Chiefs v Highlanders
-
When you look at the guys upfront who finished that game for the Chiefs, three things become apparent:
-
The chiefs have been hurt by injuries - rather than Moli finishing up, we have Geldenhys
-
The chiefs have been hurt by injuries and coaches don’t know what the fuck they are doing - Nel is playing club rugby while old man Thomson gets a run
-
There is no way we have enough depth for 8 strong teams, what a fucking dream
-
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
That breakdown still counts as it happened after the incident surely.
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
So how many after it touched Trask? That’s all that matters.
I think the ref team fucked up on this but it is understandable why. Just think maybe they should have double checked when the question was raised. -
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores -
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scoresThat’s the whole thing, we don’t know he would have regained it, I don’t get people getting really strict about was it two rucks or three but just skipping over the offside to start with
-
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scoresI’m not too worried about that one; I thought it was a bit harsh, but if it had gone the other way I probably wouldn’t want it awarded.
-
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask
Ok now I know you're not really taking it seriously. How on earth do you know this? I guess the Highlanders that the ball was traveling towards on the other side of Trask were just gonna stand and watch right?
Three breakdowns after the ball hit Trask, however without Trask there's no breakdown. Interesting one.
Sooo...how is a phase defined anyway?
-
I’m not too worried about that one; I thought it was a bit harsh, but if it had gone the other way I probably wouldn’t want it awarded.
-
@gt12
its one clearly defined rule though 2 phases. if it had happened to our advantage i would have thought that the other fans would be pissed off@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@gt12
its one clearly defined rule though 2 phases. if it had happened to our advantage i would have thought that the other fans would be pissed offI wouldn't be. What's a phase defined as?
-
I think the law about the TMO itself is very vague, and the application guidelines aren’t loading:
Law 6.15
A match organiser may appoint a television match official (TMO), who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to:
The grounding of the ball in in-goal.
Touch or touch-in-goal in the act of grounding the ball or the ball being made dead.
Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
Where match officials believe an infringement may have occurred in the playing area leading to a try or preventing a try.
Foul play, including sanctions.
Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol which is available at http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Protocol_Jan_18_EN.pdf -
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@gt12
its one clearly defined rule though 2 phases. if it had happened to our advantage i would have thought that the other fans would be pissed offI wouldn't be. What's a phase defined as?
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask
Ok now I know you're not really taking it seriously. How on earth do you know this? I guess the Highlanders that the ball was traveling towards on the other side of Trask were just gonna stand and watch right?
Three breakdowns after the ball hit Trask, however without Trask there's no breakdown. Interesting one.
Sooo...how is a phase defined anyway?
-
I think the law about the TMO itself is very vague, and the application guidelines aren’t loading:
Law 6.15
A match organiser may appoint a television match official (TMO), who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to:
The grounding of the ball in in-goal.
Touch or touch-in-goal in the act of grounding the ball or the ball being made dead.
Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
Where match officials believe an infringement may have occurred in the playing area leading to a try or preventing a try.
Foul play, including sanctions.
Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol which is available at http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Protocol_Jan_18_EN.pdffound this on rugbyworld.com was rules explained for 6 nations 2020
Can the TMO intervene on any matter they like?
No, the TMO in rugby is basically restricted to two crucial areas:
- The scoring of a try, whether the grounding of the ball or the build-up to the try. Any infringement within the two phases prior to a try would render it illegal.
A referee can also use the TMO’s help to ascertain whether a kick went between the posts, but that’s quite a rare occurrence.
- Possible foul play. The TMO is free to communicate with the referee at any time if he sees something he suspects is foul play. Equally, the referee can ask the TMO to look at an incident, either while the game continues or after stopping play.
-
whether to let an accidental offside go or not...just ask Poite about it*
- I know different circumstances, but still something to ponder given both went upstairs too
:face_with_tears_of_joy:
- I know different circumstances, but still something to ponder given both went upstairs too
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
That was a weird moment (highlighted by Marshall) when Laulala was allowed to get away with stopping Smith immediately after he took a quick tap.
Other refs might have called that deliberate foul play, delaying the quick tap
@Kiwiwomble said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
That was a weird moment (highlighted by Marshall) when Laulala was allowed to get away with stopping Smith immediately after he took a quick tap.
Other refsblues fansmight have called that deliberate foul play, delaying the quick tapFIFY
-
found this on rugbyworld.com was rules explained for 6 nations 2020
Can the TMO intervene on any matter they like?
No, the TMO in rugby is basically restricted to two crucial areas:
- The scoring of a try, whether the grounding of the ball or the build-up to the try. Any infringement within the two phases prior to a try would render it illegal.
A referee can also use the TMO’s help to ascertain whether a kick went between the posts, but that’s quite a rare occurrence.
- Possible foul play. The TMO is free to communicate with the referee at any time if he sees something he suspects is foul play. Equally, the referee can ask the TMO to look at an incident, either while the game continues or after stopping play.
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
found this on rugbyworld.com was rules explained for 6 nations 2020
Can the TMO intervene on any matter they like?
No, the TMO in rugby is basically restricted to two crucial areas:
- The scoring of a try, whether the grounding of the ball or the build-up to the try. Any infringement within the two phases prior to a try would render it illegal.
A referee can also use the TMO’s help to ascertain whether a kick went between the posts, but that’s quite a rare occurrence.
- Possible foul play. The TMO is free to communicate with the referee at any time if he sees something he suspects is foul play. Equally, the referee can ask the TMO to look at an incident, either while the game continues or after stopping play.
So I don't read that as saying they're only allowed to go back two phases. Which means if the guidelines are the same then he's well within his rights to disallow the try.
