All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
It's this kind of utter hypocrisy that shits me no end. I'm not going to read your article but I'll take it to the bank that if this had happened to the Wallabies there is no fucking way you'd reckon the ref "got it right". Your much admired coach would also have smashed the glass in front of him and likely needed to be restrained from attacking Poite.
You're a good bloke Barbarian, but this is a straight up fucking troll.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian Mate, you are pretty much the only shining light on that godforsaken website, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
Even if for arguments sake you were correct on the call by Poite, his failure to play advantage was terrible referring and more than likely cost ALB a try.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
Sorry @barbarian but your article quotes the wrong laws. There's a specific law for offside from a knock on. You've quoted laws from 11.1 - Offside in general play and 11.6 - Accidental offside.
The only law that comes into play here is 11.7 Offside after a knock-on as that is what happened.
That states:
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.So all we have to consider is:
- Did he play at the ball? Unquestionably yes, he caught it.
- Did he prevent the opponent from gaining an advantage? Unquestionably yes, he stopped the All Black players coming through from regaining possession immediately. ALB did well to seize the opportunity after he dropped it but that doesn't change the fact he stopped us from regaining it sooner.
That is what Read was trying to say to Poite - accidental offside doesn't come into play from a knock on. It has it's own separate law and that has been ruled consistently for as long as I've watched rugby. Players realising too late that they've played at a ball that was knocked on happens all the time - that doesn't change the decision.
-
@barbarian nicely written article mate, and i agree with a heap of it. In fact, your overall conclusion isn't that much different to here.
However i don't think we ended up in the "right" decision. I don't think i have ever seen catching the ball (no matter how instinctive) not given as a penalty, and yet here he decided to go that way.
I've also never seen a penalty call changed after the bloke has had another look, and bit of a chat, and a think.
The whole thing fucking stinks. And it's really fucking annoying we as AB fans aren't allowed to think so with out having "blaming the ref for a loss" or "the ABs are usually favoured anyway so suck it up" thrown at us (the comments on your article look like they are on the bottom of a Stuff angle, jesus some people are piston wristed gibbons).
But, i did like your article, it was a pretty fair view of the whole process, and as you say, i guess a grey enough area for you to reach a different conclusion (even if it's wrong
@mariner4life What? The conclusion is definitely wrong. Owens played at the ball. He caught the fucking thing. That's not accidental offside where;
- your own teammate ball carrier runs into you from behind, or
- you are touched by a ball last played by a team-mate behind you,
That is accidental offside.
If you touch a ball last played by a team-mate behind you, whether intentional, instinctively or unintentionally, that is offside.
He was offside in general play and as per 11.1 Offside in general play the sanction is a penalty kick.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
-
What did people think of Liam Williams running into Dagg?
Behind our pathetic counter ruck, this was next most annoyed I got in the game.
Spend 3 weeks planting obstruction stories via the media then run straight at a player without the ball. Cynical. Diving in the box levels of cheatiness.
After TMO taking the effort to check it, I was mighty annoyed it wasn't an nz penalty for either foul play or professional foul.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Which would be fine if he did that in real time.
But he made about 3 mistakes, each compounding the other, as soon as he let himself be talked into going to the TMO.
-
@barbarian I can see the argument you are making, but trying to work out whether a player meant to catch a ball is going down an incredibly subjective route - you pretty much have to be a mind reader. If he catches it, he played at it. If he makes no attempt to catch it, he didn't. Granted when he caught the ball he wasn't immediately aware he was offside, but he still caught it. I could easily make an argument that a smarter player would have been running back onside with his hands in the air.
It's been ruled that way forever, and from here on it will continue to be ruled that way. To change the way it is ruled for one penalty just because it will decide a game is outrageously inconsistent.
-
-
What did people think of Liam Williams running into Dagg?
Behind our pathetic counter ruck, this was next most annoyed I got in the game.
Spend 3 weeks planting obstruction stories via the media then run straight at a player without the ball. Cynical. Diving in the box levels of cheatiness.
After TMO taking the effort to check it, I was mighty annoyed it wasn't an nz penalty for either foul play or professional foul.
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well.
He caught the ball = He played at it.
It's that simple.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
So you admit Poite made a mistake in blowing his whistle and not allowing the advantage, but still reckon he made the right decision? What kind of bizarre logic is that?
-
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
No, not for me. IMO. Those are just things you have to accept and they go both ways. I have no major issues with refs in real time making mistakes, or even technically correct (but a bit annoying) decisions like that the Crockett one.
You win some you lose some, first penalty v Warburton was harsh etc etc
On the Sexton high tackle. I assume the TMO checked it out, he signalled advantage, so was probably just shoulder and no further sanction (the play led to Lamape try). Ironically that period of play also included A Smith attempting to milk a penalty by passing it into a lion at the back of the ruck. But this was totally ignored by Poite, then he picked it back up, reset, and Beauden kickpassed for the try.
-
@akan004 said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
@akan004 said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
No, not for me. IMO. Those are just things you have to accept and they go both ways. I have no major issues with refs in real time making mistakes, or even technically correct (but a bit annoying) decisions like that the Crockett one.
You win some you lose some, first penalty v Warburton was harsh etc etc
On the Sexton high tackle. I assume the TMO checked it out, he signalled advantage, so was probably just shoulder and no further sanction (the play led to Lamape try). Ironically that period of play also included A Smith attempting to milk a penalty by passing it into a lion at the back of the ruck. But this was totally ignored by Poite, then he picked it back up, reset, and Beauden kickpassed for the try.
@Rapido Well if the TMO thought it was a hit to the shoulder, then he has to be blind. It was clearly a head high. I thought our local broadcasters did not do us any favours either. They didn't replay the Sexton tackle but chose to immediately replay Kaino's head high hit.
-
The first half of barbarian's aritcle is well written, but by the end it reads a bit like the old "It's Mabo, it's the constitution, it's the vibe..." bit from the Castle.
11.7 is the law and despite what Lions supporters (and AB haters) will have you believe the law is actually relatively clear and has been ruled consistently since day dot including a reasonably famous RWC QF.
Yes, winning tests on technical penalties isn't ideal - but when you are on the receiving end like Wellington 2000, the 2015 RWC QF or the Lions in Wellington last week it's all well and good.
Try again.
-
I hate halfbacks passing into a player to milk a penalty, IMO is is against the spirit of the game given most of the time they don't need to, I don't recall Smiths one alluded to above (but know he does it too) but I was fuming at Murray's one, was pathetic (as are many like that)
-
I hate halfbacks passing into a player to milk a penalty, IMO is is against the spirit of the game given most of the time they don't need to, I don't recall Smiths one alluded to above (but know he does it too) but I was fuming at Murray's one, was pathetic (as are many like that)
-
@taniwharugby Yeah, agreed but I think it was actually Webb.
@akan004 halfbacks, all look (sound) the bloody same
