Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | ... | 640

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409191 19-Oct-2015 13:19

networkn:
JonnyCam:
networkn:
DizzyD:
Dingbatt: Poor old Craig Joubert, quick, decisive and wrong when it really mattered. The one time when TMO interference, I mean input, was needed, and it wasnt forthcoming. I suggest he may not want to book a family holiday in Scotland any time soon.

The Scot player was off-sides, and the ref saw it. TMO IMO would have just proven what he saw.

Seems to be a fair amount of disagreement from various different "experts" about that. Having said that, Scotland knew that lineout throw they bungled was probably the most important movement of the whole game, from that they would have had a great chance of winning that game.

I feel for them, but to get within 1 point of winning, was an outstanding effort.

Agreed, they should have thrown to the front and secured the ball. They could have carted it up with 3 or 4 pick & go's then kicked for the corner.
An important line out in he rain is a not a time to throw to the back.

Yes, they actually made 2-3 really poor decisions, there was a SHOCKER over the otherside when one of the players was under pressure to clear on his goal line ,and instead threw a STUPID pass to someone under even more pressure who was bundled into touch. I think the Wallabies scored from a line out drive from that.

Game of errors, and the last error counted as a loss. [rightfully or not I don't even know]

Scotland got many tries from Wallabies handing them the ball - errors.

Wallabies got some points from Scottish errors.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409193 19-Oct-2015 13:23

DizzyD:
Dingbatt: Poor old Craig Joubert, quick, decisive and wrong when it really mattered. The one time when TMO interference, I mean input, was needed, and it wasnt forthcoming. I suggest he may not want to book a family holiday in Scotland any time soon.

The Scot player was off-sides, and the ref saw it. TMO IMO would have just proven what he saw.

EDITed
AFter reading this, I thought about it. and rewatched replay.
~~So the Scot was offiside, so not entitiled to the ball, so it's a Wallaby ball plus knock on advantage, and a disorganised Scot defensive line. Hence penalty was given. Fair enough.~~
Ball came off Scot, goes forward, hits Wallaby (Phipps), goes backward (of the Wallaby), into Scot hand.
Now - let the debate begin. I am expecting to read a dissection of the rules in this. I have NO IDEA.

Let's analyse the other one. Scots given the ball by yet another Wallaby error, on the attack, messy stuff, ball hits a Scot goes forward, another Scot picked it up and passed back to Scot. The ball should have been a Wallaby ball in a defensive position, with knock on advantage. Scrum called. Fair enough.

Hard to say, again, didn't I mention, the ref has more more more power than you think.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409200 19-Oct-2015 13:30

Oh one more thing that big calls are made (or a big call was made).

Charge down, intercept, and deliberate knock on.
One allows a deliberate knock on sometimes resulting in a try.
One converts a definite try to the other team to a definite try to your team.
One results in a yellow card.

So if you go for the ball, make sure you get it!

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1409218 19-Oct-2015 13:52

joker97:
DizzyD:
Dingbatt: Poor old Craig Joubert, quick, decisive and wrong when it really mattered. The one time when TMO interference, I mean input, was needed, and it wasnt forthcoming. I suggest he may not want to book a family holiday in Scotland any time soon.

The Scot player was off-sides, and the ref saw it. TMO IMO would have just proven what he saw.

AFter reading this, I thought about it.
So the Scot was offiside, so not entitiled to the ball, so it's a Wallaby ball plus knock on advantage, and a disorganised Scot defensive line. Hence penalty was given. Fair enough.

Let's analyse the other one. Scots given the ball by yet another Wallaby error, on the attack, messy stuff, ball hits a Scot goes forward, another Scot picked it up and passed back to Scot. The ball should have been a Wallaby ball in a defensive position, with knock on advantage. Scrum called. Fair enough.

Hard to say, again, didn't I mention, the ref has more more more power than you think.

At the end of the day the ref is on the field. Nobody can say he made the wrong call.

Its his judgement, there was no foulplay and therefore TMO was not an option. (Thats the rules). People don't seem to understand that.

The Scots mad a mess of the lineout, that's where it started going wrong.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409226 19-Oct-2015 14:00

DizzyD:
joker97:
DizzyD:
Dingbatt: Poor old Craig Joubert, quick, decisive and wrong when it really mattered. The one time when TMO interference, I mean input, was needed, and it wasnt forthcoming. I suggest he may not want to book a family holiday in Scotland any time soon.

The Scot player was off-sides, and the ref saw it. TMO IMO would have just proven what he saw.

AFter reading this, I thought about it.
So the Scot was offiside, so not entitiled to the ball, so it's a Wallaby ball plus knock on advantage, and a disorganised Scot defensive line. Hence penalty was given. Fair enough.

Let's analyse the other one. Scots given the ball by yet another Wallaby error, on the attack, messy stuff, ball hits a Scot goes forward, another Scot picked it up and passed back to Scot. The ball should have been a Wallaby ball in a defensive position, with knock on advantage. Scrum called. Fair enough.

Hard to say, again, didn't I mention, the ref has more more more power than you think.

At the end of the day the ref is on the field. Nobody can say he made the wrong call.

Its his judgement, there was no foulplay and therefore TMO was not an option. (Thats the rules). People don't seem to understand that.

The Scots mad a mess of the lineout, that's where it started going wrong.

I watched the thing again, and the ball came forward off a Scot, touched a Wallaby, continues in the same direction, picked up by Scot.
Man this is so confusing, I'm not sure what Rule to follow here

If it comes off Scot onto Scot, then law 11.7 applies. But in the actual scenario ..... no idea ... I think however it works, it will be a penalty - it seems the Rules on Offside is that an offside player preventing people getting to the ball -> Penalty Kick. So CJ was correct after all that. But why didn't he shake hands after the match - he just ran into the tunnel! Maybe someone threatened him!

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1409231 19-Oct-2015 14:11

joker97:

I watched the thing again, and the ball came forward off a Scot, touched a Wallaby, continues in the same direction, picked up by Scot.
Man this is so confusing, I'm not sure what Rule to follow here

If it comes off Scot onto Scot, then law 11.7 applies. But in the actual scenario ..... no idea ... I think however it works, it will be a penalty - it seems the Rules on Offside is that an offside player preventing people getting to the ball -> Penalty Kick. So CJ was correct after all that. But why didn't he shake hands after the match - he just ran into the tunnel! Maybe someone threatened him!

A bottle was apparently thrown at him. Not sure if this was before or during his sprint out of there.

Sore losers the Scots.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409234 19-Oct-2015 14:17

joker97:
DizzyD:
joker97:
DizzyD:
Dingbatt: Poor old Craig Joubert, quick, decisive and wrong when it really mattered. The one time when TMO interference, I mean input, was needed, and it wasnt forthcoming. I suggest he may not want to book a family holiday in Scotland any time soon.

The Scot player was off-sides, and the ref saw it. TMO IMO would have just proven what he saw.

AFter reading this, I thought about it.
So the Scot was offiside, so not entitiled to the ball, so it's a Wallaby ball plus knock on advantage, and a disorganised Scot defensive line. Hence penalty was given. Fair enough.

Let's analyse the other one. Scots given the ball by yet another Wallaby error, on the attack, messy stuff, ball hits a Scot goes forward, another Scot picked it up and passed back to Scot. The ball should have been a Wallaby ball in a defensive position, with knock on advantage. Scrum called. Fair enough.

Hard to say, again, didn't I mention, the ref has more more more power than you think.

At the end of the day the ref is on the field. Nobody can say he made the wrong call.

Its his judgement, there was no foulplay and therefore TMO was not an option. (Thats the rules). People don't seem to understand that.

The Scots mad a mess of the lineout, that's where it started going wrong.

I watched the thing again, and the ball came forward off a Scot, touched a Wallaby, continues in the same direction, picked up by Scot.
Man this is so confusing, I'm not sure what Rule to follow here

If it comes off Scot onto Scot, then law 11.7 applies. But in the actual scenario ..... no idea ... I think however it works, it will be a penalty - it seems the Rules on Offside is that an offside player preventing people getting to the ball -> Penalty Kick. So CJ was correct after all that. But why didn't he shake hands after the match - he just ran into the tunnel! Maybe someone threatened him!

He is a Ref, reffing a GAME, and it was tight, and potentially contentious. He is not required to stay and potentially put himself in harms way. It's not ideal, but I don't think you could crucify him for that.

Backblaze

Backblaze Unlimited Backup. World’s easiest cloud backup. Get peace of mind knowing your files are backed up securely in the cloud (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409236 19-Oct-2015 14:19

DizzyD:
joker97:

I watched the thing again, and the ball came forward off a Scot, touched a Wallaby, continues in the same direction, picked up by Scot.
Man this is so confusing, I'm not sure what Rule to follow here

If it comes off Scot onto Scot, then law 11.7 applies. But in the actual scenario ..... no idea ... I think however it works, it will be a penalty - it seems the Rules on Offside is that an offside player preventing people getting to the ball -> Penalty Kick. So CJ was correct after all that. But why didn't he shake hands after the match - he just ran into the tunnel! Maybe someone threatened him!

A bottle was apparently thrown at him. Not sure if this was before or during his sprint out of there.

Sore losers the Scots.

Disagree about that. I thought they were composed during the press conferences. They are obviously beside themselves to have lost by such a small margin. If indeed the penalty call was incorrect, I think they have the same right to feel unhappy with that result that NZ did.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409237 19-Oct-2015 14:21

If we lose to Australia, for a penalty, in the dying seconds, and Foley kicks it, I am going to be pretty unhappy :) That guy has spoiled my week so many times :)

trig42

5802 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1409255 19-Oct-2015 14:35

networkn: If we lose to Australia, for a penalty, in the dying seconds, and Foley kicks it, I am going to be pretty unhappy :) That guy has spoiled my week so many times :)

Agreed, that would annoy me no end too.

He missed a few today though, so he is not perfect :)

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409261 19-Oct-2015 14:47

trig42:
networkn: If we lose to Australia, for a penalty, in the dying seconds, and Foley kicks it, I am going to be pretty unhappy :) That guy has spoiled my week so many times :)

Agreed, that would annoy me no end too.

He missed a few today though, so he is not perfect :)

The Argentine kicker and Grieg Laidlaw and the kicker for Wales, all worried me seriously!

There has been some really seriously amazingly good kicking this tournament. I have really enjoyed the quality of the minnows (Yes I have said this probably 6 times). I have enjoyed getting to know the players and teams of the northern hemisphere!

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1409262 19-Oct-2015 14:48

Here is the worst referee ever. Glad he had nothing to do with the 2015 RWC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9DzAf6Agow

Batman

Mad Scientist
29724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409293 19-Oct-2015 15:29

DizzyD: Here is the worst referee ever. Glad he had nothing to do with the 2015 RWC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9DzAf6Agow

Hahaha I think it happens when the ref wears the contact lenses on the wrong side!

So we have 4 refs, down to 2 next week.

IIRC the best ref is saved for the final, 2 picked for the semis, and one is dropped.

So ... Wayne Barnes is lurking guys ...

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1409306 19-Oct-2015 15:44

networkn: If we lose to Australia, for a penalty, in the dying seconds, and Foley kicks it, I am going to be pretty unhappy :) That guy has spoiled my week so many times :)

If a penalty was deserved. Why would you blame foley?

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1409338 19-Oct-2015 16:24

DizzyD:
networkn: If we lose to Australia, for a penalty, in the dying seconds, and Foley kicks it, I am going to be pretty unhappy :) That guy has spoiled my week so many times :)

If a penalty was deserved. Why would you blame foley?

Well the last two times (2014 final and today) they weren't actually due a penalty, but regardless, I wouldn't "blame him" but I can still be unhappy!

1 | ... | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | ... | 640