No way was that offside

[Hairymonster]

No effing way was that off-side.

 

[Which Tyler]

He started onside, then the ruck fell forwards, putting him marginally offside.
99% of those are play-on, but technically, he's an inch or two offside, through no fault of his own.

I'm really hope we don't make this out to be more than it was (alarm Erasmus last week), as that's not why we lost the match.

That restart, and then a complete absence of captaincy, including wrong decisions tomgomfor the corner instead of points, did he exchange any words with Garces, (mind you, silence is an improvement there for him), and total loss of composure, should also have demanded the drop goal, rather than sliding back into the pocket silently.
If you factor in George's lineout work, substituting Hartley was the worst si gle decision made today.

 

[Fuzzy du Plessis]

Ahh you've made me look like a mug for not properly reading the options, you cheeky ****.

I reckon he was offside, which was a bit of a shame because I thought Underhill and Lawes were probably the best of the English players.

 

[All Black]

He had to be an All Black to be on side.

 

[smartcooky]

No effing way was that off-side.

Offside all day long, and twice on a Saturday at Twickenham.

The ball is not out of the ruck if the SH puts his hands on the ball, it is out when the ball is lifted.

Lawes was at least a half-metre offside when he did lift it, and it was that half-metre that allowed him to charge the ball down.

ETA: Your poll is disingenuous. It shows that you are not interest in the opinions of others.


ETA2: Note to mods - noobs should not be allowed to post polls until they have participated in discussion - perhaps 50 posts?

 

[Saint Matt]

I, personally, think there should have been an England penalty in front of the sticks for hands in the ruck prior to the Lawes offload at the end.

 

[Scotty]

No effing way was that off-side.

If you still can then change the damn poll to get a genuine read of what people think.

It was offside IMO, i dont think his timing was off, he moved after he lifted it but his position where he was stood looked slighty infront of the back foot.

Wish it had been a try purely to see multiple replays of barrett getting played by the blistering pace and step of underhill

 

[bushytop]

LOL so a reffing decision goes against England and they start a thread... probably more satisfying than a Welsh win over Oz!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If you still can then change the damn poll to get a genuine read of what people think.

It was offside IMO, i dont think his timing was off, he moved after he lifted it but his position where he was stood looked slighty infront of the back foot.

Wish it had been a try purely to see multiple replays of barrett getting played by the blistering pace and step of underhill

It's awkward because the ruck got bigger without Lawes realising,
He was onside, eyes on the ball, then someone got cleared over the top extending the ruck back a little bit and then he ran for the ball
Tough situation as if he's there staring at the ruck for any possible changes then he's never going to get a charge down.
Ref could've told him to take a step when the ruck changed shape, but just an unfortunate situation for Lawes

 

[TRF_Olyy]

@smartcooky - What constitutes a bind at the ruck?
I've seen some people saying that AB #20 wasn't bound and therefore offside should've been about a metre up from where it was,
World Rugby laws don't, currently, have a definition for a ruck bind, but I saw this from an old version online:
Rule 16.2 (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Is it a case of he did initially bind correctly, but the ruck moved forward so all he has to do is stay in contact?

 

[bushytop]

@smartcooky - What constitutes a bind at the ruck?
I've seen some people saying that AB #20 wasn't bound and therefore offside should've been about a metre up from where it was,
World Rugby laws don't, currently, have a definition for a ruck bind, but I saw this from an old version online:
Rule 16.2 (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Is it a case of he did initially bind correctly, but the ruck moved forward so all he has to do is stay in contact?

Might have mentioned it once or twice but... take the decision, have a coke and a smile... and get the F#*K on with it!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

God forbid we discuss rugby on a rugby forum.

I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes a bind and have an opportunity to ask a very experienced referee what his opinion is. If you don't want to read about the England/NZ game then don't open any threads about the England/NZ game.

 

[bushytop]

God forbid we discuss rugby on a rugby forum

No it ain't even that... 'disliker' it's about double standards. I've said it previous but I'll say it again, I will mention a decision once if I disagree with it and leave it there! The majority of international user's (people who ain't English) are pretty much down with that statement but all we ever here from you guys is how much we moan about decisions! Now that may well be on Social Media etc (but I give that nonsense no due) but on here 'generally' 'WE LEAVE YOU GUYS TO DEFEND YOUR ****!' for pages and pages of boring ****!

So all I'm saying is take it like a man, like the one time your asked to!

 

[unrated]

@smartcooky - What constitutes a bind at the ruck?
I've seen some people saying that AB #20 wasn't bound and therefore offside should've been about a metre up from where it was,
World Rugby laws don't, currently, have a definition for a ruck bind, but I saw this from an old version online:
Rule 16.2 (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Is it a case of he did initially bind correctly, but the ruck moved forward so all he has to do is stay in contact?

If i look at both of these images then i would actually say the English player was on-side

 

[Scotty]

Might have mentioned it once or twice but... take the decision, have a coke and a smile... and get the F#*K on with it!

Theres a time and a place to discuss events from a rugby match....straight after the game...on a rugby forum.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I've said it previous but I'll say it again, I will mention a decision once if I disagree with it and leave it there!

Good for you,

I want to understand this specific instance better so am trying to talk about it on a rugby forum with other rugby fans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[bushytop]

Theres a time and a place to discuss events from a rugby match....straight after the game...on a rugby forum.

As I've said, I have seen 'mainly' Englishmen rip people apart for complaining about refereeing decisions on here... enjoy the **** sandwich!

 

[bushytop]

Good for you,

I want to understand this specific instance better so am trying to talk about it on a rugby forum with other rugby fans ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Listen bud, if it weren't for what has now been proved to be double standards I'd be all for it... as it stands your tears taste like ecstasy!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The only person who is remotely upset here is you.

Like I said, we're trying to talk about the game/the laws in this specific instance. If you don't want to read our discussion then simply don't open the threads.

 

[ncurd]

Nothing wrong with analysis and understanding a decision.

*****ing about a decision days on end after all meaningful analysis has been done is pathetic.

I like to understand decision so when I'm watching a game I can make my own judgements.