Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes
-
@taniwharugby if that happens in a RWC knock out game and gets played on the big screen, the ref will undoubtedly go to the TMO. Whitelock would then be YC'd for professional foul and we'd be right under the pump, so I hope he doesn't bring that sort of "street-smart" to the RWC.
-
@No-Quarter The same would have happened if they'd reviewed Coles' late hit on Mo'unga though.
-
@Stargazer there was another off the ball late hit by Coles earlier as well.
I guess if the TMO isnt allowed to intervene in the SW incident, then the risk/reward is worth it, cheap shots off the ball however are not, as they are foul play and can be pulled up by the TMO.
But then we know how the TMO likes to intervene and get his voice on TV.
-
@Stargazer said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@No-Quarter The same would have happened if they'd reviewed Coles' late hit on Mo'unga though.
Not sure where in my post I was excusing Coles' late hit? Yes that would have gone to the TMO, I'd (obviously) hope he doesn't bring the cheap shots to a RWC knock-out game as well!
-
@No-Quarter I didn't say you were excusing Coles' late hit.
And yes, Coles looked like the Coles of his early career with all his ill-discipline. Definitely don't want to see that in RWC games (knock-out or not). The French refs might be tempted to pull a red card instead of a yellow.
-
@taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
haha some real hurt still going on...
a bit in the article form Twitter, suggesting the TMO should have intervened...IMO, why not go the next step, have no on-field ref and let the TMO make all the rulings...muppet!
Headline suggests that if Whitelock had not played at the ball, the canes woulda won!
Agree with MAllet though, was a calculated risk by Whitelock, and he got the jackpot.
Absolutely insane that rugby has got itself into such a tangled state that this is even illegal.
Player onside, on his feet, grabs at ball at the same time as an opposition player wearing the invisible halfback cloak of untouchability.
The answer to this should not be an artificial penalty. The answer should be that the attacking team needed to commit more forwards to give their halfback clean ball.
A tone of CO2 will be released over the next 20 years as data centres store pointless gifs of an ungiven fake construct penalty. Offset by tears flowing into the water cycle and nourishing some green growth, somewhere......
Meanwhile in other news: Man walks into street sign after being distracted by pretty lady. Law changes likely.
-
@Rapido is it not a deliberate knock on? He just slapped it forward to stop TJP from clearing the ball.
-
@No-Quarter said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@Rapido is it not a deliberate knock on? He just slapped it forward to stop TJP from clearing the ball.
You are both right. Could have been given as a penalty. But our forwards should have cleared him out
-
@canefan Another Explanation I have heard is That is was not a Ruck,As TJ had his hands on the ball so Whitelock as he was not offside could play the ball.He knocked it backwards then TJ knocked the ball into a canes forward who was offside.
The Rule can be interpreted in a lot of ways by the look.
TJ Johnson did a piece on Prime TV explaining this I have seen it but can't upload it comes up as Video unavailable.
I am sure someone on the Fern has seen the video.
I am not saying its 100% accurate just another point of view.. -
@No-Quarter said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@Rapido is it not a deliberate knock on? He just slapped it forward to stop TJP from clearing the ball.
i've never seen anyone called for a deliberate knock on EVER when a ball has been hit out of another players hands.
pretty rich from TJ considering trying to hit the ball out of the oppo 9's hands as they attempt to clear the scrum would occur at pretty much every scrum.
whitelock on feet, on side. no problem. you have the ball in your hand, your job to protect it. Ask Jeff Wilson about it..
-
@Chris said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@canefan Another Explanation I have heard is That is was not a Ruck,As TJ had his hands on the ball so Whitelock as he was not offside could play the ball.He knocked it backwards then TJ knocked the ball into a canes forward who was offside.
The Rule can be interpreted in a lot of ways by the look.
TJ Johnson did a piece on Prime TV explaining this I have seen it but can't upload it comes up as Video unavailable.
I am sure someone on the Fern has seen the video.
I am not saying its 100% accurate just another point of view..Regardless of the interpretation we should have cleared his butt out of there. Don't leave your fate in the hands of the ref. I used to complain about poor cleaning out from the ABs years ago when the saffas were strong. Can't leave guys like Burger, and this case Whitelock, in arms reach of the ball. Besides, if we'd cleaned up Mo'unga's speculator that ended up a try we wouldn't even be having this discussion
-
@WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation
-
@taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation
At the risk of raking over old coals, isn't it the case that the Laws don't make distinction? I realise that there is an official interpretation which stipulates that the ball is out when halfback picks it.
-
@pakman said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation
At the risk of raking over old coals, isn't it the case that the Laws don't make distinction? I realise that there is an official interpretation which stipulates that the ball is out when halfback picks it.
The real problem is that they'll card you for that shit, even though the laws don't really talk about it
-
@pakman said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation
At the risk of raking over old coals, isn't it the case that the Laws don't make distinction? I realise that there is an official interpretation which stipulates that the ball is out when halfback picks it.
In the modern real world of refereeing.
If you bump the arm of a halfback about to spin it wide and cause him to drop the ball you could get carded, if you bumped the arm of a prop in the same position but about to pick and go - you would get chess pumps from your teammates for forcing a turnover.
Ruby laws should be interpreted and applied that encourage forwards to congregate at a breakdown (IMO);
- The defending team to attempt to win possession and if not then disrupt clean possession.
- The attacking team forwards should need to congregate to ensure possession is maintained and is then clean.
At no point should one of the above actions, performed legally (or even just slightly mis-timed) risk incurring a card because refs don't understand the essence of rugby.
-
@Rapido said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@pakman said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@taniwharugby said in Semi Final 1: Crusaders vs Hurricanes:
@WillieTheWaiter it is ridiculous that a prop hooker or anyone other than the guy with 9 on his back are fair game in that situation
At the risk of raking over old coals, isn't it the case that the Laws don't make distinction? I realise that there is an official interpretation which stipulates that the ball is out when halfback picks it.
In the modern real world of refereeing.
If you bump the arm of a halfback about to spin it wide and cause him to drop the ball you could get carded, if you bumped the arm of a prop in the same position but about to pick and go - you would get chess pumps from your teammates for forcing a turnover.
Ruby laws should be interpreted and applied that encourage forwards to congregate at a breakdown (IMO);
- The defending team to attempt to win possession and if not then disrupt clean possession.
- The attacking team forwards should need to congregate to ensure possession is maintained and is then clean.
At no point should one of the above actions, performed legally (or even just slightly mis-timed) risk incurring a card because refs don't understand the essence of rugby.
In other words
It ain't tiddlywinks mate!!!
