All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
Too busy looking for spurious acts of foul play. No wonder I don't recall us winning any of their lineouts
I think he was considering a scrum. Looks accidental.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
Making excuses for a professional. Poite could have called it too
Blind fucking freddy could have called that!
I was really surprised how the ref team let this go they whole way through like it wasn't even identified in the post match reviews
-
@Crucial I know. It's like these bloody players will try to get away with all sorts of ignoring orders if you let them!
Still remember how effective a 10 yard march was for keeping us young'uns from being dicks on the field.
"Penalty black. I've warned you about closing the gap. Go away. Back 10!"
"Penalty! you are not the captain and you do not speak to me like that!"
Wonder if that would work????
'course it fucken does!
Large number of issues solved right there
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
-
@Pot-Hale tougher for who? Bollocks it was. He probably would've come close to a sacking if that had remained a penalty. With his dodging of upsetting the powers that be he's now getting rewarded.
-
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
Umm. The officials originally had the call correct. They didn't deem that the offence was accidental as the player played the ball. For Garces to change Poites mind he would have had to convince him that 11.7 didn't apply (ie the player played the ball which stopped the opposition being able to take advantage of the knock on) and that 11.6(a) applied instead (When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball).
If you catch the ball and drop it you have 'played the ball'. I think everyone agrees that in this case it would be a correct call with a harsh outcome as the player was probably unable to avoid it is well and if he had held his hands out of the way it would be accidental. However, he didn't.
By catching and dropping the ball there were two offences in a row which meant advantage wasn't played for the knock on.
By changing to a call of accidental, Poite overruled himself twice. First for blowing the whistle after ALB had the ball and was attacking under advantage, secondly after consulting with two other refs.
He went from a 3-1 decision to a 2-2 with the decider going the other way.
It was a shambles and a poor look for the WR refs dept. WR could help a lot more by clarifying this situation. Maybe they have already done so in one of their mystery refs directives, but by the law book 'playing the ball' is fairly well understood and in all other instances instinctive actions are judged the same as deliberate ones -
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable. Poite indicated to Read when he protested that the ball hit his shoulder/upper arm, and he didn't play it with his hand first. I'm simply repeating what Poite said. That clearly had a part to play in how the ultimate decision was arrived at.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
-
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
I don't disagree that there is a possibility that if you super slo-mo the action it may prove that other things happened. I also agree that it is actually difficult to tell with moving players whether the ball travelled forward.
however, that has nothing at all to do with the decision made. All of the team of four agreed that there was a knock on by red AND that there was no clear and obvious touch by black AND that it was a fair contest in the air AND that the next player to touch the ball was in an offside position.The only difference was that the AR in the worst position to see what happened then intervened and convinced the ref that it was accidental and therefore only a scrum.
After deliberate and clear consultation originally Poite then hastily changed his call. That wasn't being brave it was second guessing himself and letting one ref overrule three. The correct thing to do would have been to ask for one more replay to check whether it was accidental or not and rule accordingly
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
I don't disagree that there is a possibility that if you super slo-mo the action it may prove that other things happened. I also agree that it is actually difficult to tell with moving players whether the ball travelled forward.
however, that has nothing at all to do with the decision made. All of the team of four agreed that there was a knock on by red AND that there was no clear and obvious touch by black AND that it was a fair contest in the air AND that the next player to touch the ball was in an offside position.The only difference was that the AR in the worst position to see what happened then intervened and convinced the ref that it was accidental and therefore only a scrum.
After deliberate and clear consultation originally Poite then hastily changed his call. That wasn't being brave it was second guessing himself and letting one ref overrule three. The correct thing to do would have been to ask for one more replay to check whether it was accidental or not and rule accordingly
Yep. I'm in complete agreement with all of that, except the brave comment. If the penalty had been awarded, I believe there'd be less clamour and outrage than has occurred.
Lastly, I can't see how Poite and Garces should escape censure of some sort for failing to do exactly what you've outlined although a little bit of me suspects that Poite didn't know/forgot the AO sanction - and he's never going to admit that publicly.
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Even if you use braille it still spells out "caught it"
-
-
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Joubert copped it in the north too for his handling of the 2011 WC final , still see that brought up on social media even now from time to time ,
Should have too. His bias against the All Blacks damn near cost us the game.
I've said it before KinMelb after the shit storm I watched it again too. I tried desparately to keep both eyes open and park my bias. And I nerded it and recorded decision and non decisions I think he got wrong.
It was horribly in favour of France. Something like 21-8 (including scrum decisions, penalties and free kicks 14-7 or so). I did not have lines and arrows or post it to G&GR.
None of these were horribly Barnesesque and most weren't points scoring (apart from the kickable penalty when the entire Frog forward pack were inside the 10m which would have made it 11-7) and my point is merely to try and dispel the propaganda about Joubert rather than criticise him.
But it's been said so often All Black haters (and some "fans") believe it.
It popped up tbe other night on The Back Page on Fox Sport. Rugby's only mention was 'le decision' in the 3rd test.
Panelist and cokehead Wendell Sailor's contribution was along the lines that it made up for NZ getting all the hometown decisions like they did in the 2011 RWCF. Fuck.
... sorry Pavlovian canine moment there at the mention of Joubert and 2011 ...
-
@booboo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@dogmeat said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
off-escalope.
I had to google that
You made me try and figure it out. The Hutt side of my brain hurts.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
yep, this (i say, without irony given some of my posts in this thread). And it all starts with the game day commentators who pour over super slow-motion footage, often from angles the ref can't even see, and make disparaging comments (fuck you Marshall) about decision and call teams "hard done by".
And it snowballs from there.
Fucking this. Fans will always bitch and moan, but given a large proportion of people watching the game don't have the same in-depth knowledge of the laws that most on here do it's pretty bloody important that the commentators don't dwell on the little stuff and attack the ref constantly. It shapes the perception of the game and leads to predictable outrage in the days following.
-
@Pot-Hale it doesn't matter if contact was avoidable/unavoidable. All that matters is that he played the ball, and whether that was instinctive or not is beside the point (probably 70% of what happens on the field is instinctive). Not sure if you're arguing that point or just trying to understand what might have been going through the refs mind.
-
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale it doesn't matter if contact was avoidable/unavoidable. All that matters is that he played the ball, and whether that was instinctive or not is beside the point (probably 70% of what happens on the field is instinctive). Not sure if you're arguing that point or just trying to understand what might have been going through the refs mind.
The latter.
-
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
Leaving aside what I'm suggesting was the decision process by Poite et al, I personally think that Owens could not avoid being hit by the ball in that situation. Your gif undoubtedly shows his left arm going out. But given his speed, contact was inevitable and unavoidable.
There's a second between the ball hitting Williams and Owens catching it. ~27 frames at 25fps. If he had not played at the ball, 11.6 (accidental offside) would probably have come into play. But he decided to catch it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
That clip even throws out my generous assessment that there would have been unavoidable contact anyway. If he doesn't reach and gather the ball it goes right past him
The more I look at that clip, the more I think it was not a knock-forward. The ball goes backward or level to Williams since he is falling backwards anyway. And from that clip, it looks like the ball came off Williams face but I suspect there are some frames missing due to the frame rate grab.
It's immaterial if the ball went forward. Owens is offside and played at the ball. The ball definitely comes off Williams.
