NZ v England

[RobLev]

Its not a tackle, and NO has not yet said "ruck now", so Black 13 is entitled to consider it as still a Law 14 situation, so he can approach from any direction and make contact with White 9 if he so chooses. By the time he does call "ruck now" Black 13 has moved into a position directly behind the ball.

Not so. It's self-evident that until NO sees a ruck, he won't call "Ruck now". He starts that call while Black #13 is still alongside the pile, putting one hand on White #9, and facing across the pitch.

I argue that he is clearly behind the ball and behind the HMF, you argue that he isn't. That's fine, you're seeing it through your English Rose coloured spectacles; I'm seeing it while wearing my All Black eye-patch.

I'd noticed the appropriateness of your avatar in this respect. Please, pause the video when you hear the "R" of ruck now, and take note of Black #13's position.

However, even if it is marginal, I would not expect any player about to join a Law 14 situation (or a tackle for that matter) to have to take a step back and then forward again, nor would I expect any referee in such a dynamic part of the game to demand that.

If he has in fact joined from the side (and NO seems to believe he did - I'm not defending that decision, only pointing out what he seems to have decided), and his team gain an advantage, surely the decision must follow, whatever the dynamics of the situation? It's an offence, it's both clear and obvious and its material.

If Cipriani wasn't tackled, then what's Black #20 doing at 4:51? He's fallen onto Cipriani. If Cipriani's already on the ground, then #20 should be pinged under Law 14.2(a); if he's not, #20 thereafter holds and brings him to ground - ie tackles him. I think NO gave Black #20 the benefit of the doubt and ruled it a tackle rather than a deliberate falling onto a player on the ground.

What, you're hedging your bets now?..."if he didn't ping "A" for this, he must have pinged "B" for that"[/QUOTE]

No. I'm (i) trying to understand why NO ruled as he did, and (ii) asking you a question. If Cipriani is on the ground, one would have expected NO to penalise Black #20 for falling onto a player on the ground. Am I incorrect? Does Law 14.2(a) not prohibit falling onto a player on the ground?

If you can find me ANY footage that shows Cipriani on his feet, and Vito holding him and bringing him to ground, then I'll agree it was a tackle.

We're not arguing over whether Cipriani was tackled or not; we are arguing over whether NO ruled he had been tackled. Because of Law 14.2(a), the only way that NO could have seen Black #20's action in dropping onto Cipriani as legal would have been if he ruled it as a tackle.

If NO really did Ping Black 13, Why did he not call and signal advantage

Good question; but since I am not, and never have been, arguing that the decision was correct, fortunately I don't need to answer it. My guess though is that he didn't have enough sets of vocal chords and arms at the time. He clearly was playing advantage, though, even though he never signalled it, because he blew up only after NZ got the ball away from the ruck.

You see, you're trying to have it both ways, and I'm not going to let you do that. Even taking as read, that NO thought Cipriani was tackled, then there was no offside and no HMF to consider, so Black 13 joins from directly behind the ball (even YOU have to acknowledge that).

I clearly haven't got my point across. Black #13 does not clearly join from directly behind the ball (although Black #16 does). He arguably joins from alongside it, and then swings his body round so that one foot approximates to being behind the ball/HMF. When the ruck begins (immediately before "Ruck now" is called,) he hasn't started that swing; so at the point NO sees a ruck, #13 is alongside it, putting one hand/arm on White #9. If any contact between hand/arm and #9 is insufficient to constitute a bind, he's offside at that point, so he's required to disengage, get onside, and then rejoin from behind the HMF if he so wishes. Leaving hand on and shuffling his feet round as he did isn't sufficient. If it does constitute a bind, then NO has ruled that he's thereby joined the ruck from in front of the HMF.

[QUOTEIf it was a ruck, then why did he say "in the side, not through the gate" when he had already called "ruck now". Did he forget he called ruck?[/QUOTE]

Very good questions. I think he expressed himself badly, probably partly because Black #13 had been at the side of the pile through both phases (tackle then ruck).

 

[RobLev]

At the point of this still, NO has just called "Ruck..." and hasn't yet said "...now":



And this is from just before he calls "Ruck...":



I was wrong; Black #13 is not yet in contact with White #9 when "Ruck..." is called".

And finally, this is as far back as Black #13 gets before driving forward (well after "...now"):



The left foot is behind the HMF; the right foot never gets there.

Mind you, if he'd had eyes in the back of his head, NO could have pinged Black #18 for lazy running...:biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

Roblev

I'm happy enough to state with some certainty, that you are definitely wrong on this now that I have seen the following...

The PK was against Mealamu. He didn't give away any other PKs during his 21 minutes on the field,so this has to be it. It could not possibly have been against Conrad Smith since that would have been a prior first offence, and it would have been slightly closer to the NZ goal line. Equity (and the Law) would demand that NO go back to that one.

Mealamu entered from a definite onside position and took a couple of short sideways steps to line himself up directly behind Conrad Smith, and then joined by binding onto his opponent. Now this really is a crock of shiite. How Mealamu could have been ruled to have come in the side is beyond all reason.

The only other players involved in that play were Vito and A. Smith, and neither of them were penalised.

 

[The Fat]

Ian,
is it possible for the stats keeper to allocate a PK against the wrong player?

I believe that you may be missing the point that RobLev is making and certainly my previous post on this. I think we were both only offering a possible answer to fit NO's call. Not sure if either of us actually agree with his decision.

I agreed with RobLev that I think it was actually Conrad Smith that was pinged as he is the only player who could possibly be seen to have transgressed as I couldn't see any infringement from another player. If it was Smith, it was a tough call.

If we can't agree who was pinged and for what (apparently for incorrect entry going on NO's explanation), then I could see that the stats person could also get the wrong man.


The only person who really knows who was pinged and for what offence is Nigel Owens because it is definitely not clear and obvious to anyone on this forum. And that just leaves me scratching my head.

Good one to discuss at our next local ref's night.

 

[RobLev]

...

The PK was against Mealamu. He didn't give away any other PKs during his 21 minutes on the field,so this has to be it. It could not possibly have been against Conrad Smith since that would have been a prior first offence, and it would have been slightly closer to the NZ goal line. Equity (and the Law) would demand that NO go back to that one.

Mealamu entered from a definite onside position and took a couple of short sideways steps to line himself up directly behind Conrad Smith, and then joined by binding onto his opponent. Now this really is a crock of shiite. How Mealamu could have been ruled to have come in the side is beyond all reason.

The only other players involved in that play were Vito and A. Smith, and neither of them were penalised.

I saw your comment before I went for a walk; while I was out The Fat has made the same point as occurred to me.

I agree that if Mealamu was the player penalised, then that is an...odd...decision. I can't see where he came in from the side, and he got back onside before driving into the ruck.

I don't think though that your point that I have underlined and emboldened helps a lot; the kick was taken from a point not far from where #13 was alongside the pile, and certainly several metres closer to the goal line than NO originally signalled the penalty. Since #16 didn't enter from the side, it's difficult to say whether the mark is consistent with an award against him!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Update:

This morning I sent an email to a friend of mine who has access to some official (nzru) match stats. That person replied with a penalty & free kick list from the post match debrief (this is what the coaching and management staff were told the players were penalised for)

TIME	PLAYER	LAW	REMARKS/DESCRIPTION OF INFRINGEMENT
01:15	Nonu	10.4 (f)	playing opponent without the ball
17:53	Whitelock	15.4 (b)	tackler not rolling away
20:52	Woodcock	20.8 (g)	pulling scrum around
41:15	Coles	15.7(d)	illegal clean-out
45:44	N/A	20.8 (d)	illegally wheeling the scrum
62:15	Fekitoa	15.6 (c)	not releasing tackled player
71:27	Perenara	20.6 (b)	crooked throw in
72:05	Mealamu	16.2 (b)	illegal joining of ruck

And yes, they are a bit puzzled by the Mealamu one

 

[TheBFG]

about as puzzled the Eng are about the lack of YC at 1:15 and 62:15 I would think :wink:

Fell a little bit sorry for Woodcock copping the "pulling the scrum around" surely that's a "pack offence"?

 

[Browner]

Ian,
is it possible for the stats keeper to allocate a PK against the wrong player?

The TV producer cut to a picture of KM, so its entirely possible .

Earlier both commentators thought Yarde was penalised in midfield , the TV producers cut to a picture of Yarde , but it was in fact Manu offside they just misunderstood English spoken with a welsh lilt.

England's match stats show Tuilagi with only one PK against him, but my memory says he was pinged for another in the match??

Maybe by the time they got to discussing that one, NO was asleep?!!

 

[crossref]

Update:

This morning I sent an email to a friend of mine who has access to some official (nzru) match stats. That person replied with a penalty & free kick list from the post match debrief (this is what the coaching and management staff were told the players were penalised for)

TIME	PLAYER	LAW	REMARKS/DESCRIPTION OF INFRINGEMENT
01:15	Nonu	10.4 (f)	playing opponent without the ball
17:53	Whitelock	15.4 (b)	tackler not rolling away
20:52	Woodcock	20.8 (g)	pulling scrum around
41:15	Coles	15.7(d)	illegal clean-out
45:44	N/A	20.8 (d)	illegally wheeling the scrum
62:15	Fekitoa	15.6 (c)	not releasing tackled player
71:27	Perenara	20.6 (b)	crooked throw in
72:05	Mealamu	16.2 (b)	illegal joining of ruck

And yes, they are a bit puzzled by the Mealamu one

didn't they concede 2 PK at the scrum ? Or am I dreaming

 

[Ian_Cook]

didn't they concede 2 pk at the scrum ? Or am i dreaming

ETA: Actually your comment got me to thinking that I also recall two PKs for wheeling, so I checked the email. There was another PK at the bottom of the list, but it was not allocated to a player so it wasn't in the table. I have added to my table in post #106

Thats why the ESPN Stats only show six PKs and one FK in the Team Stats, but seven PK's and one FK in the Match Stats

 

[Adam]

Unfortunately I can't offer an opinion on this game as Robbie Burns forgot to set his Foxtel box to record it.

Seriously though Robbie thanks for hosting on Saturday, I really enjoyed it!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Unfortunately I can't offer an opinion on this game as Robbie Burns forgot to set his Foxtel box to record it.

Seriously though Robbie thanks for hosting on Saturday, I really enjoyed it!

Being a Scot I thought he'd just watch it in Curry's window.:biggrin:

 

[Browner]

Re: Haskell tackling Dagg in the air..... NO said "no offence 15 landed into white" then when further questioned he replied " very marginal"

I expected a AB PK , thought JH was pushing his luck in the current climate.