Nigel Owens loss of form

[The Fat]

Thought Nigel Owens was pretty good last night in SA v Wallabies. Good communication with players throughout and quite a few occasions during the match where we had 15+ phases (a couple of 30+) for good continuity.
Unfortunately the SA subs lifted the Boks at the end of the game (Beale will struggle to get much more game time in next game based on his input off the bench for the Wallabies) and they put on 3 tries in last 8 minutes to blow out the score.

A couple of incidents that he probably got wrong.
1. Adam Ashley-Cooper scores in the corner after a high tackle fails to stops him. NO says to defender, "I'm not going to YC you as a try was scored". Hmmmmm:chin:

2. AAC goes for high ball but comes in underneath Habana. NO gives PK. Based on NH convention last year I can hear calls from north of the equator for YC minimum and possibly even RC. I would not have been surprised if it had been a YC

 

[damo]

Thought Nigel Owens was pretty good last night in SA v Wallabies. Good communication with players throughout and quite a few occasions during the match where we had 15+ phases (a couple of 30+) for good continuity.
Unfortunately the SA subs lifted the Boks at the end of the game (Beale will struggle to get much more game time in next game based on his input off the bench for the Wallabies) and they put on 3 tries in last 8 minutes to blow out the score.

A couple of incidents that he probably got wrong.
1. Adam Ashley-Cooper scores in the corner after a high tackle fails to stops him. NO says to defender, "I'm not going to YC you as a try was scored". Hmmmmm:chin:

2. AAC goes for high ball but comes in underneath Habana. NO gives PK. Based on NH convention last year I can hear calls from north of the equator for YC minimum and possibly even RC. I would not have been surprised if it had been a YC

I would add the Horne late/tip tackle after SA scored their second try. I was thinking YC minimum, possibly RC, but Nigel just didn't seem interested. From his talk it appeared he had decided not to award anything before he had even seen the incident on replay.

 

[Pegleg]

A couple of incidents that he probably got wrong.
1. Adam Ashley-Cooper scores in the corner after a high tackle fails to stops him. NO says to defender, "I'm not going to YC you as a try was scored". Hmmmmm:chin:

I think he was saying there was an intentional offence and therefore, under 10.2 (a) Nigel would have had to issue a card IF a PT had been awarded. However, since a try was scored Nigel could use his judgement which was no card just a warning. I'm not going to say he's wrong though had he issued a card I'd have been OK with that too. The temperature of the game etc would affect his call. Pretty good game management.

2. AAC goes for high ball but comes in underneath Habana. NO gives PK. Based on NH convention last year I can hear calls from north of the equator for YC minimum and possibly even RC. I would not have been surprised if it had been a YC

Not a card for me. There again I can't find the "NH Convention" you refer to. Reading that might change my mind.

I would add the Horne late/tip tackle after SA scored their second try. I was thinking YC minimum, possibly RC, but Nigel just didn't seem interested. From his talk it appeared he had decided not to award anything before he had even seen the incident on replay.

Nigel Says "I haven't seen it. Is there more than a Penalty" the reply (TMO) is " No Probably not". Nigel asks again "Ok we are going to carry on. Are you happy with that?" again the reply is " No no" Nigel again responds "It's not going to be more than a penalty is it?" Then detecting hesitancy in the TMO's voice he asks to see it " His conclusion is that a PK is sufficient Advantage = the try. Again for me a good call. It is pretty clear that Nigel asks for the TMO's input because he did not see the incident. He asks to see it on the screen because the TMO is not positive. I can't see where you think Nigel is going into the call with a predetermined mind.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Not a card for me. There again I can't find the "NH Convention" you refer to. Reading that might change my mind.

There was apparently a memo from Joel Jutge (not one of crossref's "secret" memos :biggrin: ) about strict interpretation of the Law when players are tackled while jumping for the ball. There were a number of RC incidents in the NH last season which were, IMO, very harshly dealt with. Some others may be able to remember the memo and the incidents and clarify.

 

[Dixie]

There was apparently a memo from Joel Jutge (not one of crossref's "secret" memos :biggrin: ) about strict interpretation of the Law when players are tackled while jumping for the ball. There were a number of RC incidents in the NH last season which were, IMO, very harshly dealt with. Some others may be able to remember the memo and the incidents and clarify.

The message in the Premiership this year is clear, but IMO confused (if that makes sense!). the talk is that the players competing for the ball have a "duty of care" to the other guy. So if one of them ends up in a bad place from a 50:50 competition for the ball, it's a YC for failing to exercise the duty of care. Horribly unfair, and in my view likely to lead (by the law of unintended consequences) to the regrettable rejection of the cross kick as an attacking option.

 

[damo]

Nigel Says "I haven't seen it. Is there more than a Penalty" the reply (TMO) is " No Probably not". Nigel asks again "Ok we are going to carry on. Are you happy with that?" again the reply is " No no" Nigel again responds "It's not going to be more than a penalty is it?" Then detecting hesitancy in the TMO's voice he asks to see it " His conclusion is that a PK is sufficient Advantage = the try. Again for me a good call. It is pretty clear that Nigel asks for the TMO's input because he did not see the incident. He asks to see it on the screen because the TMO is not positive. I can't see where you think Nigel is going into the call with a predetermined mind.

You stop at the point in the narrative where Nigel Owen looks at the incident. His viewing of the incident is not as thorough as I would have expected.

Do you think the incident was merely worthy of a penalty?

 

[Pegleg]

You stop at the point in the narrative where Nigel Owen looks at the incident. His viewing of the incident is not as thorough as I would have expected.

Do you think the incident was merely worthy of a penalty?

Indeed I did. Why? YOUR words might explain.

...From his talk it appeared he had decided not to award anything before he had even seen the incident on replay.

That is the relevant bit. You claimed his TALK shows he was predetermined. Whereas it shows the complete opposite.

Do you think the incident was merely worthy of a penalty?

This bit, from my original post, of which you choose only to quote part already gives my answer.

His conclusion is that a PK is sufficient Advantage = the try. Again for me a good call.

I trust that clarifies my position.

 

[damo]

Not really mate

I am just struggling to see how or why the fact a try was scored is relevant to the issue of whether a player deserves a YC or RC for his conduct. To me that stands and falls on the conduct, but your answer appears to take the try into account. Hence the question.

 

[damo]

By the way, for those who are wondering what the hell we are talking about, here is a link to the incident. Go to 1:24:30 if it doesn't take you there automatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVGzpFV-iRw#t=5068

 

[Pegleg]

Not really mate

I am just struggling to see how or why the fact a try was scored is relevant to the issue of whether a player deserves a YC or RC for his conduct. To me that stands and falls on the conduct, but your answer appears to take the try into account. Hence the question.

Two separate incidents. The incident that Nigel dismissed the yc was a different incident. In this incident the TMO said PK ONLY. I concur with the TMO and Nigel Owens.

 

[winchesterref]

Thoughts on Michael Hooper's YC?

 

[The Fat]

Thoughts on Michael Hooper's YC?

Some will argue that he was committed and already in the air so there was no way he could stop or change direction. Others will argue that he put himself into a position that he no longer had control over and was therefore dangerous. Some may question that the position/technique he used doesn't resemble what a charge down should or would normally look like.

I would agree with parts of each of those three things but in the end, I don't have a problem with the YC.

Only video I can find at the moment. Very short view of incident at 1:10

 

[menace]

Thoughts on Michael Hooper's YC?

Bullshit.

 

[OB..]

If a player jumps in such a way that he is bound to land on the kicker, can he use "charge down" as an excuse? Surely not.

 

[Pegleg]

Clear offence and no issue with the Yellow card.

How do you justify "bullshit" Mr Menace?

 

[ianh5979]

yellow all day long from me

 

[Ian_Cook]

Some will argue that he was committed and already in the air so there was no way he could stop or change direction. Others will argue that he put himself into a position that he no longer had control over and was therefore dangerous. Some may question that the position/technique he used doesn't resemble what a charge down should or would normally look like.

I would agree with parts of each of those three things but in the end, I don't have a problem with the YC.

Only video I can find at the moment. Very short view of incident at 1:10

Nor do I. He had two previous warnings shortly before that for high tackles, so he needed to tread carefully, and jumping in the air like that and then baling out is not treading carefully.

IMO however, there is a wider issue here. If the iRB does mean to make it very difficult for chasing players to jump for the ball by placing the duty of care on the chaser for what happens when they miss the ball, then they need to spell that out clearly and publicly Something like the Spear Tackle memo, published on their laws website is the minimum. It also requires consistency of application so that any chaser who jumps for the ball, regardless of their intent, and fails to actually grab the ball, and then clatters their opponent in the air, gets a YC. As long as all parties are aware of this going into it, then I don't see a problem.

If I were coaching my team under such an arrangement, I would be going back to what we used to coach them; don't try to jump for the ball, just time their chase to tackle the player at the moment his feet touch the ground.

 

[Daftmedic]

Menece is as grumpy as two horney Kangaroos on heat mate.
Fair cop on yellow. Very hard to judge contrxtuality on such a short replay. But initial view YC

 

[Drift]

Bullshit.

Open your other eye mate.

The sheer volume of PKs that the Aussies were giving away, as well as the number of dangerous tackles meant someone had to go.

 

[menace]

Clear offence and no issue with the Yellow card.

How do you justify "bullshit" Mr Menace?

I don't need to justify a thought?

That's simply what I thought!

If that's YC then let's just have a law that says a player isn't allowed to jump to charge or catch a ball until they can control themselves in the air when their back is turned. I thought is was rugby, not tindlee-winks?