• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

Nubiwan

Bench Player
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
783
Reaction score
265
Owens should definitely be a penalty since you are in an offsides position and you play the ball. That is a penalty whether or not there is a knock on or not.

The penalty for jumping in the air should have been a penalty under the way the law is written. I'd like to see the law say that as long as the tackled player is tackled safely then it's okay to tackle them in the air. Especially since in some scenarios the guy on ground actually wrapping the guy in the air up is the safest thing for the guy in the air.

Offside from what? There is no ruck or maul. It is just open play. If the ball travelled backwards, then he as entitled to retreat and pick it up. He only becomes offside if it is knocked on, or a ruck/maul is formed. Yes?
 

Maties Van Tilburg

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
783
Club or Nation

La Rochelle

Offside from what? There is no ruck or maul. It is just open play. If the ball travelled backwards, then he as entitled to retreat and pick it up. He only becomes offside if it is knocked on, or a ruck/maul is formed. Yes?

i can't believe have to answer this

if the ball leaves a players hands backwards but bounces forwards afterwards it is the same as a god damn kick
 

Nubiwan

Bench Player
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
783
Reaction score
265
This is where you're simplifying - he's not committed - if you watch it back closely you will see that it is after Sinkler jumps that Faumuina beings the actual motion of his tackle. I agree however that he has very little time to react. Owens had very little time to react too, especially when you take into account confusion in the moment such as 'who touched the ball', 'where exactly was I when he touched it' etc..

Overall I can understand people not being happy with the decision, particularly with the manner in which it was made. There should be no way that a captain can talk a referee down from the penalty as well.

However, the outcome itself shows an empathy for the situation that is hard to disagree with for me. We all know that the game is in danger of becoming farcical because officials appear bound to implement the rulebook, and most if not all of us complain about it. It's the same principle at stake when a ball carrier slips into the tackle and then gets taken high, therefore winning a penalty for his team with the tackler (often) carded. Referees will reiterate their need to protect the player and the fact that this binds them, before brandishing the card or giving the penalty. Tackles in the air are often carded 'on outcome' to determine their colour., because of the same duty to protect. The clusterfuck between officials was a worrying sign, but for me the ability to use discretion is the way forward for the professional game as it becomes increasingly physical and skilled. And yes, another example would be the meaning of the words 'accidental offside'. I know very well what the rulebook says, but I don't particularly blame Poite for extending this to the following considerations: 'the player did not intend to commit foul play', there was no 'professional element' (such as depriving the opposition of the ball in an advantageous position),' 'reaction window was minimal', and 'he dropped the ball immediately to show there was no intent to commit a foul'.

Despite all the partisan arguing, who here actually wants to see penalties for scenarios such as Faumuina and Owens, particularly when it is going to determine the outcome of a great test series? If you do, why? The way I'm thinking of these incidents is to estimate how many of the other 28 players on the pitch, in those same scenarios, would NOT have given away those penalties. I think the answer is "Very few, perhaps none", and for me we should be able to use that diagnostic test to bring in some empathy to the officiating. The PROCESS by which they arrived at that decision was terrrrrible, no doubt.
Well that is all very well said, but the fact is that the Lions benefitted in both games from the referees ultimate decision. One could argue the decision in the 3rd test was ultimately fair, but incorrect. The Sinckler decision was correct, but perhaps unfair. IIf we start leavin ot to a refs discretion, then one might begin to see a trend, and start calling the refs biased.

Surely the laws are in place to help the refs be impartial as well. Players can understand then, when a ref is bound by the law, to either award a pen, card etc..
 

Nubiwan

Bench Player
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
783
Reaction score
265
i can't believe have to answer this

if the ball leaves a players hands backwards but bounces forwards afterwards it is the same as a god damn kick
Huh!!!???? Owen caught the ball in the air. It never bounced. What has that to do with the suggested knock on. My point was the ball went backwards, so he was not offside in open play. We talking about the sane thing at the end of the 3rd test?
 
Last edited:

Maties Van Tilburg

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
783
Club or Nation

La Rochelle

nvm: jumped the gun on 10m law

for owens to have played the ball legally he would have to either run behind an onside player or an onside player would have to run in front of him
 

Maties Van Tilburg

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
783
Club or Nation

La Rochelle

Owens ball never bounced forward to him. Or did it? Either way that is pretty technical.
owens is still in front of williams, and that is what matters

i also haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't a knock on
 

Nubiwan

Bench Player
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
783
Reaction score
265
owens is still in front of williams, and that is what matters

i also haven't seen any evidence that it wasn't a knock on
I have read evidence suggesting it went backwards. Not making it up, but equally not arsed to go find it now.

I think if it goes backwards from the tap down, as I am suggesting it did, then Owen or any player on the field has every right to play it, catch it, drop on it, whatever. That is my point.

If it was indeed a knock on, then Owen IS offside and pen. That is how I understand the law. Are you saying I am wrong? Please tell me what law this is, as it seems a little technical.
 

Maties Van Tilburg

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
2,755
Reaction score
783
Club or Nation

La Rochelle

In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
I have read evidence suggesting it went backwards. Not making it up, but equally not arsed to go find it now.

I think if it goes backwards from the tap down, as I am suggesting it did, then Owen or any player on the field has every right to play it, catch it, drop on it, whatever. That is my point.

If it was indeed a knock on, then Owen IS offside and pen. That is how I understand the law. Are you saying I am wrong? Please tell me what law this is, as it seems a little technical.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11

In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.

In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by actions of that player or of team mates:

(a)
Action by the player. When the offside player runs behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball, the player is put onside.

(b)
Action by the ball carrier. When a team-mate carrying the ball runs in front of the offside player, that player is put onside.

(c)
Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside. When running forward, the team-mate may be in touch or touch-in-goal, but that team-mate must return to the playing area to put the player onside.
 

Gronde van der Hogg

Grond van der Hogg
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
8,060
Reaction score
2,750
Country Flag

South Africa

Club or Nation

Munster

I'd forgotten how regrettably necessary this thread was in 2017
 

ncurd

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
3,708
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

I'd forgotten how regrettably necessary this thread was in 2017
I've read through it again I'd forgotten completely the kiwi lost their minds because a ref made the right decision by reversing his wrong one.
 

mania

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
1,545
Reaction score
637
Country Flag

New Zealand

Club or Nation

Samoa

Mumbles119

Bench Player
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
595
Reaction score
58
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

London Wasps

And they were right.

Was this not trialled again recently? Alongside the drop out and god awful captains challenge ideas.

I understand not wanting a game decided or competition potentially ruined by an early red card. But for me I think more important factor is the current change of player tackling behaviour around high shots and concussion etc.

I feel the 20 minute red card would lower the perceived deterrent. Maybe there should be a re-balancing approach to implementing the 20 minute red card, by increasing the length of match bans. So the individual player offending is still strongly penalised, and not the entire team.
But I am sure there are surrounding issues with this that I have not considered too.
 

MikeTheNative

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
702
Country Flag

Wales

Club or Nation

Wales

That had it in the Pro 14 this year, I agree I didn't like it. I believe they are dropping that and the captain's challenge but keeping the changes to the 50/22 drop out rules.
 

ncurd

Hall of Fame
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 7, 2015
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
3,708
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Was this not trialled again recently? Alongside the drop out and god awful captains challenge ideas.

I understand not wanting a game decided or competition potentially ruined by an early red card. But for me I think more important factor is the current change of player tackling behaviour around high shots and concussion etc.

I feel the 20 minute red card would lower the perceived deterrent. Maybe there should be a re-balancing approach to implementing the 20 minute red card, by increasing the length of match bans. So the individual player offending is still strongly penalised, and not the entire team.
But I am sure there are surrounding issues with this that I have not considered too.
We've gone over this in a another thread, I've conceded that there is possibly a case for mid-level card of this ilk. The problem is I still strongly believe there needs to be a full red, you may have cost your team the game by playing up to 80mins a player short for acts of deliberate malice such as eye gouging, stamping, punching etc. This fixes an issue at possibly a low end of the scale whilst ignoring that the red card is there for the top end as well.
 

The_Blindside

International
TRF Legend
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
8,144
Reaction score
1,805
Country Flag

Hong Kong

Club or Nation

British Irish Lions

oh well say la vie

Yeh past it is the past. He made the decision at that time and now has to live with it. Think he was affected by Garces and saying to him in French he didn’t want to be remembered like Joubert for what he did.
 
Top