Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 586 | 587 | 588 | 589 | 590 | 591 | 592 | 593 | 594 | 595 | 596 | ... | 642

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154194 31-Oct-2023 19:27

Handle9:

It wasn’t disproven. The discussion was around clear release. Clear has a meaning which at no point was disputed.

The term clear release is used in every rugby match in the world to interpret the law. It’s not hard to understand.

As part of the tirade about refereeing there was a comment that there was an apology for a decision (there wasn’t) and that there should have been a penalty try against Kolbe as there had been a decision against Smith that resulted in a penalty try earlier in the tournament (there hadn’t).

It’s not changing the subject.

The replay shows a clear release, Barnes missed it. TMO was happy to call back other incidents.

I don't really care that Barnes missed it, it's bound to happen, I am sure he missed stuff that would have favoured SA too, but the TMO was into everything, and surely, if it's going to result in points given incorrectly in a finals match, you might interject, the way you have throughout the entire match.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154197 31-Oct-2023 19:31

networkn:

Handle9:

It wasn’t disproven. The discussion was around clear release. Clear has a meaning which at no point was disputed.

The term clear release is used in every rugby match in the world to interpret the law. It’s not hard to understand.

As part of the tirade about refereeing there was a comment that there was an apology for a decision (there wasn’t) and that there should have been a penalty try against Kolbe as there had been a decision against Smith that resulted in a penalty try earlier in the tournament (there hadn’t).

It’s not changing the subject.

The replay shows a clear release, Barnes missed it. TMO was happy to call back other incidents.

I don't really care that Barnes missed it, it's bound to happen, I am sure he missed stuff that would have favoured SA too, but the TMO was into everything, and surely, if it's going to result in points given incorrectly in a finals match, you might interject, the way you have throughout the entire match.

What I was referring to was that Savea needs to make it clear to Barnes that he has released. The comment was "Whether you do that to the extent that makes Wayne Barnes happy is irrelevant."

It's entirely relevant and why you see a big arm wave from jackallers - to prove clear release.

The TMO went back for clear and obvious errors, not a marginal judgement call. There was also a comment whether the knock on was "clear and obvious" which was farcical.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154202 31-Oct-2023 19:57

Handle9:

What I was referring to was that Savea needs to make it clear to Barnes that he has released. The comment was "Whether you do that to the extent that makes Wayne Barnes happy is irrelevant."

It's entirely relevant and why you see a big arm wave from jackallers - to prove clear release.

The TMO went back for clear and obvious errors, not a marginal judgement call. There was also a comment whether the knock on was "clear and obvious" which was farcical.

Disagree. Barnes just flat out missed it. He's not infallible, nor should he be expected to be. A call that results in points being awarded in a final isn't marginal, it's important.

TMO got the call about the knock on dead wrong too. Rules say 2 phases from a knock on, try was scored in the 4th phase.

Re your big arm wave comment, that happens as time allows, usually when the ball carrier is isolated (Which is pretty rare). It's rare to see it in close quarters breakdown situations.

It's pretty normal for fans to be a bit salty for a bit after a big match decided by a single point, has potentially influential and controversial decisions.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154204 31-Oct-2023 20:01

networkn:

Handle9:

What I was referring to was that Savea needs to make it clear to Barnes that he has released. The comment was "Whether you do that to the extent that makes Wayne Barnes happy is irrelevant."

It's entirely relevant and why you see a big arm wave from jackallers - to prove clear release.

The TMO went back for clear and obvious errors, not a marginal judgement call. There was also a comment whether the knock on was "clear and obvious" which was farcical.

Disagree. Barnes just flat out missed it. He's not infallible, nor should he be expected to be. A call that results in points being awarded in a final isn't marginal, it's important.

TMO got the call about the knock on dead wrong too. Rules say 2 phases from a knock on, try was scored in the 4th phase.

Re your big arm wave comment, that happens as time allows, usually when the ball carrier is isolated (Which is pretty rare). It's rare to see it in close quarters breakdown situations.

It's pretty normal for fans to be a bit salty for a bit after a big match decided by a single point, has potentially influential and controversial decisions.

The only commentary about two phases I have seen is from New Zealand commentators using the July 2022 document.

There hasn't been an update made publically available since the TMO/bunker protocol was annouced. Given the lack of outcry on the topic from anyone remotely neutral I suspect it's been changed, which is what I posted earlier.

The knock on was a knock on, it's entirely obvious. The biggest 50:50 call in the whole game was the Barrett try and there's been zero commentary on that. It could have gone either way as well.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154318 1-Nov-2023 08:48

Rule 11 covers it.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154321 1-Nov-2023 08:50

Ryan Crotty is back for the Crusaders in 2024!

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#3154426 1-Nov-2023 14:24

Handle9:

MikeAqua:

Three yellows and one red, for what were clearly accidental contacts and a genuine attempt to intercept a pass.

There does not need to be intent for a yellow or red card. It only needs to be reckless.

There is no attempt to genuinely intercept that pass. He threw his hand at the ball, just as Smith did in the quarter final. Both were correctly yellow cards.

"It's not tiddlywinks"

Put yourself in Cane's boots. Your line out throw, hooker botches it and you unexpectedly have an opposition ball carrier running at you. You don't have time to your body position right. Was he supposed to not tackle?

In the other collision the tackled player was dropping. It's a stupid ruling because you encourage players to run with low body position, head first. That will lead to serious injuries.

As to the knock on both players were reaching toward the ball with their fingers spread. They weren't obviously trying to knock the ball down and had some prospect of getting the ball. Smith did the exact same thing after he came back on, and actually did intercept.

For a penalty to be awarded, intention is required the ball has to be deliberately knocked forward.

Mike

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154491 1-Nov-2023 16:05

MikeAqua:
Handle9:

There does not need to be intent for a yellow or red card. It only needs to be reckless.

There is no attempt to genuinely intercept that pass. He threw his hand at the ball, just as Smith did in the quarter final. Both were correctly yellow cards.

"It's not tiddlywinks"

Put yourself in Cane's boots. Your line out throw, hooker botches it and you unexpectedly have an opposition ball carrier running at you. You don't have time to your body position right. Was he supposed to not tackle?

In the other collision the tackled player was dropping. It's a stupid ruling because you encourage players to run with low body position, head first. That will lead to serious injuries.

As to the knock on both players were reaching toward the ball with their fingers spread. They weren't obviously trying to knock the ball down and had some prospect of getting the ball. Smith did the exact same thing after he came back on, and actually did intercept.

For a penalty to be awarded, intention is required the ball has to be deliberately knocked forward.

Nothing you have posted about head contact is relevant to the head contact process. The duty of care lies with the tackler. Yes, if he can’t make a safe tackle he can’t make a tackle.

There is a protocol, it’s pretty straightforward and it was correctly applied. The referee and TMO made the correct ruling.

11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

There was no reasonable expectation that Kolbe could catch the ball. That action is refereed that way consistently. It’s always a yellow card. Once again the referee made the correct decision.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#3154599 1-Nov-2023 17:47

Handle9:

The knock on was a knock on, it's entirely obvious. The biggest 50:50 call in the whole game was the Barrett try and there's been zero commentary on that. It could have gone either way as well.

No one is disputing it was a knock-on. The isuse is the conduct of the TMO in referring Barnes to something he isn't allowed to. That isn't 50/50. It's for the IRB to explain why that was allowed to happen.

I have not seen anyone suggest that the document cited is no longer current or relevant or that there is any rule to the contrary. The limit is two phases. This was more than two phases. This isn't a sort-of forward pass or a ball that goes flat but looks like it bounced forward. It's false equivalence to try and equate the two.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby-world-cup-2023/133216735/all-blacks-demanding-answers-from-world-rugby-over-refereeing-in-rugby-world-cup-final

Sports writers are bringing it up. There's no suggestion from them the rule has changed. They'd probably know.

There are big chunks of the NH pundits who are trying to suggest Barnes had a brilliant game and that the officials were not a factor. Perhaps because he was the only NH presence on the field in the final and they can't bear the thought of not being relevant in some way. But the sports writers and presumably their sources seem to think there is a case to argue, and aren't bound by the kind of parochoial bum-covering the plagues the NH game.

tdgeek

29671 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154626 1-Nov-2023 19:14

GV27:

But the sports writers and presumably their sources seem to think there is a case to argue, and aren't bound by the kind of parochoial bum-covering the plagues the NH game.

I dont want to butt in here as its getting toxic.

Parochiaism goes both ways. You follow Formula 1 as do I. Driver A hits Driver B. Driver A says he is an idiot, Driver B says he is an idiot.

In any sport you get the run of the green or not. I like refs and I like TMO's. Cricket, Rugby, NRL, Tennis, Formula 1. ONE ref will never get it right, thats physical Math 101. All we can hope for is that the rules are followed. There will still be tight or marginal or subjective calls but the hope is "overall" the rules are being met more than by one guy running around the field who doesnt have eyes in the back of his head.

The other issue is that rugby seems to have too many rules? They need to be distinct rules. Black and white as can best be provided. Ref cant see it? TMO. TMO can't see it due to multiple camera angles, then it cannot be ruled upon. NRL seems to get that right generally. Same game type but a simpler game. Easier to manage for that reason. I feel that rugby needs to simplify the rules. Somehow.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154737 1-Nov-2023 21:03

Northern hemisphere sportswriters parochial.

New Zealand sportswriters not parochial.

Righto.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154761 1-Nov-2023 23:19

Dane Coles has decided that having survived the RWC he has another season of somewhat lighter rugby and has signed in Japan replacing Malcolm Marx who is out for the next season

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#3154811 2-Nov-2023 10:27

Handle9:

Nothing you have posted about head contact is relevant to the head contact process. The duty of care lies with the tackler. Yes, if he can’t make a safe tackle he can’t make a tackle.

There is a protocol, it’s pretty straightforward and it was correctly applied. The referee and TMO made the correct ruling.

11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

There was no reasonable expectation that Kolbe could catch the ball. That action is refereed that way consistently. It’s always a yellow card. Once again the referee made the correct decision.

It is relevant because those are mitigating circumstances.

Have you ever played rugby?

Mike

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#3154818 2-Nov-2023 11:19

Handle9:

Northern hemisphere sportswriters parochial.

New Zealand sportswriters not parochial.

Righto.

You're intentionally missing the point - which is the people who know more about the game seem to think the TMO process was an issue and that your claim that no one talking about it outside of NZ suggests the rule must have changed, in a way that no one documented or published online or has been produced to rebut the glaring issue with the ruling.

You're literally trying to make this argument in reverse and somehow use to debunk there being a problem, despite people far more knowledgeable than your I (and with access with actual sources) seeming to suggest that it is.

Handle9

11289 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3154931 2-Nov-2023 15:29

MikeAqua:
Handle9:

Nothing you have posted about head contact is relevant to the head contact process. The duty of care lies with the tackler. Yes, if he can’t make a safe tackle he can’t make a tackle.

There is a protocol, it’s pretty straightforward and it was correctly applied. The referee and TMO made the correct ruling.

11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

There was no reasonable expectation that Kolbe could catch the ball. That action is refereed that way consistently. It’s always a yellow card. Once again the referee made the correct decision.

It is relevant because those are mitigating circumstances.

Have you ever played rugby?

Yes I’ve played rugby. I’m also familiar enough with the HCP to know that Cane didn’t have mitigation. You can try and create your own but the Cane red card and the Kolbe yellow were both really straightforward decisions and consistent with the way rugby is refereed today.

1 | ... | 586 | 587 | 588 | 589 | 590 | 591 | 592 | 593 | 594 | 595 | 596 | ... | 642