Wallabies v Lions II
-
@game_film said in Wallabies v Lions II:
The brutal truth on this is that it all depends on how Tizzano sold it. If he dives back with his hands raised. 50/50. If he keels over onto the floor and lays still, physio comes on ..100% Wallabies ein.
well quite, as I think i said above, if you watch the ruck immediately before the final one the same thing happens and the Wallaby who's knocked off the ball bounces out and runs back into the defensive line, no one's even mentioned it as its so normal
-
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions II:
No skin in the game for TAS this time, maybe an axe to grind - but don't we all with the laws and their interpretation
Brought up some very interesting points and opinions, especially Australian captain asking the ref to look at the wrong thing
As I mentioned earlier, could easily see both incidents reversed in favour of Australia on any other day
Interesting video, the bit that i find most amusing, is that if we focus on off feet at the final ruck rather than foul play (and its not true that head contact is automatically a penalty) then we should be pointing out that the Wallaby came from an offside position, never retired behind the last feet and didn't come through the gate. The sealing off after that (and whilst i agree technically its a penalty, that's exactly how almost every ruck is cleared out in international rugby) is therefore irrelevant.
I don't think ruck was called. Does that allow him to come in from anywhere?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dodge said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@MiketheSnow said in Wallabies v Lions II:
No skin in the game for TAS this time, maybe an axe to grind - but don't we all with the laws and their interpretation
Brought up some very interesting points and opinions, especially Australian captain asking the ref to look at the wrong thing
As I mentioned earlier, could easily see both incidents reversed in favour of Australia on any other day
Interesting video, the bit that i find most amusing, is that if we focus on off feet at the final ruck rather than foul play (and its not true that head contact is automatically a penalty) then we should be pointing out that the Wallaby came from an offside position, never retired behind the last feet and didn't come through the gate. The sealing off after that (and whilst i agree technically its a penalty, that's exactly how almost every ruck is cleared out in international rugby) is therefore irrelevant.
I don't think ruck was called. Does that allow him to come in from anywhere?
no, you have to enter a tackle from behind the last foot "through the gate"
-
@pakman said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Bovidae said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Lynagh is shite. He cost them that game in my view.
Also some dumb decisions by Wilson and Sua'ali'i at attacking rucks. Wilson sort of lost the plot in the 2nd half and wasn't making any ground carrying the ball. Unless they were cooked Schmidt's decision to replace Valetini at HT and Skelton early in the 2nd half was a mistake and proved costly.
Seems Bobby V and both props were gassed by halftime.
Valetini twinged his calf
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@pakman said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Bovidae said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Canes4life said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Lynagh is shite. He cost them that game in my view.
Also some dumb decisions by Wilson and Sua'ali'i at attacking rucks. Wilson sort of lost the plot in the 2nd half and wasn't making any ground carrying the ball. Unless they were cooked Schmidt's decision to replace Valetini at HT and Skelton early in the 2nd half was a mistake and proved costly.
Seems Bobby V and both props were gassed by halftime.
Valetini twinged his calf
Do we know if he'll be fit for the next test?
-
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Going back to the Sheehan try, I can quite see his view about it being dangerous but, and I know this is a little different, how many times to we see a ruck near the line and a player picking up the ball and diving over the ruck to score? As i say I can see that it is different, but the question is, how do you police this? A ruck still has defenders which are being dived over. In truth it might have been better for the Lions if he hadn't scored and Slipper penalised for being on the ground and interfering with play. That would have been the third or fourth penalty on the trot and maybe a team yellow. Assuming the officials even noticed the offence that is.
We shouldn't be seeing this anymore - it's been outlawed.
-
-
Thanks. The only things there though are that 1) it is simply referring to existing laws and 2) that it is not really specific enough:-
Can't jump on top of a ruck
and
Don't do anything reckless or dangerous.
It's stuff like this that leaves so much ambiguity, which in turn leads to things coming down to interpretation.
Just say "cannot dive over a ruck". No ambiguity.
-
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
-
@Catogrande said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do we know if he'll be fit for the next test?
Not sure.
Might as well save him for Bledisloe at this point.
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
Might do whoever Seconds is, but is it correct or wrong?
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
Might do whoever Seconds is, but is it correct or wrong?
Correct it what sense? That it's written in the laws or absolves referees from criticism?
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
Might do whoever Seconds is, but is it correct or wrong?
Correct it what sense? That it's written in the laws or absolves referees from criticism?
What is written in laws. And don't we play under the laws of the game?
I not saying in anyway we don't have the rights to opinion, it's good we have them. What it's saying are we are just yelling at space, this whole was it a penalty or not is answered by that law. -
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
What it's saying are we are just yelling at space.
Half the point of rugby forums is for old men to yell at clouds.
The laws should be as simple and consistent as possible as well as protecting player safety otherwise rugby will die with Boomers, Gen X, and older Millennials.
Morgan was probably legal for me but can you then say the laws are doing enough to protect player safety?
From a head/neck perspective jackler clean outs as they are, are easily more dangerous than rucking.
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
Might do whoever Seconds is, but is it correct or wrong?
Correct it what sense? That it's written in the laws or absolves referees from criticism?
What is written in laws. And don't we play under the laws of the game?
I not saying in anyway we don't have the rights to opinion, it's good we have them. What it's saying are we are just yelling at space, this whole was it a penalty or not is answered by that law.I don't see the point of your argument. You might as well leave the forum if you think quoting that no correspondence can be entered into after the referee makes a decision extends into none of us being permitted to discuss the application of the law and whether or not there's a clear discrepancy between the applications of the relevant laws both within games and from game to game. Let alone whether a deal has been made or a referee just decided not to apply the laws at all.
-
@brodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
What it's saying are we are just yelling at space.
Half the point of rugby forums is for old men to yell at clouds.
The laws should be as simple and consistent as possible as well as protecting player safety otherwise rugby will die with Boomers, Gen X, and older Millennials.
Morgan was probably legal for me but can you then say the laws are doing enough to protect player safety?
From a head/neck perspective jackler clean outs as they are, are easily more dangerous than rucking.
Couldn't agree more Brodean, I think the problem is, in a game as dynamic as rugby, you can't have exact laws etc for evry situation, hence why I quoted the law.
And I agree the whole jackal thing is more dangerous than rucking, why I would be happy for him jackal to be outlawed. -
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Do you know the best way to decide on these arguments if someone was cleaned out illegally or player jumped etc, people quoting the law book have to stop quoting just a particular one , without quoting the one that trumps all:
6.5Within the playing enclosure:
a. The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match.
That sounds like something Egon Seconds' representative would say.
Might do whoever Seconds is, but is it correct or wrong?
Correct it what sense? That it's written in the laws or absolves referees from criticism?
What is written in laws. And don't we play under the laws of the game?
I not saying in anyway we don't have the rights to opinion, it's good we have them. What it's saying are we are just yelling at space, this whole was it a penalty or not is answered by that law.I don't see the point of your argument. You might as well leave the forum if you think quoting that no correspondence can be entered into after the referee makes a decision extends into none of us being permitted to discuss the application of the law and whether or not there's a clear discrepancy between the applications of the relevant laws both within games and from game to game. Let alone whether a deal has been made or a referee just decided not to apply the laws at all.
Wasn't an argument , just suggesting that I see the law as being always stumped by law 6.5 and that is a strange thing perhaps in rugby. As I said we can discuss (and it's good we do) interpretations etc, but after a while it still comes back to that.
You know in say cricket the third umpire can over rule the umpire, but in rugby TMO can't do same to ref. He can only suggest (strongly) but ref is the final decision maker.
