Blues v Canes

taniwharugby

was cool in real time! ;)

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="564711" data-time="1458021243">
<div>
Am I on my own being cheesed off with Tevita Li being taken out as the blindside defender before TJP's try? 
 
From 48 seconds, slo-mo at 1:04 in the video below:
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Don't think he was ever really a defender he hadn't even seen Savea had the ball. He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely? But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.
I don't think there was any material effect from the action.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
I don't think there was any material effect from the action.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What the hell are you doing to my blood pressure? No materiality - only a bloody try scored down the defenders channel.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely? But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Bound to a ruck that was over... :think:

Crucial

Yep all very messy but I really can't see how he was in any way looking to defend the channel scored in. He had decided to join the melee and was committed there. If anything the clean out actually made him look up and see TJP and make a belated attempt. 
If he was standing beside the ruck watching I would agree.

pukunui

Canes player coming in the side: Yes
Canes player taking out a defender: No
He was clearly a part of the ruck by leaning a shoulder into it.
 
Edit: However you could also argue that Li came in the side of the ruck also.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="564729" data-time="1458030284">
<div>
Canes player coming in the side: Yes
Canes player taking out a defender: No
He was clearly a part of the ruck by leaning a shoulder into it.
 
Edit: However you could also argue that Li came in the side of the ruck also.
</div>
</blockquote>
Li came in to make a tackle (with other players) which formed the ruck, the previous ruck had ended when Savea had a snipe.
 
The Canes player came in the side of the ruck.

Winger

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564700" data-time="1458010806">
<div>
I'm pretty sure that it was the aspect of not being clear and obvious that led to the call and that is fair enough. The TMO has to make a decision. I see an obvious KO, he doesn't. I agree that there isn't absolute proof but then there isn't absolute proof in many calls.
 
It was his language that raised controversy. He was specifically asked if he was OK with the pick up by 7 and replied that it was fine in real time without mentioning what he saw (or didn't see) in slo mo. This made it sound to all listeners that in this case real time outweighed slo mo. That is usually only the case in judging things like potentially dangerous tackles where they can look far worse on slo mo than they are.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above. Criticize a video ref when he gets it wrong. But for once two obvious calls were called right
 
Savea never lost possession. Not even close
 
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="564750" data-time="1458041392">
<div>
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Holy fuck. Clear English and yet again you've got your own weird fucking alternate universe interpretation.
 
Is this all an elaborate cry for attention?

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="564750" data-time="1458041392">
<div>
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above. Criticize a video ref when he gets it wrong. But for once two obvious calls were called right
 
Savea never lost possession. Not even close
 
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I can see why you cop so much grief at times Winger. You stop reading at the point it suits your argument.
 
The rest of the law reads..
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"> or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and (B ) the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
At no time (until he picked the ball up) was Savea 'in possession' so the first part (the bit you point to) doesn't apply.
 
As I have said, I have no problem with the TMO deciding that if there was a KO it wasn't clear and obvious to him and therefore he wasn't going to call it. If that is what he meant though, he should have said it that way not confuse matters with talk of 'real time'.
 
I gave an extreme example earlier of how it may be possible that separation isn't required but here is a slightly more possible one to think over.
 
The ball has been kicked down field and has pulled up a metre or so short of the line. An attacking player reaches down to the ball and while still moving forward reaches down and rolls the ball forward along the ground with one hand, over the try line and drops on it to score. On replay there is no clear and obvious separation between hand and ball, yet he never picked it up either.
Would you be OK with the try being awarded or would that all look wrong to you?

The Silver Fern

Blues v Canes