Wales v Australia
-
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
-
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
Ask yourself how many tryline tackles are with contact against the head, because the attacking player is as low as possible, diving towards the tryline and then think about how many of these get penalised. There are laws and there are law interpretations and if you want to have a playable game, you need interpreters of the laws as they're written.
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@bones said in Wales v Australia:
So we've got no explanation as to why a swinging arm to the head is a YC when compared to Valetini's fuck up? At least Valetini was attempting a tackle. What was the Welsh player doing?
That is the one big decision that I think the ref didwrong. Thomas was lucky to get away with a yellow.
At least Valetini was attempting a valid tackle, he just got it badly wrong. Thomas' clean out was just reckless and ridiculously stupid
Yeah exactly and it's pretty much reaching to call it a clear out even - the player wasn't even part of the breakdown, so he was just attacking someone really.
When the ref says no mitigation for Valetini and then throws up a yellow for that (was the wrapping mitigation he discussed for this or the Aussie high shot just before it) it's hard not to think he's being blatantly biased.
-
@barbarian Might have been in his mind. It was a surprise he played on, 9 times out of 10 (OK, maybe 99 out of 100) it would have been a whistle straight away.
But when he's talking to the TMO he's clear that he saw it go backwards and he just wants them to check. You wouldn't do that unless you had a reasonable level of confidence. -
@bones Yeah, the wrapping was supposedly the mitigation for this. But that's nonsense, makes no sense. The only way this is not as bad is that the impact to the head wasn't as hard as the Valentini one, but it was still bad enough that it wasn't mitigation.
Edit: it's also worth comparing this one with the Fijian red last week - that was a similar case of a guy throwing himself at someone on the ground and smacking his head with his arm. Very inconsistent, Thomas should have seen red
Edit2 : the mitigation for the Aussie one in the same phase (I think it was Alaalatoa on Basham) was that the Welsh player was falling into him
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
Edit: it's also worth comparing this one with the Fijian red last week - that was a similar case of a guy throwing himself at someone on the ground and smacking his head with his arm. Very inconsistent, Thomas should have seen red
From memory the Fiji player completed a tackle then had a second swing.
-
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
Yep, I find the fuss being made over this decision baffling. It went backwards, hence it was legal. It's that simple. You can't wish something into the law book that's not there when a decision doesn't go your way.
-
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
If you take that attitude then defence generally is "negative intent".
And Beauden "got lucky" for that regathered intercept v Wales and should have been penalised.
Don't throw dumb passes so close to the opposition and remove the chance of them being blocked.
-
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
I think it's down the continual use of the wrong terminology.
Referring to a knock down all the time has created the impression it's somehow illegal, and if not illegal unethical.
There is nothing against the spirit, the law, Mabo or The Vibe by attempting to knock the ball backwards, getting it right, being seen to do so by the ref in real time on the field and it being confirmed by video by the TMO.
The counter argument is "it looked odd".
-
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
I think it's down the continual use of the wrong terminology.
Referring to a knock down all the time has created the impression it's somehow illegal, and if not illegal unethical.
There is nothing against the spirit, the law, Mabo or The Vibe by attempting to knock the ball backwards, getting it right, being seen to do so by the ref in real time on the field and it being confirmed by video by the TMO.
The counter argument is "it looked odd".
Totally, people do it all the time off the high ball - card them all!
-
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Not sure if the splintering caused any issue, but on the basis that it didn't (because the ref didn't call that), then I thought the carrier got to ground fine and the defense just flopped over - certainly a scrum to Yellow, could even have been a penalty
-
-
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
I think their is a bit of confusion here. IMO it was a negative action but tat was solely because he didn't look to be trying to knock it back,it was just fortuitous that he did. He was just sticking out a hand to stop the pass and it worked out.
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
I saw what you saw by the sound of it - the defence splintered went around the back of the maul and then tackled the ball carrier while grotesquely offside.
yet the ref just waved it on. Weird.
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo But the splintering is caused by Fainga'a being pulled back from behind by a Wales player at 7seconds. The player wasn't bound to the maul before doing this, IMO.
Maybe, but my point was more that even despite that, you should have received a penalty (or at minimum a scrum) from the next action - certainly shouldn't have been a turnover!
So in summary, yes, your rage was entitled!
-
@nzzp said in Wales v Australia:
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
I saw what you saw by the sound of it - the defence splintered went around the back of the maul and then tackled the ball carrier while grotesquely offside.
yet the ref just waved it on. Weird.
Yeah that's how I saw it too, thought it should have been a penalty to Oz
