[2015 Super Rugby] Highlanders v Hurricanes (Round 6)

[TRF Mr Fish]

1:11.30 in the above video is the one that got me. Penalty because the canes played on from a clearance kick before the lineout formed, Savea got tackled was isolated and Naholo stole the ball perfectly legally?? WTF is going on here!? What in the world did the ref see there? I see the onscreen discription was tackler not releasing well **** me Naholo wasnt even the tackler and this was clearly obvious to all and sundry!

Is that the one in front of the posts that Barrett kicked the penalty for? If so then the penalty was because Naholo placed his hands on the ground before going for the steal, which is not allowed (even for only a split second). If you place your hands on the ground you have to basically start from scratch (lift up your upper body and leave plenty of room for the tackled player to release the ball etc.). It's a correct call, even if it does seem harsh. But that's not the referee's fault, that's an issue with the rules themselves.

 

[austingtir]

Is that the one in front of the posts that Barrett kicked the penalty for? If so then the penalty was because Naholo placed his hands on the ground before going for the steal, which is not allowed (even for only a split second). If you place your hands on the ground you have to basically start from scratch (lift up your upper body and leave plenty of room for the tackled player to release the ball etc.). It's a correct call, even if it does seem harsh. But that's not the referee's fault, that's an issue with the rules themselves.

Absolute ballony watch 1:18.05 to see the canes do exactly the same thing and canes penalty. AND the canes 15 in the Naholo incident should of been penalised for going off his feet in the clear out.

The Naholo one was certainly not worth a penalty.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

And that's where I think the rules are written wrong, the penalties are given for the process and not the result, it should only be a penalty if you actually get the ball, were penalising guys for loosing their balance...

 

[nickdnz]

I love how the criticism of the referee has largely been for following the rules.

And that's where I think the rules are written wrong, the penalties are given for the process and not the result, it should only be a penalty if you actually get the ball, were penalising guys for loosing their balance...

Wrong, the result of these is slower ball for the attacking team, allowing more time to organize defense. Just because it doesn't result in a turnover, doesn't mean it didn't disadvantage the attacking team. There are more players going off their feet in rucks in the modern game - which is why ball can often be so labored coming out. Players needs to take responsibility for their own body positioning.

 

[austingtir]

I love how the criticism of the referee has largely been for following the rules.



Wrong, the result of these is slower ball for the attacking team, allowing more time to organize defense. Just because it doesn't result in a turnover, doesn't mean it didn't disadvantage the attacking team. There are more players going off their feet in rucks in the modern game - which is why ball can often be so labored coming out. Players needs to take responsibility for their own body positioning.

Well the rules are clearly a load of **** and need to be tidied up bigtime but im resigned to the fact that we have to put up with this in every game... doesnt mean im not going to ***** and moan about it though,.

I dont agree with you at all on the Noholo steal his intention was to steal the ball not bridge or put his hands on the deck if you watch his right hand is nearly always going for the ball and has hardly touched the ground his left hand is flayling about and could be argued its on the ground this imo is fine. When a player clearly has all fours on the ground like a dog purely to brace or stop a cleanout then yes I agree with you but that was not Noholo's intent in stealing that ball he was going for the steal first before the bridge.

And the fact of the matter is he was there light years before the hurricanes player effecting the steal. If this ref was consistent it would of been a highlanders penalty all day... but the fact is he was not consistent.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I love how the criticism of the referee has largely been for following the rules.



Wrong, the result of these is slower ball for the attacking team, allowing more time to organize defense. Just because it doesn't result in a turnover, doesn't mean it didn't disadvantage the attacking team. There are more players going off their feet in rucks in the modern game - which is why ball can often be so labored coming out. Players needs to take responsibility for their own body positioning.

so we want to insure a fast free flowing game....by stopping it so someone can kick a goal...wow...just wow

i think there is a big difference between people diving over a ruck and people going for the ball and putting their hands on the ground

 

[nickdnz]

so we want to insure a fast free flowing game....by stopping it so someone can kick a goal...wow...just wow

i think there is a big difference between people diving over a ruck and people going for the ball and putting their hands on the ground

If having a fast and free flowing game was a priority over enforcing a fair contest, then sure. Let's also arbitrarily red card half the other team. Creates more space that way. Unless of course we accept that a game which rules are not followed, while being a spectacle, is also completely pointless. There may be a difference in terms of 'intention', but the disadvantage to the other team is the same. To suggest players aren't capable of supporting their bodyweight in a ruck is ridiculous.

Fact is, slow ball being generated at the ruck by players infringing does prevent a fast-flowing game. If a team is willing to infringe to get an advantage they deserve to be penalised, whether its exciting to watch a kick at goal or not. If the referees are the cardboard cut-out figures you seem to advocate, then I can guarantee the game is played at a much slower pace as players are willing to cynically kill ball in time for defences to reform.

 

[austingtir]

If having a fast and free flowing game was a priority over enforcing a fair contest, then sure. Let's also arbitrarily red card half the other team. Creates more space that way. Unless of course we accept that a game which rules are not followed, while being a spectacle, is also completely pointless. There may be a difference in terms of 'intention', but the disadvantage to the other team is the same. To suggest players aren't capable of supporting their bodyweight in a ruck is ridiculous.

Fact is, slow ball being generated at the ruck by players infringing does prevent a fast-flowing game. If a team is willing to infringe to get an advantage they deserve to be penalised, whether its exciting to watch a kick at goal or not. If the referees are the cardboard cut-out figures you seem to advocate, then I can guarantee the game is played at a much slower pace as players are willing to cynically kill ball in time for defences to reform.

What are you on about!? In the Naholo instance it has nothing to do with a fast and flowing game as Savea got himself isolated. There was eons before his support arrived considering Naholo was set for the steal from the world go, to pull him on this technicality for this particular steal imo is just outrageous and is a prime example of how the game is actually being ruined by ridiculous refereeing.

There was nothing fair about his call.

 

[nickdnz]

What are you on about!? In the Naholo instance it has nothing to do with a fast and flowing game as Savea got himself isolated. There was eons before his support arrived considering Naholo was set for the steal from the world go, to pull him on this technicality for this particular steal imo is just outrageous and is a prime example of how the game is actually being ruined by ridiculous refereeing.

There was nothing fair about his call.

Did he support his weight in making the turnover?

No?

Then deal with it.

 

[austingtir]

Did he support his weight in making the turnover?

No?

Then deal with it.

So we can expect to see every player from now on pinged for not supporting their weight when making a steal.... Yeah right.... Consistency is all we need. The current system is in no way consistent.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

So we can expect to see every player from now on pinged for not supporting their weight when making a steal.... Yeah right.... Consistency is all we need. The current system is in no way consistent.

You do see it applied consistently. Not always, sure, but certainly much more often than not.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

This discussions isn't going anywhere as long as Nick refuses to accept players make mistakes, his angle appears (it may not be but it appears) to be that EVERY infringement is deliberate foul play and coming from that standpoint i can see what he means.

I just prefer the believe that the vast majority of infringements are unintentional. Things like its very easy to loose your sense of direction after you've spun on the ground a few time in the tackle so sometimes you might pop up facing the wrong direction. Or it is very easy to loose your balance if there is ANY pressure from other players. and in these situations, as long as the ball makes its way back to the right side i would rather see play on than a kick for goal, hell, even a free kick would be better.

Its the same idea with collapsed scums, i played in the front row for nine years (club rugby in Dunedin) and i never once even heard about someone deliberately collapsing a scrum, especially after one of our team broke his back (an accident). so the idea of seeing a penalty given on the first scrum of the day (as we saw the other week) straight up with no resets because it must have been so obvious it was a deliberate plan to endanger everyone seems laughable

we talk a lot more about the refs after games than the game plans implemented...that cant be a good thing. hardly anyone has mentioned the highlanders rush defense really rocking the canes game plan. and that's because 80 mins of it still had less influence on the game than the Ref / the rules...its not good

 

[nickdnz]

This discussions isn't going anywhere as long as Nick refuses to accept players make mistakes, his angle appears (it may not be but it appears) to be that EVERY infringement is deliberate foul play and coming from that standpoint i can see what he means.

I just prefer the believe that the vast majority of infringements are unintentional. Things like its very easy to loose your sense of direction after you've spun on the ground a few time in the tackle so sometimes you might pop up facing the wrong direction. Or it is very easy to loose your balance if there is ANY pressure from other players. and in these situations, as long as the ball makes its way back to the right side i would rather see play on than a kick for goal, hell, even a free kick would be better.

Its the same idea with collapsed scums, i played in the front row for nine years (club rugby in Dunedin) and i never once even heard about someone deliberately collapsing a scrum, especially after one of our team broke his back (an accident). so the idea of seeing a penalty given on the first scrum of the day (as we saw the other week) straight up with no resets because it must have been so obvious it was a deliberate plan to endanger everyone seems laughable

we talk a lot more about the refs after games than the game plans implemented...that cant be a good thing. hardly anyone has mentioned the highlanders rush defense really rocking the canes game plan. and that's because 80 mins of it still had less influence on the game than the Ref / the rules...its not good

I accept players make mistakes. What has that got to do with anything? Is an accidental high tackle not still a high tackle? Is accidentally dropping a ball over the try line to be ruled a try on the basis it was just s 'silly error'? No. You can't criticize a referee for refereeing the game accurately. It's up to players to play accurately. I'm not saying that there aren't rules that I would change. I agree a scrum getting destroyed regularly because one pack is better, shouldn't result in a yellow card. Some teams do deliberately collapse and infringe in a scrum, I've done it many times myself.

The point is I don't think we should be challenging referees to not referee the game in accordance with the rules that are set, in order to create more of a spectacle.

The fundamental question is: Did Naholo support his body weight when contesting for the ball? Did Emery's pass go forward? The answer to the first question is no, and the second one is yes. It's not about what I would have liked to have occurred, no more than a player dropping the ball over the try line. It means the players simply have to execute more accurately. Yes mistakes from players occur, just because it wasn't intentional doesn't mean we should pretend they didn't happen.

 

[MotherRucker1]

Not relevant whatsoever what your intention was or whether something was a mistake. If your action encroaches on the laws of the game, end of story. How often do we see high tackles, that in all actuality aren't malicious but we still accept head-highs are wrong?

We want to deter slowing of the game down. Imo players already get away with murder in the area of not rolling away and laying there having made a tackle, we don't want them given leniency in too many areas. And yes, that means penalties. If it takes 3 points for you to learn a simple lesson, that's your prerogative. We can do it the easy way, or the hard way. Whatever you want.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

wow pretty surprised with the attitudes shown here. I think you should be ashamed to admit you've deliberately collapsed a scrum, the only way i was able to get over my mate breaking his back (I came off the bench to replace him) was to know it was an accident.

I will point out i haven't mentioned the ref specifically for quite a few posts, i have made comments around what directions i think they should be given. we know they are given direction on how the rules should be interpreted all the time. i even say a few posts ago i think the rules could be worded better, not sure why you seem obsessed with the idea i'm attacking the ref.

head high tackle get penalties instead of yellows all the time when it was clearly unintentional, i'm just saying why cant there be some room given in the same way around other facets of the game.

cant believe people would rather see kicks at goal rather than intent (dropped to elbows under weight of a clearing player whilst holding the ball) and result (ball still ended up on the right side) being taken into consideration.

and we'll just have to agree to disagree re the forward pass, I agree the ball went forward, no question...but the rules (and god knows there is only one way to read them) say the motion of that hands needs to backward not necessarily to motion of the ball, which is the way i saw it

 

[nickdnz]

wow pretty surprised with the attitudes shown here. I think you should be ashamed to admit you've deliberately collapsed a scrum, the only way i was able to get over my mate breaking his back (I came off the bench to replace him) was to know it was an accident.

I will point out i haven't mentioned the ref specifically for quite a few posts, i have made comments around what directions i think they should be given. we know they are given direction on how the rules should be interpreted all the time. i even say a few posts ago i think the rules could be worded better, not sure why you seem obsessed with the idea i'm attacking the ref.

head high tackle get penalties instead of yellows all the time when it was clearly unintentional, i'm just saying why cant there be some room given in the same way around other facets of the game.

cant believe people would rather see kicks at goal rather than intent (dropped to elbows under weight of a clearing player whilst holding the ball) and result (ball still ended up on the right side) being taken into consideration.

and we'll just have to agree to disagree re the forward pass, I agree the ball went forward, no question...but the rules (and god knows there is only one way to read them) say the motion of that hands needs to backward not necessarily to motion of the ball, which is the way i saw it

I was talking about deliberately infringing in scrums ie boring in. With that said, there are times where a scrum is going to go down because both props are hitting too low, hoping the other prop goes higher, and there is a reasonable indication a scrum is going to collapse. Most collapses don't result in injuries, and if they did I'd be just as likely (if not more likely being a tall prop), to take the damage.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think players are responsible for following the laws of the game, and don't think ''well, it probably maybe didn't have that bigger impact'' isn't a real defence.