RWC Aus vs Sco

[Pegleg]

The players were imploring CJ to look at the screen but he wouldn't. You have to think that 'certain other referees' would have gone to the TMO at such a crucial decision, protocol, or no protocol?

And of course they would be wrong to do so. The protocols appear to be in the wrong.Why do we need incidents like this to highlight the obvious issues in the protocols? Fans / refs / coaches and even Uncle Tom C and his mates havre been saying the prtocols are poor for ages. Yet WR doe nothing until after the event. NO doubt they will claim that: "Hindsight is a wonderful thing!" Yet this is not hindsight it is "We told you so!".

But what really riled the commentators on the radio, more than I have ever heard before is that CJ blew the final whistle and then sprinted for all he was worth to the tunnel. He didn't shake any hands, he didn't even wait for this ARs to join him. The commentators called it a despicable act that was an embarrassment to the referee, an embarrassment to rugby and a that he should never referee at any level ever again.

His actions if true were shocking and he should be asked to explain himself for this.

Strong words I know, and I am just going by what I heard on the radio, but if true then that is a terrible way to behave. Apparently they didn't show this on the TV?

I have heard the same reports from people wtching on TV so I'm guessing they did. Unless, of course, they are giving second hand reports.

 

[Rawling]

And of course they would be wrong to do so.

The protocols allow the referee to consult with the TMO over foul play. Does deliberately playing the ball while offside not constitute foul play?

 

[Pegleg]

The protocols allow the referee to consult with the TMO over foul play. Does deliberately playing the ball while offside not constitute foul play?

No it does not. It's Law 11.7 not law 10. If you are going to try to argue that it was "intentional offending" I would suggest it shows a lack of feel for the game.

 

[Rawling]

No it does not. It's Law 11.7 not law 10. If you are going to try to argue that it was "intentional offending" I would suggest it shows a lack of feel for the game.

And deliberate knock-on is Law 12, not law 10, but we referred that to the TMO...

 

[Pegleg]

Oh dear. As I posted, for me, your position shows an amazing lack of feel for the game.

I would suggest the Deliberate knock on is put in law 12 for a reason (I can't think why though!?) It is a deliberate act so yes intentional offending. SO it is covered in a sense by two laws. Likening the act of the Scot who collected that ball to a Deliberate / intentional act of offending is crass. Especially when he actually did no such thing!

 

[Fatboy_Ginge]

Had it from a mate at the game that Joubert did indeed make a very sharp exit off the pitch.

 

[OB..]

Maitland hard done by. CJ tells him it was an overlap situation. What would CJ's decision have been if Scotland had another defender outside Maitland?

CJ also made the point that since there was cover coming across, he did not consider he should award a penalty try. I presume that because there was an overlap he upgraded from PK to YC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm afraid CJ has dropped a major bollock with that last match winning PK for Australia.

That was not offside because when Scotland knocked the ball forward at the lineout, it came off Phipps' shoulder before the next Scotland player touched it.

At the very least, CJ should have gone to the TMO for such a crucial call.

Scotland has every right to feel robbed at the death by a very poor referee's decision

 

[wayner]

That was not offside because when Scotland knocked the ball forward at the lineout, it came off Phipps' shoulder before the next Scotland player touched it.

But isn't the relevant point in question whether the touch by Phipps was intentional, as cited in post 14 of this thread?

 

[Ian_Cook]

But isn't the relevant point in question whether the touch by Phipps was intentional, as cited in post 14 of this thread?

Nope. Law 11.3 doesn't apply because there is a specific Law - 11.7 - which deals with offside when the ball is knocked on.

Also, the knock-on was at a line-out, so arguably, its not General Play anyweay

Intentional or not intentional, the ball touched Phipps and that is the end of it

[LAWS]LAW 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is
carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

And the really important kicker, the definitin of "played"

[LAWS]GENERAL DEFINTIONS
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/LAWS]

This is not Rugby League we are playing here. Rugby Union does NOT make a disctiction between the ball touching the player and the player touching the ball.

If you kick the ball into an oppoinent's back and it ricochets into touch, your throw
If you kick the ball and an opponent plays at the ball and it ricochets into touch, your throw

There is no difference.

 

[Crucial]

Isn't it just a 'double knock on'? Play stops at that point.

 

[Crucial]

Not a nice way for a game that already had some controversy to finish. In a way I feel for CJ as his call would have been instinctive and based, not on the state of the match, but what he would have blown in minute one of any match. I think he then realised he had got it wrong and once again handed Foley an opportunity through an incorrect decision to steal an important winner.

[ In case you weren't aware CJ made a match winning incorrect call, which he admitted, in the 2014 Super Rugby Final as well]

That will be him gone for the tournament now. Running off the field like that may have been his call to avoid potential scenes with players or fans but it was not a good look for WR.

 

[wayner]

Nope. Law 11.3 doesn't apply because there is a specific Law - 11.7 - which deals with offside when the ball is knocked on.

Also, the knock-on was at a line-out, so arguably, its not General Play anyweay

Strauss touched the ball infield of the 15m line so doesn't that mean that the line-out had ended? So then it is general play.

 

[Arturas]

One more thing: yellow kick the ball, it bounces to blue. Blue playe in front plays. CJ stops for knock on. Ok. First player has no hands in the air, but does it matter? He was blocking the ball with body, so why knock on?

 

[Crucial]

I'm seeing references to CJ having had something thrown at him which is why he ran off. If so, the fair enough. Staying out there was only going to wind that situation up further.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Strauss touched the ball infield of the 15m line so doesn't that mean that the line-out had ended? So then it is general play.

Makes no difference.

Let me repeat this so that we are clear

Nowhere in the Laws of the Game does Rugby Union have a defintion that distinguishes between the ball touching the player and the player touching the ball. They are both taken to mean the same thing. We have been over this numerous times in the past, including with National Panel and Elite referees.

 

[Crucial]

So if the ball touched Phipps (hand or arm) and then travelled forward after the ball had already been KO'd by Scotland, hasn't a 'double knock occured' and the play should be stopped at that point? Can't play advantage on top of advantage.

 

[wayner]

Makes no difference.

I am just discussing what you said earlier when you said that the play came from a line-out so it may not even be considered open play. I am just saying that the line-out was definitely over so there is no question that it is, indeed, open play.

 

[crossref]

Let me repeat this so that we are clear

Nowhere in the Laws of the Game does Rugby Union have a defintion that distinguishes between the ball touching the player and the player touching the ball. They are both taken to mean the same thing. .

How about 11.3 (c)

[LAWS](c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

 

[Dixie]

The ball did not just touch Phipps. It hit him and he very deliberately knpcked it backward. So it is not two knocks on. The only question is whether Phipps hitting the ball back towards the previously offside Jock puts him onside. I'd like to hear Ian's view on that again because I'm not at all sure I understood it first time round.

For me, hiding behind the protocol is an excuse not a reason. It never occurred to Craig to go upstairs.