You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looks like the refs boss has thrown him under the bus.in a way that joubert never was (yes I'm still bitter.
sadmadalan - i read that article - note it does not say what mistakes he is admitting to and certainly does not say the ref thinks the two tries wrongly awarded.
Rees who wrote the article is a one eyed England fan
i am certain if the ref had said the two tries where wrongly awarded the article would say so.
the "mistakes" he is admitting could be communication failure or not carding Itoje for example
so when WR or the ref state those two tries were wrongly awarded I'll accept that but they have not
To me it looked more like some of the English players thought it was going to be a kick for goal while others were more switched on and were already in position when the ref called time on.
Maybe the ref simply thought, 'I've given him enough time to say, "If we give away any more penalties we're going to get carded" and for his team to get into position. If the players decide to spend the time they should have been using to get into position having a drink and receiving instructions from the waterboys instead that is their problem.' (it's more plausible if you say it in a French accent).
The ref didn't do them any favours but if England had been more switched on and realised that a kick for goal hadn't yet been indicated they would have all been in position.
The second one I don't understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don't see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?
Ill take my above post back - the article has been rewritten and expanded since I first read it.
It still stops short of saying both decisions were wrong
The second one I don’t understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don’t see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?
Its whether he had control or not. However the quote does not say outright that it was wrong
Bruce - ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn't it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn't hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on? I'm not sure, I think most people within the game felt it was a knock on. Irrelevant now, may have made a difference we will never know.
I hope the game is another nail in the coffin of Jones, his time and style of (not) coaching is done (probably 20 years ago!).
He has made some very good players become very average.
I really hope France are allowed to stay in the tournament and we see a sensible conclusion to what is proving to be a good tournament so far and that we have a worthy winner at the end.
Well, that’s 2 out of 2 games with a ball juggling controversy.
Can any one explain to me why...
In Scotland-Wales the Scot goes in perhaps a little gung ho but at a reasonable height and Wyn Jones straightens up and gets a a bang on the head for his trouble - result red card Scotland.
In England-Wales the English laddie goes in a bit high and in driving his shoulder through collects the Welsh head - result no intent, fair play.
Both went to video ref so both definitely seen.
In the first one was there a spearing / failure to try and use tha arms issue?
Otherwise they seem about equal - no one is suggesting Fagerson deliberately targeted Jones head, so no intent there either.
Surely they both walk or neither does - ok I accept two different weekends and two different officiating teams but a red and a fair play? Really?
In the wales game it was seen as a rugby collision - initial impact on chest and slipped up on a player running. In the fagerson case the player was bound in a maul and the initial impact was shoulder to head with no wrap of the arms.
completely different circumstances. fagersons was foul play even if he did not hit the guys head
Fagerson's was also 100% intentional.
Also one was wrapped with arms the other the arm is tucked away meaning you are very much deliberately using shoulder. I think this is what they are trying to get rid of. It is a result of modern coaching, winning collision etc and straight from rugby league where a lot of defensive coaches have come from.
If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.
If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.
It was still a high tackle though, I cannot grasp why it matters if you wrap arms if you hit them in the head. The one in the England game had mitigation he started legal and it slipped high, for me a pen for certain, a yellow at worst. The ref shit out of it imo.
Fagerson’s was also 100% intentional.
Definitely agree it was intentional to remove Jones from the ruck, and to do that your going to need a fair amount of momentum, but deliberate head contact? He knew in advance that Jones was going to straighten and that his head was now going to be in the firing line? Impressive.
Was it cavalier? Yes probably.
But equally the way it me in the England game the English tackler goes in too high and at an angle that he’s always going into the Welshman’s head after the initial contact. I would have thought a penalty minimum. (No I wouldn’t have said red, but I wouldn’t have said that the week before either)
But perhaps I’m just displaying that after 25 years of play in a different era I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.
I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.
Not meant as a criticism but this. Blood subs, HIA's, player protection are all 'new' aspects, and I don't think players have yet adjusted, after the last 20 years of coaching it isn't overnight. But they will and I think the game has a chance to be better for it, both for the player safety but also with lower tackles, more chance to free arms and off load the ball.
I can only compare to football where the first 20 mins of every game was just 'reducers' and then the ref would call a halt and the game could start properly. When they changed laws about the tackle from behind, there was the same outcry but players adapted very quickly, and the game's better as a result.
Even if the player fagerson hit did not move the tackle was still no arms and reckless. and was never below the head. Thats 3 ways it was more serious.
It was the phrasing and the obvioulsly leading questions, deliberately provocative.
I agree, I winced when watching that and felt pretty bad for Farrell. However I didn't then go on Twitter and lay into her.
TJ - not saying it wasn’t worse (not saying it was either) but in levels of sanction (nothing, penalty, yellow, red) it didn’t seem three levels worse.
As for Farrell - of course those were the questions he was going to be asked, he knew it and had prepared his stone wall which he deployed admirably. Pushing a bit harder might have got a more interesting response, but might have been a little unfair. In particular he could have been asked why weren’t you concentrating at that penalty (choice of two as I recall), switched off a bit didn’t you? But that would have been pushy. Farrell wasn’t on Graham Norton to flog his latest book - questions pitched absolutely fine.
Bruce – ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn’t it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn’t hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on?
I just looked at it again here is what I noticed:
The ball didn't leave his hand before it hit his thigh.
If you look at it his hand is in contact with the ball at all times. At no point is the ball in free air and the final direction it ends up going is backwards. Exactly as if it was dropped but went backwards.
That was definitely not a knock on.
As far as i can make out there is a fog around the need for control before kicking or indeed no need, otherwise how could a ball on the ground be kicked, although a kick is well defined. And to be a knock on it has to hit the ground or someone else (in front of you) otherwise a "knock up" interception would be a knock on.
Problem was everyone thought knock on but applying the actual laws rules it not actually a knock on.
I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg that is clearly a knock on (I've never seen a knock on that comes off the leg where it wasn't obvious it was a loss of control).
I think in this case it's not even a grey area because the ball doesn't lose contact with his body before it goes backwards.
If the ball had left his hand and hit his thigh and gone backwards then that would be a grey area.
This is pretty black and white, imo.
I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg
So Sinkler knocked on in that video above?
IGM
I think the questions were really unfair - not the subject but the tone was really baiting
The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.
And then you've got drop kicks where the ball is dropped forwards and must touch the ground before being kicked...
I think the questions were really unfair – not the subject but the tone was really baiting
The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.
Agreed, as I've already said. Post match interviews are so unbelievably pointless these days - nobody with any sense says anything meaningful. Perhaps you can look at it another way - the BBC are deliberately trying to make the players say something controversial or make themselves look a bit stupid, because this will get the viewing figures up on the website, etc.
Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match? All I saw on FB on Sunday were pictures comparing him to a muppet, and similar - will the BBC take responsibility for their part in online bullying, or just cry foul because one of their employees feels hard done by?
@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That's a kick.
Drop kick you are in control. If you knock the ball forwards and then try to make it look like a deliberate kick its always given as knock on
Secondly was it a knock on? In did it actually go forward in relation to the player? It looks like it comes off the side of his lower leg then goes behind him, to be knocked back by a white shirt.
I suppose this is where all the forward passes(in relation to the ground) are not forward.
It looks an obvious knock on but I wonder if strict application of the laws in this case mean no knock on, try.
@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That’s a kick.
Are you sure? I'm almost certain that if you don't manage to control a catch but manage to get your foot to it and it goes forward then it's a knock on.
I would have called that a knock on when whistling, if I remember( and it has been a while) there is something in the rule...sorry LAW..about having control. He has been taken off touch judge duties for Englands last game and given Scotland v Italy. Thanks;thanks a bunch.
Judge's words
The ball was not under the control of the Welsh wing and went forward on to his thigh,” Jutge said. “In the laws such as they’re written, there isn’t this notion of loss of control, that’s why this situation lends itself to confusion.
“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain... it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO, that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”
To summarise what he said
"There's no notion of loss of control in laws"
"in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control,"
Clear as mud then.
It's been a bit overshadowed by the amount of English whining, but the ref in the Italy Ireland game didn't have his best day either.
And then the ITV interviewer went after sexton and Farrell snr to get them to criticise too. Didn't come to much.
Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match?
I saw the questions, I haven’t seen anything ridiculing Farrell on social media, but then I haven’t looked for it specifically. If I googled Farrell muppet I might find it I suppose.
The questions were in line with what I would assume everyone was thinking and he answered them reasonably well.
If anything makes one look like a muppet (other than a green felt-like complexion 😉), it’s getting caught by a quick Welsh penalty not once but twice. All rugby players have had days like that - I just made sure I wasn’t in the nation jersey being broadcast far and wide when I made that sort of mistake (tactical choice you understand, not just that I was rubbish).
The thing that would improve Farrell’s image would be for him to come out and say they were tough, blunt questions and I didn’t enjoy answering them, but everyone was thinking it, they had to be asked.
The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.
Also double posts. They make one look like a muppet.
Sorry for that.
AA if even no one else acknowledged it, good joke. I had a chuckle.
I had a chuckle.
Glad someone acknowledged it.
What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??
Clear as mud then.
If the player maintains contact with the ball throughout and the first time he loses contact with the ball it goes backwards, how can it be a knock on?
It's not clear from Jutge's comments whether he realises RZ still had hand contact with the ball when it hit his thigh.
No wonder so many lawyers like rugby.
The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.
Like I said, the interview is an exercise in not answering the questions and is a pointless space filler for TV.
The only incisive reply ever was given by Garin Jenkins about 25 years ago - "We 'ad them blowing out their arses!"
What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??
Maybe Gav isn't hunky enough for them?
From the definitions in those laws (which are really quite poorly drafted).
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or whena player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or
arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.
Looks like the idea of loss of control can play a part here.
and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
This is the qualifier at the end of the argument. It has to touch the ground or another player to be a knock on. If it comes off your hand and goes forward, if you catch it again or kick it, then its not a knock on.
So it came forward off his hands, hit his leg (so it became a kick) and then whether it went forward or backwards is irrelevant.
To me, despite my pain, it was not a knock on.
(IANAL but I do know a bit of legalese, to me the and at the beginning of my quote is critical.)
So it came forward off his hands, hit his leg
If you look at the video it actually doesn't lose contact with his hand before if hits his thigh.
For me it's this point that means it wasn't a knock on.
Fair enough.
I don't object whether he lost it or not, you can throw/drop the ball forward to kick it.
It could be argued it was a kick, just not very stylish.
Its a technical point of interest but it doesn't change the outcome, England lost through their own fault, despite reffing errors.
On the Sonia McLaughlan thing, I think I'll go to my default position and say it's World Rugby's fault because of their usual hypocrisy and #RugbyValues bullshit (and obviously the cowardly little ****s sitting behind their keyboards but that should go without saying).
Seriously, you fine players for criticising the refs but allow interviewers to ask about refereeing decisions. How is that in any way logical.
Interviewers have to ask about the biggest talking point of the game. Otherwise there is literally no point in doing any kind of interview. If he didn't ask and try to get an answer (that she probably knew she wasn't going to get) she wasn't doing her job.
And World Rugby have decided that any criticism of the ref is unacceptable. **** them.
Between the whistles there should be no questioning the refs decisions (unless they are waving on dangerous play, all players have a duty to bring dangerous play to a refs attention any way they can) but after the final whistle they should be able to say whatever the hell they like.
I understand that in rugby the way the rules are interpreted means that refs are making the 'wrong' decision at almost every breakdown so players and coaches could legitimately complain after every game but is the solution to muzzle the players rather than fix the issues?
If you are World Rugby the answer is yes.
Oh yeah, and I would love to see one of these keyboard warriors take Genge up on his offer
https://twitter.com/EllisGenge/status/1366105153334611972
If he (she I think - typo?) didn’t ask and try to get an answer (that she probably knew she wasn’t going to get) she wasn’t doing her job.
Agreed.
In fact I agree with most of what you said.
In the good old days, only the captains were allow to address the ref between the whistles and then only for clarification.
Anything or anyone else got penalised.
After the game? Well they’re big boys and if they say anything that actually brings the game into disrepute then they should be hauled up for it - but they should be allowed to say that they didn’t see something the same way as the ref.
It could be argued it was a kick, just not very stylish.
No, hit wrong part of leg and not intentional- doubly not a kick
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
Also even if it was a kick, that doesn't prevent it being a knock on.
Also even if it was a kick, that doesn’t prevent it being a knock on.
Really how?
A kick is not a knock on.
For it to be a knock it it must go forward and hit another player or the ground.
The fact is it may have gone forward from his hands, but then it hit his leg. His leg is not another player or the ground.
I think the ref considered it to have gone backwards off the hand.
did the ball ever go forward?
yes off his hand on the initial impact. If he had then deliberately batted it backwards before it hit the ground no knock on. the issue here is the touch on his leg that took it backwards was accidental so was he in control of it?
to me this is one that is decided on such fine nuance that whichever way the decision went would have been OK and if he had rules it " no try" on the ground the TMO would have been unlikely to overturn it
Anyway, what do I know, in this article NO says its a knock on, I ain't gonna pretend to know better than him.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/its-100-per-cent-knock-19932005
But Owens views the incident in a different light.
“It was definitely a knock on,” he said, elaborating on the points he made on S4C.
“You see situations sometimes where a player loses control of a ball and then kicks it before it hits the ground. Well, that’s still classed as a knock on.
“What the law says is if a player loses control of the ball forward, he must regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else.
“So, in this case, Rees-Zammit definitely touches the ball and it travels forward on to his calf, then goes backwards and then comes off an England player.
“So it has travelled forward off his hand first and he fails to regain possession of it, which means it’s a knock on.
“If it hits his hand and goes backwards, then it’s play on.
“But it hits his hand, the ball is still travelling forward and then it hits his calf and goes backwards.
“So, in law, he loses control of the ball forward and then fails to regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else, so it’s a knock on.
“If anybody wants an answer on it, look at Rees-Zammit’s face when they award the try.
“It’s 100 per cent a knock on.
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Someone find that please??
Really how?
A kick is not a knock on.
I thought that, but the laws don't say it, or even imply it. The laws appear to work the other way round, if it is a knock on then it can't be a kick because the player will have lost possession of the ball (a requirement for it to be a knock on in that situation) and so the kick cannot be deliberate (part of the definition of a kick). This is on the basis that if you have deliberately thrown/dropped the ball for it coincide with your boot, possession is lost when the ball leaves the boot, not the hand. A pre-meditated kick from a state of possession cannot be a knock on. But a deliberate soccer-style kick of a loose, forward moving ball that accidentally brushed the player's hand before hitting their boot meets the definitions of both "kick" and "knock-on". It follows that you cannot remedy a genuine knock on by kicking the ball, even if the kick part is deliberate (though the ref would have to infer the non-deliberate nature of the ball leaving the hand, which might be tricky).
So, in this case, Rees-Zammit definitely touches the ball and it travels forward on to his calf
His calf was behind his hand was I think the refs opinion.
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Isn't one
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Someone find that please??
To the extent that it is there, it is in the definition of "Possession" which is part of the definition of "Knock on" (I quoted these up there ^^^ somewhere).
“So it has travelled forward off his hand first and he fails to regain possession of it, which means it’s a knock on.
The bold bit is what I disagree with. The ball never left contact with his hand before it touched his thigh.
He wasn't in control but I think for the ball to have gone forward it has to be in free air rather than with a hand in contact with it.
Ok Greyspoke I get where you are coming from. That makes total sense.
In which case, lets campaign to get the game replayed.
So as Owens implies, you cannot recover from a knock on by kicking it before it touches the ground.
English people are such bad sportsmen when it doesn't go thier way. Wales dominated that match, get over it guys.
English people are such bad sportsmen when it doesn’t go thier way
Not at all a massive generalisation!!
I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂
I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂
Heheheh 🙂
Well, I for one look forward to the laws being rewritten to rule out any more tries like this being scored against England ever again.
But not as much as I'm looking forward to one of these rule re-writes costing England a game in about 18 months time.
Nope, I think most acknowledge that it wasn't the defining reason England lost, personally I'm quite pleased as I don't think Jones is a good coach so the sooner he goes the better.
I debate it as a rugby fan, most people within the game have said it is a knock on apart from a few ABE here (perfectly acceptable too!). It seems if you have an opinion as an English fan sometimes you are whingeing.
Personally I have started watching a lot of the Pro 14 as well as English club rugby, and in doing so you see players that you like and admire so although I am an England fan I now have several Welsh players who I admire and think are some of the best players I've seen. I like to see these players do well. And evening going back the likes of BOD and POC for Ireland were similar players.
i do like squige's videos, he got great rugby brain, and eye for the strategic and technical detail that i often miss (even if watching when sober!)
the additional footage of Adam's first try pretty much closes any debate, although i know a few have been making that point for a while, down to England's naivety and a seemingly pre planned move by wales (i initially thought it just great opportunism). interesting point about neutering engalnds main attacking platform by keeping the ball in play. i thought they were doing what they normally tend to do - keep it in play, back their own defence and fitness, comfortable with limited possession and wait for the mistakes & tirdenss to creep in for the opposition.
i know rest weekends are crucial, but i want more rugby this weekend
As above ^^ - thats enlightening and I don't have the ability to see that either. Pre RWC England/Jones made much of "using the time without the ball". Well its seems that Wales spotted their propensity to have a meeting between periods of play and took advantage.
neutering engalnds main attacking platform by keeping the ball in play
When you think about it in hindsight, Jones has been saying for years "Englands strength is its set-piece", which of course Wales played out of.
Well done.
personally I’m quite pleased as I don’t think Jones is a good coach so the sooner he goes the better.
Do you think the RFU jumped away from Lancaster too quick after it went wrong at the WC? They started off really bright under him but it is like the RFU told him he had to be more prescriptive with the players. The England players seem to have shone on Lions tours when they are told (or don't have time to train to be formulaic) to have a free reign and play what they see. At times against Wales (and Scotland) they kicked away possession when not needed as if Jones says if you are in X you need to do Y rather than let them play. I agree - I would like him to go but don't know who would take over.
i know rest weekends are crucial, but i want more rugby this weekend
Yeh the two rest weekend really make for a ponderous tournament now!
Yeh the two rest weekend really make for a ponderous tournament now!
don't get me wrong, i dont think they should change it, i'm just being an impatient child who wants the italy wales game now!
Well its seems that Wales spotted their propensity to have a meeting between periods of play and took advantage
i think pivac is starting to turn wales into pretty sharp and savvy operators. gats instilled a toughness and dogedness that made wales a difficult and often niggly team to beat, pivac seems to be building on that and making us more clinical and less prescribed in our play (although very early days, watch us have a mini melt down against the azzuri!)
there was an interesting stat that i read this week (can't remember where - although it could actually be the squidge video, but sure i read similar elsewhere) that although wales are spending comparatively little time in the opponents 22, they come away with the highest average points per visit at 3.5 ie, they don't go there often but when they do they're good at taking their opportunities.
really looking forward to all the fixtures in round 4
@Bear Bollocks fella I'm not ABE, I think that the discussion is pretty good, the laws not so much. I assume (as you assume I'm ABE) that you don't like the fact that actually a moment in the match which is much discussed might actually have been a call correctly made within the limited scope of the laws. Even though everyone agrees it looks like a knock-on.
Are you a member of BEBE? Blaim everyone but England?
I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂
Is Andre Joubert allowed in Scotland yet? It's been 5 years... 😀
One hundred - I’m not accusing anybody or blaming anyone except England for their defeat, merely debating. I get the ABE stance most of the time, it just seems that a lot of people on here think otherwise to people within the game from both sides and even the referee now apparently. Each to their own and all that, personally I think they were the wrong call, but altering the outcome of the game I’m not so sure
Oh and although possibly wrong call hopefully it might send a message to teams to hurry up!
Lancaster has to be earning at least 200k in Dublin where he is respected for the good, hard working coach he always has been. He prepares one of the best teams in Europe and doesn't have tabloids doorstepping him after every game. I am not sure he misses Twickenham all that much.
Craig joubert? No, although I think I saw he was involved in ref training so....
Come independence border force will have a watchlist.
Craig joubert? No, although I think I saw he was involved in ref training so….
Damn, when I typed it I knew I had the wrong name. (Andre J was part of the SA team that demolished Swansea 05/11/94 78-7. Swansea were within a score at half time, although not looking likely to win the game. It's been seared onto my mind despite the fact that I got so very drunk that night!)
Brilliant. I heard about that bet, mr angry would have been even more angry!