All Blacks vs Boks
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
I'm lost. I've watched the video five times, trying to imagine that it's the Springboks who took the tap, and I still can't see what you are going on about.
You seem to want a new interpretation of the law, is that your point? I say that, because there are no rules in rugby - just laws.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
-
The tap has to be taken from the Mark, or from behind it.
However there is definitely nothing in the law that says the player has to wait for the ref to make the Mark before he can take it. We know this from the definitions and also because there is a special provision in 21.7 that states if the opposition aren't back 10m then the second PK cannot be taken before the ref makes the Mark. If this were true of all PKs then there's no need to state it as a special case.
Equally though, the player can't rush to the referee and take it there. The Mark is where the offence occurred (unless stated otherwise in the relevant law).
Both of those ideas are myths that you hear occasionally.
Now as for whether Smith is ok where he took it from its debatable. The Mark is where the offence took place, or in the ruck.
I don't accept that he's 5 metres from the Mark; which seems like hyperbole to make a point. However he's also clearly not exactly in line with it either. He's gone to the side by about a metre give or take. Is that OK? Maybe, maybe not. I can see arguments either way for it being OK. It's marginal.
What I do know is that if there is one ref in the world who is likely to be fine with it it's Owens. Owens is pretty clearly regarded by WR as the best ref around currently, which suggests they are probably fine with it too.
YMMV of course.
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Cool to see the Boks there in the end ... they certainly shower quicker than the ABs.
I like the Springboks as a team, but they seem weirdly upbeat for a team that just recorded their biggest loss in history. Cool to see Pollard chat with ALB, though, after he got humiliated by him on the field. Love rugby
-
Now watched tape of first half.
Not as one sided as 31-0 suggests, by a long shot.
In fact nothing much in it after 20. Jantjies miss. BB penalty, then asleep at the wheel for Ioane first. 10-0.
At that point NMS intercept 17-0. Kriel fails to kick through after AB mix up @25. He could well have been under the sticks and at 17-7 game on.
Then Barrett magic, with hint of a trip on Hougaard by NMS. 24-0.
Another lapse in concentration/heads dropped from restart and BBBR in to make it 31-0.
At the 25 minute mark Boks had had 61% possession and were 17-0 down! ABs were surgical.
Lineout woes (and good AB work jumping at front most times to unsettle Harpo) meant that pressure couldn't be sustained. And backs seemed fairly disjointed.
Only positive first two scrums, in the second of which we were mullered after Read and Squire detached early, before Coles had a word to Nige about Bok TH. Pretty even after that.
More to come...
-
Just watched tape of first half. Take a look at Marx bind on Dreyer. Seemed to me he deliberately pulled bottom of jersey up exposing Dreyer's right hip. Hames left with nothing to grip but a love handle! Very odd result in first scrum. Is this an old trick?
Would love to hear what Coles said to Nige just before third scrum formed. -
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again. -
@Damo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
The tap has to be taken from the Mark, or from behind it.
However there is definitely nothing in the law that says the player has to wait for the ref to make the Mark before he can take it. We know this from the definitions and also because there is a special provision in 21.7 that states if the opposition aren't back 10m then the second PK cannot be taken before the ref makes the Mark. If this were true of all PKs then there's no need to state it as a special case.
Equally though, the player can't rush to the referee and take it there. The Mark is where the offence occurred (unless stated otherwise in the relevant law).
Both of those ideas are myths that you hear occasionally.
Now as for whether Smith is ok where he took it from its debatable. The Mark is where the offence took place, or in the ruck.
I don't accept that he's 5 metres from the Mark; which seems like hyperbole to make a point. However he's also clearly not exactly in line with it either. He's gone to the side by about a metre give or take. Is that OK? Maybe, maybe not. I can see arguments either way for it being OK. It's marginal.
What I do know is that if there is one ref in the world who is likely to be fine with it it's Owens. Owens is pretty clearly regarded by WR as the best ref around currently, which suggests they are probably fine with it too.
YMMV of course.
My 5m estimate is from watching the end on replay. Is it 4? Is it 4.5 or 3.9, I'm not sure. But what I'm saying is the obstacle of the ruck is no longer in the way and Smith gets a, literal, try scoring opportunity.
Whether he still would have had that opportunity if he had taken it at the correct spot and had to angle around the ruck before putting in his chip, we'll never know. It was good attacking ball regardless, I just find lax refereeing of that sort of behaviour irritating, one day someone will do that 5m from the goal line in a RWC final ......
-
-
@Crucial TBF, I would expect the majority of refs to allow that exact same situation to run, the fcat he is in front of the ref is probably the key, it's when they take a quick tap from behind (sometimes closer to the mark than Smith may have been) the ref then most would pull them up on that.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.Im assuming you are equally as outraged about penalty kicks for touch being taken a few strides past the mark. That seems to happen more often than a kick being made over the actual mark and results in the gain of a couple of metres every time.
Argueably that has more impact than a tap being taken a couple of metres either side of the mark. -
@pukunui said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.Im assuming you are equally as outraged about penalty kicks for touch being taken a few strides past the mark. That seems to happen more often than a kick being made over the actual mark and results in the gain of a couple of metres every time.
Argueably that has more impact than a tap being taken a couple of metres either side of the mark.I'm not outraged, im irritated.
A punt a few yards past the mark, no I'm not bothered.
A punt 5 yards infield to improve the angle for plugging the corner, yes.
A goal kick 5 yards infield to improve the angle, yes.
If this tap penalty had been 5m out rather than 40m, and Smith had strolled in virtually unopposed I reckon Owens may have had a different interpretation. It's the "may" part that irritates me. We won't know until it happens, and if it's a RWC knockout - which ever way it is ruled shitloads of fans from one of the teams is going to stink out the internet for a month because refs have turned a "will" into a "may" depending on 'game flow', or which way ref was looking when he tapped it.
Just rule it properly. Now, and every time. The players will catch on really quick.
-
-
@dogmeat said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Haven't read or heard any Saffa fans stinking the internet out over Smiths tap. In fact hadn't given it a moments thought until I read your comments.
All the reports I have seen simply praised Smith's quick thinking
Because it wasn't 5m out from the tryline in a RWC knockout.
We have rules that will probably be applied in a close game, close to the tryline. But ignored 40m out in a romp.
But I can only assert "probably", not "definitely". As we allow so much unnecessary ambiguity. Maybe Owens would also think a 5m unopposed dawdle to the line from the wrong spot is immaterial. The can of worms is well and truely opened.
I think there's an easy, non-irritating, solution.
-
@Rapido I think you may be getting irritated about nothing.
I have just watched the game again and took notice to check what you are saying.
At most Smith was 2 metres from the centre line of the ruck when his foot tapped the ball. In fact his left foot was only a metre to the side and was the only part of him grounded. He then ran right around Owens and came back to the front of the ruck before kicking. The only reason there was empty space was that the Boks were retreating 10. He could have got to the same place with the same space anyway.
As a reference point the Investec darker part of the logo is 5 metres wide (you can see from the aerial shots compared with the sidelines). The correct place of the penalty is about one metre outside of that space and Smiths left foot is only just on the line as he is moving and tapping. Owens is about 2.5 metres max from the correct place.
Your 5 metres is an exaggeration -
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@pukunui said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.Im assuming you are equally as outraged about penalty kicks for touch being taken a few strides past the mark. That seems to happen more often than a kick being made over the actual mark and results in the gain of a couple of metres every time.
Argueably that has more impact than a tap being taken a couple of metres either side of the mark.I'm not outraged, im irritated.
A punt a few yards past the mark, no I'm not bothered.
A punt 5 yards infield to improve the angle for plugging the corner, yes.
A goal kick 5 yards infield to improve the angle, yes.
If this tap penalty had been 5m out rather than 40m, and Smith had strolled in virtually unopposed I reckon Owens may have had a different interpretation. It's the "may" part that irritates me. We won't know until it happens, and if it's a RWC knockout - which ever way it is ruled shitloads of fans from one of the teams is going to stink out the internet for a month because refs have turned a "will" into a "may" depending on 'game flow', or which way ref was looking when he tapped it.
Just rule it properly. Now, and every time. The players will catch on really quick.
So you have selective irritation? I think it's a bit strange you are ok with a kick not being taken on the mark and the ref giving leeway in policing it but you are so against refs giving leeway in a tap being taken not exactly on the mark. It's that sort of inconsistency that is killing the game not taps being taken off the mark.
To be honest i do agree with your overall point. Just not this situation. The one that shits me is the offside after a knock on which led to the farce of the third Lions test. It should be a penalty every time or a scrum every time not left to some vague interpretation. In fact there were a few in this game that were called scrum only. Similar situation with deliberate knock ons. Maybe these sorts of things should be free kicks instead of penalties (and cards).
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
It Owens. That's what you get with him. He lets stuff go if it leads to a bit of excitement.
Just like how with Barnes you get one major fuck up per game, with Jackson, a weird hometown call etc etcAlthough, I recall in that Irish test when we won that penalty at the death, the ABs took a quick tap penalty and Owens pulled him back and we had to take it again.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido I think you may be getting irritated about nothing.
I have just watched the game again and took notice to check what you are saying.
At most Smith was 2 metres from the centre line of the ruck when his foot tapped the ball. In fact his left foot was only a metre to the side and was the only part of him grounded. He then ran right around Owens and came back to the front of the ruck before kicking. The only reason there was empty space was that the Boks were retreating 10. He could have got to the same place with the same space anyway.
As a reference point the Investec darker part of the logo is 5 metres wide (you can see from the aerial shots compared with the sidelines). The correct place of the penalty is about one metre outside of that space and Smiths left foot is only just on the line as he is moving and tapping. Owens is about 2.5 metres max from the correct place.
Your 5 metres is an exaggeration5m, 4m, or 3m is irrelevant as I already addressed further up. Where he takes it from there is no physical obstruction of the ruck in front of him. I'd actually estimate about 3m to the side and 2m further up the field of where he could have practically tapped it if acting legally.
I don't want Aaron Smith thinking he can take quick taps from anywhere and then one day in a 2019 knockout game he fluffs a golden quick tap opportunity because a ref got up on a different side of bed than what Owens did on Saturday.
Equally if in e.g. the 2015 RWC semi from a 5m scrum the Boks are awarded a free kick for a technical engagement infringement I'd be ropable if Fourie Du Preez just tapped it where he was standing and flopped over the try line in an Aaron Smith ladyboy tackle. I'd expect he would need to have taken it line with the mark.
I expect better. I expect the world's best players and referees to know the rules, and for the rules to be the same regardless of field position.
IMO Smith almost buthchered it like a TJP too flat support line, he put it in the refs hands and got lucky.
