Scotland [the brave] v NZ

[Dixpat]

Not a lot of a contentious nature coming out of this game but one incident that did intrigue me was the call on the potential Perenara try.

Maul(?) on the Scottish goalline ball reaches the ground over the tryline, ref calls on TMO to rule.

Possible outcomes appeared to me to be a) try, b) Scottish restart on 22m- AB take ball over the line,ripped away by Scotland and forced, c) AB 5 metre scrum, held up over line, d) Scottish 5 metre scrum, AB knock on

After various reviews which showed the ball being forced c) was the outcome because "it took too long to get the ball down"

Forgetting whether or not it was or was not a try the question for me is what is too long?

We were all trained to play to the whistle so in my mind if the ref hasn't signalled the end of that period of play then the ball remains alive until he does so & that being the case it can never be "took too long"

 

[Ian_Cook]

Apparently they (Ref and TMO) were happy enough that Perenara grounded the ball, its just that he "took too long"

I think this was a crock of shite. When you look at the full speed replay from head on, beginning at 0:53 he took about two seconds from the time he got the ball over the line to ground it.

Another thing was this ridiculous iRB directive that prevents us from hearing the Referee/TMO exchanges, so the commentators had to report what was being said. Without that, we would probably still be wondering why the try was disallowed.

Note: we could still hear the TMO/Ref audio in the England v South Africa match so the London Sky OB unit still haven't got the memo obviously.

 

[Ian_Cook]

An incident where I thought we could have been a bit lucky was this scrum...

Scotland were rightly PK for collapsing the scrum, but at around the same time that the scrum collapsed, All Black #7 stuck his foot in the tunnel and hooked the ball back into the NZ second row.

This is a Law that you don't see invoked very often.

[LAWS]20.9 SCRUM - GENERAL RESTRICTIONS
(f) Locks and flankers: Staying out of the tunnel. A player who is not a front row player must not play the ball in the tunnel.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

 

[The umpire]

I think this was a crock of shite.

Get off that fence and say what you really think:smile:

Actually, I thought the ref wasn't on top of a few areas.
Couldn't argue too much if that try was given, but there were several things given a good ignoring, dummy away from the scrum/ruck by NZ 9, in front of the kicker largely ignored, several knocks on, the Kiwi hooker's foot was always in before the ball and he'd clearly decided that Scotland were always going to be the ones pinged at the scrum before he started.

 

[Browner]

Get off that fence and say what you really think:smile:

Couldn't argue too much if that try was given, but there were several things given a good ignoring, dummy away from the scrum/ruck by NZ 9, in front of the kicker largely ignored, several knocks on, the Kiwi hooker's foot was always in before the ball and he'd clearly decided that Scotland were always going to be the ones pinged at the scrum before he started.

Was nodding at these observations, until then! :nono::=:noyc:

 

[The umpire]

Yeah, perhaps....
I may have confused him with Barnes from last week...

 

[Drift]

Yeah, perhaps....
I may have confused him with Barnes from last week...

If you want to say stuff like that head over to PR.

 

[menace]

No need to be so precious Drift.

 

[Drift]

I come here for the review of refereeing performances, some we agree with, some we don't. However it's generally more than what he just posted. He got called out on it by Browner and then agreed and changed it to Barnes. Where's the difference in his statement?

Honestly this place used to be a really great place to come and spit ball ideas, however with it becoming more popular I think we are seeing a decline in constructive discussions. Of course that's just my opinion however this place just isn't what it used to be.

 

[menace]

You and I joined about the same time...maybe it's me but I've not noticed it's any worse or better. A few people have a bit of a joke to lighten the seriousness that can get a bit consuming. There are just as many prodders then as there is now. There is the obligatory serious heads and the wind up merchants now ...as there was then (one Sir Chopper comes to mind!). The wind up merchants often run out of steam.

I've noticed whether it's referees online, or those face to face , that we are by nature a critical lot. We tend to heavily critique our peers more than we praise them. I think it's the psychie of a ref that makes them a ref. Some do it nastily with a mighty-higher-than-thou attitude but mostly we are just critical about others and ourselves probably more in the pursuit to learn to be better than we are. Its probably as a result of our insatiable learning and need to analyse shit.

You've been in Aust long enough, you should be well aware now not to let the odd jibe to get to you...same applies on this site.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I thought the Perenara "try" was ok.

When viewed in real time (as it should be in this case once the grounding issue is sorted) it was, as Ian describes, grounded immediately IMO given that the tackle was over and Scotland were free to have a go for the (as yet to be grounded) ball.

The radio silence 'twixt Ref and TMO was irritating but that was added to by Brian Moore harping on about it and getting more worked up as he did so (in an Italy v England kick fest stylee).

I thought some of RP's scrum PKs against Scotland were arbitary from where I sat and Brian voiced what I was thinking in that respect. :biggrin:

This was unusual as RP IME usually referees the scrum quite well.

I was pleased that RP forgot the poke/slap after CBS and had to run back to the SH to do it. I thought I was the only one who did that.

 

[Drift]

You and I joined about the same time...maybe it's me but I've not noticed it's any worse or better. A few people have a bit of a joke to lighten the seriousness that can get a bit consuming. There are just as many prodders then as there is now. There is the obligatory serious heads and the wind up merchants now ...as there was then (one Sir Chopper comes to mind!). The wind up merchants often run out of steam.

I've noticed whether it's referees online, or those face to face , that we are by nature a critical lot. We tend to heavily critique our peers more than we praise them. I think it's the psychie of a ref that makes them a ref. Some do it nastily with a mighty-higher-than-thou attitude but mostly we are just critical about others and ourselves probably more in the pursuit to learn to be better than we are. Its probably as a result of our insatiable learning and need to analyse shit.

You've been in Aust long enough, you should be well aware now not to let the odd jibe to get to you...same applies on this site.

The odd jibe doesn't bother me too much mate, I am probably the least serious person out there most of the time. However I guess when I come into these threads, about the elite guys, I am ready to read and post a review of their game. Instead of just saying Poite and Barnes don't know how to referee the breakdown.

I guess I am just tired of coming here and reading stuff from Rushforth and the like just attacking guys who go out of their way to put lots of stuff into their posts, Ian and OB come to mind. Maybe I am just hitting a wall of rugby or maybe I just need to take a break from here, I'm not sure.

 

[Rushforth]

I guess I am just tired of coming here and reading stuff from Rushforth and the like just attacking guys who go out of their way to put lots of stuff into their posts, Ian and OB come to mind.

If the perception of me that you have is that I attack OB.., then perhaps both of us need to take a break. I do admit to getting upset when Ian_Cook posts disrespectfully (in my view) about elite referees who cannot defend themselves. I don't expect everybody here to be saints, but when I can't ignore somebody (literally CAN NOT ignore, because I can't add a moderator to ignore list, and I can't unread a post once read), I'm afraid I sometimes react. Sorry.

You should ignore me, Drift. Should I ignore you? I have seen no reason to until now, but I do not find it pleasant that I am singled out and frankly smeared, in a thread which should have nothing to do with me, as I have my breakfast.

 

[Drift]

If the perception of me that you have is that I attack OB.., then perhaps both of us need to take a break. I do admit to getting upset when Ian_Cook posts disrespectfully (in my view) about elite referees who cannot defend themselves. I don't expect everybody here to be saints, but when I can't ignore somebody (literally CAN NOT ignore, because I can't add a moderator to ignore list, and I can't unread a post once read), I'm afraid I sometimes react. Sorry.

You should ignore me, Drift. Should I ignore you? I have seen no reason to until now, but I do not find it pleasant that I am singled out and frankly smeared, in a thread which should have nothing to do with me, as I have my breakfast.

There are others I have just drawn a blank on their names and I meant no disrespect, however do you take what 'The Umpire' has said as something that the elite level guys can't defend themselves? In my mind what Ian posts is a lot better than the sweeping statements he has said today about Poite and Barnes. At least Ian comes to the table with times and clips of things he disagrees with. I've had my issues with Ian in the past as well however when you take a step back and look at his posts without emotion it's exactly the information that we crave from coaches.

 

[Rushforth]

At least Ian comes to the table with times and clips of things he disagrees with.

And follows them up with his opinion that To4 is "crock of shite". It is a mental image which I don't want if I happen to be eating breakfast at the time.

I would like Ian to reread his posts when commenting on the refereeing of others, in such a way that it would be similar to the feedback he would give as an assessor of a relatively inexperienced referee (and/or TMO).

'The Umpire' called him on that (with smiley) and then went on to be called on an equally excessive opinion by Browner (with a whole load of emoticons).

I too am passionate about rugby, and equally passionate in debate about the issue I am debating. Some people have not realised that in a debate they should be debating the issue, rather than the people involved (be they debaters here or the officials we see on television).

Can a ball be held up for "too long"? Clearly, yes. If the ball first leaves the field of play and enters the in-goal at the end of the first minute of play, we do not wait for 39 more minutes of wrestling and trying to worm the ball down to the ground.

How long is too long? I don't know. Ian_Cook argues that it is longer than 2 seconds. For other actions where the ball must be "used" 5 seconds is specified in both ruck and maul law. Obviously by 16.6 and 17.5 neither applies any longer once the ball has cross the goal line, but we do have:

[LAWS]22.10 When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

Emphasis mine. Ian_Cook is possibly correct that the incorrect decision was reached. I would immediately cease all rugby activities - both refereeing and coaching - if an assessor told me one of my incorrect decisions was "a crock of shite". Should a player tell me that during the match, it would be water of a duck's back for me and an entry level of 12 weeks suspension on my red card report. Should a player use such language to me after a match I'd laugh it off and tell the kiwi that Richie is a cheat, and to get me another beer. There is space enough on these forums for banter. I come to match report threads primarily with an interest in learning what the referee could have perhaps done better, so I am prepared for criticism.

All I'm asking is that any criticism be constructive and polite.

 

[ChrisR]

May I digress from the debate on site protocol? Yes? Thank you.

22.10 When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead.

The key word in 22.10 is "cannot". If a maul-like event occurs in-goal (or just two players on their feet wrasslin' for the ball) then I think it should be allowed to continue until there is a clear result. If no clear result, then "held up".

I know that this won't be a popular opinion but if the BC gets held up in goal the defender should be given enough time to force him to touch-in-goal or over the dead-ball line and so get the 22.

 

[Ian_Cook]

crock of shiite = wrong

Rushforth, the combination of my Essex/Eastend London heritage and my colonial upbringing makes me a bit rough around the edges. I tend to speak my mind and do not suffer fools gladly. I make no apologies for my turn of phrase, and I never will; so stop trying to change me. You're worse than my wife! :biggrin:

Anyways....'

BACK ON TOPIC
I have yet to have a comment about my post #3, regarding Black 7 hooking the ball back in the scrum.

If you saw that in one of your games (notwithstanding that the PK in this case was for collapsing the scrum) would you have PK it? How many here can honestly say they knew that Law.

 

[crossref]

I have yet to have a comment about my post #3, regarding Black 7 hooking the ball back in the scrum.

If you saw that in one of your games (notwithstanding that the PK in this case was for collapsing the scrum) would you have PK it? How many here can honestly say they knew that Law.

I think I knew that Law, but it is an odd one.

A related oddity is a prop hooking the ball back - there seems to be a well established myth that props cannot hook. Don't know where that comes from, as Law explictly states that all front row players can hook.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

A related oddity is a prop hooking the ball back - there seems to be a well established myth that props cannot hook. Don't know where that comes from, as Law clearly enables it.

It certainly would have been helpful if someone had told mssrs Dickinson, Ford and Murray that on Saturday.

Ford should've set up with his foot in the tunnel much as Parsons and/or Coles did:wink:

 

[Jacko]

crock of shiite = wrong

Rushforth, the combination of my Essex/Eastend London heritage and my colonial upbringing makes me a bit rough around the edges. I tend to speak my mind and do not suffer fools gladly. I make no apologies for my turn of phrase, and I never will; so stop trying to change me. You're worse than my wife! :biggrin:

Anyways....'

BACK ON TOPIC
I have yet to have a comment about my post #3, regarding Black 7 hooking the ball back in the scrum.

If you saw that in one of your games (notwithstanding that the PK in this case was for collapsing the scrum) would you have PK it? How many here can honestly say they knew that Law.

We've had a fair bit of it this season (the perils of getting them to put it in straight!) so we've had extensive discussions on both correct sanction (FK only) and how an AR can communicate it to the referee effectively (ie without putting in "red red red" so that the referee gives a full PK).