SA v AUS

[KML1]

If a line-out jumper's supporters drop him, would you PK the supporters for dangerous play?

I know, and sympathise with, what you're getting at Ian, but for the record, yes I would PK this one.

 

[KML1]

Guys, while Ive added some comments here, my TMO position now means I have to be uber-careful with what I write about specific incidents or decisions. So I won't be commenting on specifics. Joy of being in the system!

 

[Browner]

What I found most disappointing about JG's scrum management was that despite being S&S all 4 props were still binding on chests and arms (LH and TH respectively) and that continued when Steenkamp and Robinson replaced Mtawariwa and Slipper respectively. As a result numerous scrums hit the deck. It've only seen the first hour - does it get better?

The hit's gone but the (s)hit's still here!! How does Alexander manage to get completely prone?

CBSY9 is/was a real chance to make it better and on this evidence the cheating is alive and well.

Some of Genia's put ins looked no better than CTPE days.

Even at ear2ear closeness, the bind before the set automatically turns into a bent arm leverage action IF bind repositioning doesn't take place. Scrum stability increases the longer the bind [I think most people agree on this] yet the CBS sequence seems to reduce the likelihood of long binds being taken. If a prop attempts to reposition his bind longer, when his opponent doesn't, then it puts him at a disadvantage so he'll never take the risk............. this is a fundamental flaw in the CBS sequence IMO. Crouch-Set-Long-Y9 would be a better verbalised sequence, where Long demands a 'take up a long bind Mr Prop'. This would reduce the collapses because leverage associated with short binds would be negated.

 

[Dickie E]

Guys, while Ive added some comments here, my TMO position now means I have to be uber-careful with what I write about specific incidents or decisions. So I won't be commenting on specifics. Joy of being in the system!

Maybe you need a new pseudonym - Dickie E Jnr perhaps?

 

[menace]

Will all due respect menace, what clips did you see which showed the TMO recommending anything? On the footage I just saw, which appears to be the TV footage including all communication between the two, the TMO reported what he'd seen to the referee who then made his own decision on what sanction required.

Had Jerome asked a question, and then Graham Hughes (the TMO) has replied, then perhaps you may have grounds for criticizing an official who fulfilled his obligations exactly as required and set out in the Protocol.

That was 2 days ago so I can't recall the exact details now of what was said. At the time I was basing my quick response after watching the replay and conversation a few times (recorded Aussie TV coverage with our, at times, dubious commentary).

But fair call for your spray (we all know 'all due respect' is a thinly veiled spray :Nerv. I guess not being a TMO nor ever will likely be, nor be in a position to have them at my games I am less than au fait with the entire protocols (which seem to metamorphise every 5 minutes so the details get lost on me I'm afraid) and so may be I was a little too hasty and unfair to take on the judge and jury on TMOs performance of that instance. I unreservedly retract my statement.

I concede the TMO probably followed what was asked, and JG did not request a recommendation from him so he had no mandate to give one. I did think however that the terms the TMO used, IMHO, seemed to downplay the severity of the incident and lead me to believe that JG felt there was no need to ask for a recommendation (or for more clarification). Ultimately that is up to JG and the responsibility lays with him.

Around here were are constantly told that as a 'team of three' that we do what it takes in our roles to arrive at the right outcome, and if the referee has not properly understood the information and is going to make the 'wrong' decision, then make sure you do what you can to correct it. For eg, referee should repeat the details back to AR, and AR confirm or reiterate/repeat the details. I assumed that would be the same for a team of four? Did JG repeat the details? Why didn't JG ask for a recommendation from the very person you had all the details and could add value to the decision (rhetorical)?
Perhaps I was just expecting too much from the team of four?

 

[Dickie E]

Will all due respect menace, what clips did you see which showed the TMO recommending anything? On the footage I just saw, which appears to be the TV footage including all communication between the two, the TMO reported what he'd seen to the referee who then made his own decision on what sanction required.

Had Jerome asked a question, and then Graham Hughes (the TMO) has replied, then perhaps you may have grounds for criticizing an official who fulfilled his obligations exactly as required and set out in the Protocol.

what is the protocol? What I remember happening was that ref & ARs didn't see anything so ref asked TMO if there was foul play (after appeals from Oz players). After review the TMO said yes there was foul play and ref pulled out YC without any recommendation from TMO.

If this is the gist of it, I can only assume the TMO bit is a time filler while the ref has a look himself on the big screen.

 

[Jacko]

I know, and sympathise with, what you're getting at Ian, but for the record, yes I would PK this one.

Even though it's specifically deemed a FK offence in law??

 

[Taff]

..... If a line-out jumper's supporters drop him, would you PK the supporters for dangerous play?

I know, and sympathise with, what you're getting at Ian, but for the record, yes I would PK this one.

Isn't dropping your own team mate in a LO specifically listed as a FK though? :chin: I assume it only covers accidental drops.

19.10(g) Lowering a Player. Players who support a jumping team-mate must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been won by a player of either team.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

 

[winchesterref]

Isn't dropping your own team mate in a LO specifically listed as a FK though? :chin: I assume it only covers accidental drops.

19.10(g) Lowering a Player. Players who support a jumping team-mate must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been won by a player of either team.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

I take that to mean they can't just hold him in the air for another 30 seconds?

 

[Taff]

I take that to mean they can't just hold him in the air for another 30 seconds?

See your point, but the advice we were given was "If you help him up - you help him down!" ie you can't lift (sorry ... support) a team mate in a LO then just let him drop.

 

[Dixie]

See your point, but the advice we were given was "If you help him up - you help him down!" ie you can't lift (sorry ... support) a team mate in a LO then just let him drop.

yes indeed - but is that mandated as a FK for not immediately lowering him, or is it a PK for dangerous play? I don't recall any guidance from the iRB or RFU - perhaps the WRU has issued some?

 

[FlipFlop]

I would suggest - not lowering (i.e. slow) is always an FK.

Dropping is either an FK or PK depending if you deem it dangerous play

 

[Account Deleted]

Punching a team make is an act contrary to good sportsmanship. Ping it every time.

 

[irishref]

If a line-out jumper's supporters drop him, would you PK the supporters for dangerous play?

I know, and sympathise with, what you're getting at Ian, but for the record, yes I would PK this one.

according to Freek Burger, a citing once took place in domestic rugby in South Africa for exactly the above.

 

[Phil E]

I usually say....If you put him up there, you are responsible for his safety until you bring him back down.
Bit like a lifting tackle really?

 

[KML1]

Even though it's specifically deemed a FK offence in law??

Good point well presented...