[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[austingtir]

Yes but it's an advantage for the home team because the crowd doesn't alert the referee to any of the home team's infringements. Therefore only away teams have infringements reviewed in this way.

Exactly if everygame in the WC next year goes like this one there is going to be some super ****** off rugby supporters on here baying for blood. NZ will still win 99 out 100 of their matches so it wont make any difference to us really. England have proven they cant beat us even with help so we have nothing to worry about imo.

Honestly this was just another game NZ won despite the Ref being a dithering idiot.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The home team get an advantage? **** I never knew that. Playing on you're own pitch, in front of your own fans gives you an advantage... Mind = Blown

 

[goodNumber10]

The home team get an advantage? **** I never knew that. Playing on you're own pitch, in front of your own fans gives you an advantage... Mind = Blown

i know, right?

Surely the IRB need to step in on this immediately.

I suggest for next weeks test matches, they ship in the irish fans into twickenham, and we'll send Scotland the English fans, whilst the Scottish can go to Wales, and then the welsh can head off to Dublin.

Perfect!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

i know, right?

Surely the IRB need to step in on this immediately.

I suggest for next weeks test matches, they ship in the irish fans into twickenham, and we'll send Scotland the English fans, whilst the Scottish can go to Wales, and then the welsh can head off to Dublin.

Perfect!

I think we could go further, it's frankly quite ridiculous that in the 21st century rugby is not designed for New Zealand to win... Sort it out now IRB!

 

[Bazzy]

Exactly if everygame in the WC next year goes like this one there is going to be some super ****** off rugby supporters on here baying for blood. NZ will still win 99 out 100 of their matches so it wont make any difference to us really. England have proven they cant beat us even with help so we have nothing to worry about imo.

Honestly this was just another game NZ won despite the Ref being a dithering idiot.

Boy that's arrogant. We've had the calls going our way plenty of times at home and I am sure crowds have influenced the ref at times.

Nigel Owens was indecisive yesterday and made some poor calls. But implying that this is some plot by England to use crowds to sway a refs decision is just ridiculous.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

They should have received a penalty for what Hartley did - and then that should have been reversed for retaliation, which is what happened.

It seems that refs up here are being told to go harsh on off the ball stuff and safety issues. I don't like it, but I'm beginning to accept it as normal.

Perhaps, but then the obvious follow through is to reverse the penalty a second time, for retaliation on Hartley's behalf.

It's not that I disagree with the retaliation rule, but to me the kick from Coles looked pretty weak. You see halfbacks etc. doing a lot worse with their boots on a fairly regular basis (I even saw it in this game).

If that was poor, it was very relatively so. If your kicking and set-piece had been on song, that would have been a clear 10-12 point victory easily. Ok, having read back that sentence, a performance where your goal kicking and set-piece malfunction is always de facto not good, but pretty much everything else was there.

It certainly wasn't awful, but it was hardly a vintage performance. I thought some of the attack was uninspired and there were a few pointless short passes from the All Blacks. They actually played their best footy when the game tightened up due to the rain (and when Coles was off the field).

Yes but it's an advantage for the home team because the crowd doesn't alert the referee to any of the home team's infringements. Therefore only away teams have infringements reviewed in this way.

Certainly it's an advantage, but so is having the crowd cheering you on etc. What is the ref supposed to do, ignore the fact that the crowd has alerted him to something worth checking? 75% of the time the crowd get wild for a completely legitimate reason, is the referee just supposed to ignore this because he's missed other things?

I think the TMO should have more power in terms of decision making. Why ask the TMO to check something if the referee is simply going to overrule his decision? The TMO has a far better view of the replay and should ultimately have the final say. TMO's are supposed to be trained professionals. The hardest part about refereeing (correct me if I'm wrong, @smartcooky) is not knowing the rules, but being able to maintain composure etc. in the middle of a emotional, intense game. This means that the TMO should have equal understanding of the rules when compared to the ref and should therefore get the final say as they're in a much better position to make unimpeded decisions. Otherwise, the TMO needn't be a trained referee at all, they could just be an impartial technician.

 

[austingtir]

Boy that's arrogant. We've had the calls going our way plenty of times at home and I am sure crowds have influenced the ref at times.

Nigel Owens was indecisive yesterday and made some poor calls. But implying that this is some plot by England to use crowds to sway a refs decision is just ridiculous.

Where did i say its some ploy by crowds or specific to England? They are just watching whats played back to them by the tv producers at the ground!!

Did you not watch the last big game vs South africa? And in NZ vs SA last year.... Where exactly the same thing happened. All im saying is this is going to get more and more common as each home ground tries to one up the other by just replaying off the ball stuff constantly to get players yellowed or worse.

Sure its happened in the past everywhere but it was nowhere near as blatant as these last two episodes. The one in SA in particular I found hard to believe. Again all i saying is its going to get worse not better. If I was the Irish, Welsh and Scots grounds id be looking at the best way I could get it implemented there as its a pretty big advantage if you get a noddy ref thats easy to sway like Nige.

The other stuff in this match was just down to Nigel being a complete retard and out of touch with reality.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Where did i say its some ploy by crowds or specific to England? They are just watching whats played back to them by the tv producers at the ground!!

Did you not watch the last big game vs South africa? Where exactly the same thing happened. All im saying is this is going to get more and more common as each home ground tries to one up the other by just replaying off the ball stuff constantly to get players yellowed or worse.

Sure its happened in the past everywhere but it was nowhere near as blatant as these last two episodes. The one in SA in particular I found hard to believe.

The other stuff in this match was just down to Nigel being a complete retard and out of touch with reality.

In which case the obvious solution for the away team.... Play to the rules and don't engage in foul play.

If you stick to the rules then this is going to make a difference.

 

[Peat]

Perhaps, but then the obvious follow through is to reverse the penalty a second time, for retaliation on Hartley's behalf.

It's not that I disagree with the retaliation rule, but to me the kick from Coles looked pretty weak. You see halfbacks etc. doing a lot worse with their boots on a fairly regular basis (I even saw it in this game).

You'd really expect to see a penalty reversed for the shoving and handbags that follows a piece of foul play?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Of course it does.

Are you genuinely saying that 3 months of warm up games don't better prepare a team? Because Ireland won on a sh*tty day in dublin doesn't undermine that.

No, I'm saying Ireland were in the same position as England not having played together since the summer and playing a SH side who had also played in the last 3 months. Plus, they also had their fair share of injuries I.e. Healy, Best, Henry, SOB, etc.. Still they beat the Springboks handily.

 

[goodNumber10]

No, I'm saying Ireland were in the same position as England not having played together since the summer and playing a SH side who had also played in the last 3 months. Plus, they also had their fair share of injuries I.e. Healy, Best, Henry, SOB, etc.. Still they beat the Springboks handily.

I don't see how that has any impact on what i said originally.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

You'd really expect to see a penalty reversed for the shoving and handbags that follows a piece of foul play?

I think it's a bit laughable that Hartley retaliates when the only reason Coles committed the 'foul play' is because of Hartley's actions in the first place. I don't really think Hartley has any excuse for retaliating - if his own player had been injured by Coles then he'd look like a right w@nker.

Regardless, this is more about the differing views of what constitutes foul play. Personally I think Coles' kick is as much handbags as Hartley's shove - who knows, Coles could have fallen backwards and cracked his head on the ground, leaving him with a serious concussion. The issue here is that Hartley's behaviour (not the shoving, but his behaviour at the ruck) is not punished and is in fact rewarded. Hartley is a big enough cock as it his, we certainly don't want to be encouraging this I think a better solution would be to refer Coles to the disciplinary committee and penalise the team infringing at the ruck (though if Coles had actually done some damage then it would be a different story).

It will be interesting to see if the judiciary has anything to say about it in the next week.

 

[austingtir]

In which case the obvious solution for the away team.... Play to the rules and don't engage in foul play.

If you stick to the rules then this is going to make a difference.

Its a pretty big stretch to call what Coles did foul play... thats actually the crux of this issue. These "events" during the match are blown way WAY out of proportion. What Coles did was not a yellow but the crowd influenced the ref that it was shockingly bad even against the advice of the tmo who said it was basically just a penalty...even that was a stretch.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I don't see how that has any impact on what i said originally.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You complained about England's list of injuries and England playing a team who have had 3 months playing together before yesterday's match and being relevant in England's loss. No different to Ireland's situation playing the Springboks, but they won, which is all that matters at test level.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think it's a bit laughable that Hartley retaliates when the only reason Coles committed the 'foul play' is because of Hartley's actions in the first place. I don't really think Hartley has any excuse for retaliating - if his own player had been injured by Coles then he'd look like a right w@nker.

Regardless, this is more about the differing views of what constitutes foul play. Personally I think Coles' kick is as much handbags as Hartley's shove - who knows, Coles could have fallen backwards and cracked his head on the ground, leaving him with a serious concussion. The issue here is that Hartley's behaviour (not the shoving, but his behaviour at the ruck) is not punished and is in fact rewarded. Hartley is a big enough cock as it his, we certainly don't want to be encouraging this I think a better solution would be to refer Coles to the disciplinary committee and penalise the team infringing at the ruck (though if Coles had actually done some damage then it would be a different story).

It will be interesting to see if the judiciary has anything to say about it in the next week.

what behavior? he pulls a guys jersey, that's generally what happens at rucks, coles fell over looked like a *** and kicked out at anyone and made contact - what if he'd caught his own teammates face? it was petulant and dangerous, and people get reds for less.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You complained about England's list of injuries and England playing a team who have had 3 months playing together before yesterday's match and being relevant in England's loss. No different to Ireland's situation playing the Springboks, but they won, which is all that matters at test level.

Do you play rugby?

if so do you play pre-season freindlies? And again if so why?

Ireland got a win, on an cr*ppy day in Dublin, great they got a win against a settled team, but that has zero bearing on what i'm saying about England and New Zealand.

Would you back Ireland to do the same against the All Blacks?

 

[smartcooky]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're claiming that you are not allowed repeated goes at placing the ball. It is for you to prove. The rules do not anywhere refer to the number of attempts a player is allowed to place the ball, so I conclude there isn't a rule governing this.

I have been a referee, a referee advisor and a referee coach for 35 years, and I can state quite categorically that YOU ARE WRONG

I am now going to explain why, and highlight the word that proves it.

[TEXTAREA]15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

f) If a tackled player's momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.[/TEXTAREA]

The crux of the issue is 15.5 (b) - the tackled player must release the ball immediately. Placing, passing, pushing and letting go of the ball are the four ways in which he is allowed to to release the ball.

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.


PS: The game of rugby is governed by Laws, not Rules

The hardest part about refereeing (correct me if I'm wrong, @smartcooky) is not knowing the rules, but being able to maintain composure etc. in the middle of a emotional, intense game. This means that the TMO should have equal understanding of the rules when compared to the ref and should therefore get the final say as they're in a much better position to make unimpeded decisions. Otherwise, the TMO needn't be a trained referee at all, they could just be an impartial technician.

Yes. Any mug can learn to parrot off the Laws of rugby or learn them by rote. There are only 22 of them

The hard parts about refereeing are; applying the Laws in context, having good game management skills and maintaining composure under pressure.

There's an old saying that goes something like "when you are up to your arse in alligators, it can be difficult to remind yourself that what you are trying to do is drain the swamp". Rugby refereeing can be a bit like that .

 

[SelimNiai]

Its a pretty big stretch to call what Coles did foul play... thats actually the crux of this issue. These "events" during the match are blown way WAY out of proportion. What Coles did was not a yellow but the crowd influenced the ref that it was shockingly bad even against the advice of the tmo who said it was basically just a penalty...even that was a stretch.

Fairly confident had Hartley kicked out like that you'd be baying for cards. At the end of the day you cant just kick out like that, Owens was right in my eyes to bin him.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Its a pretty big stretch to call what Coles did foul play... thats actually the crux of this issue. These "events" during the match are blown way WAY out of proportion. What Coles did was not a yellow but the crowd influenced the ref that it was shockingly bad even against the advice of the tmo who said it was basically just a penalty...even that was a stretch.

In which case the problem is nothing to do with objectivity, crowd influence, television producers etc... The issue is that foul play is not being adjudicated correctly (or perhaps it is, I have no idea, maybe if a player kicks out then referees have to issue yellow cards, which I don't personally agree with, but meh).

 

[austingtir]

Fairly confident had Hartley kicked out like that you'd be baying for cards. At the end of the day you cant just kick out like that, Owens was right in my eyes to bin him.

No not at all Hartley was the one that started it but to me the whole thing was a nothing. All it needed was a Ref with half a brain to call them both out and tell them not to **** around.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Nigel Owens made a couple of very poor decisions that affected the game yesterday.
The try he awarded to Aaron Cruden looked short of the line to me and should not have been awarded but Nigel had his hand in the air straight away... he should have gone upstairs. English fans have every right to be sorely aggrieved at that poor decision.

Second one was the penalty try.
A penalty was surely on the cards for England but a penalty try? With 8 All Blacks still in the scrum and another three behind the scrum.
Ok I can understand that Nigel has to live on this island and he felt he needed to make amends, but to use a penalty try in that manner sets a dangerous precedent.
They should only be used when there is no cover that could interfere with proceedings and change a potential outcome.

I thought he had a poor game for both teams and made for an unexciting game.