Highlanders v Crusaders
-
@booboo Not really ...
-
Anti Cantab bullshit aside, @booboo would you be comfortable if it was the BIL captain who did it during a test last year?
I didn't see the incident so curious about people's opinions on this.
-
@crazy-horse said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Anti Cantab bullshit aside, @booboo would you be comfortable if it was the BIL captain who did it during a test last year?
I didn't see the incident so curious about people's opinions on this.
I didn't see it either ... or more correctly don't recall it.
And I don't like what was described.
Still comes across as bitter.
Would Knowler be praising the Cantab skipper for "standing up" for his team if it was reversed?
Was the right decision made?
Perhaps Briant should have penalised Smith ... ? You can ask the question as captain but you can't fluff your bunny.
Still funny seeing the Cantabs whinge ...
-
The boss of SANZAAR isn't impressed with Ben Smith's soccer-like pleading with the ref...
Sanzaar comes down hard after Ben Smith crosses the line | Newshub
The veteran All Black was a little too insistent in confronting referee Nick Briant.
-
Total over reaction to this whole thing.
Ben Smith didn't do anything i haven't see happen 100 times over the last few years.I would rather the refs got the call right in the first place. It was pretty clear the ball bounced, so check it.
I would have liked it if Read had put similar pressure on both french fucks when we got screwed at the end of the 2nd and 3rd Lions tests.
-
I know I'm not an impartial judge on this one, but the more we see stuff like this the more I think we need a system of appeals/reviews in rugby. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I think maybe 3 reviews, if successful the review is lost, (with a 4th given after 3 successes), and a sub lost if unsuccessful (borrowing from the nfl). Encourage the ref to make a call on the field, and let the captains challenge if they miss something. That way in this scenario the ref can ask 'is this your appeal', and the captain either puts up or shuts up.
Would need some fine tuning about how many appeals, what and when you can appeal and how to restart play but I think that is the way to go.
-
I don't think it needs some gimmicky system.
How about if the captain has something specific he thinks the ref should check he asks the ref to have a look. The ref can quickly ask the tmo to check if they need to take a closer look. If it looks like something might have happened then take a look. If not then continue on. If it becomes clear that the captain is just clutching at straws at every decision then tell him to piss off. -
@cyclops said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
I know I'm not an impartial judge on this one, but the more we see stuff like this the more I think we need a system of appeals/reviews in rugby. I'm not quite sure how to implement it, but I think maybe 3 reviews, if successful the review is lost, (with a 4th given after 3 successes), and a sub lost if unsuccessful (borrowing from the nfl). Encourage the ref to make a call on the field, and let the captains challenge if they miss something. That way in this scenario the ref can ask 'is this your appeal', and the captain either puts up or shuts up.
Would need some fine tuning about how many appeals, what and when you can appeal and how to restart play but I think that is the way to go.
The problem is that according to the refs they were talking about reviewing as Smith approached. In the review system that opens a can of worms on whether you lose a review because you weren't aware of what the refs were saying over their comms.
I would prefer it if the TMO was just onto it for every try and the ref checked with him before allowing the conversion whether they needed to wait a moment and have a look. Don't need to stop and have a conversation every time, just stop the clock after awarding a try and the conversion can't be taken until the ref gives the all clear. A simple 'have you spotted anything to look at?'
I think that is kind of what happens anyway but because the clock is ticking it adds an element of panic and urgency resulting in what we saw Bender do. -
-
@bones said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@crucial but as someone else has raised, bit antiquated that once the conversion is taken the try stands, why is that a thing? Surely as long as the kickoff isn't taken then it's not a problem.
I agree but that only shifts the cutoff line. What is wrong with stopping the clock? You can start it again when the ref oks the conversion attempt.
That way the captain knows that the ref team have had look back and haven't spotted anything obvious enough to warrant stopping the game for. He has to accept that is the end of it. -
@bones said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@crucial but as someone else has raised, bit antiquated that once the conversion is taken the try stands, why is that a thing? Surely as long as the kickoff isn't taken then it's not a problem.
Its not a thing.
Im sure I remember a player taking a quick conversion but the ref had none of it. -
@mimic said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@bones said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@crucial but as someone else has raised, bit antiquated that once the conversion is taken the try stands, why is that a thing? Surely as long as the kickoff isn't taken then it's not a problem.
Its not a thing.
Im sure I remember a player taking a quick conversion but the ref had none of it.I think it comes from a mis-understanding of the bolded piece in the TMO Protocols 2.1...
- Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
2.1 If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents’ ingoal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck), any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3) before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/freekick, kickoff or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls.
Somebody, at some point, didn't realise that the word "including" does not mean "exclusively".
Either that - or somebody thought that a conversion counts as a penalty/freekick/restart. - Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
