[Closed] 2015-16 rugby, world cup year

aracer - no, a Scotland win without the penalty is hardly a given. We'd already put ourselves under massive pressure by screwing up both the restart and the line-out.

Nevertheless, it's hardly a guaranteed Aussie win either. They had 2 minutes to score from a scrum a short way inside the Scotland half. Any turnover, handling error, infringement or Scotland merely keeping them pushed-back long enough to run-down the clock would have been enough to give Scotland the win.

Being behind with barely 2 minutes to go is a desperate, desperate situation in a knock-out game, most definitely not where you want to be! Would still have been backing Scotland at that point.

IANRAT however my take on the whole thing is:

1: Gutted that Scotland didnt win. I am English but cheered for Wales and Scotland (Not Ireland but we wont go into that)
2: Joubert made the wrong decision but it took 3 slo mo's before anyone in their armchair could determine it was such. He should not be slated for this.
3: He has been treated disgracefully by his cowardly governing body.
4: I was slightly disappointed in Laidlaw's post game interview although I understand emotions where high.
5: I was also suprised by the reaction of a number of commentators who showed bad judgement in their criticism of Joulbert immediately after the game. They should know better.
6: Hastings has gone down in my estimation. Even in my limited experience I have seen a number of things on a rugby field I would describe as "worse" than a referee "jogging" into the tunnel on the final whistle.

5: I was also suprised by the reaction of a number of commentators who showed bad judgement in their criticism of Joulbert immediately after the game.

Most of them criticised him for running off rather than for the decision. Still can't say that I've seen a good excuse for that.

6: Hastings has gone down in my estimation. Even in my limited experience I have seen a number of things on a rugby field I would describe as "worse" than a referee "jogging" into the tunnel on the final whistle.

Most of them criticised him for running off rather than for the decision. Still can't say that I've seen a good excuse for that.

I agree but I think Hastings over reacted to that plus he may say he felt some hostility etc given what he had just done. Not making excuses but it was nothing more than "very unusual"

This one incident at the end makes it easy to forget Joubert had a dreadful game all match (for both sides). It was a little "Steve Walsh" at times for want of a better description. I don't think he's getting a hard time just for one difficult decision at the end or running off, that is only part of it.

Don't know why the ref ran, we just wanted a wee chat with him...

[img] ?oh=de0a163f45e30a7d8c355ecf99ff095f&oe=56C0F7FF[/img]

Semis will be reffed by Barnes (not the NZ game 😉 ) and Jérôme Garcès. So Owens is going to get the final. Congrats 😀

When I was playing hockey at a reasonable level any player who challenged the umpires was promptyl told "to stop behaving like a footballer".

Other than in cases of blatant cheating or material incompetence, I have always regarded all sporting officials to be just another factor of the game, much like the pitch conditions, the light or the weather.

I agree with Jambalaya - Joubert's been hung out to dry.

The obvious reaction will be that the TMO is rolled out for all sorts of things. As someone who watches lots of rubgy league, I have to say it feels like the on pitch ref sends it up to the video ref too often, for too long, which creates real breaks of play.

Owens (and not just Owens) handling of the breakdown has been appalling this WC. It seems something must have been said before the tournament as his decisions and style are not the same as normal. Maybe the refs have had some strong encouragement to not blow up for penalties this WC and keep the game flowing? A bit like hardly any scrum penalties being given if the ball is available at the back- ignore the 10m drive and destroyed opposition, get on with the game.

So have I got this right. It should not have been a penalty because the Australian scrum half admitted trying to play the ball after the match? However, at normal speed the ref merely concluded it bounced off him by accident or didn't touch him at all? Also I'm pretty sure after it hits the Aussie it then brushes a Scottish player's shoulder before it goes forward and is picked up off the floor which I think is what the Aussie players were appealing for - doesn't this make a difference?

Anyhow, isn't Edwards's contract with Wales up now? He largely did a pretty good effort with the Welsh Defence. By the time England finish their review he will probably signed something else.

[quote=stevomcd ]aracer - no, a Scotland win without the penalty is hardly a given. We'd already put ourselves under massive pressure by screwing up both the restart and the line-out.
Nevertheless, it's hardly a guaranteed Aussie win either.

I agree - but there seems to be the assumption that Scotland would have won without the penalty, or at least that's the tone of a lot of the discussion ("we were robbed by the penalty"). Scotland were big favourites before the lineout, but I'd have backed Australia if they'd had a scrum.

or Scotland merely keeping them pushed-back long enough to run-down the clock

That wouldn't have done it - they'd have still needed a turnover or an Australian infringement.

[quote=surfer ]2: Joubert made the wrong decision but it took 3 slo mo's before anyone in their armchair could determine it was such. He should not be slated for this.
3: He has been treated disgracefully by his cowardly governing body.

This

The refs decision should stand, it's taken numerous replays and [b]days[/b] to determine that he was mistaken. TBH I'm not even sure he was that awful in the rest of the game - the big decision which I disagree with was taken by the TMO, and he got some things very right - it would have been very easy to have just given the Australia try rather than get the TMO to look at the knock on.

The other thing to bear in mind about that penalty which "lost Scotland the game" - they would have never have been in that situation if they'd had a better line-out. After a great game, their fate was in their own hands at that line-out.

After a great game, their fate was in their own hands at that line-out.

What kind of idiot decides to throw a long high wet ball to Dave Denton (not the world's greatest ball handler ;)) at such a crucial point in the tournament?

If we'd beaten Australia we'd have gone on to beat Argentina* and meet the All Blacks in the final. Given what they did to France I shudder to think what they would do to us with the whole world watching.

This may be a blessing in disguise.

* I know what you're going to say but it's plausible

As the line out got ready I was wondering what the hell we were doing.8 man,ball to middle and up jumper.That was what cost us. If you can't close out a game with 2 mins left then you don't deserve to be in the semi.

Something I don't understand is when the TMO can impose himself on the game. I understand that CJ couldn't refer the decision to the TMO but could the TMO have said 'check check' and then checked who the last person to touch the ball was?.

After all, if the TMO can overturn the knock on and turn it into a deliberate knock on to get Maitland yellow carded then surely he could let CJ know that he was checking the knock on at the line out and overturn the penalty if it turned out to be unintentional?

Stoner - Member

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)

Cheers Stoner. 😉

Anyway, still RWC related.... Marler is a bit simple isn't he

... and it is important to remember the last minute decision against Scotland isn't one of the worst...

I have a question about side entry to rucks. Scotland V Australia at the weekend, last ruck of the game. Number 18 comes in from the side of a ruck and then holds the opposing player on the ground. What should the "penalty" be for that? And can the TMO butt in on that one given that it's foul play?

Scotsman walks into a bar.....

[img] [/img]

wanmankylung - pretty straight forward offside at a ruck. Two parallel lines of offside, both running through the back feet of the rearmost player on each side.

You can join the ruck alongside your last man, as long as your feet are no further forwards than his.

which ruck are you referring to in the vid? Got a timestamp?

13 mins 13 secs in that video 79 mins 40 secs ish in the game.

Laidlaw was one of the NH players of the tournament IMO - I can forgive a bit of emotion and hurt after all that effort.

I have a question about side entry to rucks.

Anything goes this RWC seems to be how the breakdown is refereed. Sealing the ball off is also acceptable amongst other things. I can only guess it is in the interest of free flowing games with as few penalties as possible. The SH seem to have adapted quite well whereas Wales in particular were naive against SA and Aus

Without the penalty it still isn't a forgone conclusions but a scrum would pretty much leave it a gotta play everything for aus. Given that the previous one took three minutes, give or take.

As for throwing to the back, was it not because the Australians loaded the front of the lineout meaning we can't throw to front due to challenge or middle as Fraser is a flat thrower. Good choice for aus as a long throw becomes difficult in those conditions. Good thinking rugby.

Actually seeing that vid, that last lineout was even nearer the Scottish line than I thought, only just outside the 22. Australia wouldn't have had to make any ground at all from the scrum to line up the drop goal - I'm even more convinced the penalty decision made no difference to the outcome.

What kind of idiot decides to throw a long high wet ball to Dave Denton (not the world's greatest ball handler ;)) at such a crucial point in the tournament?

Agreed @tmh on Laidlaw

Anything goes this RWC seems to be how the breakdown is refereed. Sealing the ball off is also acceptable amongst other things. I can only guess it is in the interest of free flowing games with as few penalties as possible. The SH seem to have adapted quite well whereas Wales in particular were naive against SA and Aus

Exactly. DD laughed at me blaming the ref in the Welsh game but it was partly my frustration at them not being able to cope with the ref.

However, it really does frustrate me that the way the game is being reffed during this RWC is so markedly different from the rest of the season.

As for throwing to the back, was it not because the Australians loaded the front of the lineout meaning we can't throw to front due to challenge or middle as Fraser is a flat thrower. Good choice for aus as a long throw becomes difficult in those conditions. Good thinking rugby.

That makes no sense at all. If he was a flat thrower the risk of the ball being intercepted is still the same wherever he throws it and is especially hazardous to the back. Short throw-ins are always safer. Always. It was poor rugby.

*You're

aracer - Australia would have had to win the scrum and based on the rest of the match that wasn't a forgone conclusion.

Neither is kicking a drop-goal from an angle on a wet and windy day...

Idlejohn by covering the easy throws they effectively force the difficult one, knowing that to lose at the front or middle will make scotlands defence difficult, given the issues with drives.

But leaving the tail option open makes it look easier and worth the risk.

What kind of idiot decides to throw a long high wet ball to Dave Denton (not the world's greatest ball handler ;)) at such a crucial point in the tournament?

I think it was the same kind of idiot who decided to throw short for England against Wales.......

I think it was the same kind of idiot who decided to throw short for England against Wales.......

As far as I could tell (we where pretty close watching from behind the in goal area on that side), the Scottish lineout was a pre-called move involving the dummy run forward then back and then the ball overthrown/bad jumper timing

Idlejohn by covering the easy throws they effectively force the difficult one, knowing that to lose at the front or middle will make scotlands defence difficult, given the issues with drives.

But leaving the tail option open makes it look easier and worth the risk.

Find me a team who change their line-out calldepending on where the defence loads the line-out..... it doesn't happen.You're over-thinking it.

Anyone know why the TMO was allowed to intervene for Maitland's knock on?

It seems strange that he is allowed to throw his oar in whenever he wants but the ref isn't allowed to check with him whenever he wants.

The more I look at it the more I think that the TMO was not supposed to intervene for the knock on. He can only intervene if he thinks that foul play prevented a try from being scored.

If it was judged that the knock on prevented a try then the only judgment could have been penalty try.

This, to me, is way more serious an issue than the final penalty call. I have sympathy for CJ on that one. It was a snap decision that he had to make and couldn't legally check.

If the TMO intervened when he wasn't allowed to then that points to a lack of understanding of the laws rather than a lapse of judgment.

I believe weve had many incidents where the tmo has intervened (withiut a request from the tef) for incidents at rucks esp on the oppostie side to the ref. A certain NZ 7 has been pinged more than once

A deliberate knock on is foul play,so TMO. For the record,the Scottish team and management have kept quiet about this. The Mee-ja doesn't seem to want to let it go,the Times has a bit in it's ongoing reporting stating that Scotland will be unable to sue a la Irish FA. Really?

Even so, the wording of the laws says they can't do that. If TMOs have taken it on themselves to intervene when they're not supposed to then there's no reason for refs not to refer decisions they're not supposed to.

Just looked at the knock on again and I can't believe how wrong they got the decision. Just ignore Maitland's attempted catch/deliberate knock on for a minute.

CJ says there was an overlap but Maitland had Mitchell, who was about a metre from the touchline, lined up to put him straight into touch if he'd gotten his hand on the ball. As it was Foley telegraphed the pass to such an extent that Maitland actually moved back in from the touchline to attempt the intercept.

Not only that, Mitchell had over run the pass so there's a good chance it would have gone straight into touch anyway.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Actually, I see what you mean. In which case it seems clear that he could have referred the decision for the penalty.

[i]The match officials may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review if they observe an act of foul play (prior to the next restart in play) where:

-They may have only partially observed an act or acts of foul play

-They are unsure of the exact circumstances[/i]

Seems to me that either one of those would have allowed CJ to check with the TMO for the final penalty.

I give up. Rugby is too complicated for my tiny brain to follow. I'm off to see if there's any football on.

A deliberate knock on is foul play,and a yellow was part of the focus 2012-13,the last year I reffed seniors, as everybody was at it. Offside in the last min where the top two inches aren't working is offside.

As I recall,

Japan - Scots interception try
SA - Scots interception try
Samoa - Scots interception try

And even later on in the Australia game - Scots interception try

With that track record and a telegraphed pass, deliberate knock-on for a marginally catchable, potential Scots interception try seems harsh. But ultimately it's a judgement call and the match officials get to exercise that judgement.

7 pages disputing a yellow card and a penalty. FFS! 🙄

The aussies aren't happy either.....
[img] [/img]
This got the scots a penalty.......

The still looks damning but you can't see when it was blown or whether the still is the result of the Aussie loose head going to ground (which he does appear to have done in that photo).

And as for the ! flanker, well played sir, if that the quality of reffing then that's what you do.

Everyone looks to be on their feet (hips level) to me.

wrecker - Member

Everyone looks to be on their feet (hips level) to me.

You should be a ref if you can tell that from above!

Aussie number one has gone down, hence the Scots shoulder against the Aussie hooker's arm. Even driving in, you can't do that unless the loose head drops.

Penalty Scotland. Ref is correct on that part anyway. As is Laidlaw who is pointing it out (naughty boy, leave it to the ref) - I doubt he'd be pointing at it if Scotland had infringed.

The flanker is more difficult to explain, but it may just be the result of everyone's binding starting to slip as the Aussies collapse the scrum. Or maybe he's just testing the offside law (flankers are meant to test the offside, right?)

Just looking at the height of the shorts relative to the second rows' shoulders, it all looks level. None of them are obviously on the deck.
The scots tighthead is boring in, it's no different to the Marler stuff everyone was criticizing. No chance in the world is that a scots pen.

No wrecker, the Aussie loose head has dropped, which means the Scots tight head is suddenly held on one shoulder only (his left) and he pivots round it.

Or he's driving in.

You can't tell from a still.

Edit : actually on the shorts thing you point out, more shorts showing on the Aussie loose head also suggests that his hips are higher than his shoulders - which tallies with his shoulders dropping, which tallies with the Scots tight head suddenly having no support for his right shoulder because the Aussie loose head has gone to ground.

But you still cannot tell from a single shot from above.

And look at Laidlaw. A scrum half with the ball at his number 8's feet does not point at a possible reason for the ref to give the opposition a penalty. Good sportsmanship should be applauded but that would be a step too far.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-wallabies-vs-scotland
Here you go. Nobody was on the deck. Gray had slipped off Nels hips and cowan had come around to help nel out. Should never have been a pen scotland, or a the three points resultant.

I've looked at that site now. Presumably it's an independent site and not a load of whinging Aussies (whinging even when they win).
Some of the analysis is laughable. Arrows drawn diagonally across people's backs to show the direction that in an imaginary world they still wouldn't be able to drive in - but if they did it might put pressure on the Aussie front row.

An Aussie front row that buckled all day because they weren't very good (relative to the Scots - or SAs 😉 ) at scrummaging.

Once you buckle as often as they did, the ref assumes any marginal calls are you're fault.

Aussie front rowers - toughen up princesses (and you're right I wouldn't say that if they were in the room).

I haven't heard Cheika complaining about the unfair Scots scrummaging and he's commented on almost everything else, so I am putting that site down as whingers, wrecker

No doubt there is some whinging from the aussies, but they are hardly the only ones are they? 😉
I thought they got a rough time from Joubert a the scrum, and I'm not an aussie. I also thought the scots yellow was very harsh. Swings and roundabouts.

I may be being unfair. The overall thrust site is actually that Aussie front rowers ain't smart enough or powerful enough.

But I think their analysis should be more on the not powerful enough side than it actually is.

I am a Scot, but I'm happy to admit that Joubert will have gotten things wrong both ways. I probably find it easier to spot when it went against the Scots though.

Scrum penalties are always s lottery though, and refs tend to give them against the side they perceive to have more to gain from stopping play - the weaker scrum, the side close to its own line, etc

I am a Scot

I think everyone had figured that. 😉

Just being clear and all.

I also played all 15 positions over 25 years, giving up when the cortisone injections were becoming too frequent. I wasn't any good.

I used to know the rules too, but they all seem to have changed (has anyone seen a straight put in at a RWC scrum?).

But I have been part of the front row shenanigans and I pity the refs in that area.

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Double bluff.

Crafty us Scots aren't we?

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Wot Wrecker said!

wanmankylung - Member

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Seriously?

Ultimately I don't think that scrum was dodgy on the Scots side, at least no more so than 99% of international scrums on both sides.

The green and gold analysis of that scrum relied on some artistic licence with the arrows showing direction of shove.

Doesn't mean other scrums weren't dodgy, but with that one the Aussie front row (so good against E&W) was simply outclassed.

WP Nel is a bit of a keeper isn't he? Even if he looks like a slightly more exotic Chunky! 5"11" and just under 19 stone and deadly from a yard out.

Seriously?

What do you think? 😀

wanmankylung - Member

Seriously?

What do you think?

My sarcasm alert is obviously not working today. 😆

Last week so game was cracking! Watched it in a pub in Johannesburg. Atmosphere was amazing.
Bit nervous for Saturday's game now though. The AB's are strong 🙁

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/joubert-looking-forward-to-walking-holiday-in-scotland-20151021103143 ]The mash's take on Joubert[/url]

However the foreign office travel advice for Scotland has been changed today to an orange alert with the warning ‘safe for everyone except Craig Joubert’.

Scot Tom Logan said: “We Scots are a famously forgiving nation and everyone makes mistakes. That said, if I see Joubert I will kill and eat him.”

😆

At times like these it is important to remember that a victory over Australia isn't always healthy for a Scot so maybe Joubert did them a favour

There was an interview with Ansbro in the paper,a science? Teacher at a top English school now. 31 stitches!

As an aside. Tickets available for both semis and final. All sold originally but these are from the resale

NZ RSA categories A and B (C, D were available but now sold)
Arg Aus all categories A to D
Final categories A and B

So Tyler Morgan has had shoulder surgery and Anscombe is out fot around two months..Wales may struggle to field a backline in the six nations.
1/2p out
S Williams out
T Morgan out
L Williams out
Allen out
Beck out

Anscombe might be fit
Walker will be broken again by then, whens Jiffy Junior back?

It's OK @aa the first two 6N after a World Cup don't mean anything 😉

It's the two in the build up to a world cup that don't mean anything.

As shown by Ireland

None of it matters - you only pick the team 3 weeks before the event based on the brown envelopes that are changing hands.