SA v All Blacks 1st August

[Ian_Cook]

I saw no signal, and could not hear what was said, so I do not know quite why Ross was carded.

In coming back to the ruck, Ross (far left) never got further back than this, which I don't think is far enough. In which case he was not entitled to go for the ball whether it was out or not.

Was it out? What are your criteria? Draw a line across the back of du Plessis' heels and the ball is in front of it.

Watch the video in my earlier post OB. The ball was already out before your photo. Green 2 put his hands on it and it rolled slowly back between his legs.

Green 2 has got both hands on it, and the ball is definitely
out at this point.

Black 8 is the hindmost player. You cannot tell where is feet are.
To suggest that Ross is not behind the HMF is nitpicking pedantry

The ball is out. I fail to see how any referee worth his salt could
argue that its not. Remember the argument some months back
about the ball "emerging". It is preposterous to assert that the
ball has not emerged here. Remember POB's words "If a bird can
poop in it, its out."


Ross is further back in the last frame than he was in the second, and is certainly further back than in your frame, which was earlier than both of them (look at the position of green 9). The ball has rolled back further since your frame. You assertion that "Ross (far left) never got further back than this" is just plain wrong!

 

[Simon Thomas]

classic example of why not to get back in the old chariot position !

 

[Dickie E]

classic example of why not to get back in the old chariot position !

Simon, by that do you suggest that chariot position is out of favour? I use it on occasions and find it OK. In the photos Owens has a very good view of proceedings so I'd be loathe to suggest he is out of position for this phase of play.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Simon, by that do you suggest that chariot position is out of favour? I use it on occasions and find it OK. In the photos Owens has a very good view of proceedings so I'd be loathe to suggest he is out of position for this phase of play.

Such an excellent view, in fact, that he was unable to tell the two most important things..

► when the ball was out
► when players were ahead of the HMF.

The "chariot" position is out of position, its no-man's-land. Your field of vision is limited to what is happening in front of you, but you can tell nothing about what you are seeing. You have to turn your head left and right for offsides, which you are having to judge at an angle to the offside lines. You also are in the worst possible position to see the ball coming out of the ruck. Additionally, you could be right in the way of a pass into the pocket for a dropped goal attempt.

You would never have seen me standing where Owens is at an attacking ruck, and if you did, you could be sure that my assessor would be giving me the "positioning" lecture after the game. We were taught never to stand behind the attacking ruck on the side of the team in possesion. Standing behind the defending teams ruck was OK, especially in-goal where you are looking for possible grounding.


This is where you would see me standing at an attacking ruck:

In line with the HMF offside line of the team with the ball in their
side and able to judge the offside line of both teams near the
ruck because I am close to the ruck and almost looking "down"
at the offside line.


Once the ruck is getting close to the defending team's goal-line,
then I would whip around around to here:

Our assessors used to say that if a short range try was scored
and it was not at our feet, our positioning wasn't right. (they
also used to say that if a long range try was scored and it was
not at our feet, we weren't fit enough )

 

[FlipFlop]

Ian,

Can you slow mo through the video, and see if there is a time when ROss is further back than the helpful white line?

At no point in the frames above does he get behind the line, on it yes, but not behind it.

The AB no 8 is clearly behind the line, so Ross is still in front of the HMF. Nit picking? Possibly, but to be onside Ross has to be behind the HMF, which I have yet to see evidence of. And if that's the reason for the card, then I (from the evidence on the board) can agree with it being a PK (and hence possibly a card)

If he never made the HMF, then the ball out question is immaterial. (and Yes - I agree it is out when the SA 2 picks it and places it back)

And I don't think that "taking it back into a ruck" is relevant - there is no "second" ruck, only SA 2 standing over the ball - no AB player in contact.

So any ONSIDE AB could come and try and contest the ball. But I've yet to see clear evidence that Ross was onside.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Simon, by that do you suggest that chariot position is out of favour? I use it on occasions and find it OK. In the photos Owens has a very good view of proceedings so I'd be loathe to suggest he is out of position for this phase of play.

Dickie - the chariot position is neither in or out of favour, but is a lazy & static one to use (hence I use it a fair bit when reffing !) on many occasions. My question to any referee I am assessing is "did you miss anything by standing there ?" - in this case Owens did, big time and made an incorrect critical decision based on it. I disagree that he has a very good view of procceeedings.

He needed to be up on the attacking back foot ,to either side, and a few metres out to the side on back foot line, and be mobile not static. He has ARs so doesn't need to check offsides behind his back.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Looking at the previous frames, Black 8's feet are not visible. IMO the white line (22) is behind the offside line; the Law says hindmost FOOT, not hindmost BUTTOCK . Black 8 is sitting on a green player, and definitely outside the 22.

Here is a view from near Owens' perspective. The white arrowed player is Black 8; the player who owns the All Blacks' HMF. He is sitting on the Green player on the ground. The red arrows point to Black 8's white thigh bandages. Black 8 was the only player in the ruck with TWO white thigh bandages, so those must be his legs.... in front of the Green player on the ground, which means the HMF cannot be the white line, but must be well forward of it, and that put Isaac Ross at least a foot behind the offside line. Owens is "ball focussed" so probably hasn't seen this.

This view shows clearly that there is no way Owens could have known where the hindmost foot was, because he was never in a position to tell, and certainly cannot tell from where he is. He also cannot tell that the ball is out, again from his poor positioning.

Given all that, Owens;

► Guessed that Ross might be in front of HMF
► Guessed that the ball was not out

Both guesses were wrong, resulting in a PK, a player YC'd and 3 points. That makes it a critical incident.

In any case quite aside from all this, the ball was actually out earlier, when Green 2 put both hands on the ball. Despite what was said by another poster earlier, if the SH or a player in the SH position puts hands on the the ball, it is out. Period. If you argue that ball is not out, then Green 2 has put his hands in the ruck, PK to Black. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Davet]

Period. If you argue that ball is not out, then Green 2 has put his hands in the ruck, PK to Black. You cannot have it both ways.

But we do - all the time.

There are a great many rucks where the SH has hands on, but the ball is not deemed out. Almost all refs, for years, have allowed the SH of the ball winning side that little bit of latitude to get the ball away cleanly.

Are you saying this practice should stop?

 

[Phil E]

If we are now in the position where we are trying to identify players by their strappings and looking at "is his arse behind his foot"; then I think it would be fair to say that it was a close call. The mere fact that you are all arguing about it supports that conclusion. So it can't by definition (and number of posts), be a clear cut decision that he got wrong.

We don't know exactly what he gave the PK and card for?
We don't know what he saw that we didn't?

We can, and maybe should, support a fellow referee until we know the answers to the above?

Re: positions.

You have to turn your head left and right for offsides,

Isn't that why it's on a stick? to allow you to move your head for a wider field of view?

"did you miss anything by standing there ?"

Isn't the answer to that "yes" no matter where you stand?
Isn't the answer to keep moving and changing your position?

 

[Dickie E]

The way I saw it was:
1. ball emerged from back of ruck and Green 2 was about to pick it up.
2. Green 2 changed his mind and bound on to the back of the ruck with ball between his feet.

By doing so, is Green 2 guilty of anything - returning ball to ruck, obstruction, etc?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The way I saw it was:
1. ball emerged from back of ruck and Green 2 was about to pick it up.
2. Green 2 changed his mind and bound on to the back of the ruck with ball between his feet.

By doing so, is Green 2 guilty of anything - returning ball to ruck, obstruction, etc?

Yes

16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES
(a) Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Penalty: Free Kick

----

If we are now in the position where we are trying to identify players by their strappings and looking at "is his arse behind his foot"; then I think it would be fair to say that it was a close call. The mere fact that you are all arguing about it supports that conclusion. So it can't by definition (and number of posts), be a clear cut decision that he got wrong.

Flip Flop asserted that Ross was ahead of the HMF. I proved he wasn't, so now you don't like the way I proved it? Well Tough titty Phil.

We don't know exactly what he gave the PK and card for?
We don't know what he saw that we didn't?

From Rugby Heaven

An hour after the final whistle, Isaac Ross was still bewildered as to why he had been given a yellow card at Absa Stadium.

The All Blacks lock believed he did nothing wrong when he kicked the ball from the back of a ruck because it appeared to have moved past the hindmost foot.

Officious Welsh referee Nigel Owens had other ideas. He reckoned it was a cynical foul and sent Ross to the sinbin.

"I thought [the ball] was out and I asked, but I got no reaction so I had a little bit of a brain snap. I thought it was out, but you can't take back the past," Ross said.

This clearly indicates to me that Owens thought Ross came from behind the HMF but the ball wasn't out. If this is true, then Owens definitely made an error, probably caused by his poor positioning

We can, and maybe should, support a fellow referee until we know the answers to the above?

I will support any referee, NH or SH if I think he's right, but I will not if I think hes wrong, But unlike you, here in the south, we don't "close ranks" when one of ours is criticised.

-----

Other murmurings from the All Black camp are that the players continually asked Owens to speak louder because they couldn't hear him or understand him.

Ross, who scored the All Blacks only try after a long-range counter-attack, admitted there was some frustration as to the way the northern hemisphere whistler controlled the game.

"Definitely, especially in the scrum. We didn't hear a thing.

"We were trying to tell him to speak louder. It was just little things the breakdown and stuff like that.

"But you can't change what the ref does and you just have to adapt the best you can.

You can add poor communication to the list of things Owens needs to address.


My main beef with Owens is that he didn't KNOW, so he guessed, and in so doing, he committed the cardinal sin for any referee in any sport, not just rugby.....NEVER, EVER GUESS. Our old JAB mentor at the CRRA, Laurie Mahoney, had a ditty he used to get us junior referees to remember.

"If you don't know, let it go!"

 

[OB..]

I'll come back to other points later, but this one first:-

Given all that, Owens;

► Guessed that Ross might be in front of HMF
► Guessed that the ball was not out

What Owens did in fact was use his best judgement. If you call that guessing, then all referees guess much of the time. It is legitimate to analyse his judgement without needing to guess at what he was thinking.

 

[Toby Warren]

From Rugby Heaven

Quote:
An hour after the final whistle, Isaac Ross was still bewildered as to why he had been given a yellow card at Absa Stadium.

The All Blacks lock believed he did nothing wrong when he kicked the ball from the back of a ruck because it appeared to have moved past the hindmost foot.

Officious Welsh referee Nigel Owens had other ideas. He reckoned it was a cynical foul and sent Ross to the sinbin.

"I thought [the ball] was out and I asked, but I got no reaction so I had a little bit of a brain snap. I thought it was out, but you can't take back the past," Ross said.

This clearly indicates to me that Owens thought Ross came from behind the HMF but the ball wasn't out. If this is true, then Owens definitely made an error, probably caused by his poor positioning


Ian

I'm confused, this quote from rugby heaven appears to say that Owens didn't say anything - what the quote says is that ROSS thought he was from behind the HMF - how do you extrapolate that to mean that OWENS thought that?

 

[Phil E]

Flip Flop asserted that Ross was ahead of the HMF. I proved he wasn't, so now you don't like the way I proved it? Well Tough titty Phil.

Several people have put their thoughts forward and there are several areas of disagreement; so it is not as clear cut as you say. You have only proved things to yourself and now you are trying to bully us into accepting your self satisfied proof. Put you toys back in your pram and just accept that not everyone agrees with you. That doesn't mean you are not entitled to your opinion, of course you are; but others are entitled to theirs, so stop ranting at them when they don't agree with "the world according to Ian".

From Rugby Heaven
This clearly indicates to me that Owens thought Ross came from behind the HMF but the ball wasn't out. If this is true, then Owens definitely made an error, probably caused by his poor positioning

It proves nothing, there is no quote from Owens, we still don't know Owens thoughts; only the thoughts of Ross.

I will support any referee, NH or SH if I think he's right, but I will not if I think hes wrong, But unlike you, here in the south, we don't "close ranks" when one of ours is criticised.

Not worth replying to.

Other murmurings from the All Black camp are that the players continually asked Owens to speak louder because they couldn't hear him or understand him.

Just because they couldn't hear him or understand him, doesn't mean he wasn't communicating. But does he really need to communicate that much with the top players in the world?

My main beef with Owens is that he didn't KNOW, so he guessed,

You can't know that; YOU are guessing!

 

[FlipFlop]

Ian,

If NO saw that (in his opinion) that Ross was never behind the HMF, then he penalised him for being offside. There is no guess work. No need to work out if the ball was out etc. He might have been wrong, with the benefit of hindsight etc. But why do you say he guessed? I make decisions all the time based on what I "think" I saw. It doesn't mean I guessed, or was right, as the brain can often be fooled (gorilla & basketball anyone?).

The "hind most foot" is often taken to mean other parts of the body as well. It is clear (in my mind) that the rear most part of a ruck is the foot - but if the ruck becomes a mess (as in this instance) then the "rear most foot" is any part of the body as it is not practical to use anything else.

Also - during the scrum feed debate, you also were adamant that you couldn't decypher straight (across the pitch) from a camera angle, but you are doing this here.....

And as for the communication issue - not sure about during the game (not seen it). But the Welsh acecnt is normally soft, so this could be an issue, but if they had a ref who spoke no English? They shouldn't NEED instruction on how to play. But his one flaw that has been highlighted by all this is - no-one appears to know WHY Ross was sin-binned. For what exact offence. And that should have been communicated at the time of the card.

 

[Dickie E]

If NO called a marginal call one way or the other - I have no problem.

But to pull a card out - over the top and pandering to the crowd.

 

[baftabill]

Boy, you are flogging this one to death

 

[Davet]

Flogging it to death?

Come ON - the AB's lose two, count 'em - TWO - games on the trot.

The inquest isn't even started...

These guys do not like losing - and it is pretty much taken as read that if they do it was somebody else's fault.

 

[SimonSmith]

In fairness to Ian, he isn't blaming NO for the loss.

However..........

To make this a NH/SH is beneath your usual standards Ian.

There seems to be a legitimate difference in opinion here. I don't think NO got it right, but can understand how he got to there. My interpretation of the Ross statement is "I didn't get an answer, so I guessed". NO only called it cynical, and I don't yet know if it was HMF or ball not out.

 

[OB..]

If NO called a marginal call one way or the other - I have no problem.

But to pull a card out - over the top and pandering to the crowd.

You are saying that Owens knew it was a bad decision but gave it in order to please the crowd? Do you really expect anybody to believe that an international referee would be that stupid?