Blues v Canes
-
<p>I cannot accept whatever reason the Hurricanes management proffer for Renton's WTG contract held last season being upgraded to a full contract when he has been unavailable for selection because of injury since way back when. About the only thing you can say is he hasn't exactly played his way out!!!!!! Then again there is nothing he has done to display he is worthy of being included on the gravy train that the being part of the Hurricanes seems to be becoming with the plethora of permanently injured players being offered contracts.</p>
-
<p>I guess "potential" is a big factor in the re-signing of Renton. I guess they believe he has a big future in the Canes jersey and don't want to risk losing him to another franchise if they leave him out in the cold. They did that with Sam McNicol and now hes at the Chiefs.</p>
-
<p>Hugh Renton is still to make his first-class debut.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wonder how many other players in NZ rugby have been selected by a NZ Super Rugby team without having played any first-class rugby?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only one I can think of is Akira Ioane last year for the Blues (first-class debut Blues v Chiefs, opening match of 2015).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyone else?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Number 10" data-cid="564553" data-time="1457948561">
<div>
<p>Hugh Renton is still to make his first-class debut.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I wonder how many other players in NZ rugby have been selected by a NZ Super Rugby team without having played any first-class rugby?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Only one I can think of is Akira Ioane last year for the Blues (first-class debut Blues v Chiefs, opening match of 2015).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Joe Rokocoko.</p> -
-
<p>not quite the same, but Sam Nock signed with the Blues before he had played ITM Cup, but then played ITM Cup and now Blues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I expect it will happen a bit more now.</p> -
<p>On the second Perenara try, Crucial posted to the rugbyrefs forums:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here's my take on the two controversial TMO calls in this match. I'll deal with the easy one first<br><br><b>The no-try forward pass </b>(unfortunately, the video doesn't cover this)<br>
This was the correct call and watching it live, I called it in real time at the time. The ball was so obviously thrown forward out of the passer's hands, that I have trouble understanding what all the bitching is about. The passer's hands went forward and the ball went directly forward from his hands. This was about as clear and obvious as a forward pass can get.<br><br><b>The no knock-on try </b><br>
This one is a bit harder to judge. Both in real time, and in slo-motion, I could not decide if it was a knock-on or not, so IMO, the TMO made the right call, This doesn't mean that ball was not knocked on, only that it was too difficult to tell. The Law says...<br>
</p>
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,236,139);color:rgb(0,0,0);">A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when <b>a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it</b>.</div>
<p><br>
... and the clear implication here is that once the player's hand touches the ball, there must be separation between that player's hand/arm and the ball, and then ball next touches the ground (or another player) before it can be ruled a knock-on.... think of a player gathering while running, a stationary ball on the ground. He may well drag the ball forward along the ground for a moment, but so long as there is no separation, this is not a knock-on.<br><br>
At no point in the video replay sequence is there a frame or frames that <b><u>clearly</u></b> show separation between Gold 7's hand and the ball, and in the absence of that, the TMO has to rule play on. As a referee, you can only rule on what you actually see; you cannot rule on what you don't see or what you think you see, or to put it another way, the TMO has only three possible observations..<br><br>- He definitely sees that it <b>IS</b> a knock-on<br><br>
- He definitely sees that it is <b>NOT</b> a knock-on<br><br>
- He is either unsighted or is unable to say for sure whether or not it is a knock-on.<br><br>
Both 2 and 3 must result in a call of no knock-on</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19606-TMO-call-made-in-realtime'>http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19606-TMO-call-made-in-realtime</a></p>
-
<p>IMO the ground has assisted him in not losing contact, and as such control of the ball, it is clear to me the ball has moved forward on the ground in slow-mo.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As to the pass, as I said, real-time it looked 51-49 to me, on replay, clear that it was forward, but like others, plenty of worse ones let go - commented on both as I saw them in 'real-time' in this thread.</p> -
<p>I'm pretty sure that it was the aspect of not being clear and obvious that led to the call and that is fair enough. The TMO has to make a decision. I see an obvious KO, he doesn't. I agree that there isn't absolute proof but then there isn't absolute proof in many calls.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was his language that raised controversy. He was specifically asked if he was OK with the pick up by 7 and replied that it was fine in real time without mentioning what he saw (or didn't see) in slo mo. This made it sound to all listeners that in this case real time outweighed slo mo. That is usually only the case in judging things like potentially dangerous tackles where they can look far worse on slo mo than they are.</p> -
<p>By the way (as TR alludes to) my reading of the law does not say that there must be separation. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Would you allow a player to roll the ball toward the tryline for 10 metres with their hand behind it and no clear and obvious separation?</p> -
<p>Thanks for posting that Hydro & Crucial.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As a non-ref, I'm still lost as to how that call was made. I'm watching now (HD via J-sports) and I can't see how that isn't a knock-on. He rolls it along the ground and then into his other hand. It looks nothing like a player scooping up the ball. It looks like one of the little knock-ons that happen at scrum time when 8s or HBs push the ball ball forward while trying to pick it up.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The law says:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p> </p>
<div style="margin:0px;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,236,139);">A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,<u><strong> or </strong></u>when a player hits the<strong> (a) ball forward with the hand or arm,</strong> or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and (b) the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.</div>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The key part there is that it doesn't state that the ball has to be separated (i.e., 'or').</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both 'a' and 'b' are pretty clear to me - I'm watching in 'real' time and it looks forward (using the side view, not the one from the front that was shown after the try was given).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I still think the Hurricanes were the better team, but I'd be pissed if I were a Blues supporter.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the other hand, at least this decision deserves being talked about. I can't see how anyone couldn't see Li's pass as forward at the time or argue about it after seeing the replay. It's a mile forward out of his hands.</div> -
<p>Am I on my own being cheesed off with Tevita Li being taken out as the blindside defender before TJP's try? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>From 48 seconds, slo-mo at 1:04 in the video below:</p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues</a></p> -
<p>was cool in real time! ;)</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="564711" data-time="1458021243">
<div>
<p>Am I on my own being cheesed off with Tevita Li being taken out as the blindside defender before TJP's try? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>From 48 seconds, slo-mo at 1:04 in the video below:</p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't think he was ever really a defender he hadn't even seen Savea had the ball. He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely? But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.</p>
<p>I don't think there was any material effect from the action.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
<p>I don't think there was any material effect from the action.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>What the hell are you doing to my blood pressure? No materiality - only a bloody try scored down the defenders channel.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
<p>He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. <span style="font-size:8px;">The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely?</span> But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bound to a ruck that was over... :think:</p> -
Yep all very messy but I really can't see how he was in any way looking to defend the channel scored in. He had decided to join the melee and was committed there. If anything the clean out actually made him look up and see TJP and make a belated attempt. <br>
If he was standing beside the ruck watching I would agree. -
<p>Canes player coming in the side: Yes</p>
<p>Canes player taking out a defender: No</p>
<p>He was clearly a part of the ruck by leaning a shoulder into it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Edit: However you could also argue that Li came in the side of the ruck also.</p>
