SA - Aus (2012-09-29)

[damo]

No idea what is happening in that description.

I see that SAReferees have done a video on it. Perhaps they will shed some light on the subject when their analysis comes out later in the week.

 

[menace]

You are right that Slipper's entry was OK and that he was initially on his feet. The problem is that he goes off his feet and continues to play the ball.

View attachment 2271
View attachment 2272



By at least the third in this series of photos (that I cannot upload due to an upload quota) his bodyweight is not supported by his feet and he needs to let go and allow the ball to come free. Pretty straight forward PK IMO, and the YC was probably fair enough, by memory there had been a few penalties in a row.

Green player on the floor looks to be first offender, his hand is still very clearly on the ball as the Gold jackler attempts to lift it in frame 1.

What is Gold 22 doing? He appears to be about to launch himself into the breakdown from the front... did he?

Thanks damo for those pics...i would would see Slipper-gold 17 initially on feet jackling legally and was bought down off his feet as davet suggests because green tackled player did not release immediately...and he was unsupported. gold positive play..green denying contest. Even in 'real time' it looked clear to me that green, unsupported, was first infringment. That then made the YC more frustrating to see (though already agree IF is was a PK then YC was warranted as it was 3rd in row and in red zone)

 

[Ian_Cook]

I see that SAReferees have done a video on it. Perhaps they will shed some light on the subject when their analysis comes out later in the week.

I guess this piece of video is pretty much "game over" for the arguments in this thread

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?14858-offside-and-preventing-the-quick-throw

 

[menace]

I see that SAReferees have done a video on it. Perhaps they will shed some light on the subject when their analysis comes out later in the week.

for argument sake - assume it was offside..and as per ARs ïn front of kicker moving forward"...why did the PK come back to where the QT was taken ..and not 20 mteres forwards where gree #6 was deemd to be offside moving forward? and also why didn't he offer gold the scrum option way back down where the ball was kicked (or is "last played"now deemed to be the QT?)...or have i totally screwed up interpreting offside from kicks in GP???

 

[Cave Dweller]

All I can think off is that the kicker who was tackled outside the field of play did not return to the playing field to bring his guys back onside under 11.2 (c)

 

[Ian_Cook]

for argument sake - assume it was offside..and as per ARs ïn front of kicker moving forward"...why did the PK come back to where the QT was taken ..and not 20 mteres forwards where gree #6 was deemd to be offside moving forward? and also why didn't he offer gold the scrum option way back down where the ball was kicked (or is "last played"now deemed to be the QT?)...or have i totally screwed up interpreting offside from kicks in GP???

[LAWS]11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

AR called "offside " when Green 6 was about 1m on his own side of the end of the dashed line 15m in from touch that crosses the Australian 10m line. That is exactly the place he goes back to when he awards the PK. He probably should have gone about 10m further towards the Green territory, although if he didn't see Green 6 advancing, then he can only mark the place of infringement at the point where he decided the player was offside.

I have no problem with him not offering the option of the scrum. Elite referees often don't, and there is nothing in law that says the referee is obliged to tell the players that they have options.

[LAWS]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Captain: The captain is a player nominated by the team. Only the captain is entitled to consult the referee during the match and is solely responsible for choosing options relating to the referee’s decisions.
[/LAWS]
At elite level, I expect the captains to know when they have a scrum back option and ask for it if they want it. Do you think Australia would rather have the scrum, or the opportunity to kick further into SA territory than where the scrum would have been and take a line-out?

 

[irishref]

22 gold certainly in from the sided as well

 

[irishref]

To suggest Samo was obstructing is a reach.. a very long reach.

I could suggest that the green player played him without the ball... just as long a reach.

There could be a good argument that he was offside (marginally so), but as I stated earlier, he does not have to get out of the way. There is no requirement for a player to merely evaporate. He can't move into the line that the opposing player wants, but if he is already standing there, he doesn't have to step aside.

to me a very clear breach of 10.1(c) - standing in a position that blocks the tackler tackling the ball carrier

 

[Davet]

Damo - thanks for the clip - excellent decision and right on the money as far as the iRB's "reminder" earlier in the year.

 

[Dickie E]

Anyone notice AR use the unmentionable Double Movement phrase when disallowing the South African try? (Davet, South Africa are the ones in Green)

 

[damo]

Anyone notice AR use the unmentionable Double Movement phrase when disallowing the South African try? (Davet, South Africa are the ones in Green)

(And Australia are the ones in yellow.)

 

[Dickie E]

(And Australia are the ones in yellow.)

We prefer Gold, thank you.

 

[Davet]

Thanks, DickieE.
I assume you mean shirt colours, not short colours...

 

[damo]

We prefer Gold, thank you.

Oh right. My mistake. Deepest apologies.

I just took my cue from the great Quade.

 

[menace]

AR called "offside " when Green 6 was about 1m on his own side of the end of the dashed line 15m in from touch that crosses the Australian 10m line. That is exactly the place he goes back to when he awards the PK. He probably should have gone about 10m further towards the Green territory, although if he didn't see Green 6 advancing, then he can only mark the place of infringement at the point where he decided the player was offside.

Fair point. When I saw the camera pan back I saw #6 much further back but yes there was a delay before AR called advantage.

I have no problem with him not offering the option of the scrum. Elite referees often don't, and there is nothing in law that says the referee is obliged to tell the players that they have options.

[LAWS]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Captain: The captain is a player nominated by the team. Only the captain is entitled to consult the referee during the match and is solely responsible for choosing options relating to the referee’s decisions.
[/LAWS]
At elite level, I expect the captains to know when they have a scrum back option and ask for it if they want it. Do you think Australia would rather have the scrum, or the opportunity to kick further into SA territory than where the scrum would have been and take a line-out?

I don't entirely agree with you.. If that was the case then why would they have secondary signal for it? Ie signal #35. What your suggesting is tantamount to saying that secondary signals don't matter to elite refs if they choose not to use them as the captain should know what's going on all the time. I would expect an elite referee to know all the signals and to use them in the right situation.

As for which was the better option, that was not my point, I was wondering why it wasn't offered as it's not up to the ref to decide tactics for a team. But seeing how you asked, the lineout was probably as bad as our scrum that game and the position of the PK was an acute angle to touch so a long distance kick was an issue (with our 2 best kickers off the field), so yeah considering that I would possibly have been inclined to take the territory and a scrum option. But then again I was a sh!t player so what would I know.

 

[damo]

Offside while the ball is dead.

Under pressure about 10 metres inside his 22, Zane Kirchner of South Africa gets a kick down field. Nick Phipps, the Australian scrumhalf, catches the ball near his 10-metre line and takes a quick throw-in to Kurtley Beale. The referee lets play develop but on advantage.

No advantage accrues and he blows his whistle, penalising Francis Louw (6) of South Africa.

Watch when Phipps is throwing in. Louw and Adriaan Strauss are advancing. They are well ahead of the kicker and advancing. For this the referee penalises them.

There is nothing explicit in the laws that says that being ahead of the kicker and interfering with a quick throw-in is an infringement worthy of a penalty. It's not in the IRB's clarifications/rulings. But it is certainly implied here: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/5/enforcement-of-current-law-june-2012/

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829806/


It's good to see that they don't really know either.

 

[Davet]

There is nothing explicit in the laws that says that being ahead of the kicker and interfering with a quick throw-in is an infringement worthy of a penalty. It's not in the IRB's clarifications/rulings. But it is certainly implied here: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/5/enforcement-of-current-law-june-2012/
Law 11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

Um - well the thing that is explicit is Law 11.1

The player taking the Quick throw was not only waiting to play the ball, but indeed DID play the ball.

What is NOT explicit in Law is the notion that the instant the ball goes in touch all players are put onside. Certainly there nothing like that in the Law describing the various ways player can be played onside.

 

[Dickie E]

Um - well the thing that is explicit is Law 11.1

The player taking the Quick throw was not only waiting to play the ball, but indeed DID play the ball.

What is NOT explicit in Law is the notion that the instant the ball goes in touch all players are put onside. Certainly there nothing like that in the Law describing the various ways player can be played onside.

56 min in SA v Aust game. AR has determined otherwise.

 

[Davet]

And that proves...?

 

[Dickie E]

And that proves...?

Elite world class referee : 1

Terrace dweller from Hampshire : 0