You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
difference between brilliance and a yellow card.
Exactly! It's a great bit of shit or bust for the defender. Spoiling scoring chances through foul play has to carry a big punishment, otherwise they'll just do it all the time and take their chances with the pen/scrum/whatever. You have to consider these rules in extremis.
I sort of agree with CFH, but it's too complex to set out with hard and fast rules, it has to be interpretation.
eg: You can't say going for it with one hand is a defining factor - we've seen some fabulous one handed handling this WC.
Judging intent is bloody nigh impossible; knocking it up and hoping to get to it before it lands? The intent is to knock it up, but there's a % chance that you won't do the second bit. At what point is there an intent plus likelihood factor - I intended to catch it afterwards even though it was a 1 in 100 chance of it coming off, it was never my intent to simply knock on and not catch it.
MAYBE..... there needs to be sanctions based on the outcome rather than the intent. A wilful rather than accidental knock on - wilful meaning one that has a reasonable chance of failing - penalty. If that was leading to an immediate 'potential' try scoring opportunity. Penalty plus yellow. If that was leading to an immediate 'definite' try scoring opportunity - penalty try plus yellow.
MAYBE..... there needs to be sanctions based on the outcome rather than the intent.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the refs wouldn't be too keen on this.
Aye, but it seems harsh that a knock on which is construed as deliberate when it is really one that has a chance of succeeding, albeit a low one, is punished the same whatever the outcome.
eg: the Scottish interception try. If that had been the same situation as Maitland? A one handed grab for the ball because it might stick, or I might grab the rebound? I assume if he'd knocked it on 15 yards from the Aus line he'd get a yellow card for that? Doesn't seem right.
It puts the onus on players to make split second decisions about not only whether they can do what they are trying to do, but also what the outcome will be if they don't - but isn't that what it's all about in the end, making the right decision at that moment under extreme duress?
The point is a one handed fingertip interception is always at the riskier end of the scale which is why they are almost always treated the same as Maitland's. In the context of the game it was very harsh so maybe it could have been dealt with more sympathetically but if it was one of those big 'orrible cheating All Blacks then we probably wouldn't feel they were hard done by in the same way
What sealed the game was the no TMO decision at the lineout, that's crazy. I've no doubt the laws will be changed on TMO calls after the RWC.
For the neutral, the game would have been held up by two minutes and the resulting scrum/penalty would still have been criticised by the supporters. On replay it looked to me like the ball came off Strauss's shoulder - correct penalty decision. Every Scottish fan will say that's wrong. Even with TMO involvement someone would still be unhappy.
But played by an Aussie last Idlejon - and there is one very clear view of the Aussie number 9 grabbing at the ball and juggling it.
Yes, pretty sure the ball brushes off Strauss's shoulder last after Gold 21 touched it - have no idea if this effects the decision, mind.
The Northern hemisphere teams need to look at themselves very honestly. They where far off the pace and at a home tournament in their backyard.
No England, France, Ireland and Italy were. Scotland and Wales gave it a good crack and only came up a little short
But played by an Aussie last Idlejon - and there is one very clear view of the Aussie number 9 grabbing at the ball and juggling it.
Thanks for promptly proving my point.
Have a look at the criticism of TMO after England/Fijii. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
jambalayaThe TMO issue, we have tmo checks for offside on trys (they checked the Argie score) how can you not check a penalty with 2 mins to go in a QF.
The rules (as posted above) allow for checking of infringements on the build up to trys. It doesn't matter the time left or the match, he couldn't use TMO.
The best use of TMO I saw was a high tackle in the Wales/bok game, he let it run while it was checked then brought it back once foul play was confirmed. It's a balancing act.
@aa Wales are no where near the SH, if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear.
Wales have about the poorest record against SH team, glorious defeat after glorious defeat with a few thrashings thrown in
@lifer no criticism of the two from me after Fiji. Yes my point was you the rules say you can check the build up to a try but not a game winning penalty with 2 mins to go.
@aa Wales are no where near the SH
Sa 23 Wales 19..seems quite close to me. Beat them in the autumn too. Hardly miles away.
if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear
And if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle
Apologies Idlejon by number 9 I mean scrum half.
@aa Wales are no where near the SH, if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear.
Seeing as we've had something like 5 pages of complaining about Joubert, I think I'm safe in criticising the ref in the Welsh game...
Wales weren't allowed to play in the second half. SA illegally sealed the ball off at every opportunity, and as I mentioned a few pages ago were given a scrum that should have been a Welsh penalty in the lead up to the SA try. Call it Wales not managing the ref properly if you want, rather than blaming the ref, but Wales could have won that game with a different ref, just as Scotland could have won their game. But, as someone on here said, what a stupid game it is when you need to analyse a ref's performance before the game.
The reffing has been abysmal this weekend. If anything comes out of this RWC I hope it will be a total shake-up of officiating.
Apologies Idlejon by number 9 I mean scrum half.
Same thing, surely? ❓
I thought the boks were the better team. Of course you can criticize the ref, but the result looked reflective of the game overall.
From the Guardian with quotes from the Aussie 9, clear refereeing error it seems
[i]Joubert’s controversial decision to award Australia a penalty for an accidental Scotland offside was later shown to be incorrect. The Australia scrum-half Nick Phipps admitted after the match he had deliberately attempted to win the loose ball that then struck the Scotland open-side flanker John Hardie. His intent to win the ball cleared Hardie of accidental offside.
“I think everyone was trying to win the ball. We were all going for it,” Phipps said.[/i]
Idlejon - he was wearing 21 I think he was playing scrum half. I could be wrong, but there's video in the link below that looks pretty clear - shows the view we all saw in real time, the view from above the touch line the ball was thrown from (and from the back towards halfway) and one from on high.
Seems straightforward.
World Rugby (whoever they might be) are going to publish their full report on the ref later today. Should be interesting to read.
I hope they support Joubert. He made a mistake in front of millions of armchair experts with PVRs. Sure, legging it from the pitch didnt cover him in glory, but I think the after-the-match witch hunt things is a bit OTT.
Seems straightforward.
Yeah, Phipps tries to play it but it clearly comes off the Scottish player's shoulder into the hands off an offside Scottish player who plays it. He didn't have to play it. Clear penalty. These offences are given all the time, ditto Maitland. Are Scotland a special case?
Exactly - if you accept the construct of a person on the ground making decisions then you have to accept those decisions, and that they are final. Do you really want the outcome of sporting events decided afterwards by a jury ? Refs too scared to blow the whistle in case they lose their job, and stopping the game all the time to check the TMO.
There were two minutes left on the clock, the guy made a call. Wrong, as it turned out and he shouldn't have legged it.
Just doubting myself.... does Phipps handling the ball mean the Scot is onside?
[quote=Stoner ]legging it from the pitch didnt cover him in gloryThat's more likely to do for him than anything he did during the actual match.
The game is over, Australia went through, the Aussie who played the ball admits he played the ball. Once the guy who played the ball says he did, I think we can stop speculating. We're not going through either way.
We were unlucky, but luck counts.
IdleJon - Member
Just doubting myself.... does Phipps handling the ball mean the Scot is onside?
No. But he's accidentally offside - meaning scrum in that situation.
With the assistance of the Panel, RFU CEO Ian Ritchie will make recommendations to the RFU Board after the conclusion of the Rugby World Cup.The panel will consist of:
Ian Ritchie, RFU CEO and Panel Chairman
Ian Metcalfe (Professional Game Board Chairman)
Ben Kay MBE – (former England International & World Cup Winner)
Ian Watmore (ER2015 Board member, former Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, former FA CEO and former Accenture Managing Director)
Sir Ian McGeechan OBE (former British & Irish Lions and Scotland Coach)
Only two rugby players involved!
accidentally offside - meaning scrum in that situation.
A scrum if a player is offside and the ball knocks into him. A penalty if the offside player attempts to play the ball. What did the Scot do? Once again, this happens every single weekend and almost without exception the player is penalised for it. He didn't need to play the ball if there was any confusion. Why did he play the ball?
Wasn't Geech quite pro Lancaster in the press? As for his implied almost Mourinho-esque comments y'day....
Who is on the panel reviewing Ritchie?
idlejohn - no, you're incorrect.
IF (scenario 1):
A Scottish player knocks-on, an Aussie plays the ball, then a Scot in an off-side position plays it, it's Accidental Offside and the result is a scrum (Aussie ball). i.e. Strauss knock-on -> Phipps -> Hardie = Scrum
IF (scenario 2):
A Scottish player knocks-on and it goes directly to a Scot in an off-side position, who plays the ball, then it's off-side and the result is a penalty. i.e. Strauss knock-on -> Hardie = Penalty
As scenario 1 above seems to be agreed by my most observers with the benefit of TV replays, then the ref's got it wrong.
To be fair though, I hadn't realised the ref wasn't allowed to go to the TMO for this incident and has to call it as he sees it, so it's a pretty tough one to get right. Not that I'm likely to forgive him any time soon...
Actually having checked it looks like 11.3c puts him onside.
Yep Joubert was a knob, running off the pitch was very, very poor. He should get some support; ref's need to be able to referee according to the laws as they see the game.
I would like to see more penalties / chat from the ref' for players trying to 'play' the ref. I'm looking at all those Aussies with their hand's up - this isn't football.
The slow mo on the highlights last night showed Maitland's eyes clearly. To me that focus was of a man intent on intercepting the pass, not trying to deliberately knock on. The eyes and the face would have given the latter away.
Only seen one clip of Joubert's running off - and wasn't exactly a sprint, so in the cold light of day, some of the hyperbole from yesterday seems misplaced. Still a crap thing to do mind.
Yes, with slo-mo cameras, the ref made an error. His mistake - give away was the twitchy arm from the start. But after that, he cant go to TMO so cant blame him for not doing something he cant do.
The Pit Bull seemed to get it right on twitter
to past and present players - if you believe in respect for referees is special in rugby, don't act to the contrary on here.
Otherwise the wendys may have a point 😉
Any body seen the story that Andy Powell sent some really abusive tweets to Cuthbert, he said he lost his phone but he has form for being a twit.
to past and present players - if you believe in respect for referees is special in rugby, don't act to the contrary on here.
Respect for referees in rugby isn't special. It just looks like that in comparison to football where the disrespect for referees is extra special. Look at boxing, snooker, martial arts, ice hockey, basketball etc...
Generally ref's err on the side of caution in such situations, Joubert was pretty damn reluctant (cough cough) to award a penalty to France in the closing stages of the 2011 final. It would have been easy and the right thing to do to ask the TMO, could you check X or Y or ask for it to be shown on the big screen. As I said its crazy if officially you can ask the TMO re offside if a try is scored but a penalty with 2 mins to go you cannot ?
As we are talking ref's anyone here think Nigel Owens is not a nailed on certainty to take the final ?
If Owens or Barnes take charge of the final and NZ are involved then it'll be an easy win for the All Blacks- they've both let the breakdown be a free for all and NZ will get away with murder more than ever. Poite has been my favourite ref so far
Not sure IRB are man enough to put Barnes into a NZ RWC final.
We should respect the refs decisions, but in this wc it's not the ref making them at times. Disallowed tries after tmo takes the after its awarded. This erodes the refs position as arbiter of the law.IRB cant really back a ref who has no respect for the players or belief in his own decisions. Did he think he was going to get smacked? No one else on the pitch seems to be ducking under the supposed, on here, barrage of bottles. You'd think he'd be used to upset supporters, given his history.
@onehundred I think the players on the field and the coaches have been respectful. We fans / internet keyboard warriors can be more direct 8) I was at the game and the ball just bounced around, hard to tell what had happened. When you see the replay it most obviously bounces off the Australian, I think the TMO would take 2 seconds to call that unintentional and thus a scrum.
The bottle accusation I am not sure where it's come from but you are searched on entry and can only buy plastic cups and bottles, you couldn't throw one very far and if the ref is on the playing surface he's miles out of range. I think he ran off due to the booing and he knows he's made a shocking decision.
The bottle accusation I am not sure where it's come from
Chieka.
😯
Just an early PSA / diary planning thought, 2016 European Rugby Cup Final is in Lyon on May 14 tickets not on sale yet. Other dates QF/SF published. New stadium opening in early 2016. 2017 final will be in Edinburgh
[url= http://www.epcrugby.com/news/30996.php#.ViUqoLxUM4k ]ERC Dates and Final[/url]
Referee Craig Joubert was wrong to award a last-minute penalty against Scotland in their World Cup quarter-final defeat by Australia at Twickenham, says World Rugby.
Scotland led 34-32 when Joubert ruled Jon Welsh was deliberately offside for playing the ball following a knock-on by a team-mate.
The governing body said that, because Australia's Nick Phipps touched the ball, "the appropriate decision should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on".
And rugby descends even further into farce.
Excellent, so we're in the semi final then? Or are we replaying the last 2 min?
They also said he was unable to use the TMO.
We should be (and have been!) able to bitch and moan about this sort of thing on here and on other platforms.
World Rugby should just STFU.
Appalling decision to make any comment at all.
at the very least World Rugby could have been much more supportive of the difficulty of the decision making given the number of bodies in the ricochet. Of course, the presumption might than be that with no clear foul, there should not have been a penalty, BUT if it looked to joubert like knock on then it was his prerogative to award a penalty on the back of what he saw even if he was wrong. I cant believe anyone thinks he was being either negligent or spiteful, he was just mistaken.
In Henry now they've done that, the penalty should be struck off, or more I practically the result null and void and the match replayed. Imagine the Aussie fuss...
Now they've done that, the penalty should be struck off, or more I practically the result null and void and the match replayed. Imagine the Aussie fuss...
It was nothing more than a mistake, but he was too quick to make the decision and/or influenced by aussie appeals. He also knew he was wrong but wasn't man enough to stay on the pitch to shake hands. Any one of those things makes him unsuitable to referee at that level in my book.
I expect the Australian Rugby authorities are sitting round a table this very minute discussing the draft of their letter withdrawing Australia from the semi final.
Now they've done that, the penalty should be struck off, or more I practically the result null and void and the match replayed. Imagine the Aussie fuss...
Referees make mistakes, that is part of the game, very sad for Scottish followers but nothing can be done now. I don't think World Rugby statement is a problem - mistakes happen - better to be honest about them and debate whether improvements can be made.
I wonder if he realised the mistake (or suspected it from the reactions).
Here's a bit of whataboutery for you. What about if he'd asked for a TMO decision anyway. Would the TMO have refused to give it?
Is it better to follow the rules (about what TMO can be used for) and an injustice occurs; or ignore those rules but get ultimately the right outcome?
Would Australia have felt equally hard done by if he'd got the right decision by the wrong route?
All to illustrate - it's a bloody tough job done by men who believe they are making the right calls; damned if they do, damned if they don't. It was wrong to leg it at the end (bottles notwithstanding) but don't judge the man until you've walked a mile in his boots.
Anyway looking ahead, Schmidt, but schit or still the messiah? Christ kjows who we go for as the next Lions coach.
Is Webb going to get the 9 shirt back? I thought Davies was.....even better......
I suspect that they'll change the TMO rules to account for potential result changing decisions. I am not too bothered about getting beat. It was a wonderful display by Scotland, and I would have ripped your arm off if you offered me that result before kick off. Good luck to Australia. I hope they go on and win it.
RFU reportedly sniffing around Schmidt with a view to buying him out of contract.
Is Webb going to get the 9 shirt back? I thought Davies was.....even better......
Wales have so many good 9's that they should go with the form player IMO and that may change by the 6N. To be honest Gareth Davies may not even get back in to the Scarlets team as Aled Davies has been pretty awesome so far too. Not sure how long Webb is out for- anyone remember?
Joubert made the error but it was understandable given his viewpoint. However, as he presumably saw on the big screen a better angle and what really happened could he not have employed common sense and awarded the scrum? He wouldn't be using the TMO as such but he would be using all the evidence available to him.
What would Nigel Owens have done?
RFU reportedly sniffing around Schmidt with a view to buying him out of contract.
You mean, the left hand has made a decision even before the right hand had announced the investigatory panel? English rugby in mystery selection process based on whatevery?
Surely not.
You mean, the left hand has made a decision even before the right hand had announced the investigatory panel? English rugby in mystery selection process based on whatevery?
Idle gossip I reckon. They wouldn't chance even sounding anyone out before the post mortem.
"Paper clip seller starts RFU conspiracy"
... Says the Daily Mail.
I think the IRB did the only thing they could and admitted the mistake, it's obvious from the TV replays it was the wrong decision. They also, correctly, point out that the TMO cannot be used (technically) for a review. @wanman is correct they will change the TMPO rules, once you have TMO its daft not to be able to use it for everything as clearly a 78th minute penalty is just as important as a 2nd minute try. You can't replay the game as it was a mistake, so hats off to the IRB for just saying so.
@namaste , no I don't think the error was understandable. In that situation you have to be really really sure it was [b]intentional[/b]
I don't buy the Schmidt rumours, the review will take place after the RWC. I'm glad Rob Andrew has nothing to do with it, you do wonder what the £500k pa the RFU pays him is actually for. Hopefully the review will do away with his position entirely.
Was in Midi Olympique, Kryters.
[img] 
[/img]
There's no 'technically' about it, it can't be used for every call.
What's the definition of 'foul play' in rugby? Does it need to be a potential carding offense, or just one that results in a penalty?
They even mentioned the RFU's interest in Schmidt on the Ireland game commentary
Jamba, the test of intention is by the action of the offside player. If he can't avoid being touched by the ball then it is accidental offside. 11.6 (a).
Anything else is intentional.
It is not a test of the actions of the first player.
Whatnobeer, the definition of foul play runs to 8 pages in my book of laws 🙂
But the intro goes:
Anything.... That a player does against the letter or the spirit of the laws of the game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the game.
Joël Jutge - the guy who's just thrown Joubert to the lions - wonder if he's ever missed something even more blatant on a rugby field. I mean, real, bare faced cheating...not some heat of the moment thing. Might have been around the same time in the game though.
So it comes back to:
If he gives a penalty in that situation he suspects foul play and can go to tmo.
Otherwise its accidental and scrum/free kick. As happened earlier.
the test of intention is by the action of the offside player. If he can't avoid being touched by the ball then it is accidental offside. 11.6 (a).
Anything else is intentional.
In that case if a player throws a forward pass to another player who's marginally in front of him and that player catches the pass (which happens all the time,) then technically, that's intentionally playing the ball in an offside position?
I've often thought that playing the ball when it comes forward off a team mate is frequently done instinctively and it seems harsh to award a penalty unless the offside player has done it purely to gain an unfair advantage.
Maybe it's time for a rethink on many of the technical infringements that result in penalties and, IMO, blight the game.
What I don't think has been done is consider what if a scrum had been awarded. So Australia win their scrum, inside the Scotland half. Half a dozen phases gains them 20m. At which point it's played back for a drop goal with the clock already past 80 minutes. Same result.
OK, so it might not have happened like that - Scotland might have collapsed the scrum or conceded a penalty at some other point during those phases. You'd have to think though that with possession in the Scotland half, Australia were favourites to find some way to score. The idea that had the penalty not been awarded Scotland would have won is quite a big assumption.
Not that it matters now but how late does a hit need to be for the TMO to intervene - in the vine I've seen Hogg is hit 3 seconds after the ball leaves his foot?
In that case if a player throws a forward pass to another player who's marginally in front of him and that player catches the pass (which happens all the time,) then technically, that's intentionally playing the ball in an offside position?
Not quite, the law is more relaxed about the forward pass it is only intentional offside if the intention is on the part of the passer not the receiver. (12.1 f) (and that intention is to pass the ball forward, rather than not quite manage to pass the ball flat or backwards)
And always not forgetting that in most forward passes, the receiver usually starts off in an onside and is never actually offside. He just receives the ball in front of the passer.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
RFU reportedly sniffing around Schmidt with a view to buying him out of contract.
Repotedly sniffing round Shaun Edwards too.
And Gatland.
And Vern Cotter.
Only WC coach not been mentioned for THE JOB so far is PSA.
Must be in secret contract talks already then. 😉
RFU should never had let Edwards go, proven club coach gaining international experience. They should have found a away to get him to stay and helped him prepare for taking the top job at some point. My view is it will go to an English coach (80%) vs Lancaster keeping the job (20%)
@Stoner the IRB have said flat out it was the wrong decision.
@aracer indeed, we don't know what would have happened but the odds would have been much more in favour of Scotland
PSA for Stade Français v Munster in November, the cheapest Cat 4 tickets are €13-15 and a very good view in a great club stadium [url= http://billetterie.stade.fr ]tickets[/url]