NH International Rugby

nzzp

@victor-meldrew said in NH International Rugby:

@mikethesnow

I just assumed it was abuse, Mike. Then again, these days simply disagreeing with someone seems to be regarded as abuse.

And I'm not going into the Twitter cesspit to find out...

in fairness, if you're a public figure on Twitter, you are going to cop genuine abuse, not just criticism.

The problem is that genuine criticism of a sustained pattern of trolling interviews will be deflected by some muppet keyboard warriors

Dan54

@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:

@sparky said in NH International Rugby:

Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.

Didn’t see it ... what happened? She’s updated this ....

I wonder if she’s used any of these words on her post match stitch ups, I mean interviews.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

Is that her? You bang on with her stitch up, or attempted was pleased how farrell and Wyn-Jones handles her.

Catogrande

Ach. Shithouse. Firstly, awful refereeing. First try was a complete shocker. Big ups for Biggar and Adams for the foresight and execution but damn that was poor from the ref. Second try, knock on definitely in real time but on replay I have no argument. If he’d fumbled if but managed to kick it forward it would not be an issue, so why is it an issue if he fumbles it and kicks it backwards? Cannot blame the referee for the loss though, we’d put those decisions behind us and got parity but then discipline let us down badly. Itoje copping a lot of grief but mostly unfairly imo. That attempt to disrupt the 9 at the line out deemed as a deliberate knock on? FFS is competition for the ball not allowed?

However well done Wales on a triple crown. You played the intelligent rugby today.

MiketheSnow

@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:

However well done Wales on a triple crown. You played the intelligent rugby today.

Life in the Time of COVID

Crazy

Siam

@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:

@sparky said in NH International Rugby:

Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.

Didn’t see it ... what happened? She’s updated this ....

I wonder if she’s used any of these words on her post match stitch ups, I mean interviews.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

That might be the single most pathetic statement I've ever seen. In the car crying over Twitter feedback?

Bones

@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:

@sparky said in NH International Rugby:

Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.

Didn’t see it ... what happened? She’s updated this ....

I wonder if she’s used any of these words on her post match stitch ups, I mean interviews.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

What a fuckwit. She tries to embarrass and disgrace with her toxic interviews and then comes out with this tripe. Your job isn't to be a cunting troll.

pakman

@mikethesnow said in NH International Rugby:

@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:

However well done Wales on a triple crown. You played the intelligent rugby today.

Life in the Time of COVID

Crazy

Coming on all Marquez?!

mariner4life

Good to see the usual Eddie Jones cycle continues

Kruse

@pakman said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?

I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?

It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.

Kruse

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:

@sparky said in NH International Rugby:

Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.

Didn’t see it ... what happened? She’s updated this ....

I wonder if she’s used any of these words on her post match stitch ups, I mean interviews.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

What a fuckwit. She tries to embarrass and disgrace with her toxic interviews and then comes out with this tripe. Your job isn't to be a cunting troll.

Yeah - just watched it...
I kinda like that she's asking questions that I'd actually like to hear the answers to, (just like her interview with Eddie back in the day), BUT....
In this day and age she must know that the players/coaches simply aren't going to answer... and therefore, she's just stirring shit knowing that nobody can fight back.

First good interview I've seen from Farrell - he seemed to know what was coming, and was pretty staunch in just shutting it down immediately. You could put subtitles over that interview, with him saying "Yeah, nah, fuck off with the muck-stirring, I ain't biting".

GibbonRib

@kruse said in NH International Rugby:

@pakman said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?

I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?

It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"

The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.

Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..

delicatessen

@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

@kruse said in NH International Rugby:

@pakman said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?

I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?

It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"

The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.

Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..

So if he was attempting to bring it under control, he was in possession? In which case knock-on? Or have I read you wrong?

Siam

@kruse said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@majorrage said in NH International Rugby:

@sparky said in NH International Rugby:

Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.

Didn’t see it ... what happened? She’s updated this ....

I wonder if she’s used any of these words on her post match stitch ups, I mean interviews.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

What a fuckwit. She tries to embarrass and disgrace with her toxic interviews and then comes out with this tripe. Your job isn't to be a cunting troll.

Yeah - just watched it...
I kinda like that she's asking questions that I'd actually like to hear the answers to, (just like her interview with Eddie back in the day), BUT....
In this day and age she must know that the players/coaches simply aren't going to answer... and therefore, she's just stirring shit knowing that nobody can fight back.

First good interview I've seen from Farrell - he seemed to know what was coming, and was pretty staunch in just shutting it down immediately. You could put subtitles over that interview, with him saying "Yeah, nah, fuck off with the muck-stirring, I ain't biting".

Yep, first time in my life I've ever thought "Good on you Owen, I like what you did there"

Billy Tell

@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

@kruse said in NH International Rugby:

@pakman said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?

I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?

It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"

The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.

The ball fortuitously hit his leg on the way to the ground. Don’t think you can really say he was attempting to bring it under control. Regardless of the legalese, the spirit of rugby would surely have that as a knock on IMO. Otherwise it was basically guy with flagrant knock on gets away with his crime on a technicality.

GibbonRib

@billy-tell

I think crime is overstating it a bit. Players regularly make errors and get away with it through dumb luck.

I wouldn't have felt aggrieved if it had been given as a knock on (I'm Welsh BTW). LRZ obviously thought it was. Just pointing out that if we have to look at the details of the laws, and even then it comes down to figuring out at what point, if any, he stops trying to gain control of the ball, then it's a close call and not the heinous travesty of justice that some are claiming

Edit: also if you check the replay, he actually knocked it down with both hands onto the back of his thigh, and from there it bounced down onto his calf. He clearly was trying to control it when he bought it down onto his thigh. The more I look at it, the more clear it is that the ref & TMO got it right (at least by the letter of the law - the spirit is a different question)

GibbonRib

@delicatessen said in NH International Rugby:

@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

@kruse said in NH International Rugby:

@pakman said in NH International Rugby:

@bones said in NH International Rugby:

@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?

I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?

It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"

The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.

Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..

So if he was attempting to bring it under control, he was in possession? In which case knock-on? Or have I read you wrong?

Nearly, not quite. If he was still trying to bring it under control when it hit his leg, then he was still in possession (as per the definition of "possession" in the laws). And a knock on only occurs after a player loses possession (as per the definition of "knock on"). So it wasn't a knock on before it hit his leg, and it can't be a knock on off the leg, so no knock on.

That's what the laws say. Of course once you're getting down into the minute detail of the laws then things can start getting niggly and away from what "feels" like the right call

MiketheSnow

antipodean

@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

GibbonRib

@antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

@cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

To Bones :
The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

Billy Tell

@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

@billy-tell

I think crime is overstating it a bit. Players regularly make errors and get away with it through dumb luck.

I wouldn't have felt aggrieved if it had been given as a knock on (I'm Welsh BTW). LRZ obviously thought it was. Just pointing out that if we have to look at the details of the laws, and even then it comes down to figuring out at what point, if any, he stops trying to gain control of the ball, then it's a close call and not the heinous travesty of justice that some are claiming

Edit: also if you check the replay, he actually knocked it down with both hands onto the back of his thigh, and from there it bounced down onto his calf. He clearly was trying to control it when he bought it down onto his thigh. The more I look at it, the more clear it is that the ref & TMO got it right (at least by the letter of the law - the spirit is a different question)

I wasnt saying it was a crime! I was comparing it to a legal case where a guilty party gets off on a technicality.

The Silver Fern

NH International Rugby