Wales, v, Ireland - 14.03.2015

[menace]

I thought it was a great game, particularly 2nd half as others have mentioned. Cracking effort by both sides to the 81st minute!

I'm not a big fan of WB at all (in fact I cringe when he referees Wobblies) but thought this was the best game I've seen him perform. There was a lot he could have pinged from both sides (Ireland were particularly good at side entry to disrupt the threat to their ball when under pressure, and got away a with it). What I was surprised about was WB incessant talking at the breakdown. There's comminucation to avoid infringements and then there is communication for the sake of it. I think WB had too much of the latter. At this level I would have thought 'less is more' as they know what they need to do without the regular instructions. I can't recall any other ref at this level talking so much! But above that I wouldn't say WB made critical calls that determined the result.

 

[Pegleg]

A former top coach (1970's england based. Told me that it is virtually impossible to keep the ball for 20+ phases unless you offend. Of course there are the (very) odd occasions. However, in reality, it's not going to happen LEGALLY very often. If certain posters feel that the "errors" by WB were all in failing to spot Red offenders but harsly spotting "Green" ones then I worry about their judgement.

I'm told it was a very entertaining game and that Ireland blew at least one massive overlap.

That's rugby folks.

 

[didds]

The game has changed since the 1970s by a HUGE margin. 20 recycles today probably includes a LOT of "rucks" where the oppo only engage one (if that!) defenders... so the recycle is effectively uncontested and the recycling team don;t really have to do much to recycle the ball. So there is little that they can actually do that is illegal to start with. Well - aside from the standard sealing off tactic that no ref has the balls to call and hasn't for years.

didds

 

[The Fat]

A former top coach (1970's england based. Told me that it is virtually impossible to keep the ball for 20+ phases unless you offend. Of course there are the (very) odd occasions. However, in reality, it's not going to happen LEGALLY very often. .

Have you seen the video doing the rounds where after the 80 minutes is up, the game continues for another 10 minutes on the last play as the attacking team go for 66 phases before being held up over the line? (dodgey call by AR maybe????). Hawick v Heriots
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/03/41...incredible-66-phases-before-try-is-disallowed

 

[Pegleg]

Have you seen the video doing the rounds where after the 80 minutes is up, the game continues for another 10 minutes on the last play as the attacking team go for 66 phases before being held up over the line? (dodgey call by AR maybe????). Hawick v Heriots
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/03/41...incredible-66-phases-before-try-is-disallowed

Have you read my post?

 

[Pegleg]

The game has changed since the 1970s by a HUGE margin. 20 recycles today probably includes a LOT of "rucks" where the oppo only engage one (if that!) defenders... so the recycle is effectively uncontested and the recycling team don;t really have to do much to recycle the ball. So there is little that they can actually do that is illegal to start with. Well - aside from the standard sealing off tactic that no ref has the balls to call and hasn't for years.

didds

So you confirm my point! Of course the case can be made that, teams don't contest because "we" allow the sealing off!

 

[didds]

not sure what you meant pegleg

Somebody claimed that side A couldn;t win 20 rucks in a row without cheating. I responded that rucks in the 70s were different beasts today, and 20 recycles now are likely to be principally uncontested. So the claim that the recycling side is cheating in today's version of the game is unfounded.

The caveats on that are of course that as part of the emporer's new clothes that has trickled down from the elite levels, players seal off in a manner that is contrary to the laws despite the weasel words about supporting their weight etc. This has amongst other things the resilt that some sides choose not to contest rucks as the sealing off makes it very difficult to meaningfully contest anyway.

So either "every" ruck is illegal in those 20, or (under today's interpretation) likely none of them are even close.

didds

 

[Browner]

Rare praise! Well deserved imho. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-ireland-six-nations-8844325

Press praise rarely accompanies a loss !

 

[Browner]

Have you seen the video doing the rounds where after the 80 minutes is up, the game continues for another 10 minutes on the last play as the attacking team go for 66 phases before being held up over the line? (dodgey call by AR maybe????). Hawick v Heriots
http://www.rugbydump.com/2015/03/41...incredible-66-phases-before-try-is-disallowed

In many ways this clip highlights what is wrong with the game, the pros playing on 'professionally cared for pitches' don't have to operate in these conditions .......... and why Rugbrawl league switched to the summer !!

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Phil E]

the pros playing on 'professionally cared for pitches' don't have to operate in these conditions ..........

I thought you said you had been to Welford Road :chin:

 

[Browner]

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...ow-wales-resisted-ireland-for-49-phases-43942

49 phases :wtf:

As the code has headed from possession contests to possession uncontests, wait for some bright spark to suggest that their became limit on the number of possession contests that one team can have ......which further heads us to !!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaarrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh crucifix again being extracted from red silk box

 

[Pegleg]

not sure what you meant pegleg

Somebody claimed that side A couldn;t win 20 rucks in a row without cheating. I responded that rucks in the 70s were different beasts today, and 20 recycles now are likely to be principally uncontested. So the claim that the recycling side is cheating in today's version of the game is unfounded.

The caveats on that are of course that as part of the emporer's new clothes that has trickled down from the elite levels, players seal off in a manner that is contrary to the laws despite the weasel words about supporting their weight etc. This has amongst other things the resilt that some sides choose not to contest rucks as the sealing off makes it very difficult to meaningfully contest anyway.

So either "every" ruck is illegal in those 20, or (under today's interpretation) likely none of them are even close.

didds

Indeed. Either the possession is "protected" ( and we all know what that means) OR the defenders know that there is no point in competing. So the elite refs are (AGAIN) part of the problem. Of course the elite boys shout "not Material, there's no contest". The forget that there's no contest because they have played ther part in removing the contest {See the crooked feed in to the scum also}.

- - - Updated - - -

In many ways this clip highlights what is wrong with the game, the pros playing on 'professionally cared for pitches' don't have to operate in these conditions .......... and why Rugbrawl league switched to the summer !!

Zzzzzzzzzzzz

That's where the game is heading.

 

[Browner]

That's where the game is heading.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Just watching this game from last week.

Early on Leigh 1/2p takes a diving catch and never opens his mouth (apparent later from the slo mo) he then stands up and does the FK signal. Wayne Barnes awards the FK.

I notice top players often do the FK signal and I wonder do any of them call for the mark now as the law still prescribes.

Would you award the FK for a non called mark if a player just waved his arm after the catch?

 

[Pegleg]

Just watching this game from last week.

Early on Leigh 1/2p takes a diving catch and never opens his mouth (apparent later from the slo mo) he then stands up and does the FK signal. Wayne Barnes awards the FK.

I notice top players often do the FK signal and I wonder do any of them call for the mark now as the law still prescribes.

Would you award the FK for a non called mark if a player just waved his arm after the catch?

No call heard no FK.

 

[menace]

Would you award the FK for a non called mark if a player just waved his arm after the catch?

If it was clear and he wasn't being pressured by opposition and indicates immediately then sure - why not? Why be too pedantic about the obvious?
Though if it was a running catch then I'd like to hear the 'mark' so that I, and all others, know that the catcher isn't playing on.
Also If there was/is a contest then I think it's wise to call the mark so the ref knows the catchers intent (and for their own protection for when they hit the ground they can be protected from being smashed). For that reason I suspect players will do that anyway.

 

[Browner]

Just watching this game from last week.

Early on Leigh 1/2p takes a diving catch and never opens his mouth (apparent later from the slo mo) he then stands up and does the FK signal. Wayne Barnes awards the FK.

I notice top players often do the FK signal and I wonder do any of them call for the mark now as the law still prescribes.

Would you award the FK for a non called mark if a player just waved his arm after the catch?

I accept that a hand wave signal is to ameliorate the risk of the referee not hearing a clear shout.

So, on that basis, I'm not bothered , anything that clearly indicates a mark has been taken is sufficient for me LLP, the more C&O then the better - why not ?