[2021 Six Nations] Wales vs England (27/02/21)

[ncurd]

Snip

 

[BrokenWing]

That's the joy of this sport, you can discuss hours on hand on what are very trivial topics at the end of the day

Ultimately, all sport is trivial. Unfortunately, there's not a lot else at the moment to occupy our minds.

 

[ncurd]

Ultimately, all sport is trivial. Unfortunately, there's not a lot else at the moment to occupy our minds.

I've litreally been trying to get onto project at work for a month and I finally got it kicked into shape ready to start the dirty work and it got halted today.

So instead I watched a Welshman knock a ball on several times (sometime frame by frame) trying to work out what mitigation in the laws could there be for it to not be one. Best I could come up with was if you really really really wanted to believe it he didnt. But there's no smoking gun that to 99% of people who watch the first time and go "that's a knock on" to demonstrate its not one.

 

[BrokenWing]

I'm eyeing up a secondment in work where I'd be working from home as opposed to travelling around like I presently do. I'm just wary of how hard it'll be to not spend all day tossing it off and get on with working.

There are a lot of distractions at home.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'm eyeing up a secondment in work where I'd be working from home as opposed to travelling around like I presently do. I'm just wary of how hard it'll be to not spend all day tossing it off and get on with working.

There are a lot of distractions at home.

This, it's why I took 2 days in the office and would do 3 if they allowed me. Especially as I work at a desk with my home computer right next to me... Seriously discipline needed to be fully productive.

 

[ncurd]

I'm eyeing up a secondment in work where I'd be working from home as opposed to travelling around like I presently do. I'm just wary of how hard it'll be to not spend all day tossing it off and get on with working.

There are a lot of distractions at home.

It's hard I've been doing for the best part of a year now. Sometimes I'm good, sometimes less so. I find it helps to have a meaty piece of work which I've not had in months and budgets are all over the place currently due to pandemic/large companies never getting thier **** together in the new year.

 

[Wichita]

You know you don't get to just imply "ah you said this decision was wrong but this other wasn't wrong, therefore hypocrite"

As the law stands, what LRZ did wasn't a kick and he had knocked it forward prior to that so it is a knock on my law
Current interpretation of forward pass is whether it travels forward relative to the passer, not the pitch. As a general rule of thumb, if the passer is not impeded and continues at roughly the same pace, if the pass was level or behind then he will still be in front of the ball when it is caught. George is still in front of Watson when Watson catches the ball which means he must have passed it backwards.

The backwards motion relative to the player was illustrated in a demonstration video where a player literally threw the ball backwards over his head but it still travelled forwards relative to the pitch. As nobody could possibly claim the pass itself was forward, that is why going forward relative to the pitch is not used. Video below showing why it would be ridiculous to base it relative to the pitch and not the player.

As you probably know, the rule as specified in the book refers to actual physical point of reference and not players in motion. When I started to play rugby a few decades ago, that is the way it was reffed. But to accommodate the speed and positioning of modern players, this notion of "relative to the passing player" was introduced. But in similar cases as this one below, Mr Crawley decided that it was a forward pass, and I agree with him, the ball clearly travels forward whanleaving the hands of the French 15 :

But in the case of George to Watson, the ball travels forward in exactly the same way, except that George has not been tackled, so he stays "ahead of the ball". I do not think this is completely relevant, as the ball still was moving forward when it left his hands. And if Bouthier had not been tackled, he would have been ahead as well.

And in the case of LRZ, he touches the ball behind him with his right hand. Relative to him, the ball travel backwards (though forwards relative to the field), touching his hip, then his calf and goes backwards.
All I am saying is that these calls are not that simple to make. Imagine you are the ref on the pitch trying to evaluate that in real time. Even a TMO is not able to help you.
So let us all be moderate in our jugements on those terrible mistakes these refs are doing...

 

[BrokenWing]

When I started with the company, if I didn't get any tasking for the day I'd log in to the corporate site at 9, do some learning or other stuff. Now if I don't get a job, get up, go for a run, then pretty much play games for the day.

 

[ncurd]

It doesn't touch his hip, it touches his thigh either and travels forward relative to him and the pitch before it does hit his thigh. After that all it has to do is hit the ground or another player and its a knock on. There is no mitigation for "then it travels backward" or "hitting another part of the body going forward".

The only mitigation is he might have possession whilst it travel to his thigh (this is dubious at best) then it's question of whether it travels forward between his thigh and calf and no picture give a clear indication.

As it looks like a knock on to anyone with eyes you need to be pretty sure it's not one to rule in LRZ's favour. And there really isn't enough evidence to suggest otherwise. Even after bringing out the law book and looking at it for way longer than anyone should.

And this is all only 2 pages back with the definitions please point to where this wrong.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

snip

You can't be serious, the ball is clearly in front of the French player already the second it leaves his hands. At no point is the ball ever in front of Jamie George. This is basic physics...

The rule book doesn't specify a physical point of reference. Here is the law:

"A throw forward may occur anywhere in the playing area. Sanction: Scrum." Note the laws does NOT say the ball may not travel forward that a THROW forward is a scrum. It has been understood that a throw forward means the player is throwing the ball towards to opposition try line. The French player above clearly throws the ball forwards and thus it travels forwards, Jamie George threw the ball backwards and momentum carried it forwards.

A knock on is not judged relative to the player, that is judged relative to the pitch. Here is the text: "It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout)." See how this time it specifies the ball goes forward? Weirdly enough though it specifies this in the process of tackling but not in the process of catching.

 

[BigRog]

Here we go, definition of a knock on from world rugby laws.

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

Did LRZ lose control of the ball? Yes
Did it go forward? Yes
Did the ball touch the ground or another player before the original player can catch it? Yes

It went forward, then went back from his leg and hit Slade's leg. Therefore it is a knock on.

Earlier someone said we can agree the better team won. Yes Wales played better overall in that game to win. However the game would have been very different with those two tries and the pressure would have been on Wales. I know we can't say for certain who would have won, but two atrocious decisions affected the game massively and Gauzere should not be allowed to ref another international game after a performance like that.

There is a difference between loses possession and loses control. The first is in the law, the second isn't.

 

[ncurd]

Snip

Easier than that here's the definition of a Throw Forward

Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward

Basically all that matters of the directions of George's arms as he throws the ball, this is after he throws the ball but it's pretty hard the angle to tell which way they are pointed.

The French players arms at point of release are clearly foward.

 

[BigRog]

Now?


I mean the only people who are saying it wasn't a knock on are Wales fans (and the **** ref) - ex-Wales players, Welsh pundits and (supposedly) the best ref in the world all say it's a very clear knock on

4 referees agreed, the ref. the 2 assistants and the TMO. And they were asked if they dis-agreed. Fact is the law is a shambles and Jutge has thrown Gauzere under the bus - read what he, Jutge, actually said with your QC hat on.

 

[BigRog]

Do you read or did you just skim though? First off yes I did say that and that's also (unless the water carrier protocol is there) why the try is probably legal. Nothing says the ref has to wait for the defence to set to call time on, Nigel doesn't even say there is.

That said would you expect to be allowed to do that in this situation absolutely it's poor refereeing not an actual illegal try. Same with the HIA try a few years back you'd expect your replacement to be allowed on the pitch before play started. The ref doesn't have to allow it but that doesn't make it extremely poor decision to do so.

Nigel hasnt said the first try should of be discounted he just would never of allowed time on to be called in that situation.


Last week he said it was penalty by may which he explained but then never said under what law. This time he's explained what a knock on is, I can go read the knock on laws and his interpretation of why this play breached those laws. Last week nobody could find what the hell he was talking about.

Water carriers are only allowed on during a break in play due to injury or when the ref orders a water break due to condition of high heat and/or humidity. So Farrel's complaint of water carriers still being on is invalid as they shouldn't have been there anyway. But it probably, subconciously, made the England team think Biggar was preparing a shot at goal. But if May was alert, why not the others?

 

[ncurd]

Water carriers are only allowed on during a break in play due to injury or when the ref orders a water break due to condition of high heat and/or humidity. So Farrel's complaint of water carriers still being on is invalid as they shouldn't have been there anyway. But it probably, subconciously, made the England team think Biggar was preparing a shot at goal. But if May was alert, why not the others?

Look bud can you read the thread first before replying to everything from what will be when I wake 3 days ago...

 

[BigRog]

Didn't Biggar inform the ref he was going for the posts, which is why England thought he was going for the posts? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Gauzere even point at the posts to signal a penalty kick.

He asked him to tell him when it was time on.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

We are in agreement, the rulebook says a knock-on is relative to the pitch. But modern play makes this rule impossible to enforce, the player would have to be seven yards behind for the pass to be completed backwards. So you introduce this notion of the passing player. Because George's pass is clearly in the direction of the opposition try line. But as he is racing in the same direction, he stays ahead of the ball. But what if he had stumbled ? Or if he had been tackled as Bouthier was ? The cinematics of their passes would have been exactly the same, but the simple fact that he keeps on running makes the pass valid ?

I am not arguing in order to demonstrate you are wrong and I am right. My point is just to show that these decisions are very often extremely difficult to make. And that the poor ref is an easy target because real time decision in such a context is always difficult.

No we aren't, you tried to claim a forward pass is relative to the pitch, it isn't. A forward pass is relative to the player. A knock on is relative to the pitch. These are 2 difference offenses and tbh I don't see how you can hope to be debating the laws if you don't know the difference between a forward pass and a knock on... Ok seriously do you understand basic physics? It is impossible for George to have passed the ball forward and stayed in front of it. The fact he keeps running isn't what makes it legal, it just makes it easier to see it's legal. Yes players have been penalised when they have passed the ball backwards at speed and then been tackled, which makes it look more like a forward pass than if they are allowed to keep running. The act of running itself isn't what makes it legal.

At this point I feel you are being intentionally obtuse about this. At the moment you are not demonstrating anything other than a pretty severe lack of understanding of the laws. Ah your final sentence is the kicker, it's because all the refs who have had howlers last weekend were French and that is why you are getting defensive about it.

 

[Wichita]

No we aren't, you tried to claim a forward pass is relative to the pitch, it isn't. A forward pass is relative to the player. A knock on is relative to the pitch. These are 2 difference offenses and tbh I don't see how you can hope to be debating the laws if you don't know the difference between a forward pass and a knock on... Ok seriously do you understand basic physics? It is impossible for George to have passed the ball forward and stayed in front of it. The fact he keeps running isn't what makes it legal, it just makes it easier to see it's legal. Yes players have been penalised when they have passed the ball backwards at speed and then been tackled, which makes it look more like a forward pass than if they are allowed to keep running. The act of running itself isn't what makes it legal.

At this point I feel you are being intentionally obtuse about this. At the moment you are not demonstrating anything other than a pretty severe lack of understanding of the laws. Ah your final sentence is the kicker, it's because all the refs who have had howlers last weekend were French and that is why you are getting defensive about it.

No we aren't, you tried to claim a forward pass is relative to the pitch, it isn't. A forward pass is relative to the player. A knock on is relative to the pitch. These are 2 difference offenses and tbh I don't see how you can hope to be debating the laws if you don't know the difference between a forward pass and a knock on... Ok seriously do you understand basic physics? It is impossible for George to have passed the ball forward and stayed in front of it. The fact he keeps running isn't what makes it legal, it just makes it easier to see it's legal. Yes players have been penalised when they have passed the ball backwards at speed and then been tackled, which makes it look more like a forward pass than if they are allowed to keep running. The act of running itself isn't what makes it legal.

At this point I feel you are being intentionally obtuse about this. At the moment you are not demonstrating anything other than a pretty severe lack of understanding of the laws. Ah your final sentence is the kicker, it's because all the refs who have had howlers last weekend were French and that is why you are getting defensive about it.

A - English is not my native language, so you'll have to bear with me, sorry about that.
B - no I am not intentionally obtuse and I have a good understanding of basic physics, thank you. The George pass is not as clear as you make it look like and as you mentioned, players have been penalised in the past for backward passes that looked forward because they were tackled. My point is just that those call are not that easy to make and that reffing an international rugby match is not easy, so I suggest we give those refs a break instead of asking for their public humiliation every time they call a 51/49 call wrong.

And no, I am not as chauvinistic as you think I am. I agreed with Crawley on the forward pass, if you recall... And saying that Gauzere probably missed the forward pass in this England try is not exactly defending the French referees, or is it ?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

A - English is not my native language, so you'll have to bear with me, sorry about that.
B - no I am not intentionally obtuse and I have a good understanding of basic physics, thank you. The George pass is not as clear as you make it look like and as you mentioned, players have been penalised in the past for backward passes that looked forward because they were tackled. My point is just that those call are not that easy to make and that reffing an international rugby match is not easy, so I suggest we give those refs a break instead of asking for their public humiliation every time they call a 51/49 call wrong.

And no, I am not as chauvinistic as you think I am. I agreed with Crawley on the forward pass, if you recall... And saying that Gauzere probably missed the forward pass in this England try is not exactly defending the French referees, or is it ?

Yes players have been penalised for backward passes that looked forward, that doesn't mean they should. Someone could rightfully suggest it looked forward but analysis shows it wasn't so that should simply be the end of it.

The ref calls were not 49/51 calls at all. Marginal forward passes, being in control on grounding, a foot being in touch, slightly offside. Those are all marginal calls that are frequently missed or can go either way. That wasn't the case with the 2 tries he incorrectly called for Wales, they were huge blunders. As pointed out, this ref has previous doing this too, previously restarting time mid HIA assessment so the sub couldn't get on the pitch. Saying Gauzere probably missed the forward pass isn't defending the French referees, continuing to argue against it when it was shown there actually wasn't a forward pass to miss on the other hand is odd. We explained the difference between forward passes and knock ons and what the law says but you seemed to want to use very different examples to argue it and seem to be driving at the "oh well the game is hard to ref therefore we shouldn't be criticising the ref for huge blunders."

It wasn't just one thing that stood it, it was a whole host of things that he was all calling 1 way. At the start we were getting penalised for absolutely everything, he was harsh to the extreme, even taking legal points and penalising us for them. He then adds an intentional choice to yet again mess us about with when he calls time on (having done that to us previously) and then compounds that with yet another blunder in the LRZ case. It's the combination of all of those that mean he definitely should be getting called out. If getting 2 try decisions wrong and being woefully 1 sided in your reffing for a good 30 minutes isn't valid grounds to criticise the reffing then when is?

 

[Wichita]

Yes players have been penalised for backward passes that looked forward, that doesn't mean they should. Someone could rightfully suggest it looked forward but analysis shows it wasn't so that should simply be the end of it.

The ref calls were not 49/51 calls at all. Marginal forward passes, being in control on grounding, a foot being in touch, slightly offside. Those are all marginal calls that are frequently missed or can go either way. That wasn't the case with the 2 tries he incorrectly called for Wales, they were huge blunders. As pointed out, this ref has previous doing this too, previously restarting time mid HIA assessment so the sub couldn't get on the pitch. Saying Gauzere probably missed the forward pass isn't defending the French referees, continuing to argue against it when it was shown there actually wasn't a forward pass to miss on the other hand is odd. We explained the difference between forward passes and knock ons and what the law says but you seemed to want to use very different examples to argue it and seem to be driving at the "oh well the game is hard to ref therefore we shouldn't be criticising the ref for huge blunders."

It wasn't just one thing that stood it, it was a whole host of things that he was all calling 1 way. At the start we were getting penalised for absolutely everything, he was harsh to the extreme, even taking legal points and penalising us for them. He then adds an intentional choice to yet again mess us about with when he calls time on (having done that to us previously) and then compounds that with yet another blunder in the LRZ case. It's the combination of all of those that mean he definitely should be getting called out. If getting 2 try decisions wrong and being woefully 1 sided in your reffing for a good 30 minutes isn't valid grounds to criticise the reffing then when is?

Then let us wait for the match assessment to see the final call.
Just a quick point : UK and Irish players are often surprised at the way the French ref a game (breakdown, offside when kicking, playing while off your feet ...). Itoje would be sanctioned every 5 min in a top 14 match, the Irish 6 to 8 would be in trouble for the way the come into a maul. You have a French ref once in every 3 games in a 6N.
French players are often surprised at the way the UK or Irish ref a game (breakdown, coming on the side of a maul, being offside in a maul while bound with an opponent player). They have UK or Irish refs 4 or 5 times in a 6N.
That's the reason why southern hemisphere refs were called in, to provide for more diversity.
Gauzere did not play into Wales tactics, he has been an international referee for 7 years. The way Hill and Itoje played just did not fit his standards. You have to play the referee. The Welsh did.
And in the end, the penalty count for England was very similar to what it was against Scotland and Italy. Biased referees there as well ?