Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by TRF_heineken, Jun 18, 2018.
Dear Mr. Hansen,
Well that's just bloody typical isn't it...
French really need to work on that defence that GAP
Cheers mate, just read all the laws on obstruction too. It really doesn’t include the referee and most laws seem to be there to protect the attacking player.
Perhaps this is a case for WR to look at then, because with all our complex laws aiming to ensure a fair contest, that shouldn’t be allowed.
That was very very nice. At that pace that’s not defendable.
The referee has to stand somewhere, just got it completely wrong that time. It's just one of those things
It’s like 20 v 10
Yeah. The referee cannot penalise himself for obstruction.
Wait.......... What? George Ayoub? You can pick up that off your screens? But not Sam Canes high tackle in game 1?????? What is going on here...?
If he saw a grounding, he saw a grounding... regardless of whether the TMO saw one.
Makes me think he wasn’t actually that confident he saw a grounding.
Our commentators are saying they swear Luke Whitelock lost the ball forward... Hello George? You there mate????? Mate?????????? Hello?????????????
Yeah it did....... What are you TMO for, honestly...
I don’t know how Lacey is an international ref. He just seems to make it up as he goes a long.
At least he’s consistently random.
Actually, i believe there is.
What's stopping a ref from using what's covered in the law regarding scrums for "anything not covered by the law" to overturn that?
Precedent and his desire to get future appointments.
Are you saying there is no precedent for a ref calling scrum for blocking a tackler?
The laws mention the word fair/fairly around 20 times. I'm sure most non-ab/french people watching would agree that was unfair.
Have you seen scrums called for it? The only time you’ll see a scrum for defender/referee contact is when the referee is unable to get up right away.
I don’t believe there is a law saying that if something unfair happens there should be a scrum.
Its a stretch.
The guidance for the law you are talking about (19.1) is really for situations where the referee didn't see or is unsure what happened, e.g. referee unsighted or simultaneous knock ons.
Any Law involving the referee will be in Law 6. If its not there, the referee can't just make it up.
Just to clarify: i am playing devils advocate here and i am stretching my knowledge of the law to the limit, granted.
Just trying to find a way to use the current laws to bring justice to an unfair situation.
Let me see if i can find a video.
The ball itself becoming unusable.
Are there any other things that aren’t supernatural events?
Just back from the ground. Pretty comprehensive win for the AB's but it felt a bit flat at the stadium. Certainly a better performance from than the AB's than last week though!
The French showed a bit of endevour (which was good to see) but AB's were far too passive in defense, and slipped off too many easy tackles.
Scott Barrett was easily man of the match for me. A massive work-rate, and one of the few AB's to show consistent physicality on both attack and defense. I feel he's been consistently the best AB's forward all series. Matt Todd was excellent too. Yet again he demonstrated he is a far better test player than Ardie Savea. In my opinion he should be in the AB's 23 every week.
Watching at the ground it's amazing how much time Codie Taylor spends on the wing. He was almost inseparable from the touch-judge all match. It's obviously set plan, but it wouldn't hurt for him to come in an hit a few rucks every now and then! Frizell was ok on debut. I thought Hemopo looked a lot more energetic and physical when he was on the field though. Luke Whitelock was solid and reliable as usual, but I can't seen him playing many more matches for the AB's (unless Read is injured again), as I don't think he did enough to convince the AB selectors that a specialist backup 8 is essential in their squad.
I thought Aaron Smith was good, but he was forced to do work on the defense (and at the breakdown) than he (and the coaches) would have liked. McKenzie had a (surprisingly) good game at 10. The conditions obviously suited him, but I thought his kicking game stood out just as much as his electric running game. SBW was good on his first game back, adding some variety to the AB's attack. Goodhue improved as the matched went on, but did miss a key tackle on one of the French tries. Ioane was electric (as always) though a little sloopy at times, while Naholo was a mixed bag. His physicality on attack was impressive, but he tried to do to much at times, and his defense was poor. Ben Smith had some good touches, and made some key plays on defense, but his handling let him down on a few occasions.
Separate names with a comma.