Tonga v NZ

[BCH24]

John Lacey.....Really!!!!!

NZ drop maul on the way to try line and no penalty try.

NZ repeatedly drop scrum. Woodcock goes down again and Lacey says use it!

Tonga trying to get it a yard over the line and Lacey blows up to have a little check. Decides held up and rescues NZ with half time. let it continue and check back at next opportunity.

Unbelievable, refereeing lower tier team out the game again.

 

[irishref]

astounding to be honest

 

[capithad]

terrible decision

Can only agree. I cannot understand John Lacey's thought process, unless it's just awe of the men in black. Very depressing.

 

[The Fat]

Well you're not going to like the PK against 13 red then

Update:
Sam Cane now PKed for offside at a tackle (same as red 13 previously) AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!

 

[beckett50]

First Clancy, and now Lacey ??

 

[RobLev]

Kiwi 4th try; stabbed through, chasing players both red and black. Was Conrad Smith holding back the Samoan chasers? I don't think it was material, because I don't know that they could have got there, but...

6th try; Cane comes off the back of the maul through a gap held open by two AB forwards. Obstruction?

 

[damo]

Kiwi 4th try; stabbed through, chasing players both red and black. Was Conrad Smith holding back the Samoan chasers? I don't think it was material, because I don't know that they could have got there, but...

6th try; Cane comes off the back of the maul through a gap held open by two AB forwards. Obstruction?

From memory it looked like Conrad was the one being held back.

If it is the one I am thinking of, the Tongan player had peeled off the wrong side of the maul and got bumped into by a Kiwi. Given that the Tongan was offside and would have been penalised had he attempted a tackle it is hard to see how it could have been obstruction. Might be thinking of a different incident though.

 

[galumay]

Was Conrad Smith holding back the Samoan chasers?

Instant red card for mine, if the Tongan's have a player from another team on the field, thats just not in the spirit of the game!

Although on second thoughts, maybe thats balanced out by the AB's playing an Irishman in their team?

 

[Ian_Cook]

John Lacey.....Really!!!!!

NZ drop maul on the way to try line and no penalty try.

NZ repeatedly drop scrum. Woodcock goes down again and Lacey says use it!

Tonga trying to get it a yard over the line and Lacey blows up to have a little check. Decides held up and rescues NZ with half time. let it continue and check back at next opportunity.

Unbelievable, refereeing lower tier team out the game again.

Well, I though it was far from clear Read intentionally collapsed the maul, and remember that is the standard, a maul collapse MUST be intentional to be a PK.

17.2 JOINING A MAUL
(d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

IMO, Lacey was guessing that it was intentional. He could not possibly have seen Read from where he was, and he did not get a call from either of his ARs either (I was listening to ref-comms throughout this match, and he got no call).

Also, Mr Lacey needs some remedial reading on Law 15. He clearly does not understand that the tackler can play the ball from any direction, he got this one wrong twice; one each was. First one against Siale Piutau when a tackler got to his feet and picked up the ball, and then against the All Blacks when he PKed Sam Cane (who was the tackler) who got to his feet and kicked the ball (which he was entitiled to do)

As for the scrums, they were a lottery on a ground that, IMO was bloody dangerous. Twice Woodcock was PK for collapsing, when in fact, his feet simply went out from under him. St James' Park night be an iconic football ground, but as a rugby ground, it is second....no....third rate.

In any case, all that scrum action came from the worst PK decision of the match. Ben Smith' tackle was never a PK the Tongan player was never taken through the horizontal and landed on his back with his arse hitting the ground first. This was just a well executed dump tackle.. nothing mpore. The PK was crock of shite which IMO, was given to justifyt holding the game up. On the other hand, Paul Ngauamo's YC ought nto have been RC, clearly take through horizontal and dropped. Only Carter getting his hand down saved him from hitting the ground head first.



As for the other issues, it was Conrad Smith who was held back and not the other way round (that was as obvious at full speed as it was in replay), and IMO, there was no obstruction in the 6th try. The Tongan player detached from the maul in an offside position and was sucked into tackling the wrong player. However, I question the actions of Aaron Smith in that maul. He feigned a pass from the maul that caused the Tongan player to detach early.

[LAWS]17.3 OTHER MAUL OFFENCES
(b) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the maul while it is still in the maul.
Sanction: Free Kick[/LAWS]

IMO, Aaron Smith should have been FK.

 

[liversedge]

Well, I though it was far from clear Read intentionally collapsed the maul

It was clear and obvious.
#8 clearly drops and pulls the players with him.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It was clear and obvious.
#8 clearly drops and pulls the players with him.

Well, I disagree. The maul was going backwards so fast its surprising that it stayed up at all.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Saw the tackle errors, very basic. Nothing formed tackler back t o his feet, play on.
The maul/obstruction try, I thought there was 2 penalties before that. Ball carrier moving to the back unbound then the scrum half doing a dummy pick and go at the back of the maul. Then again this is showbiz rugby and won't be the laws I'm refereeing this afternoon

 

[Pinky]

Well, I disagree. The maul was going backwards so fast its surprising that it stayed up at all.

Mr Lacey thought c&o enough to card, but not sure given the speed and direction of the maul it was not also a PT. A maul going back fast is most likely to fall over as a result of the defending side, or if one of the b/c side has gone in facing backwards, eg like the Boks often do.

 

[Phil E]

Well, I though it was far from clear Read intentionally collapsed the maul,

Come off it Ian. The maul was steam rolling towards the try line, 5m out a black player conveniently goes down bringing the whole thing to a standstill.

PT and YC all day long and twice on Sundays.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Come off it Ian. The maul was steam rolling towards the try line, 5m out a black player conveniently goes down bringing the whole thing to a standstill.

PT and YC all day long and twice on Sundays.

Read's entire upper body was bridged across the backs of the opposition players in the maul (trying to get to the ball carrier) and his feet were barely touching the ground. As such, all of his weight is above his hips.

I cant wait to hear your explanation for how a player in that position can intentionally drag a maul to the ground!

 

[menace]

NZ repeatedly drop scrum. Woodcock goes down again and Lacey says use it!

Yet to see the game...but in fairness to Lacey, this is obviously the theme of RWC2015... 'To prevent delays in the game with resets and thus boring the punters, any scrum collapses are to be ignored adnausiam where the ball may be remotely available then the referee is to call "use it/play on" (my words - not an official edict)

Bloody rediculous. Joubert set a new level of rediculous in the aust vs Wales game!

 

[Pinky]

Read's entire upper body was bridged across the backs of the opposition players in the maul (trying to get to the ball carrier) and his feet were barely touching the ground. As such, all of his weight is above his hips.

I cant wait to hear your explanation for how a player in that position can intentionally drag a maul to the ground!

Ian, if Read's feet were barely touching the ground and his upper body was bridged across the backs of the Tongans, then I feel he is applying downward pressure and if the maul collapses, he is culpable.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, if Read's feet were barely touching the ground and his upper body was bridged across the backs of the Tongans, then I feel he is applying downward pressure and if the maul collapses, he is culpable.

Bwwwhahahah! That is very funny; think about what you are suggesting. One person applies downward pressure only by putting their weight on top of half a dozen players and he collapses them? I suppose it might be possible if he was 7ft and 300lb, and the maulers had names like Sleepy, Dopey, Bashful, Grumpy, Happy etc. That would be in line with your suggestion, right out of a fairy tale!

 

[Shelflife]

couldn't believe it when Lacey failed to award a pen try for the collapsed maul. For me it was c&o , if it warranted a YC , then a PT was more than justified.

 

[chbg]

Read's entire upper body was bridged across the backs of the opposition players in the maul (trying to get to the ball carrier) and his feet were barely touching the ground. As such, all of his weight is above his hips.

I cant wait to hear your explanation for how a player in that position can intentionally drag a maul to the ground!

The Law is "collapse a maul", not "drag to the ground". There are many ways to collapse an edifice / formation of players, requiring more or less force.

The Law also includes "must not jump on top of a maul". "Feet barely touching the ground" can easily fall into that category.