RWC Aus vs Sco

[chrismtl]

Well, having watched it in real time I thought it was offside. Maybe CJ saw it the way I did? I thought it got knocked on by Blue 7, bounced off Blue 20 shoulder, then picked up by Blue 8. IF it had happened this way, then clear and obvious PK and game ends as it did. Agree that the one earlier was more clear than this and should also have been a PK.

However, in slow mo, from the opposite side, it appears as if it came out of the crash between Gold 21 (Phipps) and Blue 20. If Gold 21 played it, then Blue 8 is no longer offside, scrum down from knock on. If Gold 21 tried to grab it but it was propelled by Blue 20 shoulder, knock on, Blue 8 offside and CJ makes the right call.

Either way, I don't believe he can refer it to the TMO under the current protocol.

So the only question I have as I don't have angles or clear video, is who did it come off, Gold 21 or Blue 20? In real time it would be really hard to tell, so wouldn't most refs naturally assume that the speed and angle of the ball coming out of the contest makes it most likely that it came off the blue player going forward? I know I did in real time (although I'm prepared to put that down to the fact I'm an Aussie).

Either way, if someone can tell me who it last came off I'd appreciate it.

I saw it that way in real time on TV. I saw it that way the first couple of full speed replays that were shown. Only once it was slowed down did I think that it might have hit a gold player. Even then, I though that it hit another blue player before going to 8. The fact that we get so many shots at re-watching the play at slow speeds with plenty of time to think about who hit where and how and CJ had 1 view and had to make the call allows me to give him the benefit of the doubt. Is the call a bit harsh in the 78th minute of a 2 point game? Ya, probably, but that shouldn't change anything. If this had happened off the opening kickoff no one would say anything even if Scotland ended up losing by the single point. The only reason we're making a fuss is because it happened 78 minutes in.

I should point out that I like neither Scotland or Australia, so I'm just saying it how I view it as a ref.

 

[Iron_Lung]

Ok, just found some slowmo and two other angles. Unfortunately for CJ, it does look like Gold 21 went to grab the ball, his arm was collected by Blue 20 shoulder, which resulted in the ball being propelled back towards the lineout. He wasn't trying to propel it back, but Gold 21 was the last person to touch the ball.

11.7 applies. Should have been a scrum to Gold.

Sucks for CJ. Like I said, in real time, I had that as a Blue 20 knock on.

Ouch!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I Hmmm....the referee is very poor? Bit harsh Ian...not his best but I wouldn't say he is very poor!

Maybe I missed some grammar.

The decision was very poor

 

[menace]

Maybe I missed some grammar.

The decision was very poor

Or Freudian slip and your subconscious is saying what you really think of CJ? :biggrin::wink:

 

[Dickie E]

wouldn't have mattered. Oz would have scored from the scrum anyway.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Re : Re: RWC Aus vs Sco

Biggest trouble with using TMO or screen for this call is the way it places emphasis on a call at a point in the game when it wouldn't be done at other times. All decisions should be made impartially and without bias as to the importance of the call except where prescribed by the protocols (eg grounding of try).

Any protocol that allows technology to create that ridiculous deliberate knock-on, and then goes "oh no, can't help you here, squire" on the final decision, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Crucial]

Finally got to see some video and other angles rather than the stills and using my early morning memory.

I wouldn't even bother arguing the fine points or whether technology should be used.

In real time it was a fair call to assume the ball had traveled forward from blue and not touched yellow. It would have also been a fair call to call the offside offence accidental. The infringing blue player had the ball propelled straight at his bread basket. It simply 'landed in his lap'. To expect him to somehow disappear or understand what had happened in the split seconds beforehand is not being in tune with reality.
Accidental offside would have been a fair call.

 

[galumay]

The only reason we're making a fuss is because it happened 78 minutes in.

...

Absolutely correct, I also thinks its a silly suggestion to say that it was unfair that CJ didnt go the TMO, where do you draw the line with that? Go to him for every single decision? If CJ was confident the ball came off a blue player then its a no brainer, definitely played at by the Scottish player, penalty correct call.

If this is the case, what about the accidental offside decision some ten-ish minutes previous, which to my untrained eye looked exactly the same as the one at the death?

I was annoyed with that call at the time, it clearly wasnt accidental, the Scottish player deliberatley played at the ball and I said then that CJ had got that one wrong.

 

[davidlandy]

On another note, I thought Aus were lucky to get away without YC for repeatedly collapsing the scrum (and the final two times they weren't even PK'd for it), and for getting away without sanction for the late shoulder charge on the Scot kicker (can't remember the name now) toward the end of the game. That could have been referred to the TMO, but wasn't. What do others think?

 

[galumay]

On another note, I thought Aus were lucky to get away without YC for repeatedly collapsing the scrum (and the final two times they weren't even PK'd for it), and for getting away without sanction for the late shoulder charge on the Scot kicker (can't remember the name now) toward the end of the game. That could have been referred to the TMO, but wasn't. What do others think?

I dont think they were "repeatedly collapsing the scrum", it certainly didnt go as well as it has in other games and so they didnt have the dominance.

The late tackle could have been picked up but wasnt, I dont think it was a question of it being referred, I am guessing the on field refs missed it and the TMO was happy with it as he didnt intervene.

 

[menace]

To label that a 'Shoulder charge' is a bit rich, slightly a bit late, but in the 'marginal' basket for mine. Also lets not forget if the TMO sees foul play then he doesn't need to be invited to intervene (God knows Ayoub did it enough times!) so obviously you'd say the TMO thought AAC was committed to try and spoil the kick. Nothing in it. Move on.

I think you could argue Sio would have been right on the border of YC. The scrum where he did his shoulder (and left the ground) probably should have been a card which would have been his fourth PK. Had CJ gone to PK rather than play on from a collapsed scrum wtf then I think the card might have emerged? But who knows. I think CJ bailed on many scrum decisions - for both sides.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Absolutely correct, I also thinks its a silly suggestion to say that it was unfair that CJ didnt go the TMO, where do you draw the line with that? Go to him for every single decision? If CJ was confident the ball came off a blue player then its a no brainer, definitely played at by the Scottish player, penalty correct call.

Even if it turns out to be wrong!? I think if you swapped the jersey colours you would not be trying to make that argument!

Also, I don't buy the argument that a mistake is the same whether it is at the beginning of the match or the end of the match. Technically it may be so, the reality is that a mistake at the beginning of the match gives the disadvantaged team 80 minutes to rectify the referee's blunder. At 78:30, they have 90 seconds.

If the TMO is available to the referee when why should he not be allowed to make sure that he isn't about to commit the mother of all blunders and hand a team victory on the World Rugby's most important stage and on the back of an incorrect call.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Ok, just found some slowmo and two other angles. Unfortunately for CJ, it does look like Gold 21 went to grab the ball, his arm was collected by Blue 20 shoulder, which resulted in the ball being propelled back towards the lineout. He wasn't trying to propel it back, but Gold 21 was the last person to touch the ball.

Not having seen the whole game (I knew it wasn't worth trying to avoid finding out who won, the radio came on this morning with "And the Wallabies win in a nail biter..."), only this incident on youtube, but in my opinion Blue 20 clearly doesn't try to collect the ball nor actually try to effect a tackle (turns his back and jumps into Phipps) - why aren't people complaining about the lack of a PK for this?

 

[crossref]

I'll be interested to see the aftermath of this.


WR have already stated - correctly, if in need of updating - that he couldn't use the TMO.

i wonder if Jutge will do what his predecessors have done and apologize?

WR have, to my knowledge, stated nothing late on this Sunday evening.

The Telegraph have reported they made a statement, and then in the article just gone through the protocol, with WR clearly not having said anything on the matter.


After failing to convince by saying that fumbling at the ball doesn't count as playing it, and then by saying that the Aus player didn't touch the ball at all, our Twitter representative seems to have finished by saying that the Scottish player was loitering:

A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.

What're our opinions on that?

I thought Robbie"s loitering argument was clutching at a straw.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well, I have just seen the Matiland YC for the first time... what a crock of shite that is!!

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Well, I have just seen the Matiland YC for the first time... what a crock of shite that is!!

Your thoughts are of a similar vein to mine about Mumm's YC last week...

 

[galumay]

Well, I have just seen the Matiland YC for the first time... what a crock of shite that is!!

Why? He propels the ball downwards with an open, flat hand. Most refs will call that as deliberate knock down and its then a YC - with consideration for a penalty try. As CJ explained, he believed there was cover defence so didnt award the PT.

Maitland actually sticks his mitt out before the pass is even thrown, he cant fool anyone he was trying to catch that. Even the Scottish coach said, "I think he got that decision right" when the press asked him about it.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I thought Robbie"s loitering argument was clutching at a straw.

Clutching at straws would be one way to put it. Loitering would be where the player deliberately didn't attempt to return to behind the ball, given the Scottish forwards were moving backwards at the time I can't see anyway of defending a loitering arguement. I can see an arguement for offside given that CJ only saw the play once and made his decision based on the fact that the blue player stuck his mitt out then flopped straight down on it.

Those arguing for CJ to look at the replay are also probably the same people who complain about the TMO being used too often and slowing down the game!

 

[Ronald]

Can somebody post a link to the incident with various camera angles, please. All I can find is the angle from the LO, and it is quite difficult to decide who touches the ball, was it a KO or back of Oz, etc

 

[Pegleg]

I

Hmmm....the referee is very poor? Bit harsh Ian...not his best but I wouldn't say he is very poor!

Ian does not say that at all. Ian says that CJ made a very poor call. The wording he uses may be considered cluttered but the inference is clear.