All Blacks vs Boks
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@taniwharugby Did you see at 1:10 when A Smith left W Smith hanging for a handshake?
Cool to see the Boks there in the end ... they certainly shower quicker than the ABs.
Probably wanted to wash the stench of that performance off.
-
I didn't think things could get worse for South Africa after losses in the last couple of years to Italy and Japan but they have. Embarrassing scoreline for them.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo Not one complaint so far, I think?
I think he made a huge error in the Ioane try.
Where Smith took the quick tap from was a joke.
You mean directly behind the ref where the penalty was blown?
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@taniwharugby Did you see at 1:10 when A Smith left W Smith hanging for a handshake?
Cool to see the Boks there in the end ... they certainly shower quicker than the ABs.
Probably wanted to wash the stench of that performance off.
I read the Smith sentence and then was confused, A Smith had an awesome game, then clicked, right, it's the Boks performance you were meaning!
-
@Virgil said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo Not one complaint so far, I think?
I think he made a huge error in the Ioane try.
Where Smith took the quick tap from was a joke.
You mean directly behind the ref where the penalty was blown?
Owens Could be standing in Timbuktu when he blows the whistle for all its relevance , the penalty spot is at the bottom of that ruck. Smith running 5m parellel to take a quick tap in the sweet fresh air near Owens feet, rather than taking a quick tap in line with the yet to be marked spot .... without the obstacle of a fucking ruck in his way meant he got an unfair try creating advantage.
Poor reffing, panicked by Smith's quick reaction.
-
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Virgil said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Tim said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@booboo Not one complaint so far, I think?
I think he made a huge error in the Ioane try.
Where Smith took the quick tap from was a joke.
You mean directly behind the ref where the penalty was blown?
Owens Could be standing in Timbuktu when he blows the whistle for all its relevance , the penalty spot is at the bottom of that ruck. Smith running 5m parellel to take a quick tap in the sweet fresh air near Owens feet, rather than taking a quick tap in line with the yet to be marked spot .... without the obstacle of a fucking ruck in his way meant he got an unfair try creating advantage.
Poor reffing, panicked by Smith's quick reaction.
Without researching I'm pretty certain it is allowable under the laws to take a kick tap directly behind the ref's feet.
No need to get all Meg Marshall and over impartial on it all.
-
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
I'm lost. I've watched the video five times, trying to imagine that it's the Springboks who took the tap, and I still can't see what you are going on about.
You seem to want a new interpretation of the law, is that your point? I say that, because there are no rules in rugby - just laws.
-
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
-
The tap has to be taken from the Mark, or from behind it.
However there is definitely nothing in the law that says the player has to wait for the ref to make the Mark before he can take it. We know this from the definitions and also because there is a special provision in 21.7 that states if the opposition aren't back 10m then the second PK cannot be taken before the ref makes the Mark. If this were true of all PKs then there's no need to state it as a special case.
Equally though, the player can't rush to the referee and take it there. The Mark is where the offence occurred (unless stated otherwise in the relevant law).
Both of those ideas are myths that you hear occasionally.
Now as for whether Smith is ok where he took it from its debatable. The Mark is where the offence took place, or in the ruck.
I don't accept that he's 5 metres from the Mark; which seems like hyperbole to make a point. However he's also clearly not exactly in line with it either. He's gone to the side by about a metre give or take. Is that OK? Maybe, maybe not. I can see arguments either way for it being OK. It's marginal.
What I do know is that if there is one ref in the world who is likely to be fine with it it's Owens. Owens is pretty clearly regarded by WR as the best ref around currently, which suggests they are probably fine with it too.
YMMV of course.
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Boks:
Cool to see the Boks there in the end ... they certainly shower quicker than the ABs.
I like the Springboks as a team, but they seem weirdly upbeat for a team that just recorded their biggest loss in history. Cool to see Pollard chat with ALB, though, after he got humiliated by him on the field. Love rugby
-
Now watched tape of first half.
Not as one sided as 31-0 suggests, by a long shot.
In fact nothing much in it after 20. Jantjies miss. BB penalty, then asleep at the wheel for Ioane first. 10-0.
At that point NMS intercept 17-0. Kriel fails to kick through after AB mix up @25. He could well have been under the sticks and at 17-7 game on.
Then Barrett magic, with hint of a trip on Hougaard by NMS. 24-0.
Another lapse in concentration/heads dropped from restart and BBBR in to make it 31-0.
At the 25 minute mark Boks had had 61% possession and were 17-0 down! ABs were surgical.
Lineout woes (and good AB work jumping at front most times to unsettle Harpo) meant that pressure couldn't be sustained. And backs seemed fairly disjointed.
Only positive first two scrums, in the second of which we were mullered after Read and Squire detached early, before Coles had a word to Nige about Bok TH. Pretty even after that.
More to come...
-
Just watched tape of first half. Take a look at Marx bind on Dreyer. Seemed to me he deliberately pulled bottom of jersey up exposing Dreyer's right hip. Hames left with nothing to grip but a love handle! Very odd result in first scrum. Is this an old trick?
Would love to hear what Coles said to Nige just before third scrum formed. -
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@TeWaio said in All Blacks vs Boks:
@Rapido Can't agree. If quick taps are going to be an option from a penalty, then there should be some latitude in where they are taken to allow it to be "quick". Think Owens got the right balance of speed/proximity.
Don't like it? Don't give away penalties.
A I said earlier in the thread a quick tap wasn't technically a legal option from that penalty as no mark had been made. But that has been getting ignored for 20 years since the lilly-livered refs of the late 90s ignored it on the interests of 55 v 45 S12 entertainment. While I'd gladly see that applied to the letter of the law I know I'd be pissing in the wind. The piss-taking was Smith running 5m infield to the nice clear unobstructed space. Not even following the modern norm.
Smith had the 'right' to take a quick tap under modern interpretations. But he stuffed it up. He should have been whistled back. It's his fault. Whether Smith took the tap in that strange place because he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know the line of the penalty spot, or because that open space was more advantageous than behind the cluttered ruck? I don't know.
The Boks had the right to expect Owens to enforce the rule properly.
Do they allow goal kickers to kick it from roughly within a 5m radius of the spot, whatever is most convenient.
Just apply the rules. And these infuriating 'interpretation' discussions are moot.
No.
I think you are wrong. Just don't know where to look to find it.
I'm pretty reasonably fairly certain that you can take a quick tap at the referee's feet in lieu of him making a mark.
Just from an observation common sense POV, why do you think halfback throw the ball to No8 every time a scrum collapses rather than start hunching near the refs feet?
But I'll actually look it up:
21 Penalty and Free Kicks
Definitions21.2 Where penalty and free are taken
DEFINITIONS
Penalty kicks and free kicks are awarded to the non-offending team for infringements by their opponents.
21.1 Where penalty and free kicks are awarded
Unless a Law states otherwise, the mark for a penalty or free kick is at the place of infringement.
21.2 Where penalty and free kicks are taken
(a)
The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b)
When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum 5 metres from the goal line in line with the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
(c)
If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again. -
@Damo said in All Blacks vs Boks:
The tap has to be taken from the Mark, or from behind it.
However there is definitely nothing in the law that says the player has to wait for the ref to make the Mark before he can take it. We know this from the definitions and also because there is a special provision in 21.7 that states if the opposition aren't back 10m then the second PK cannot be taken before the ref makes the Mark. If this were true of all PKs then there's no need to state it as a special case.
Equally though, the player can't rush to the referee and take it there. The Mark is where the offence occurred (unless stated otherwise in the relevant law).
Both of those ideas are myths that you hear occasionally.
Now as for whether Smith is ok where he took it from its debatable. The Mark is where the offence took place, or in the ruck.
I don't accept that he's 5 metres from the Mark; which seems like hyperbole to make a point. However he's also clearly not exactly in line with it either. He's gone to the side by about a metre give or take. Is that OK? Maybe, maybe not. I can see arguments either way for it being OK. It's marginal.
What I do know is that if there is one ref in the world who is likely to be fine with it it's Owens. Owens is pretty clearly regarded by WR as the best ref around currently, which suggests they are probably fine with it too.
YMMV of course.
My 5m estimate is from watching the end on replay. Is it 4? Is it 4.5 or 3.9, I'm not sure. But what I'm saying is the obstacle of the ruck is no longer in the way and Smith gets a, literal, try scoring opportunity.
Whether he still would have had that opportunity if he had taken it at the correct spot and had to angle around the ruck before putting in his chip, we'll never know. It was good attacking ball regardless, I just find lax refereeing of that sort of behaviour irritating, one day someone will do that 5m from the goal line in a RWC final ......
-
-
@Crucial TBF, I would expect the majority of refs to allow that exact same situation to run, the fcat he is in front of the ref is probably the key, it's when they take a quick tap from behind (sometimes closer to the mark than Smith may have been) the ref then most would pull them up on that.
