Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
@Bovidae said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@ACT-Crusader said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
I don’t think Coles did either of these things so the call was right.
I thought Coles did make contact on the ball with his forearm as it was touching the ground. So by the definition above it was a try.
However, Coles didn't seem that confident he had scored himself. I was very surprised that O'Keeffe awarded the try straight away without referring to the TMO first. That added to the confusion when Gardner talked him into overturning his on-field decision.
So that would constitute two touches of the ball though, so a knock on in-goal
-
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.@pakman said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.I don't know which game you were watching mate, but your scrum got monstored all day long. Tupou got pinged rightly so in the second half. He got dominated it is as simple as that. AB Forwards have brought the mongrel since the Wellington Test and the Aussies look pathetic.
-
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling. -
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Winger said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
I can understand the actual ref getting a bit confused. But not the video ref.
Why? They're all using the same book of Rugby Laws. They're all standing there having a chat about it.
The real question is about the directives provided: there was a situation where you needed some pretty good evidence to overturn an onfield decision. Where has THAT gone?
One is running around trying to keep track of a million moving parts. The other is sitting comfortably, not breathing heavy and has a million replays and closeups.
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
-
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake. Or if it was a mistake, the onfield referee is the sole and final arbiter of Law.
So they all made a mistake.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
@nzzp said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Kirwan said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Video ref should make very few mistakes. No excuses.
But he didn't make a mistake.
Shuold run a poll on this and Rieko in Bled 1.
I'm a Try/Try kinda guy.
Sounds like you're a Nope/Nope dude. Amazing how we can all watch the same thing and reach such differnt conclusions.
Also, you're wrong
Not all eye patches are the same colour...
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
The most fucked up thing of 2020 (and it has some serious competition) is that I was really interested in your (NTA, The Aussie) view on this one ...
Surely, if you touch the ball on the way down and you continue to touch it until it's forced, then that must be deemed as control, and hence a try should be awarded.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
The most fucked up thing of 2020 (and it has some serious competition) is that I was really interested in your (NTA, The Aussie) view on this one ...
Surely, if you touch the ball on the way down and you continue to touch it until it's forced, then that must be deemed as control, and hence a try should be awarded.
-
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly. -
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.Is the rule different for field of play vs in-goal though?
If in general play you dive for a ball, don't control it and it goes backwards and ends up with your hand on the ball on the ground, the ref will yell out "backwards" and the game moves on. Is it different in the in-goal?
My overall opinion really is that Coles cost the try by not celebrating. His face had "I didn't score that" written all over it ...
-
@pakman said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.I don't know which game you were watching mate, but your scrum got monstored all day long. Tupou got pinged rightly so in the second half. He got dominated it is as simple as that. AB Forwards have brought the mongrel since the Wellington Test and the Aussies look pathetic.
@number9 said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@pakman said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@cgrant said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
After a rewatch, the ABs scrum fared much better when Hodgman and Lomax came in (or was it when Ala'atoa and Slipper went off ?). They won two penalties and there were no more resets. I don't remember who on this forum who wrote that Hodgman got monstered at least one time by Tupou. In that peculiar scrum, after being caught initially, Hodgman stood up and drove forward to win his contest against Tupou.
Rob Simmons came on after 45. The scrum was at 66.40. Hodgman's toenails were the only thing touching dirt.
I thought Oz scrum had slight advantage in first half, with Slipper giving Ofa a few problems. Exacerbated by NZ loosies dropping off on Oz ball. Fine on ours.I don't know which game you were watching mate, but your scrum got monstored all day long. Tupou got pinged rightly so in the second half. He got dominated it is as simple as that. AB Forwards have brought the mongrel since the Wellington Test and the Aussies look pathetic.
I'm an AB supporter.
-
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.If he touches ball in mid air and isn't touching it as it hits ground it's a knock on.
If he loses control after touching ball but IS in contact immediately before and as it hits the ground it's a try.
No requirement for CONTINUOUS control.
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.Is the rule different for field of play vs in-goal though?
If in general play you dive for a ball, don't control it and it goes backwards and ends up with your hand on the ball on the ground, the ref will yell out "backwards" and the game moves on. Is it different in the in-goal?
My overall opinion really is that Coles cost the try by not celebrating. His face had "I didn't score that" written all over it ...
@MajorRage said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@MajorRage key word is holding, and he was no longer holding it - holding implies control, which is why the refs and comms use that word, despite it not being in the rules. Whereas a knock on is not a knock on if you lose control i.e. not holding, and then regain it before it touches ground or opposition.
Probably explained that poorly.Is the rule different for field of play vs in-goal though?
If in general play you dive for a ball, don't control it and it goes backwards and ends up with your hand on the ball on the ground, the ref will yell out "backwards" and the game moves on. Is it different in the in-goal?
My overall opinion really is that Coles cost the try by not celebrating. His face had "I didn't score that" written all over it ...
It's a shame, but this is absolutely valid and I totally agree
-
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By pressing down on it
Who said "downward pressure" didn't exist.
-
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@Machpants said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
Would love to have someone who knows what they are talking about confirm it.
I know. It was a try.
You're welcome
And yet, it isn't on the scoresheet anywhere, so it isn't a try.
You're welcome
Ozzie rules (TMO) so obviously bollaux!
-
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
@MajorRage said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@reprobate said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
The interpretation is that the two differently worded laws are there for different situations. One where the ball is on the ground already and you push down it, one where you are carrying the ball.
Coles controlled the ball with it in the air, not on the ground, so pushing down is not sufficient. At that point he needs to hold it and touch the ground with it, which he didn't.
It's an unusual situation for sure, and confusing due to the disparity with a normal knock-on. Rule should probably be changed, but I have no issue with the ruling.Sorry to answer with 5 questions ...
Is it? Did he knock it on before he forced it? Isn't that all that matters? And if not, why not?
That's only four questions ...
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Yet another edge case the Laws don't cover, really.
@NTA said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
@antipodean said in Bledisloe Three: Sydney, 31 October:
In case I haven't said this before - Angus Gardner is a clown.
AFG also said "double movement" last time out so let's not put too much stock in any words coming out of his mouth.
From https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21
The ball can be grounded in in-goal:- By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
- By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck.
Yes, so they're debating whether he's pressing it down - which most of the time means the ball is on the ground in-goal and they're just literally putting their hand on it (which you can do from touch-in-goal tho not a lot of people understand the difference there).
Their issue must have been around the fact the ball is still moving and therefore whether he is holding it or not. He isn't by definition, so then is he in constant contact to press it down. The motion of the ball compared to his arm suggests it wasn't but at the same time, there was no clear separation.
Which comes back to the point the TMO (and ref) don't understand the laws of the game as written. There's no clear separation of Coles from the moment he touches the ball till it's grounded. He at no point carried the ball nor did he attempt to catch it.
It's exactly the same if he dived on it and while it was in the air his chest touched the ball and he maintained some contact with it until it hit the ground.
These clowns are paid enough to get this shit right. Especially as the ref conferred with his touch judge and made a ruling for which there was no clear evidence to over rule.
