Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October
-
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref. And does the head of refs have a word to the
foolsrefs who make these mistakes@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
-
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Frank said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
What a shit game.
The first half was bad, highlighted by the dogshit first quarter. Errors, shit play, more errors.
Considering the scoreline we were crap. The wallabies basically gift wrapped our points, especially the first 26. Unforced error after Unforced error. We can't even take credit for forcing the error, we just waited for their kids to fuck up. And they did, a lot. Then missed a tackle.
When we were forced to play phases and create, we did nothing, for 40 minutes. The wallabies made their front on tackles, and were forced in to box kicks. Or made our own error. It was just shit.
On a couple of players.
Goodhue is painfully slow. Gor burned for the Wallabie try, and on a kick chase got burned by everyone
Seriously, can we not find a better halfback than TJP? His passing is fucking bad. The drop when Smith goes off is massive.Glad I didn't go out of my way to watch live.
Someone woken up on the wrong side of bed this morning?
Miserable fluffybunny.Which bit is wrong?
Watching AB players score pretty tries against witches hats when handed the ball is nothing new.
Watching us do fuck all the rest of the game is pretty ordinary
We were far better a fortnight ago
I'm not convinced we were that much better a fortnight ago. In my write up from that game I said it felt like we relied on individual brilliance to actually get into the match, the Wallabies were dominating up until Beauden and Clarke produced some magic from broken play.
You are only as good as what you play in front of you, but this Wallabies team is really weak and their defense can be utterly woeful at times. The first test, where the weather played its part, showed we haven't developed a gameplan for breaking defenses down when the going gets tough.
@No-Quarter said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Frank said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
What a shit game.
The first half was bad, highlighted by the dogshit first quarter. Errors, shit play, more errors.
Considering the scoreline we were crap. The wallabies basically gift wrapped our points, especially the first 26. Unforced error after Unforced error. We can't even take credit for forcing the error, we just waited for their kids to fuck up. And they did, a lot. Then missed a tackle.
When we were forced to play phases and create, we did nothing, for 40 minutes. The wallabies made their front on tackles, and were forced in to box kicks. Or made our own error. It was just shit.
On a couple of players.
Goodhue is painfully slow. Gor burned for the Wallabie try, and on a kick chase got burned by everyone
Seriously, can we not find a better halfback than TJP? His passing is fucking bad. The drop when Smith goes off is massive.Glad I didn't go out of my way to watch live.
Someone woken up on the wrong side of bed this morning?
Miserable fluffybunny.Which bit is wrong?
Watching AB players score pretty tries against witches hats when handed the ball is nothing new.
Watching us do fuck all the rest of the game is pretty ordinary
We were far better a fortnight ago
I'm not convinced we were that much better a fortnight ago. In my write up from that game I said it felt like we relied on individual brilliance to actually get into the match, the Wallabies were dominating up until Beauden and Clarke produced some magic from broken play.
You are only as good as what you play in front of you, but this Wallabies team is really weak and their defense can be utterly woeful at times. The first test, where the weather played its part, showed we haven't developed a gameplan for breaking defenses down when the going gets tough
Which is a good thing. I’d hate to think we had ‘arrived’ after a few training sessions together under a new coaching set up. Especially when new midfield, new back row, new back 3, rookies etc
-
Try for all money, the talk of control is bollocks, as long as the contact with the ball is not broken (which would be a knock on).
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Try for all money, the talk of control is bollocks, as long as the contact with the ball is not broken (which would be a knock on).
Please forward to:
J Marshall
23 Ignorant Street
La La Land -
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
The way I saw it is that as soon as he put his right hand on it he either had to press it down (2nd point) or regather it and hold it down (1st point).
-
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
I think it was bought up after B1 (or whichever of B1/B2 a try was disallowed which bought up same discussion) there has been a slight tweak to the TMO protocols?
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
The way I saw it is that as soon as he put his right hand on it he either had to press it down (2nd point) or regather it and hold it down (1st point).
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
-
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
And yet, it isn't on the scoresheet anywhere, so it isn't a try.
You're welcome
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
And yet, it isn't on the scoresheet anywhere, so it isn't a try.
You're welcome
Ozzie rules (TMO) so obviously bollaux!
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
@Bovidae said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
So that would constitute two touches of the ball though, so a knock on in-goal
-
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.@pakman said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.I don't know which game you were watching mate, but your scrum got monstored all day long. Tupou got pinged rightly so in the second half. He got dominated it is as simple as that. AB Forwards have brought the mongrel since the Wellington Test and the Aussies look pathetic.
-
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling. -
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake. Or if it was a mistake, the onfield referee is the sole and final arbiter of Law.
So they all made a mistake.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
Not all eye patches are the same colour...
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
The most fucked up thing of 2020 (and it has some serious competition) is that I was really interested in your (NTA, The Aussie) view on this one ...
Surely, if you touch the ball on the way down and you continue to touch it until it's forced, then that must be deemed as control, and hence a try should be awarded.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
The most fucked up thing of 2020 (and it has some serious competition) is that I was really interested in your (NTA, The Aussie) view on this one ...
Surely, if you touch the ball on the way down and you continue to touch it until it's forced, then that must be deemed as control, and hence a try should be awarded.
-
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly. -
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.Is the rule different for field of play vs in-goal though?
If in general play you dive for a ball, don't control it and it goes backwards and ends up with your hand on the ball on the ground, the ref will yell out "backwards" and the game moves on. Is it different in the in-goal?
My overall opinion really is that Coles cost the try by not celebrating. His face had "I didn't score that" written all over it ...
