or not
* KR clattering Williams in the air - or not
* KR knocking on - or not
* Williams knocking on - or not
* Ball going forward off/from Williams - or not
* KO deliberately playing the ball - or not

what is clear is that between Poite, Peyper and Ayoub, they cocked up massively. Not on what they saw - or didn't see - but on how they handled and dealt with the entire thing.

I'm a bit confused about the point about Garces and Poite's chat/interaction - Garces wasn't involved in any chats unless there was some unbroadcast 1-to-1 over comms?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtDnkqIv4Mk&feature=youtu.be&t=6230

didds




didds

No chat. Just the one way off comms monologue towards RP after he responded, "Oui Jerome".

Our "smoking gun" in this instance?

 

[didds]

No chat. Just the one way off comms monologue towards RP after he responded, "Oui Jerome".

Ah yes - I'd missed "Oui Jerome".

Hmmmm

didds

 

[didds]

was it along the lines of 'mate, you're right: technically it's a PK, but there's some wiggle room on this one and it's not the sort of thing that should decide a test match. Mate, you don't have to give it : it's not too late - do everyone a favour and give the scrum'

Indeed. And/or with "I got hung out to dry by everybody last week - **** it, don't be me"

didds

 

[crossref]

Aside : two or three times SW says to his nearby players 'get back and set up for a quick tap' and they ignore him! I would have liked to see them 10m back from the mark, and set up for a quick tap, not hanging around to earwig the conversation.

 

[crossref]

watching that video again for the first time for a few days, I am again struck by the notion that this all went wrong simply because RP blew his whistle too early (and he knew had, this error then clouding his judgement. I am sure we all know the way that happens unless you can clear your mind really quickly)

arm out for advantage, and then everything's easier, the ABs might well have scored making it moot, and if they don't score then while play goes on he's got all the time he needs to consider if he's going to award a scrum or a PK, and give his decision confidently.

 

[DocY]

Went to a society meeting last night. Guest speaker was a current Super Rugby referee and test AR. He said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong. Firstly advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

He also shared the translation of what JC said to RP - doesn't really put either of them in a great light

Did he say what the reasoning was? i.e. if accidental offside can't apply at the same time as offside from a knock on, or if Owens' actions constituted not accidental?

 

[Dickie E]

Then since you don't and Read still has a foot behind the line after the ball has been kicked, it's safe to state your assertion that it's a penalty to the Lions doesn't hold.

here you go. Forget the 1/2 way line. KR needs to be behind ball. Not in line with ball ... behind it.