RWC QF: France v South Africa
-
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
It's not illegal to kick the ball unless it's in a ruck/scrum or someone's possession. And now you're yellow carding or at least penalising people for tap passes and lineout taps that go forward.
-
Re the Etzebeth thing:
Most refs tend to rule any loss of possession that does not clearly go backwards as a knock on, same with deliberate actions. I don't think many people would be outraged had Etzebeth gotten a YC there for a deliberate knock on, as the ball did not clearly go backwards. You don't want ugly play like this rewarded.Anyone remember the Super Rugby match between the Bulls and Brumbies, when Jonker (haha) ruled this as play on? Technically, he might have been correct, it looks like, but everyone was expecting a knock on call.
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
It's not illegal to kick the ball unless it's in a ruck/scrum or someone's possession. And now you're yellow carding or at least penalising people for tap passes and lineout taps that go forward.
I'm not sure i follow your first point, i'm not arguing kicking the ball is illegal. I'm arguing the fact he also went with his leg makes it harder to argue he was trying to catch it
As for all tapping becoming a yellow card, i'm also not sure i follow this logic. Are you arguing that because he tried to tap it back, if it then went forward, it shouldn't be a penalty / yellow? That's not a bad shout, don't know the answer or what I think.
Quick question (from a position of ignorance), are intentional knock ons always yellow? I was under the impression that 'intentional knock ons' are not always yellow cards, they are yellow cards if they are a. massively cynical i.e. team on a break, stopping a move in its tracks (similar to going off your feet at a ruck to kill a ball on your line after a 50m break would be, where as on the half way in regular play it wouldn't be), or b. directly prevent a try scoring opportunity.
Circumstance of an offence in rugby is almost as important as the offence itself in multiple cases isn't it, i don't see why this should be different
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
The first 3 SA tries were a trio of sucker punches lovingly gift wrapped by the French through high ball ineptitude. I mean, they must have known the kicks were going to come, no?
No it was très disrespectful! Nobody shows catches in the highlights (unless you're Ben Smith) so why bother practising catching them?!
-
@Dodge is "catch it" actually a thing? I'm not convinced it is - if it is it's wrong and opens up a can of worms. Better terminology for me would be " play the ball legally".
If it comes off his leg below the knee it's a kick right? So don't even flinch and play on. If it's above the knee, was it a realistic chance of below the knee?
Same for a tap down/back that goes forward - was it a realistic chance? If it doesn't go forward, carry on.
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge is "catch it" actually a thing? I'm not convinced it is - if it is it's wrong and opens up a can of worms. Better terminology for me would be " play the ball legally".
If it comes off his leg below the knee it's a kick right? So don't even flinch and play on. If it's above the knee, was it a realistic chance of below the knee?
Same for a tap down/back that goes forward - was it a realistic chance? If it doesn't go forward, carry on.
yes absolutely, if it goes backwards, no offence, if it comes off a leg, no offence- that said, i seem to remember there's a law that you have to be in control of the ball to kick it i.e. you can't knock a ball on and then kick it before it hits the ground (again, not saying that's what EE did) - i may remember this wrong though
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge is "catch it" actually a thing? I'm not convinced it is - if it is it's wrong and opens up a can of worms. Better terminology for me would be " play the ball legally".
If it comes off his leg below the knee it's a kick right? So don't even flinch and play on. If it's above the knee, was it a realistic chance of below the knee?
Same for a tap down/back that goes forward - was it a realistic chance? If it doesn't go forward, carry on.
yes absolutely, if it goes backwards, no offence, if it comes off a leg, no offence- that said, i seem to remember there's a law that you have to be in control of the ball to kick it i.e. you can't knock a ball on and then kick it before it hits the ground (again, not saying that's what EE did) - i may remember this wrong though
-
@Dodge 🚫 Cheslin Kolbe on that charge down:
"I think it definitely helped that I played with Thomas [Ramos] for six years and knew what he was doing."I did everything by the book, and within the rules, I was behind the line before he started his run.
"I tried to run as fast as possible to charge it down. I wanted to make him feel a bit of pressure."
Via: @Netwerk24Sport
#RWC2023 #Springboks
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge is "catch it" actually a thing? I'm not convinced it is - if it is it's wrong and opens up a can of worms. Better terminology for me would be " play the ball legally".
If it comes off his leg below the knee it's a kick right? So don't even flinch and play on. If it's above the knee, was it a realistic chance of below the knee?
Same for a tap down/back that goes forward - was it a realistic chance? If it doesn't go forward, carry on.
-
@pakman thanks! I'm too lazy to read it properly - strikes me as odd that players can tap pass or tap from a lineout (or even bat a ball out of a scrum/ruck). None of these are intending to catch the ball, so does the law only relate to if a ball has been passed by the opposition?
If a player does a tap pass, does that mean an opposition player can deliberately knock it on without fear of penalty because the previous player that tapped it didn't attempt to catch it?
-
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@pakman thanks! I'm too lazy to read it properly - strikes me as odd that players can tap pass or tap from a lineout (or even bat a ball out of a scrum/ruck). None of these are intending to catch the ball, so does the law only relate to if a ball has been passed by the opposition?
If a player does a tap pass, does that mean an opposition player can deliberately knock it on without fear of penalty because the previous player that tapped it didn't attempt to catch it?
Fair point. Attempting to 'knock back' is clearly not attempting to catch. Nor can it sensibly be construed as a deliberate knock on.
-
@Dodge I think EE exaggerated hooking movement is likely what gave him all the benefit of doubt...BOK said it went back, he can only rule what he sees.
We lament over use or constant interruptions from the TMO, so I am certain if they thought it went forward, they'd have called it.
I loathe cards, I loathe teams playing for pens, sure some pens and cards are.deserving but we do need to make decisions easier for refs to make.
To clear this one up, basically if you go for it and don't get it, ball goes forward, pen every single time, or, then other way, knock on every single time.
Aaron Smiths was a pen all day, but not.deserving of a card IMO.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge I think EE exaggerated hooking movement is likely what gave him all the benefit of doubt...BOK said it went back, he can only rule what he sees.
We lament over use or constant interruptions from the TMO, so I am certain if they thought it went forward, they'd have called it.
I loathe cards, I loathe teams playing for pens, sure some pens and cards are.deserving but we do need to make decisions easier for refs to make.
To clear this one up, basically if you go for it and don't get it, ball goes forward, pen every single time, or, then other way, knock on every single time.
Aaron Smiths was a pen all day, but not.deserving of a card IMO.
I agree entirely with your reading of the EE decision. I totally understand why it was given the way it was given and totally support the decision even if I don’t know if that’s 100% correct (don’t know whether it went forward off his hand)
Re the Smith one, given the way that it’s reffed according to the law clarifications tagged above, it was a stone wall yellow for me. Separately, I’m in favour of the way the law is written and interpreted. Don’t want a yellow in that situation, don’t stick a hand out
-
@ACT-Crusader Ok mate, I genuinely thought O'Keefe called it knock on and was playing advantage.
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@TeWaio Slippery slope there. There was nothing wrong with the French pass that Etzebeth slapped down. Etzebeth took the risk, not the French passer. He got away with it. I imagine he wouldn't if Wayne Barnes was reffing
I thought he had his hand in front of ball and was trying to reef/knock it backwards, and that was why I thought BOK got it right. I definitely didn't see it as a knock down. But then again I haven't ben back to study it again, as I not sure I would get anything out of it.
