SA v NZ 30 Aug

[Dixpat]

Law discussion: Springboks' controversial Bongi Mbonambi try was the correct decision, here's why

Bongi Mbonambi's try against the All Blacks has been the subject of much controversy after the Springboks hooker appeared to have knocked on the ball.

www.planetrugby.com

is the analysis right or wrong?

 

[Dickie E]

If that's a try, I'm a Chinaman

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

I love that video.

The commentary reaction says it all.

Some times you don't need laws to tell you something is not right!

 

[shebeen]

If that's a try, I'm a Chinaman

ok, why exactly is it not a try? (I'm expecting one of two answers, but interested to hear them)

I'm really surprised it never went to the TMO. Could be WR just defending their officials' decisions?


Since this thread is about the whole game, other talking points.
*AB on the attack, only 6/7m out. AB9 clears the ruck and shouts directly at ref that ball was impeded. Immediate stop of play and penalty for backchat, brilliant game management and set the tone for a classic encounter.

*Shot clock. NZ 1st try, successful conversion taken 5/6 seconds after the clock goes down to 0. 2 points that by the law shouldn't count, how many officials and seemingly none are watching this clock?
SA 1st try(the one mentioned above) there is confusion if it is being checked or not, and ref calls the kick null and void as soon as clock hits 0.

*correct analysis here? https://www.planetrugby.com/news/la...e-stood-and-did-aphelele-fassi-deserve-a-card

 

[Mipper]

ok, why exactly is it not a try? (I'm expecting one of two answers, but interested to hear them)

I'm really surprised it never went to the TMO. Could be WR just defending their officials' decisions?


Since this thread is about the whole game, other talking points.
*AB on the attack, only 6/7m out. AB9 clears the ruck and shouts directly at ref that ball was impeded. Immediate stop of play and penalty for backchat, brilliant game management and set the tone for a classic encounter.

*Shot clock. NZ 1st try, successful conversion taken 5/6 seconds after the clock goes down to 0. 2 points that by the law shouldn't count, how many officials and seemingly none are watching this clock?
SA 1st try(the one mentioned above) there is confusion if it is being checked or not, and ref calls the kick null and void as soon as clock hits 0.

*correct analysis here? https://www.planetrugby.com/news/la...e-stood-and-did-aphelele-fassi-deserve-a-card

I think that its really difficult to judge if i'm honest. I am just glad that I wasn't the TMO.

My view is that it wasn't clearly forward. I didn't see the game live, only these replays, so I have a narrow body of evidence, but if the TMO wasn't consulted (?) it must have been the AR who advised the ref because the ref was not in a postion to view the ball being knocked loose. The AR also is likely to have been in the very best position to judge forward or not.

So I can support the decision going either way. What encourages the social media 'noise' is this matter of being 'in control' of the ball which still gets wheeled out time after time.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

*Shot clock. NZ 1st try, successful conversion taken 5/6 seconds after the clock goes down to 0. 2 points that by the law shouldn't count, how many officials and seemingly none are watching this clock?

This one has been covered. The Stadium and shot clock etc are not comimg from one timepiece so there are differences. you can't go by the TV shot clock.

Resetting Clock after TMO intervention

I've seen a couple of incidents where after a try has been scored or play has stopped the TMO informs the ref that there has been a knock on or penalty offence prior to play stopping and they need to have a look at it. These can result in scrum/penalty or card awards but should the clock in the...

forum.rugbyrefs.com

 

[Dickie E]

I like the NRL concept of "loose carry". Covers this scenario well

 

[jdeagro]

I think that its really difficult to judge if i'm honest. I am just glad that I wasn't the TMO.

Agreed.

My view is that it wasn't clearly forward.

Agreed. If anything, the AB player seems to knock it backwards out of the SA player, IMO.

So I can support the decision going either way. What encourages the social media 'noise' is this matter of being 'in control' of the ball which still gets wheeled out time after time.

Agreed, the "in control" stuff is nonsense and I think of American Football anytime it's mentioned.

For me, it comes down to if the ball was applied downward pressure from the SA player in the in-goal at any point, and it's hard to see if he just falls short of the line.

 

[Mipper]

Yes it is hard to see if he was on, or short of, the line but again I guess that the AR was in a good position to judge.

 

[shebeen]

This one has been covered. The Stadium and shot clock etc are not comimg from one timepiece so there are differences. you can't go by the TV shot clock.

Resetting Clock after TMO intervention

I've seen a couple of incidents where after a try has been scored or play has stopped the TMO informs the ref that there has been a knock on or penalty offence prior to play stopping and they need to have a look at it. These can result in scrum/penalty or card awards but should the clock in the...

forum.rugbyrefs.com

cool.

incident 1 the ref didn't say anything as the TV shot clock rolled over past 0.
incident 2 the ref blew up as the TV clock went to 0, which could of course be a coincidence.

 

[shep]

"Control" is in the law definitions though isn't it? Isn't that where it comes from?

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control

 

[shebeen]

ok here's another one. 50:22, seriously nitpicking.

10mins in first half, ZA kickoff goes direct into touch so NZ have a scrum on the halfway line.
NZ9 gathers the ball from NZ8 and lands a kick into the ZA 22, so it's a NZ throw-in.

BUT

Is this carried not into their own half? The scrum is on the halfway line, and while the ball is obviously put in under the hooker's foot, is this where the play starts?

If the team in possession kicks the ball from inside their own half indirectly into touch inside their opponents’ 22, they will throw into the resultant lineout. The ball cannot be passed or carried back into the defensive half for the 50:22 to be played. The phase must originate inside the defensive half.

The recent rule change to stop the defending SH at a scrum, it opens up a lot of attacking options at a halfway line restart. If so really smart play by NZ as it looked planned.

 

[jdeagro]

"Control" is in the law definitions though isn't it? Isn't that where it comes from?

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control

Sure, but that's quite indirect to go to the definition of a single word use in another definition, for knock-on.

In any case, my point is "control" is not used specifically in the context of determining if a try is scored or not. (Also, again, I don't believe we have a knock-on here anyway.)

 

[smeagol]

ok here's another one. 50:22, seriously nitpicking.

10mins in first half, ZA kickoff goes direct into touch so NZ have a scrum on the halfway line.
NZ9 gathers the ball from NZ8 and lands a kick into the ZA 22, so it's a NZ throw-in.

BUT

Is this carried not into their own half? The scrum is on the halfway line, and while the ball is obviously put in under the hooker's foot, is this where the play starts?


The recent rule change to stop the defending SH at a scrum, it opens up a lot of attacking options at a halfway line restart. If so really smart play by NZ as it looked planned.

For this, the determining factor is the mark for the scrum, which in this case is the halfway. The halfway line counts as "inside," much like the 22m line counts as "inside" for the same purpose.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For this, the determining factor is the mark for the scrum, which in this case is the halfway. The halfway line counts as "inside," much like the 22m line counts as "inside" for the same purpose.

Agree 100%. I'd clarify for the players by teling them "inside" I do the same lineouts close to the 22. I always tell the 10 "Outside" or "Inside!" I am not interrested in a "gotcha".

 

[belladonna]

Did Aphelele Fassi deserve a card? I was watching it live and couldn't even understand why it was a penalty. And neither could he, tbf. Can anyone explain what the ref could conceivably have been thinking? I just can't see what offside line he's referring to. Video here:

x.com

x.com

 

[smeagol]

Did Aphelele Fassi deserve a card? I was watching it live and couldn't even understand why it was a penalty. And neither could he, tbf. Can anyone explain what the ref could conceivably have been thinking? I just can't see what offside line he's referring to. Video here:

x.com

x.com

Easy penalty - he was never onside.

YC? Based on the link provided, it's hard to tell in real time where the defenders were.

 

[belladonna]

Easy penalty - he was never onside.

YC? Based on the link provided, it's hard to tell in real time where the defenders were.

But at what point was an offside line created? From what I could see, both in real time and in the replays, he took part in a tackle (no offside line created as there was no player over the ball) and then got up and continued open play.

 

[Dickie E]

And referee originally made "not rolling away" secondary signal. All very confusing

 

[didds]

But at what point was an offside line created? From what I could see, both in real time and in the replays, he took part in a tackle (no offside line created as there was no player over the ball) and then got up and continued open play.

My inital reaction was "offside at the tackle, on wrong side etc" when i first saw it.

but indeed

14.10 Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground....

Now it depends I suppose by what is meant by "on their feet and over the ball".

Is the bloke picking the ball up here "over the ball" ? Going by the Laws illustration online
https://resources.world.rugby/world...7b1-424c-8886-38b5167986e7/tackle-offside.jpg
it would appear not - but is THAT scenario definitive ? ie can a ball picker-upper not be over the ball (straight question).

I suppose what maybe this card illustrates the "if it looks wrong" scenario ... ;-)