RWC QF: France v South Africa
-
To be honest, apart from the Smith call, I think the only one I was very uncertain about was a ruck after the French broke out and marched them about 40 metres up field, with a few minutes to go. Bok player went over the ball and wasn’t supporting and I think knocked it on as well (I only saw it in real time). The French didn’t get the call and that was basically the game - the Boks basically kept them back down there till the end. I feel like that non-call was very impactful - if like to see it on replay.
In saying that, you cant argue that or even Smith’s turnover as the key moment when the French spilled so much ball and ruined attacking chances. If they had been pretty flawless until then, perhaps some grumbling would be ok, but that game was not lost due to refereeing - they gave the Boks too many opportunities and the ball fell/bounced for green on three (ie, pretty much all) of them.
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I thought he was brilliant in the first half, seemed to tire in the second.
Given the way the French attack, there is a huge amount of pressure on him being at every ruck so quickly. France tend to not commit numbers so him being able to be present and clear ball is so critical. The kid covers huge amount of ground I’m surprised they play him for 80.
-
@gt12 you don’t think the Eztebeth no call knock on was big? Sure he was trying to knock it back, but the ball actually went forward. For me that should have been at least an attacking scrum 5m out. If not more.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@gt12 you don’t think the Eztebeth no call knock on was big? Sure he was trying to knock it back, but the ball actually went forward. For me that should have been at least an attacking scrum 5m out. If not more.
honest question did it go forward? I saw it a couple of times and it looked backwards to me; pretty important factual question to align on!
Anyone got a slo-mo replay handy?
-
@nzzp although, ACT says he was trying to knock it back, but went forward...end result is moot to me.
did he have a chance to get it?
Yes
Did he?
No
Did he knock it down?
No
Did it go forward?I'm not best person to get into this, as my view is if you get a finger to it, and your action is anyway but downward, you have a shot at it, however small, so scrum only.
-
-
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
-
I see Nigel Owens has come out to clarify that a players hands can be on the ground as long as the ref does not think that hand is supporting the players weight. So BOK may have thought that Smith was supporting his own bodyweight even though his hand was on the ground.
Just another level of nuance the ref has to deal with, but not such an obvious error that everyone is calling out.
-
-
@Toddy said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Why else would you put your hand on the ground? Surely using two hands to pilfer is better than using one. Unless you need to use one to keep balance
Exactly. I read that Nigel tweet exchange and he’s technically right about what the penalty can be called for “not supporting weight”, but as a ref you’d have to be a mind reader to know that a player who physically has their hand on the ground is not using it to support their weight in the body position they use to compete for the ball.
-
@voodoo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
All would be solved if they applied it the way league do it.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@voodoo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
All would be solved if they applied it the way league do it.
there is zero reason for the current law/interpretation. And it just adds more grey areas for people to whinge about
-
@Dan54 said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Didn't O'Keefe say he was clearly trying to hook it back or catc it. I did tgink his hand was hooked in front of the ball.
He did say that but the actual outcome from my view is that the ball went forward. The intent of the action may count for something but what actually happens matter.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dan54 said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Didn't O'Keefe say he was clearly trying to hook it back or catc it. I did tgink his hand was hooked in front of the ball.
He did say that but the actual outcome from my view is that the ball went forward. The intent of the action may count for something but what actually happens matter.
I thought it was intention was all that mattered. If the ref thinks you are genuinely trying to catch ball it becomes a knock on doesn't it? That was my understanding, but maybe I got it wrong. (wouldn't be first time). Think O'Keefe said it went forward, and didn't he signal a scrum?
-
@Dan54 said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dan54 said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Didn't O'Keefe say he was clearly trying to hook it back or catc it. I did tgink his hand was hooked in front of the ball.
He did say that but the actual outcome from my view is that the ball went forward. The intent of the action may count for something but what actually happens matter.
I thought it was intention was all that mattered. If the ref thinks you are genuinely trying to catch ball it becomes a knock on doesn't it? That was my understanding, but maybe I got it wrong. (wouldn't be first time). Think O'Keefe said it went forward, and didn't he signal a scrum?
Intention comes into for a YC. The fact that no knock on was called is my problem.
Eztebeth was behind the 5m mark when he hit the ball and the ball ends up in front of the 5m mark. Play on according tO BOK
-
https://x.com/thezingone/status/1714150354047340834?s=46&t=WpEhcpdLKDqfjTjGW5QqaA
Forget the Aaron Smith comparison (apples and oranges in my view) but just look at the Eztebeth video.
-
@ACT-Crusader if Sam Whitelock had done the same thing, would you be expecting a yellow card and a penalty try, just a penalty, a scrum knock on or play on?
-
I think that clearly shows the deflection off the knee. Pulled backwards by the hand first
-
I think Smiths looked like he just threw the hand out in reflex, Etzebeth looked like he was trying to hook it back and looked like it hit his leg.
