Highlanders V Brumbies Super Bang Bang quarter finals
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="reprobate" data-cid="599000" data-time="1469182498"><p>
i like that ref. talks well. doesn't get everything right, but he is consistent, he lets people know where they stand better than anyone else, and he isn't card-happy.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Angus ain't bad really. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="599008" data-time="1469183888">
<div>
<p>Angus ain't bad really.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I can't recall bagging him, which means he must be.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seriously, he's had an excellent couple of years. Brumbies fans aside, Wallabies must be spewing they don't get to have him as a ref.</p> -
<p>Angus has one the NZ v SA game in Auckland. Big step up for him, but he seems to be up to it from what I have seen this year. </p>
-
<p>Tell you what, I hope the Whitelock at white lock experiment is shelved. Sure, helped us in terms of mobility, but lack of strength in the scrums exposed us. Ironically, our lineout was one of the best things going . . . </p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Smudge" data-cid="599017" data-time="1469185731"><p>Tell you what, I hope the Whitelock at white lock experiment is shelved. Sure, helped us in terms of mobility, but lack of strength in the scrums exposed us. Ironically, our lineout was one of the best things going . . .<br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Dry game would've been genius....but wet conditions not hood for tat particular call -
Moore is an absolute shambles when it comes to managing the ref. He should be stripped from the Wallabies captaincy too, a test team captain must stay on the right side of the ref. Thats how you get the rub of the green, not being a whiny little bitch like Moore is.
-
<p>The other thing I don't like about Moore being captain is that he's invariably subbed around the 65 minute mark.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Right lads, we're right in this - just need a huge effort from everyone - hold nothing back - it's do or die - and I'm off".</p> -
Is the only Whitelock that hasn't played lock the one that's got the most descriptive name of all? Hey fella, you're a dam white lock. Change positions.
-
<p>Not sure I've got my head around the play off format -- am I right that it's not as simple as the Clan play winner of the (e.g.) Canes/Sharks game? Or is it third placed p[lays second placed of those making semi's??</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="599043" data-time="1469208294">
<div>
<p>Not sure I've got my head around the play off format -- am I right that it's not as simple as the Clan play winner of the (e.g.) Canes/Sharks game? Or is it third placed p[lays second placed of those making semi's??</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's seeded based on the teams remaining...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Highest remaining seed plays 4th remaining seed</p>
<p>2nd plays 3rd</p> -
Win is a win...flush the dunny and move on.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Damo" data-cid="599005" data-time="1469183818">
<div>
<p><strong>I think a big part of the reason the ref didn't go to the pocket was because Moore (and then Fardy and Pocock) kept demanding it all the time. </strong> Highlanders were probably a bit lucky not to get a card after one of the mauls. Was it luck though, or just bad management by the Brumbies?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Totally agree with that. Their ref management is shocking. It's not just a one off for Moore either, he's always been bad and yet still gets picked as captain. I'm not sure that's the 'right' way to ref a game of rugby though. Personalities shouldn't come into it and if a team is playing cynical rugby (15 penalties) then they probably should be shown a yellow.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Glath" data-cid="598832" data-time="1469176735"><p>
Glad to see a ref still sin binning someone after the try is scored.</p></blockquote>
<br>
This -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="598865" data-time="1469178393"><p>
Haha whinging Moore put in his place</p></blockquote>
<br>
That was gold -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="598985" data-time="1469181356"><p>
I thought initially it would be a clear try - but, he had the ball out in front of him as he lunged for the line and then somehow it ended at his hip - so not sure how he couldn't have lost it.</p></blockquote>
<br>
There was pne shot where he appeared he may have lost it. That and no clear and obvious evidence of a try being scored it was the correct decision. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="598992" data-time="1469181967"><p>
Larkham looks like he can't believe they lost. He's a shit coach, which surprises me given he was such a smart player. <br><br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Top players with natural ability often make shit coaches -
<p>loved the way Smith was down low shouting encouragement into the tunnel in the last few scrums.</p>
-
<p>Seems Larkham is having a real big whinge about the no try. I thought it was a pretty good call. Video ref couldn't see the ball grounded and on the front on camera it appeared that in all likely hood the Brumbie was short of the line. </p>
-
<p>I thought it appeared he may have even lost control of it, far too much doubt.</p>
-
<p>I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="599064" data-time="1469223243">
<div>
<p>Seems Larkham is having a real big whinge about the no try. I thought it was a pretty good call. Video ref couldn't see the ball grounded and on the front on camera it appeared that in all likely hood the Brumbie was short of the line. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He cries like a girl over a practice which protects his side equally from questionable decisions, they cannot give it if they cannot see it - the hypocrisy shines bright.</p> -
<p>I thought it was most likely a try, but without evidence they couldn't award it.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599067" data-time="1469224093"><p>
I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......" -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763">
<div>
<p>I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>thats where he says give me a reason why I cannot award a try...so in that instance last night, unless the TMO saw something (knock on) then he would have awarded it.</p> -
<p>It's also something that happens in many games. What a whiner.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763"><p>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p></blockquote>
<br>
Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or 'give me a reason not to award a try'. The way it stands at the moment, and I think it was Chris B that raised this a few weeks ago, the defending teams get the benefit of the doubt when those questions aren't asked. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599137" data-time="1469244551">
<div>
<p>Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or '<strong>give me a reason not to award a try</strong>'.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599139" data-time="1469245266">
<div>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the tenor of the question in that case is supposed to be that there needs to be good evidence that the ball was held up.</p> -
Yep usually the ref thinks a try has been scored and is asking for a reason not to award it, so not seeing a grounding should be irrelevant, but we know tmos like to look outside thier guidelines and make other calls.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599142" data-time="1469245518">
<div>
<p>I think the tenor of the question in that case is supposed to be that there needs to be good evidence that the ball was held up.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I understand that, but that's absurd. The point is to score a try, therefore the onus is on the attackers.</p> -
<p>A ref cannot arbitrarily decide what question to ask the TMO. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref is certain the ball has been grounded on or over the try line and wasn't held up or knocked on, and there were no circumstances that could lead to disallowing the try in the lead-up to the try, the try will be awarded and the ref won't go to the TMO.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref <em>thinks </em>there has been a grounding but is unsure (or he is unsure about something that happened in the lead-up to the try being scored), he will ask "is there any reason not to award the try".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref <em>thinks</em> the ball was not grounded/held up/knocked on etc but is not entirely certain, he will ask "try or no try".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref hasn't seen a grounding, he will and should ask "try or no try".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There must be clear evidence of a grounding. Without that, there is no try. If the ref hasn't seen a grounding, the TMO must be able to clearly establish there is a grounding to award the try. </p>
<p>If the ref thinks there has been a grounding and asks "is there any reason not to award the try", there must be clear evidence that the ball wasn't grounded (held up or knocked on etc) for the TMO to deny the try.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So last night, the ref and his assistants didn't see a grounding on or over the try line. He asks "try or no try". The TMO didn't see clear evidence of a grounding (you can't just assume a try is grounded on or over the try line because that's where the player and the ball ended up eventually). The conclusion "no try" was correct.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599148" data-time="1469247428">
<div>
<p>I understand that, but that's absurd. The point is to score a try, therefore the onus is on the attackers.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599153" data-time="1469248959">
<div>
<p>I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That's like sending someone to prison because it looks like he committed a crime but without actually having seen clear evidence he committed the crime, and then asking a judge afterwards to establish whether he actually did it or not.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599153" data-time="1469248959">
<div>
<p>I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>So you're asking the ref to guess and the TMO to find evidence to the contrary?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even in league they don't like their system because the donkey refs and TMO keep coming up with utterly baffling rulings.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599157" data-time="1469250902">
<div>
<p>So you're asking the ref to guess and the TMO to find evidence to the contrary?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even in league they don't like their system because the donkey refs and TMO keep coming up with utterly baffling rulings.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Nothings perfect! :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess on reflection at least the way they do it at present everyone understands, what's going to happen - or at least they should. Not sure what Stephen Larkham's excuse is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599160" data-time="1469251806">
<div>
<p>Nothings perfect! :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess on reflection at least the way they do it at present everyone understands, what's going to happen - or at least they should. Not sure what Stephen Larkham's excuse is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not sure about that. Once the ball crosses the try line there cannot be a tackle, ruck or maul. After the ball crosses the line any player is entitled to dive off his feet in order to score a try or prevent an opponent from scoring a try (the only proviso being that he can't engage in dangerous play). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I can't see how you would determine whether a player was legally trying to prevent a try or illegally (according to you) doing so to try and obscure the camera. Just don't think that is realistic. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599156" data-time="1469249921">
<div>
<p>That's like sending someone to prison because it looks like he committed a crime but without actually having seen clear evidence he committed the crime, and then asking a judge afterwards to establish whether he actually did it or not.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure the judicial analogy really works.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I reckon a fair proportion of "can't see" tries are actually scored, so there's going to be a hell of a lot of OJ Simpson's wandering about. :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Damo" data-cid="599164" data-time="1469254355">
<div>
<p>Not sure about that. Once the ball crosses the try line there cannot be a tackle, ruck or maul. After the ball crosses the line any player is entitled to dive off his feet in order to score a try or prevent an opponent from scoring a try (the only proviso being that he can't engage in dangerous play). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I can't see how you would determine whether a player was legally trying to prevent a try or illegally (according to you) doing so to try and obscure the camera. Just don't think that is realistic. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>On the first part - that just needs a new rule for televised matches.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the second part - you pretty frequently see people diving around the try-scoring situation after the event. The threat of being penalized would stop some of this - and then, like everything else, it's up to the ref's judgement.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599160" data-time="1469251806">
<div>
<p>What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely the cameras have already caught what footage they need?</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599168" data-time="1469255031">
<div>
<p>On the first part - that just needs a new rule for televised matches.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the second part - you pretty frequently see people diving around the try-scoring situation after the event. The threat of being penalized would stop some of this - and then, like everything else, it's up to the ref's judgement.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm against adding new rules. Particularly any that require an assumption of intent.</p> -
Anyway<br><br>
Quarter Final One: Check<br>
Quarter Final Two: Hurricanes please don't let team NZ down
Post 274 of 297