ABs v Scotland
-
Except Jones was half a metre in front of the kicker in the game against the ABs and the try should have been disallowed.
-
@akan004 said in ABs v Scotland:
Except Jones was half a metre in front of the kicker in the game against the ABs and the try should have been disallowed.
Just saw that. Was it Jones or the bloke further inside?
-
@booboo Jones. Its basically the same situation for what Hooper got his try denied v England.
@kiwimurph protest time? This impacts our defensive aura!
-
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ball -
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ball@majorrage said in ABs v Scotland:
@talisker to be fair, what is deemed racist / offensive in modern, overtly PC, lets take offense to anything we can, Britain does differ somewhat to what is deemed acceptable in New Zealand / Australia.
Poms, Paki's are 2 things I regularly used in NZ which I found were not deemed offensive at all in NZ, which had different meanings over here. I've not heard that Jock was in that category, and if so, then I'll be sure to not use it in conversation here.
But lets be clear, that this place is rather light heartened, and shouldn't really be taken seriously. I mean, have you read some of the points of view and thoughts .... ?
I got a shock in Ireland where Pom is a bit of a no-go word. It’s fine to use it in nz.
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell Not what I was meaning, I was referring to the terminology used, his hands were ON THE BALL, ref saying played without the ball is technically incorrect.
I understand the daft change to the rule, but if they change rules they need ot change the terminology too, should be ball was not out, which is applicable to more than just that scenario.
@Crucial the French 9 threw a dummy against us, the mungo comms guy was lauding the move.
-
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ball@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
-
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
@chester-draws said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Chester beat me to it.
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
@chester-draws said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Like in 2011 RWC final when ball plopped out the back of the French ruck with no halfback, Kaine went around and picked it up, Joubert shouoted "NO!", so Kaino put it back down again?
Dirty dummying French bastards.
#ButFranceWozRobbed?
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
-
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
-
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
The only thing is I think this applies to a situation where ball is just inside a ruck, and halfback plainly can reach in and clear it. So, to me, once he picks the ball up he is in possession and can be tackled.
But I'd argue that ball sitting stationary a foot behind the perimeter of the ruck is out, which ever way one looks at it.
I could live with the half back having first crack for a moment, but once he touches the exited ball he either picks it up then and there or it's OUT and all that that entails.
-
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
@catogrande I wholeheartedly agree. Mrs Bones doesn't.
-
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
@catogrande said in ABs v Scotland:
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
It sure as hell did during the Lions tour.
-
@catogrande said in ABs v Scotland:
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
It sure as hell did during the Lions tour.
@kruse said in ABs v Scotland:
@catogrande said in ABs v Scotland:
@snowy said in ABs v Scotland:
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Yep, definition of "still in the ruck" though is questionable?
*16.6: A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.
(c)
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at a ruck and the ball is available to be played the referee will call "Use it!" after which the ball must be played within five seconds. If the ball is not played within five seconds the referee will award a scrum and the team not in possession of the ball at the ruck is awarded the throw-in.*So unless the ref calls "use it" the ball is still in, and "hands off' for the opposition as I see it. A lot of refs are getting that wrong I reckon.
Yep. And five seconds seems an awful long time often.
It sure as hell did during the Lions tour.
Hmm. Strong is the bitterness in this one.
-
I see what you guys are saying, but I would rather err on the side of clean ball than having it very difficult to clear rucks.
