Wales v Australia
-
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
I think it's down the continual use of the wrong terminology.
Referring to a knock down all the time has created the impression it's somehow illegal, and if not illegal unethical.
There is nothing against the spirit, the law, Mabo or The Vibe by attempting to knock the ball backwards, getting it right, being seen to do so by the ref in real time on the field and it being confirmed by video by the TMO.
The counter argument is "it looked odd".
-
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
I think it's down the continual use of the wrong terminology.
Referring to a knock down all the time has created the impression it's somehow illegal, and if not illegal unethical.
There is nothing against the spirit, the law, Mabo or The Vibe by attempting to knock the ball backwards, getting it right, being seen to do so by the ref in real time on the field and it being confirmed by video by the TMO.
The counter argument is "it looked odd".
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@gt12 said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
Why on earth not?
Why shouldn't a defensive player knock the ball down and backwards to prevent a try???
There are two sides to this as I agree with you, but then I wonder, as you can knock the ball on as part of a charge down then score off it, and that makes sense.
So, I can see a reasoning here that you shouldn't be able to deliberating knock down a pass from the opposition but could knock it back in general play or off a kickoff.
It's like Mabo.
I think it's down the continual use of the wrong terminology.
Referring to a knock down all the time has created the impression it's somehow illegal, and if not illegal unethical.
There is nothing against the spirit, the law, Mabo or The Vibe by attempting to knock the ball backwards, getting it right, being seen to do so by the ref in real time on the field and it being confirmed by video by the TMO.
The counter argument is "it looked odd".
Totally, people do it all the time off the high ball - card them all!
-
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Not sure if the splintering caused any issue, but on the basis that it didn't (because the ref didn't call that), then I thought the carrier got to ground fine and the defense just flopped over - certainly a scrum to Yellow, could even have been a penalty
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Not sure if the splintering caused any issue, but on the basis that it didn't (because the ref didn't call that), then I thought the carrier got to ground fine and the defense just flopped over - certainly a scrum to Yellow, could even have been a penalty
-
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
If you take that attitude then defence generally is "negative intent".
And Beauden "got lucky" for that regathered intercept v Wales and should have been penalised.
Don't throw dumb passes so close to the opposition and remove the chance of them being blocked.
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
I think their is a bit of confusion here. IMO it was a negative action but tat was solely because he didn't look to be trying to knock it back,it was just fortuitous that he did. He was just sticking out a hand to stop the pass and it worked out.
-
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
I saw what you saw by the sound of it - the defence splintered went around the back of the maul and then tackled the ball carrier while grotesquely offside.
yet the ref just waved it on. Weird.
-
@voodoo But the splintering is caused by Fainga'a being pulled back from behind by a Wales player at 7seconds. The player wasn't bound to the maul before doing this, IMO.
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo But the splintering is caused by Fainga'a being pulled back from behind by a Wales player at 7seconds. The player wasn't bound to the maul before doing this, IMO.
Maybe, but my point was more that even despite that, you should have received a penalty (or at minimum a scrum) from the next action - certainly shouldn't have been a turnover!
So in summary, yes, your rage was entitled!
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
I saw what you saw by the sound of it - the defence splintered went around the back of the maul and then tackled the ball carrier while grotesquely offside.
yet the ref just waved it on. Weird.
@nzzp said in Wales v Australia:
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
I saw what you saw by the sound of it - the defence splintered went around the back of the maul and then tackled the ball carrier while grotesquely offside.
yet the ref just waved it on. Weird.
Yeah that's how I saw it too, thought it should have been a penalty to Oz
-
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo But the splintering is caused by Fainga'a being pulled back from behind by a Wales player at 7seconds. The player wasn't bound to the maul before doing this, IMO.
Maybe, but my point was more that even despite that, you should have received a penalty (or at minimum a scrum) from the next action - certainly shouldn't have been a turnover!
So in summary, yes, your rage was entitled!
-
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
So in summary, yes, your rage was entitled!
After 15 years on this site, finally I get the reinforcement I needed. Thank you. I can now die happy.
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
@voodoo said in Wales v Australia:
So in summary, yes, your rage was entitled!
After 15 years on this site, finally I get the reinforcement I needed. Thank you. I can now die
happyrighteously angry.FIFY
-
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Clear penalty against Red 19 to me. Admittedly I had to watch a couple of times to find the culprit.
-
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
I think their is a bit of confusion here. IMO it was a negative action but tat was solely because he didn't look to be trying to knock it back,it was just fortuitous that he did. He was just sticking out a hand to stop the pass and it worked out.
@crucial said in Wales v Australia:
@booboo said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah said in Wales v Australia:
@gibbon-rib I don't think the argument should be about whether it went backwards by an inch or not.
In basically EVERY instance this happens, the referee penalises the intent, which here quite clearly was to disrupt the pass through a negative play, that is not in the spirit of the game.
The ball was not clearly knocked back (it was knocked back by an inch or two), but the intent of the player was to disrupt and he took the chance of an extremely negative play which he might have been carded for. Seeing as assumed intent is already a part that is refereed, 99 out of a 100 refs would penalise the Welsh player here.Basically, nobody wants to see a try like this, nobody wants to see plays decided by measuring whether a ball fell downwards at an angle or not. The intent was bad and he got lucky. Yes, play to the whistle and all (fucking idiot Kurtley), but the Welsh player knew himself he fucked up. If that try was chalked off, there would be almost no complaints, as it wouldn't feel wrong. We all know that is not how we play this game.
You would hope 100 out 100 would not penalise.
There is no "negative intent". Stopping a pass legally is a very positive result for Wales.
I think their is a bit of confusion here. IMO it was a negative action but tat was solely because he didn't look to be trying to knock it back,it was just fortuitous that he did. He was just sticking out a hand to stop the pass and it worked out.
Having watched the replays far too many times, I've actually come to the conclusion that Tomkins deserves a bit more credit than just being the beneficiary of pure luck. His motion is more than just sticking his arm out, he actually moves his hand and fingers back as the ball arrives in an attempt to knock it backwards towards himself. And I think he knew it went backwards - he does slow down, but you can clearly see him saying "back" to the ref. (It's reasonable to ask why he slowed down at all, my guess is that he thought it had been called back because of of reactions of all the other players / 75k fans around him).
So I think he was just very lucky, rather than incredibly lucky.
Having said that, it's all irrelevant to the outcome, all that matters is whether the ball went forwards.
-
So of the last 15 matches between Wales and Australia, Australia won the first 12 and Wales the last 3.
Only one has been decided by more than 9 points
10 of them were by 7 points or fewer
7 were by 3 points or fewer -
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Clear penalty against Red 19 to me. Admittedly I had to watch a couple of times to find the culprit.
@antipodean said in Wales v Australia:
@barbarian said in Wales v Australia:
Found the maul turnover hat got me quite angry. Am I right or wrong? Would appreciate an impartial view from you uneducated kiwi morons, and morons from other jurisdictions as well.
Clear penalty against Red 19 to me. Admittedly I had to watch a couple of times to find the culprit.
If that is still a maul, then penalty against Red 19 for changing his bind.
If it is not a maul then it can't be a Red scrum feed because gold are going forward.
IMHO it isn't a maul and is a bit messy TBH, so I think call the next breakdown a ruck and penalised about four red players for killing it. Yellow card, penalty gold 5m out.
-
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
@gibbon-rib said in Wales v Australia:
@tordah this is one of the more bizarre claims I've ever seen on a rugby site. That the ref should overrule the laws of the game and treat a legal knock-back as an illegal knock-on because if infringes some unwritten ethereal "spirit of the game".
Balanced out by the fact refs have been overruling the laws of the game all season with their "interpretation" of the laws. They'll probably say it's for the flow of the game which is akin to the spirit of the game.
-
@duluth And that three-match ban will become a two-match ban ...
The No.8 will miss the Brumbies’ Super Rugby Pacific trial matches against the NSW Waratahs on January 29 and the Brumbies’ development team the following week plus their competition opener against Moana Pasifika on February 18.
But Valetini can opt to complete a Head Contact Process Coaching Intervention course to have his ban reduced to two matches.
That avenue is available to offending players in the hope of modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.I hadn't realised that that option to complete a Head Contact Process Coaching Intervention replace one of the matches a player is suspended for, had been adopted for the November internationals. Is it part of the law trials, or is it an official rule now? I only remember it being trialled by the the U20s a few years ago.
By the way, that a game of the Brumbies development team counts towards his suspension is ridiculous.
