Pegleg
Rugby Expert
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,330
- Post Likes
- 536
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 3
Because he is an ex leaguie and under pressure his instincts kicked in.
After 40+ caps?
Because he is an ex leaguie and under pressure his instincts kicked in.
Surely that is all that matters? Why should we have to consider what he might have done instead? That is all that "beam me up, Scotty" means.Beam me up. Is that, pretend he wasn't there?
That he infringed is not under question.
Why complicate the issue by asking the referee to decide what the player thought? What matters is what he did, and that is enough for the referee to have to judgeif you compare against the application of the high tackle protocols, it might be better to scribe in the laws that if the player should have reasonably known that his action might prevent a try then it might serve as a clearer warning and perhaps a better deterrent.
I find it hard to imagine that NZ players on the pitch were disappointed with decision. If it had a been a game I was reffing it seems like an incident that might might well prompt some discussion in the bar afterwards, because it was unusual, but on pitch I think the players would have accepted a PT quite easily, and with a PT it's always a card
Surely that is all that matters? Why should we have to consider what he might have done instead? That is all that "beam me up, Scotty" means.
Why complicate the issue by asking the referee to decide what the player thought? What matters is what he did, and that is enough for the referee to have to judge
Looking to shift the burden of responsibility even more onto the player and away from a judgement call by the ref.
"SBW you should have reasonably known that the action might prevent a try from being scored. That I don't have to consider whether the opposing player would have probably scored..... "just shifts the emphasis marginally and we can all say, what a silly thing to do, not spend time wondering whether it was a probable try. As some have said, the player might have not been well placed to ground the ball.
It was Scrum penalty at 54 minutes, or 110 on the coverage I have to hand. Took place right in front of AG but I think he was watching himself on the big screen and missed it.
That is all the referee has to judge, and if you listen to what Angus Gardner actually said...
"I believe the ball would have landed in the French player's hands but for the slap down by (black) No 12, so its going to be a penalty try"
...you would realise that this can no longer be speculated upon. You might disagree with his opinion, but you cannot disagree with his awarding of a PT based on what HE has said his thinking is.
After 40+ caps?
I don't have one. That is why I ask the question. I just don't buy a 40+ cap player should be making that sort of error.
Players often do things reactively or instinctively, for example, sticking an arm out and coat-hangering a player who has just stepped them. I've seen players do that when they have been playing the game for their whole lives.... ask yourself why players like Dylan Hartley keep getting YC/RC and suspended?
Players often do things reactively or instinctively, for example, sticking an arm out and coat-hangering a player who has just stepped them. I've seen players do that when they have been playing the game for their whole lives.... ask yourself why players like Dylan Hartley keep getting YC/RC and suspended?
the reference to RL is because -- (I assume!) -- SBW action would be legal in Rugby League, and the incident shows that he has RL instincts.
Yes I know. However, as a 40+ capped RU international surely it is time his RU instincts kicked in.
agreed ( as opined previously).
He manages to suppress his boxing instincts it seems.
didds
deja vu all over again for AG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCOIOTKy78M
Not sure why this wasn't a PT