[Law] NZ v Canada

[crossref]

an aside. Not overly impressed with WR highlight packages. 3:20 total taken up by the first 45 seconds being pre-game rubbish

It's that haka isn't it ?
Whatever we think of it it's def not a highlight

 

[pedr]

On the PT, I think Poite made the 'standing up' signal with the hand which wasn't signalling the try - so perhaps it was a 'whole scrum' penalty, rather than any clear individual explaining the lack of YC (and sidestepping the question of who was infringing on the floor).

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The NZ PT is here https://youtu.be/OflypaJat2g?t=50 I can see why it's given, Red was straight off feet although NZ holding on too.

Don't recall and can't find the other incident

Watch Poite's signal. It is for "standing up". Not comenting on the vlidity of the call. Just saying what he gave it for.

 

[beckett50]

On the PT, I think Poite made the 'standing up' signal with the hand which wasn't signalling the try - so perhaps it was a 'whole scrum' penalty, rather than any clear individual explaining the lack of YC (and sidestepping the question of who was infringing on the floor).

The Canadian Scrum did well to stay up and engaged despite being shunted back to their own goal line.

i too was puzzled as to why it was a PT, and if it genuinely was because the Red #9 was deemed to have played the ball whilst off his feet then Poite should have shown him a Yellow Card - as per the LotG.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I repeat, watch Poite's signal. That tells you what the PT was for.

Standing up.

 

[Dickie E]

I repeat, watch Poite's signal. That tells you what the PT was for.

Standing up.

I interpret his signal as "not staying on your feet" to red #9

 

[Flish]

The standing up call makes sense (although I didn't see that offence myself), so guess I saw what I was expecting for off feet, same wobbly arm signal really just depends on the context

 

[Dickie E]

The standing up call makes sense (although I didn't see that offence myself), so guess I saw what I was expecting for off feet, same wobbly arm signal really just depends on the context

certainly standing up in the scrum (assuming it happened) had no material effect on Read's ability to pick & go.

 

[ChuckieB]

When Read fluffed his lines and was unable to ground the ball, poite reverted to the Standing up infringement. All happened so quickly. So naturally some confusion.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

certainly standing up in the scrum (assuming it happened) had no material effect on Read's ability to pick & go.

Possibly it stopped the drive going over the goal line. Thus the situation now required the pick up whereas the player could just have dropped on the ball to score. If so very material.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Possibly it stopped the drive going over the goal line. Thus the situation now required the pick up whereas the player could just have dropped on the ball to score. If so very material.

Standing up should stop any drive because the referee is required to end the scrum immediately. If it was done by the defending team as they were being driven back over their own line (always assuming that the attacking team was in control of the ball) then I expect a PT to be awarded.