NH International Rugby
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?
Exactly. A further example would be if you’re defending a grubber kick and it suddenly keeps low and bangs you on the shins. Not a knock on. LZR lost it forward but it did not hit the ground or another player, it hit his leg (ok) and went backwards from there (ok).
-
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.
Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.
It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?
-
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Ach. Shithouse. Firstly, awful refereeing. First try was a complete shocker. Big ups for Biggar and Adams for the foresight and execution but damn that was poor from the ref
Ian McGeechan in the Telegraph thought the try bizarre and England hard done by. Interestingly, asks if Gauzere said time-on as he believed Biggar was going for a penalty kick, which begs the question: did Biggar indicate he was going for goal?
Apart from that, I thought Gauzere was OK. Pretty consistent at the breakdown and communicated well.
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.
Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.
It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?
That very move has been done in a lower league game in England a few years ago. It's on youtube somewhere. A feller called Alan Knuckley if I recall. Good skills and pretty funny to watch.
-
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?
Exactly. A further example would be if you’re defending a grubber kick and it suddenly keeps low and bangs you on the shins. Not a knock on.
Because it didn't hit the hand or arm. Same reason a catch that completely misses the arms and bounces off the chest isn't a knock-on.
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.
Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.
It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?
Even if it's not officially a kick, I don't think there's any rule saying that you can't do it is there?
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.
Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.
It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?
Yes, there goes some tricks. I've no idea why the heel is ruled out.
-
Neither of the first two Welsh tries should have stood. Dodgy refereeing but these things happen. That said England did well to get back in the game. With 18 minutes to go it was 24-24. England had the momentum.
The big story of the match was how England totally fell to pieces in the last eighteen minutes. Wales scored 16 unanswered points in that time and England failed to score at all. England never looked as effective once Ben Youngs at halfback was hooked for Dan Robson. The organisation and the discipline for England in that last 20 minutes were appalling.
I know he is a very confident man with a mouth to match his enormous ego, but serious questions need to be asked of Eddie Jones' coaching and leadership of the England squad at the moment given the players and resources he has available. Did his players and finishers really understand their roles in the last eighteen minutes there? What was said to the players at half time? What is the coach doing to sort out England's obvious penalty problems?
Arrogance can only get you so far in life. What England need is a hands-on coach who is prepared to work harder to improve his players. By all accounts, Eddie Jones has spent most of the twelve months in Japan. If he can't turn things around against France and Ireland, I can see the RFU parting ways with him.
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.
Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.
It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?
You thinking Tons Fili? His go to!
-
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
Pretty sure you wouldn't even flinch if they were scored against Wales huh?
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
I am happy to debate the second try. It could have gone either way. To me it's a knock on but I can see how someone who knows the laws can argue (wrongly IMHO) it was a valid try. It's one referees will have fun arguing about.
But the refereeing for the first try was absolutely appalling. As the clip from 1:03 to 1:35 makes clear, both sides had Water Carriers on the field of play. Given their role on the field of play was non-essential, the ref should have told them to move before saying time on. England didn't help themselves by being tardy and lazy, but the ref got it very, very, very wrong:
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
I am happy to debate the second try. It could have gone either way. To me it's a knock on but I can see how someone who knows the laws can argue (wrongly IMHO) it was a valid try. It's one referees have fun arguing about.
But the refereeing for the first try was absolutely appalling. As the clip from 1:05 to 1:35 makes clear, both sides had Water Carriers on the field of play. Given their role on the field of play was non-essential, the ref should have told them to move before saying time on. England didn't help themselves by being tardy and lazy, but the ref got it very, very, very wrong:
Yeah, I don't think we're too far apart on this. I agree the ref made a dog's breakfast of the first try, and put England at a disadvantage. But that didn't make the try invalid - just a bit harsh on them. But the mistakes made by England were probably worse - they were slow slow slow getting into position (the ref gave them about 25 seconds) and weren't awake (not all of them - the guys defending the left were alert and already in position). Letting England take as long as they want to have a drink, let their orcs get their breath back and set up defence would put Wales at an unfair disadvantage. (Why were the water carriers even on the field?). A poorly managed situation, but a perfectly valid try.
As for the second one, I think the problem is that the laws say one thing (you can't have a knock-on if it comes off a leg), but in practice refs often give it anyway. I initially thought it was a knock-on, then i read the law in question and now I think the refs got it right.
-
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
Pretty sure you wouldn't even flinch if they were scored against Wales huh?
Of course not. When have you ever heard a Welsh fan complain about a referee's decision?
-
@gibbonrib Neither try should have stood as the brilliant Nigel Owens explains clearly and simply here:
Nigel Owens explains exactly why Wales v England ref got both tries wrong
There has been a huge debate over the scores by Josh Adams and Liam Williams in the Triple Crown-clinching victory at the Principality Stadium
Nigel Owens believes neither of Wales’ first two tries in their Triple Crown-clinching victory over England should have stood. There was huge controversy over the first-half touchdowns from Josh Adams and Liam Williams during the 40-24 win for Wayne Pivac’s men at the Principality Stadium.
Now World Cup final referee Owens has delivered his verdict on both of them.
The first came on 16 minutes when fly-half Dan Biggar put in a pinpoint cross-kick for winger Adams to score out on the left.
That provoked a furious response from England captain Owen Farrell who argued with referee Pascal Gauzere that his team hadn’t been given sufficient time to re-set after Farrell had passed on a warning to them about too many penalties.
But Gauzere rejected Farrell’s complaints and awarded the try.
Giving his thoughts, Welshman Owens said: “It’s an interesting one.
“The referee clearly says ‘Time on’, so then Biggar is quite entitled to do what he does quickly.
“But I think Owen Farrell’s point here is correct.
“If you are asking the captain to speak to his team, I certainly wouldn’t restart time until I have given them time to line up in defence.
“The only reason they are in a huddle under the posts is you have told the captain to speak to his players and he puts time off for them to do that.
“So, you can’t put time back on then while they are still in the huddle.
“You are not giving them the time to line up to defend. It’s an unfair advantage.
“I would have allowed them to reset before I put time on. It’s only fair that you do that because you have asked them to go in the huddle in the first place.”
The second contentious Wales try came on 29 minutes when the officials decided there had not been a knock on by Louis Rees-Zammit ahead of full-back Liam Williams touching down.
But Owens views the incident in a different light.
“It was definitely a knock on,” he said, elaborating on the points he made on S4C.
“You see situations sometimes where a player loses control of a ball and then kicks it before it hits the ground. Well, that’s still classed as a knock on.
“What the law says is if a player loses control of the ball forward, he must regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else.
“So, in this case, Rees-Zammit definitely touches the ball and it travels forward on to his calf, then goes backwards and then comes off an England player.
“So it has travelled forward off his hand first and he fails to regain possession of it, which means it’s a knock on.
“If it hits his hand and goes backwards, then it’s play on.
“But it hits his hand, the ball is still travelling forward and then it hits his calf and goes backwards.
“So, in law, he loses control of the ball forward and then fails to regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else, so it’s a knock on.
“If anybody wants an answer on it, look at Rees-Zammit’s face when they award the try.
“It’s 100 per cent a knock on.
Listening to the TMO, he says he doesn’t see the ball go forward.
“That sounds to me like he doesn’t think the ball touched the hand.
“But when you look at it, it has definitely touched Rees-Zammit’s hand.
“If you lose control of the ball forward, you must regain possession of it for it not to be a knock on.
“It’s irrelevant that it’s gone backwards off his calf. The fact is it’s gone forward first before that. That is the key in that decision.
“Even if it went laterally down, it’s a knock on.”
Owens concluded: “So, to me, those two tries shouldn’t stand.”
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
I am happy to debate the second try. It could have gone either way. To me it's a knock on but I can see how someone who knows the laws can argue (wrongly IMHO) it was a valid try. It's one referees have fun arguing about.
But the refereeing for the first try was absolutely appalling. As the clip from 1:05 to 1:35 makes clear, both sides had Water Carriers on the field of play. Given their role on the field of play was non-essential, the ref should have told them to move before saying time on. England didn't help themselves by being tardy and lazy, but the ref got it very, very, very wrong:
Yeah, I don't think we're too far apart on this. I agree the ref made a dog's breakfast of the first try, and put England at a disadvantage. But that didn't make the try invalid - just a bit harsh on them. But the mistakes made by England were probably worse - they were slow slow slow getting into position (the ref gave them about 25 seconds) and weren't awake (not all of them - the guys defending the left were alert and already in position). Letting England take as long as they want to have a drink, let their orcs get their breath back and set up defence would put Wales at an unfair disadvantage. (Why were the water carriers even on the field?). A poorly managed situation, but a perfectly valid try.
As for the second one, I think the problem is that the laws say one thing (you can't have a knock-on if it comes off a leg), but in practice refs often give it anyway. I initially thought it was a knock-on, then i read the law in question and now I think the refs got it right.
Wales had water carriers on the pitch too. What the ref should have done is called out to the Welsh water carriers "Time to move", then to the England water carriers, then indicated to Owen Farrell that he was going to start again, then said "time on". After that he moves at the pace of the team awarded the penalty. But in moving too quickly before that after telling Owen Farrell to speak to his players, he gave the attacking team unfair advantage.
This isn't a small mistake by a referree, it's an enormous one.
Your first duty as a ref is player safety as far as possible, your second is to be fair to both sides, then to be consistent, then to get your interpretations of the laws correct.
In the second try the laws were wrongly interpretation. In the first try the ref was unfair to England.
-
@victor-meldrew said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Ach. Shithouse. Firstly, awful refereeing. First try was a complete shocker. Big ups for Biggar and Adams for the foresight and execution but damn that was poor from the ref
Ian McGeechan in the Telegraph thought the try bizarre and England hard done by. Interestingly, asks if Gauzere said time-on as he believed Biggar was going for a penalty kick, which begs the question: did Biggar indicate he was going for goal?
Apart from that, I thought Gauzere was OK. Pretty consistent at the breakdown and communicated well.
He was consistent, I’ll give him that. Communication was reasonably good but his manner was pretty poor from the get go I felt.
-
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:
To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?
Exactly. A further example would be if you’re defending a grubber kick and it suddenly keeps low and bangs you on the shins. Not a knock on.
Because it didn't hit the hand or arm. Same reason a catch that completely misses the arms and bounces off the chest isn't a knock-on.
I always thought the ruling was dependent on the last point of contact? ie head, legs = no knock on. Arms, hands=knock on?
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.
And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.
You're definitely drunk and celebrating and good on you, but that second one, in particular, is a fucking disgrace.
I didn't see the game and just watched the highlights above, after reading the discussion here.
How on earth anyone would argue that isn't a knock-on is completely beyond me.
Edit: I see that Nigel has explained it already.
