All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.
-
I agree the ONLY reason for DHP to run that line is to impede Savea, if he is running a support line its straighter, he'd be trying to run a line to put him 5m inside Speight so Speight could roll the pass in-field to him if he had to.
So pedantically, he intentionally runs an impeding line & makes contact with Savea.
But I'm not sold its enough to call back the try unless we are REALLY tight on the rulings. And in the average games there's any number of ruck clear outs, bind slips, crooked feeds etc that are all let flow. One thing I'm not clear on is if the law says Savea would have had to have been able to catch Speight. Smithy & Justin went on & on about that - how he couldn't.
And I agree, he wasn't catching him. But legally is that required? Is the blocking of the attempt enough? I have a feeling it probably is so the "I don't think he would have caught him" bit is totally irrelevant. But I honestly don't know (and I'm certain Smithy & Justin don't)
Its the same deal as cleaning a guy out with the shoulder at a ruck, it doesn't matter if the guy was getting the ball, the clean out is illegal. Or shoving the no. 2 jumper out of a lineout when the throw is to the tail.
-
While it seems a harsh call, there's also plenty of those - if you don't want to give the ref a reason, don't do it. Basically, can't do the time, don't do the crime. I wouldn't have had a problem if the try was awarded, but I also don't have a problem with it being called back - and I like to think I'm pretty consistent on these types of decisions.
If it had been the other way around (AB impeding Aus on an AB try) I would have been just as comfortable with the decision. I bet Kafer would've too.
-
@gollum said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
I agree the ONLY reason for DHP to run that line is to impede Savea, if he is running a support line its straighter, he'd be trying to run a line to put him 5m inside Speight so Speight could roll the pass in-field to him if he had to.
So pedantically, he intentionally runs an impeding line & makes contact with Savea.
But I'm not sold its enough to call back the try unless we are REALLY tight on the rulings. And in the average games there's any number of ruck clear outs, bind slips, crooked feeds etc that are all let flow. One thing I'm not clear on is if the law says Savea would have had to have been able to catch Speight. Smithy & Justin went on & on about that - how he couldn't.
And I agree, he wasn't catching him. But legally is that required? Is the blocking of the attempt enough? I have a feeling it probably is so the "I don't think he would have caught him" bit is totally irrelevant. But I honestly don't know (and I'm certain Smithy & Justin don't)
Its the same deal as cleaning a guy out with the shoulder at a ruck, it doesn't matter if the guy was getting the ball, the clean out is illegal. Or shoving the no. 2 jumper out of a lineout when the throw is to the tail.
There is no law that says Savea had to have been certain to catch Speight. What you have described (and Marshall etc were implying) is that referees at all levels are asked to manage a game by applying materiality judgement to decisions.
In this case if you listen to the dialogue between Owens and Veldsman, Owens clearly asks "so he knocks him off his stride and you reckon he does enough to prevent him getting anywhere near".
In Owens thinking that constitutes materiality because it takes away a legitimate chance of defence. -
@Nepia said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@akan004 The darker dude is an on to it guy, but the one with the punchable face just expressed Kafe's comments but said it a bit calmer.
I'll definitely watch them again, they even made TJ seem less annoying than usual.
I stumbled across these guys on my you tube page when they popped up in recommended videos a few months back ,
I subscribed to their page and been watching them since, they give pretty balanced analysis
-
Just had a read of the Rugbyrefs forum to see how they viewed the incident. The majority agreed with the decision or said it was a 50:50 call.
One interesting point was Marshall bleating about about how he knew Savea wouldn't have caught Speight accompanied by the clip of the same Marshall calling "they won't catch him, they won't catch him, they won't catch him.
-
There have been some talk about Barrett's kicking. The truth is his goal kicking has only cost the All Blacks about 13 points this year - that is less than 2 points per game. Barrett has been adding far, far more than 2 points per game with his play around the field. Hopefully Barrett works on his goal kicking but to even talk about changing the team configuration because of it would be to tragically over value one portion of the game.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Savea is close enough to have a crack and has about 24 metres to catch up
He IS close enough to have a crack. But he doesn't at that point because he's backing his pace. And this is where we see the actions of DHP being completely unnecessary, HOWEVER you don't really know how much faster anyone is without seeing a foot race.
With that in mind, here are two more selective images.
The first is neither Speight nor Savea at full pace because one is receiving a pass, and one is making their decision on defence.
The second is the point just before DHP raises his elbow.
Reckon Save is going to lose even ankle tap range a few steps inside the 22. But then, he couldn't have known that either.
Shame DHP didn't bump him that hard when he was tackling him...
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
Reckon Save is going to lose even ankle tap range a few steps inside the 22. But then, he couldn't have known that either.
Judging by Savea's burst of speed, he wasn't going to lose any ground on Speight without DHP's interference.
Shame DHP didn't bump him that hard when he was tackling him...
The one I felt sorry for was Frisby. It was like watching a pram being thrown in front of a runaway, well, bus...
-
That's the thing though, the rule book doesn't differentiate if Savea is chasing Speight or Moore, nor if it is Franks chasing Folau or Speight and whether they can catch them, just that you cant interfere.
But it would have been interesting to see how they would have ruled it had it been a speedster like Franks on the wing that DHP gave a nudge.
If he had ran the line without the little push, he'd of been fine.
@antipodean that bump off was all TR Jnr was talking about...he said if a bus is coming, get out the way!
-
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
-
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
damn right he will, right in the eyes! hahaha!
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@taniwharugby I can almost guarantee that Franks would've been the one to push off DHP.....
damn right he will, right in the eyes! hahaha!
LOL quality.
Franks would have been 20 metres upfield, offside by two fucking metres like he is every other phase of play.
-
@NTA your second picture there shows the danger of a static photo to argue the point of a moving situation.
It may be exactly as you describe however DHP has already effected Saveas run and slowed him in the split second before raising his elbow.
Now if we really want to be pedantic about Laws DHP was at one point ahead of his team mate in possession of the ball and continued moving forward.....
@taniwharugby on the Rugbyrefs forum they made the same point about Franks and agreed in a materiality call it would mean they wouldn't call back the try. When judging materiality they look at the actual situation not a general one. -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
It may be exactly as you describe however DHP has already effected Saveas run and slowed him in the split second before raising his elbow.
So it "may" be as I described, but DHP has "definitely" affected Savea at this point.
Right. I'm taking your word for that, I suppose...
-
@NTA said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
It may be exactly as you describe however DHP has already effected Saveas run and slowed him in the split second before raising his elbow.
So it "may" be as I described, but DHP has "definitely" affected Savea at this point.
Right. I'm taking your word for that, I suppose...
Thank god for that. A reply without a stupid gif.
The "may be as you describe" comment was because we can't actually see in that shot that is the moment before lifting the elbow. We can, however, see that DHP is already in contact.
-
this argument is getting dumber by the hour
-
@mariner4life no you are.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v Wallabies at Eden Park.:
The "may be as you describe" comment was because we can't actually see in that shot that is the moment before lifting the elbow. We can, however, see that DHP is already in contact.
Contact isn't actually problem - you said as much in your analysis with various arms and whatnot. Shoulder-to-shoulder is fine.
Its the point where DHP actually pushes Savea off his line that is the issue, which basically happens in the next half-step.
I'm just making the point that Speight was never going to be caught in a tackle - but maybe an ankle tap - from that point. Which highlights how pointless (and damaging) DHP's actions were.
-
@taniwharugby Its page 13 of the thread. What do you expect?
