Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By pressing down on it
Who said "downward pressure" didn't exist.
-
-
@MajorRage said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
That's only four questions ...
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Which comes back to the point the TMO (and ref) don't understand the laws of the game as written. There's no clear separation of Coles from the moment he touches the ball till it's grounded. He at no point carried the ball nor did he attempt to catch it.
It's exactly the same if he dived on it and while it was in the air his chest touched the ball and he maintained some contact with it until it hit the ground.
These clowns are paid enough to get this shit right. Especially as the ref conferred with his touch judge and made a ruling for which there was no clear evidence to over rule.
-
@number9 said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
AB Forwards have brought the mongrel since the Wellington Test and the Aussies look pathetic
Sad but true. I like close exciting hard fought matches.
Aussie rugby seems to have slipped back this year. My view though is the previous coaching panel was crap towards the end. Hanson stayed on for too long and lost the plot. And Foster is better as head coach as long as he lets the likes of Plumtree do their thing. Except of course if he does something silly like bringing a Blackwell type player into the team.
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.So what should he do in future to avoid this sort of doubt? Wait until it stops? Touch it precisely when it touches the ground?
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Not as binary as you say.
Fairly common for a bouncing ball to be forced or landed on.
Key is separation once touched. If you bat it down then your hand/arm catches up at the ground it depends on if you batted it forward -
@booboo said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
That's only four questions ...
That thing at the front of your house is a door. Open it, and take a look - there's a lot to see on the other side. Explore it. More.
-
@taniwharugby said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
I think it was bought up after B1 (or whichever of B1/B2 a try was disallowed which bought up same discussion) there has been a slight tweak to the TMO protocols?
It was. World rugby adopted the TMO protocols from Super rugby for tests over a year ago. Can't be bothered finding it again.
-
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@pakman that was great. Some quality banter, and Sam W trying out the dad jokes
What’s wrong with dad jokes? Asking for a friend
-
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Wet weather, massive blow out, fun memories of athletic park.
No real comparison 96 saw a very, very good Aussie side taken apart by a great AB one in atrocious conditions.
Saturday was a good performance by a promising AB side against an inexperienced rabble on a damp day.
One was a game for the ages. The other will be forgotten very quickly.
-
@voodoo said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
But fuck, maybe I'm just in the minority here amd out of touch, and maybe all the average punters really wants is hot chips and a crappy pie. Its certainly the lowest effort and if the $ aren't there from changing then I guess why would they?
My issue with the stadium would be the poor viewing.
Maybe every test should be played at Albany? Proper footy stadium - great viewing. You can get sushi, caesar salads and hot brisket rolls and it'll hold 26,000
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@pakman that was great. Some quality banter, and Sam W trying out the dad jokes
What’s wrong with dad jokes? Asking for a friend
Nothing, they're great! It was just very noticeable the age gap between the graying Sammy, and the young bucks like Hoskins
-
@dogmeat said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Maybe every test should be played at Albany?
Premium watching experiences in NZ for Rugby
- Dunedin
2+3 equal Waikato and NH
Rectangular stadia make a difference for rugby watching- it's just better. Athletic park was good for that too, aside from the weather
- Dunedin
