Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October
-
Cole no try, try.
To me it was clearly a try
But here's an article on this try / no try.
But as the All Blacks were running back to halfway Australian TMO Angus Gardner told O’Keeffe to check the grounding on the replays.
“The ball is in the air, I don't believe the player has control of the ball," Gardner told O'Keeffe, effectively overruling his decision.
After watching the replays, O'Keeffe agreed and disallowed the try (although you could argue Gardner's intervention left him with little choice).
There is where the decision gets problematic, on two fronts.
First, the laws of the game make no mention of the word “control” when it comes to scoring a try, just that the player has contact with ball with their hands, arms, fingers or even chest as it touches the ground.
Coles appears to do just that.
Second, and this is where the inconsistency has crept in, when the onfield decision is ‘try' in Super Rugby Aotearoa or Mitre 10 Cup, the referees have needed conclusive proof on the replay to overrule the original decision.
-
@Winger I said it was a clear try at the time, but as I had been drinking for a fair few hours with five Wallaby supporters, I wasn't vociferous in my protestations in order to give my mates some hope.
-
@antipodean I agree completely. No separation between ball and hand, ball+ground+hand = try.
-
-
i can't see how it wasn't given. I even went and read the laws, and can't see the word "control" mentioned anywhere. Kaf in commentary must have said it 25 times so i just assumed it was the law.
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
-
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
-
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
-
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref. And does the head of refs have a word to the
foolsrefs who make these mistakes -
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
-
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
And yet, it isn't on the scoresheet anywhere, so it isn't a try.
You're welcome
-
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
-
@No-Quarter said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Frank said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
What a shit game.
The first half was bad, highlighted by the dogshit first quarter. Errors, shit play, more errors.
Considering the scoreline we were crap. The wallabies basically gift wrapped our points, especially the first 26. Unforced error after Unforced error. We can't even take credit for forcing the error, we just waited for their kids to fuck up. And they did, a lot. Then missed a tackle.
When we were forced to play phases and create, we did nothing, for 40 minutes. The wallabies made their front on tackles, and were forced in to box kicks. Or made our own error. It was just shit.
On a couple of players.
Goodhue is painfully slow. Gor burned for the Wallabie try, and on a kick chase got burned by everyone
Seriously, can we not find a better halfback than TJP? His passing is fucking bad. The drop when Smith goes off is massive.Glad I didn't go out of my way to watch live.
Someone woken up on the wrong side of bed this morning?
Miserable fluffybunny.Which bit is wrong?
Watching AB players score pretty tries against witches hats when handed the ball is nothing new.
Watching us do fuck all the rest of the game is pretty ordinary
We were far better a fortnight ago
I'm not convinced we were that much better a fortnight ago. In my write up from that game I said it felt like we relied on individual brilliance to actually get into the match, the Wallabies were dominating up until Beauden and Clarke produced some magic from broken play.
You are only as good as what you play in front of you, but this Wallabies team is really weak and their defense can be utterly woeful at times. The first test, where the weather played its part, showed we haven't developed a gameplan for breaking defenses down when the going gets tough
Which is a good thing. I’d hate to think we had ‘arrived’ after a few training sessions together under a new coaching set up. Especially when new midfield, new back row, new back 3, rookies etc
-
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Try for all money, the talk of control is bollocks, as long as the contact with the ball is not broken (which would be a knock on).
Please forward to:
J Marshall
23 Ignorant Street
La La Land -
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
The way I saw it is that as soon as he put his right hand on it he either had to press it down (2nd point) or regather it and hold it down (1st point).
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
I think it was bought up after B1 (or whichever of B1/B2 a try was disallowed which bought up same discussion) there has been a slight tweak to the TMO protocols?
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
And yet, it isn't on the scoresheet anywhere, so it isn't a try.
You're welcome
Ozzie rules (TMO) so obviously bollaux!
-
@Bovidae said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
So that would constitute two touches of the ball though, so a knock on in-goal
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
