Vakatawa hard done by?

[Pinky]

The law simply refers to "10 minutes playing time", and the extra was certainly playing time.

Not convinced, OB. I don't remember seeing the clock stopped after the 80 mins and there was a lot of mucking about that you would have expected to have seen the clock stopped for during the 80. For example I would not have expected the clock to keep running whilst WB had to go to half way to talk to the no4 to find out if the Wales 3 had been injured or not and was thus required to return to the field. Seems bizarre that his warming up pushes against a fellow player were whilst the YC clock continued to count down.

I thought WB handled that aspect of the match well (clock aside) and kept his cool. I think I would have been very cross with the antics.

 

[UpandUnder]

I seem to recall a game featuring Georgia at the last world cup. Their captain (Gorgodze) was sinbinned with about 5 mins left in the first half. The first half didn't end til about 47 minutes had been played, but Gorgodze wasn't allowed back until 5 minutes had elapsed in the 2nd half.

This is exactly what I was thinking of.

I'm trying to think of an occasion where a player was binned at the 31min mark and returned in additional time. Anyone?

 

[DocY]

Not convinced, OB. I don't remember seeing the clock stopped after the 80 mins and there was a lot of mucking about that you would have expected to have seen the clock stopped for during the 80. For example I would not have expected the clock to keep running whilst WB had to go to half way to talk to the no4 to find out if the Wales 3 had been injured or not and was thus required to return to the field. Seems bizarre that his warming up pushes against a fellow player were whilst the YC clock continued to count down.

I thought WB handled that aspect of the match well (clock aside) and kept his cool. I think I would have been very cross with the antics.

TBH I think this was just a cock up. There's no difference between stopping the clock before and after 80 minutes.

I wouldn't blame Barnes for this. The timekeeper shouldn't need telling that he should stop the clock for much of the messing around that went on.

 

[winchesterref]

Timekeeper was probably lost in the moment watching it all unfold.

 

[didds]

Without washing through that final twenty minutes again, doesn't Barnes actually say "time off" during that overtime period?

Didds

 

[DocY]

In the light of 10.2(a) & 12.1(f), having actually chosen to YC him, he should reasonably have awarded the penalty try. I personally would have just awarded a penalty. GN looked to have been at risk of overrunning any pass.

The YC and the PT are largely separate - it's the penalty and the PT that go together. You don't give a YC for stopping the try, you give one for cynically trying to stop the try even if you don't succeed or a try wouldn't have been scored anyway.

In this case, had North been in front of Biggar (i.e. no way could have taken a legal pass) the deliberate knock forward would still have been YC worthy, but there'd be no question of a PT. Similarly if, following the knock forward North had gathered the ball and scored, it would still have been a YC even though he didn't prevent the try.

You can also give a PT without a YC. At a scrum, for example, where the front row don't intentionally infringe (and are doing their best not to) but they just can't take the pressure you'd give a PT but no YC.

 

[ChuckieB]

The YC and the PT are largely separate - it's the penalty and the PT that go together. You don't give a YC for stopping the try, you give one for cynically trying to stop the try even if you don't succeed or a try wouldn't have been scored anyway.

In this case, had North been in front of Biggar (i.e. no way could have taken a legal pass) the deliberate knock forward would still have been YC worthy, but there'd be no question of a PT. Similarly if, following the knock forward North had gathered the ball and scored, it would still have been a YC even though he didn't prevent the try.

You can also give a PT without a YC. At a scrum, for example, where the front row don't intentionally infringe but they just can't take the pressure you'd give a PT but no YC.

That I didn't see it as necessarily cynical and not a YC, does drive my own thought process on this. With that in mind, that WB did see it as a YC, seems to lend more weight to the argument of many, in this instance, that it should have been accompanied by a PT. GN was likely very close to taking a successful pass.

.....and from your comment on the other thread, you yourself were surprised?

 

[pedr]

Without washing through that final twenty minutes again, doesn't Barnes actually say "time off" during that overtime period?

Didds

Sadly I did watch it again ... Barnes says "time off" at 80:03 on the BBC clock, but doesn't do or say anything that I can interpret as communicating with the timekeeper after that point (which was well before the long delays during the yellow card period).

I think he handled it all well, overall - but if the timekeeper was waiting for an instruction from the referee to stop the clock/yellow card countdown, I don't think he'd have heard one. Since Barnes deliberately and clearly stopped the clock between attempts at getting the scrum to work between 78 and 80 minutes, it's somewhat reasonable for the timekeeper to act on the basis that if the referee wants the clock stopped he'll tell him - and so leave it running, since he didn't seem to get any such signal.

 

[ChuckieB]

Sadly I did watch it again ... Barnes says "time off" at 80:03 on the BBC clock, but doesn't do or say anything that I can interpret as communicating with the timekeeper after that point (which was well before the long delays during the yellow card period).

I think he handled it all well, overall - but if the timekeeper was waiting for an instruction from the referee to stop the clock/yellow card countdown, I don't think he'd have heard one. Since Barnes deliberately and clearly stopped the clock between attempts at getting the scrum to work between 78 and 80 minutes, it's somewhat reasonable for the timekeeper to act on the basis that if the referee wants the clock stopped he'll tell him - and so leave it running, since he didn't seem to get any such signal.

So many times do we see the whistle go and arm up for watch off or on and yet the "on screen" clock doesn't stop or start as it should. It is sloppy.

 

[pedr]

So many times do we see the whistle go and arm up for watch off or on and yet the "on screen" clock doesn't stop or start as it should. It is sloppy.

Yes, I agree. In these last minutes, though, the on screen clock started and stopped when I saw/heard Barnes indicate time on/off and didn't start or stop at inappropriate times, as far as I can tell.

I don't know whether that was linked to the timekeeper's clock or not (perhaps not as the yellow card ended early, somehow, according to the on screen clock).

 

[VM75]

Vakatawa would have been acutely aware he was facing a 2v1 only a few meters from his own line.

His is wide swinging arm and open handed connection on the ball isn't IMO a genuine natural motion for a tackler facing a passer arriving from the direction of the passer.

I believe that if you were able to analyse 100 tackles of a player arriving on your right shoulder then you won't see a replication of the wide swinging flap that Vaka executed

IMO Vaka did his best to disguise his deliberate knock on, and clearly fooled many! but i didn't buy it at the time & all subsequent re-watching says YC & definite PT as GN had a clear run to the line.

I was extremely surprised that WB said that doubt existed as to whether GN was going to catch it.

There seemed to be a general reluctance towards YC's this 6N.