Wales v Australia: Rushforth says referee right to give try

[Rushforth]

The laws of rugby union could be clearer. The entire population of Wales, including WG, thought that WB made an error. He did not.

The laws of rugby union are somewhat ambiguous as to which frame of reference should be applied, unlike those of rugby league. I was only exposed to league seriously a few seasons ago, and have only refereed it at training. As a league referee, positioning is completely different to union, which makes it impossible to EVER see the ball travel with respect to the field rather than the player.

No union referee can always be in the perfect position to see the motion of the ball relative to the field. It is of the UTMOST importance that no union referee should EVER whistle for a forward pass when the ball did not, in fact, travel towards the opposition dead-ball line, but rather towards their own.

This is what is known as a 'false positive'. Just as physicians do not wish to amputate limbs on a guess, referees must not blow their whistle on a guess, right?

Now, I don't know about you, but I referee about 30 matches (or match days) per season, and since I've only been a referee for two and a half years, I only have some 75 matches experience. This compares with almost 30 years playing, and I have no idea whether I played 600, 700, or more matches in that time. Probably more. Since I played some 300 games at hooker, and some 100 each at both LHP and THP - and perhaps 30 stuck out on the wing - I can honestly say I've never given a forward pass under either interpretation.

But I've almost certainly ALLOWED (or rather not seen) forward passes under BOTH interpretations as a referee, because I'm not a very good referee. Or at least I don't think I am.

The reason WB was right to award the try is that the forward pass involved was not clear and obvious. This term is TMO-speak, not the letter of the law.

The intent of the law is that the ball is carried forwards, and passed backwards. This is how spectators in the Netherlands and Wales understand the law.

WB is correct, and WG is wrong, with regards to the try in question. WB was checking whether the pass was "clearly and obviously" forwards, and although I like other TV spectators could see that it crossed the 5m line without need for a replay, as I have said before I will say again: this kind of "very lateral pass" can be defended against, so it does not make the contest unfair.

The Welsh crowd was extremely disrespectful in booing the kicker, and perhaps allowing the referee himself to make TMO-level decisions is an experiment which should be discontinued.

This is only my honest opinion.

 

[Drift]

Nobody cares.

EDIT: What I mean is, a lot of people have seen you as a "troll" account. Honestly I don't read your posts and the fact that we already have a thread discussing this incident and you started a new thread just shows that all you care about is attention.

Whilst I don't post as often as a lot of other people I do read the forum nearly everyday. Unfortunately you seem to take a lot of the enjoyment out of this great resource for me with your opinions, which are often wrong in my opinion, and subsequent thread-jacking when someone disagrees with you.

 

[OB..]

The intent of the law is that the ball is carried forwards, and passed backwards. This is how spectators in the Netherlands and Wales understand the law.

It is also how some referees still understand the law. I have had many a discussion on the subject. But the whole point of the arguments is that these are in fact MISunderstandings. Such people are wrong. The authorities and the physics say so incontrovertibly.

In general there are only two circumstances when the two views clash: when the passer is tackled and thus stopped before the ball is caught; and when the ball crosses a line on the pitch. The rest of the time the receiver remains in front of the passer, and because of that, everybody is happy even though the ball did in fact travel forward relative to the pitch.

You do not attempt to deny what the IRB (etc) view is, so how can you ignore it?