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.
@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?
-
@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?
-
@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. -
@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.
-
@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:
@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.
-
@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.
@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. -
@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.
@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. -
@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.@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
And I agree the whole jackal thing is more dangerous than rucking, why I would be happy for him jackal to be outlawed
the issue is right now it' basically the only way to contest possession. If you forced offensive and defensive teams to stay upright and push over the ball you'd have something closer to the old school rucks. Mind you, it may involved rucking people who are on the ground - another incentive to not go to ground willingly.
-
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
-
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
And I agree the whole jackal thing is more dangerous than rucking, why I would be happy for him jackal to be outlawed
the issue is right now it' basically the only way to contest possession. If you forced offensive and defensive teams to stay upright and push over the ball you'd have something closer to the old school rucks. Mind you, it may involved rucking people who are on the ground - another incentive to not go to ground willingly.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
I agree that if it was a 50 50 call then it should have been a penalty to the Wallabies and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
-
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
I think Farrells may of been a red actually baabaa,, and probably a yellow to Itoje?
-
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
I think Farrells may of been a red actually baabaa,, and probably a yellow to Itoje?
@Dan54 said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
I think Farrells may of been a red actually baabaa,, and probably a yellow to Itoje?
Yeah happy with that outcome too, can see why you'd get there, logically speaking.
-
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see. Don't have a feel for the game, have a feel for the series.
With that in mind it should have been a Wallaby penalty, and a yellow card to Owen Farrell.
@barbarian said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Ultimately the ref needed to understand the occasion and what people wanted to see.
-
Which people?
-
(And much more importantly) That's not the ref's job. He's there to be the arbiter of law and conduct, not to win a popularity contest.
-
-
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
-
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
@canefan said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
He found his way back
-
-
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
@canefan said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
Quade Cooper writing in The Australian blamed the Wallabies for changing their gameplay and trying to close out the game too early.
-
@canefan said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
Quade Cooper writing in The Australian blamed the Wallabies for changing their gameplay and trying to close out the game too early.
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Lions II:
@canefan said in Wallabies v Lions II:
Tim Horan had a very balanced view of the game. The Wallabies had it in the bag and let it slip. The final decision could have gone either way, he was disappointed for the Wallabies and their fans, but felt the ref did a good job. Refreshing
Quade Cooper writing in The Australian blamed the Wallabies for changing their gameplay and trying to close out the game too early.
The comms the other night embarassed themselves big time. The cringiest moment was when they were hammering away at Martin Johnson trying to get him to admit to a conspiracy or something
-
