[INTERNATIONAL] Sonny Bill Williams/Sinny Bin Williams

[Jarrod Burton]

After another YC against the French, which probably contributed to the change from a reasonably polished to a pretty ragged looking AB team on the field, what do others think about SBW? It seems that parts of the NZ media are turning against him and even while I admire his ferocity, I still think his league background makes him too much of a liability in big games where he commonly seems to shape up for a shoulder charge or a highish wrap tackle, or in this case, tapping/throwing into touch.

As for AW's decision making process, I think he got the correct call in the end, but to me it sounded like he was initially thinking YC and 5m penalty rather than YC and PT for the tap/throw into touch.

Best footage I've found is: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...s-leads-to-penalty-try-against-the-all-blacks

 

[Dixpat]

As for AW's decision making process, I think he got the correct call in the end, but to me it sounded like he was initially thinking YC and 5m penalty rather than YC and PT for the tap/throw into touch.

Best footage I've found is: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...s-leads-to-penalty-try-against-the-all-blacks

If the standard for a PT is definitely then in my opinion the decision was incorrect

If the standard is probably then also incorrect

If the standard is possibly then a correct decision.


Any thoughts on him allowing the French to retake a penalty after they I suspect “inadvertently” tapped the ball directly behind the mark on which he stood and the ABs came forward and made the tackle - his decision was on the basis “he hadn’t moved off the mark”

 

[Jarrod Burton]

Any thoughts on him allowing the French to retake a penalty after they I suspect “inadvertently” tapped the ball directly behind the mark on which he stood and the ABs came forward and made the tackle - his decision was on the basis “he hadn’t moved off the mark”

Got a time? my stream was pretty bad

 

[leaguerefaus]

If the standard for a PT is definitely then in my opinion the decision was incorrect

If the standard is probably then also incorrect

If the standard is possibly then a correct decision.


Any thoughts on him allowing the French to retake a penalty after they I suspect “inadvertently” tapped the ball directly behind the mark on which he stood and the ABs came forward and made the tackle - his decision was on the basis “he hadn’t moved off the mark”

The standard is what is in the law book:
[LAWS]A penalty try[FONT=fs_blakeregular] must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/FONT][/LAWS]

The beam me up Scotty approach (which I disagree with), makes that situation a probable try.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

The beam me up Scotty approach (which I disagree with), makes that situation a probable try.

I think the "beam me up" principal works when tackle/contact related foul play (high, shoulder charge, tripping, etc) has occured, but in this case I think it is excessive. I think many would argue that throwing the ball into touch in goal isn't on a level with much of the other items in section 10.

 

[galumay]

PT was the correct call by the laws of the game. As others have mentioned, its basically the 'beam me up, Scotty" approach that detirmines whether or not its a PT. SBW got caught out with an instinctual response under pressure based on his diet rugby background.

Despite a couple of these brain farts I still think he offers much more that is positive and I guess thats why the NZ selectors persist with him.

I reckon he would be a walk up starter in most sides in the world!

 

[leaguerefaus]

I think the "beam me up" principal works when tackle/contact related foul play (high, shoulder charge, tripping, etc) has occured, but in this case I think it is excessive. I think many would argue that throwing the ball into touch in goal isn't on a level with much of the other items in section 10.

I would be on board with that interpretation!

 

[damo]

The PT decision looked fair to me. I was annoyed by SBW, but happy with the decision.

If SBW hadn't knocked the ball into touch, I reckon the French player would probably have caught it and grounded the ball in the in-goal.

I'm not really applying any "beam me up policy" I'm just assuming that SBW doesn't knock the ball away and all else remains equal.

I'd be interested in understanding the alternative position. Are others saying that that it wasn't a PT because if SBW didn't knock the ball away illegally we can say he would have caught it.

 

[Dixpat]

My view is that even if the French player had caught it he was in the air, his momentum was towards the dead ball line which was very proximate and in all probability he would have not been able to ground the ball before going dead.

My opinion is that there was a higher probability of going dead than there was of getting the ball grounded and therefore at best he possibly not probably would have scored ergo no PT

 

[Jarrod Burton]

I'd be interested in understanding the alternative position. Are others saying that that it wasn't a PT because if SBW didn't knock the ball away illegally we can say he would have caught it.

I'd say that SBW had a fair chance of catching the ball and forcing it if he didn't knock it dead, but since he is to be removed due to foul play (unfairly in this situation in my opinion) then the French player would have caught it and then it becomes a matter of the interpretation of "probably" - and it looks like its 50:50 as to whether he would have grounded it or not before going TiG

 

[Pegleg]

The beam me up Scotty approach (which I disagree with), makes that situation a probable try.

Why give him two bite of the cherry. SBW had the option of acting legally. He chose not to so "Beam me up", correctly (for me), applies.


Was it probably that the French would have scored? Well that is less clear.

 

[Pinky]

There has been previous in internationals about players knocking the ball out of play near the goal line / in goal and the general reaction by the refs is if it could have gone to an attacking player instead then PK or PT and YC for cynical act of knocking the ball out of play. To me it seems to be treated rather like a deliberate knock on by a defender who cannot intercept. The "normal" standard for that is YC unless there was some prospect of him recovering the ball when it may be down graded to just PK. Usually there is some discussion about whether a try was on and occasionally a PT is awarded too.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Stone cold PT and YC for me, and I'm surprised that AG didn't come to that conclusion straight away.

I am a supporter of the "beam me up" approach for the simple reason that anything else is going to lead to referees having to second guess what the infringing player might have done... what if he had tackled a bit lower, what if he had tried to catch the ball. This just adds more subjectivity to a critical situation... that last thing rugby union needs is more subjectivity.

Players who do this sort of crap are the engineers of their own misfortune IMO and they only have themselves to blame when a PT gets awarded. That was an avoidable infringement... all he had to do was make an attempt to catch the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It seems that parts of the NZ media are turning against him and even while I admire his ferocity, I still think his league background makes him too much of a liability in big games where he commonly seems to shape up for a shoulder charge or a highish wrap tackle, or in this case, tapping/throwing into touch.

He had an excellent first half and is probably worth the risk... did you see his neat side foot grubber kick for Crotty's try? That's something new to his game,

However, if I was coaching him, I would take him into a school classroom and make him write on the blackboard 100 times...

"I will not bat the ball dead, and I will not shoulder charge opponents"

 

[buff]

Good video here:

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/sonny-bill-williams-yellow-card-france-all-blacks-377528

 

[ChuckieB]

Yes an avoidable infringement but a speculative cross kick with 2 players in a position to compete for the ball, that one chose to infringe and and by his own stupidity chose to put it out, does not provide compelling evidence that a try would probably have been scored.

by all means a YC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes an avoidable infringement but a speculative cross kick with 2 players in a position to compete for the ball, that one chose to infringe and and by his own stupidity chose to put it out, does not provide compelling evidence that a try would probably have been scored.

by all means a YC.

It doesn't have to be compelling, it only has to be probable (that’s the Law).

When you completely remove the infringing player from the scenario (as per current protocol) then that leaves Huget unopposed to catch the ball and ground it.

 

[Dickie E]

(unfairly in this situation in my opinion)

Jarrod, can you clarify your thoughts on this? Are you suggesting that the "beam me up, Scotty" appraoch is always unfair or only in this particular situation?

 

[Dickie E]

deja vu all over again for AG:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOIOTKy78M

Not sure why this wasn't a PT

 

[Dixpat]

When you completely remove the infringing player from the scenario (as per current protocol) then that leaves Huget unopposed to catch the ball and ground it.

At what point in time is Scotty beamed up?

If it is immediately before the infringement then we have the French player in the air moving towards the DBL which is around 0.75m away

He has to land and ground the ball before his momentum takes him dead

No a PT for mine as it is more probable that he would have gone dead than scored.