NH International Rugby
-
@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.
Biggar didn't indicate he was going to go for goal. 26 seconds from the ref telling Farrell to talk to his players to him saying "Time on". Gauzere's big error to me was saying nothing to the water-carriers from either side before saying "Time on."
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
@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.”
Owens doesn't say the first try shouldn't have stood - he says that he would have refereed it differently. Those are different things. He actually says Biggar is entitled to kick for the try. I don't disagree the ref made a mess of it, but England contributed to it too. If I was May on the left wing of be furious at my teammates for lack of attention.
For the second one, Nige has just got the rule wrong. It talks about loss of posession, not loss of control - different things. Don't know why he works make that mistake, enjoying retirement I guess.
-
@sparky Thanks for that. As always Nige cuts through the waffle and explains things succinctly. I am now happy to accept that LZR did knock the ball on. Still not as contentious as the first balls up though. However, as has already been said, we got back level and managed to royally fuck it up from there.
-
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@nevorian said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib 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.
What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.
A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.
I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.
If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.
It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.
I may have missed something but I thought they ruled ok because the ball traveled backwards as he lost possession and then hit the England player which made it look as though it had gone forward
I'd say from when he first touched it to when he last touched it it had clearly travelled forward - he was running after all.
When it came off his hand it went backwards but as you say he was running may have given it some forward momentum?. I can see arguments for just about all interpretations here
-
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky Thanks for that. As always Nige cuts through the waffle and explains things succinctly. I am now happy to accept that LZR did knock the ball on. Still not as contentious as the first balls up though. However, as has already been said, we got back level and managed to royally fuck it up from there.
Succinctly, but not necessarily correctly...
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky Thanks for that. As always Nige cuts through the waffle and explains things succinctly. I am now happy to accept that LZR did knock the ball on. Still not as contentious as the first balls up though. However, as has already been said, we got back level and managed to royally fuck it up from there.
Succinctly, but not necessarily correctly...
He quotes the law saying that when a player loses the ball forward the he must regain
controledit: possession before the ball touches the ground or another player. If that is what the law says then he is both succinct and correct. -
The law definition states:
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when 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.
Given that there is an embedded 'or' clause in there, let's cut it down to the parts that matter:
When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Explain how that didn't happen here. Use red arrows if needed.
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@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?
Fair point. The fact that Carter wasn't immediately arrested for trying to decapitate Roberts proves the true sportsman like conduct. That toxic English female interviewer after the game however...
-
@nevorian said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@nevorian said in NH International Rugby:
@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib 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.
What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.
A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.
I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.
If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.
It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.
I may have missed something but I thought they ruled ok because the ball traveled backwards as he lost possession and then hit the England player which made it look as though it had gone forward
I'd say from when he first touched it to when he last touched it it had clearly travelled forward - he was running after all.
When it came off his hand it went backwards but as you say he was running may have given it some forward momentum?. I can see arguments for just about all interpretations here
I've said it earlier in the thread, and Nige also pointed it out... unless my eyes receive me and LRZ was standing still or I was actually rewinding and he was running backwards.... the ball has gone forward.
-
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@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!
Yep!
-
@junior said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@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!
Yep!
That bastard was cheating the whole time.
-
@gt12 said in NH International Rugby:
The law definition states:
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when 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.
Given that there is an embedded 'or' clause in there, let's cut it down to the parts that matter:
When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Explain how that didn't happen here. Use red arrows if needed.
Let me pour another drink and then I'll have a go.
Right.
The law you've quoted talks about when when player loses possession. It's not clear exactly when that is. It can't be when the ball leaves the player's hands, because in that case just about every kick would be a knock on.
The law book defines possession as "An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control." This isn't very helpful, because you could be 10 metres away from the ball on you'll arse and still trying to bring it under control. So it reads like you only lose possession when you stop trying to get it under control, which is a bit silly.
What happend in this case is LRZ knocks the ball forward with his right hand. Then he gets briefly gets both hands on it, it drops down onto the back of his right thigh. His left hand loses contact as it's falling, but the right appears to stay in contact until it hits his thigh. From there it drops down and back onto his calf, and then bounces backwards.
So at what point did he lose posession? It could be after his final touch, but that was backwards off his leg so that's not a knock-on. You could say it is after the last touch with his hand (as it bounces off his thigh), that's a little less clear but to me that also looks backwards. I guess you could say it is when he loses control of the ball, but it's hard to pinpoint when that is as he never really had control. The first touch off his hand is the one that clearly went forwards, but I'm not seeing any argument for that being the moment he lost possession, given that he touched it about 3 more times after that. Ergo, no knock on.
So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Having said that, I think there are some problems with the laws: 1) they're not as clear as they should be and 2) they're not always applied consistently and in line with what's written. That's contributing to the wildly different conclusions we're getting
-
@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.
I don't mind the first try and the way it was handled. Teams like England, and especially South Africa, absolutely take the piss with all mini "injury" and "water" breaks throughout the match and they purposefully take their time getting back into position in order to stifle attacks.
-
@junior Wales had both water carriers on the pitch too at the time. If was just England who had them on, then I'd agree.
Going forward the World Rugby needs to make clear, physios are allowed on the field of play only to deal with an apparent severe injury. Apart from that only the players and the match officials should be on the field of play. Water carriers can should stay pitch side or beyond in goal, unless bringing on or taking off the kicking tee. This was a cock-up waiting to happen as it were.
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib Neither try should have stood as the brilliant Nigel Owens explains clearly and simply here:
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.”
Owens doesn't say the first try shouldn't have stood - he says that he would have refereed it differently. Those are different things. He actually says Biggar is entitled to kick for the try. I don't disagree the ref made a mess of it, but England contributed to it too. If I was May on the left wing of be furious at my teammates for lack of attention.
For the second one, Nige has just got the rule wrong. It talks about loss of posession, not loss of control - different things. Don't know why he works make that mistake, enjoying retirement I guess.
Interesting. Reading his comments this is the key one for me (although he took a while to get there):
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 that's the rule, then I think it's probably a knock on. However, this makes me immediately think of a situation where a player loses control forward, but then before it hits the ground he tries to regain possession but ends up batting it backwards before it hits the ground. Under Nige's interpretation, would this be a knock on. He lost control forward and then doesn't regain control before it hits the ground (even though the ball is moving backward immediately before contact).
-
@gt12 said in NH International Rugby:
The law definition states:
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when 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.
Given that there is an embedded 'or' clause in there, let's cut it down to the parts that matter:
When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Explain how that didn't happen here. Use red arrows if needed.
I think that happened, but see my earlier post where the ball goes forwards and then backwards before hitting the ground - what happens there? (Honest question, not being a smart arse)
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@gt12 said in NH International Rugby:
The law definition states:
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when 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.
Given that there is an embedded 'or' clause in there, let's cut it down to the parts that matter:
When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Explain how that didn't happen here. Use red arrows if needed.
Let me pour another drink and then I'll have a go.
Right.
The law you've quoted talks about when when player loses possession. It's not clear exactly when that is. It can't be when the ball leaves the player's hands, because in that case just about every kick would be a knock on.
The law book defines possession as "An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control." This isn't very helpful, because you could be 10 metres away from the ball on you'll arse and still trying to bring it under control. So it reads like you only lose possession when you stop trying to get it under control, which is a bit silly.
What happend in this case is LRZ knocks the ball forward with his right hand. Then he gets briefly gets both hands on it, it drops down onto the back of his right thigh. His left hand loses contact as it's falling, but the right appears to stay in contact until it hits his thigh. From there it drops down and back onto his calf, and then bounces backwards.
So at what point did he lose posession? It could be after his final touch, but that was backwards off his leg so that's not a knock-on. You could say it is after the last touch with his hand (as it bounces off his thigh), that's a little less clear but to me that also looks backwards. I guess you could say it is when he loses control of the ball, but it's hard to pinpoint when that is as he never really had control. The first touch off his hand is the one that clearly went forwards, but I'm not seeing any argument for that being the moment he lost possession, given that he touched it about 3 more times after that. Ergo, no knock on.
So that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Having said that, I think there are some problems with the laws: 1) they're not as clear as they should be and 2) they're not always applied consistently and in line with what's written. That's contributing to the wildly different conclusions we're getting
There's nothing wrong with the law, just the ridiculous decision in this case by a ref who shouldn't get another game until he learns to read, and think.
The player drops it, it travels forward, and he doesn't catch it.
