[RWC19 Warm-Up] - Wales vs England

[RedruthRFC]

So it seems that, unbelievably, there isn't a rule that says "after a break in play, no quick taps. The referee will wait for both teams to ready before allowing play to restart".

I don't find it unbelievable at all. Over the years, I have referred to the laws for clarity over lots of different out of the ordinary incidents and more often than now have found that they're not legislated for or that the laws are at best vague. Hence my comments above and hence the failure of anyone who categorically stated that the referee was wrong to cite why.

Maybe I'm getting too hung up in semmantics (although a lack of clarity of language is part of the problem with the law book), but how is it possible to take a "quick tap" following a break in play? A tap could hardly be said to be quick after a break in play, surely as soon as the referee says "time on" it's fair game to take the penalty as you see fit.

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

For the record, I don't disagree with this change. But the slating of the referee is off the mark as he did nothing wrong on Saturday. England weren't switched on, simple as that.

Technically it was at the referees discretion to allow play to continue, but you're kidding yourself if you think it was the correct judgement call and that he would make the same decision if he could have a second chance. To suggest that it's wealth and preferential treatment that lead to this law change is madness! Any rational person would agree that it is not fair to be down a man due to a mandated medical assessment. England could have been more switched on for sure, but that wouldn't have changed the fact that they were down to 13 men would it?

 

[Rinkadink]

he did nothing wrong on Saturday

But he did, so the laws have had to he immediately updated to make it absolutely clear (he didn't apply protocols) - the reason there have been no real instances of this before is due to referees following protocol properly. Four world cup referees have said he did not follow them on top of that, what more evidence do you need?

As an aside, do you know how Heinz sustained the head injury?

 

[RedruthRFC]

But he did, so the laws have had to he immediately updated to make it absolutely clear (he didn't apply protocols) - the reason there have been no real instances of this before is due to referees following protocol properly.

This is a large part of my bugbear. Why are protocols such a closely guarded secret that only those within the game are party to how a game of rugby should be run? As far as I can see, all it achieves is to make an already difficult to understand game all the more difficult and sets up referees for criticism when fans aren't party to sufficient facts to understand the decision that they made.

 

[Every Time Ref]

This is a large part of my bugbear. Why are protocols such a closely guarded secret that only those within the game are party to how a game of rugby should be run? As far as I can see, all it achieves is to make an already difficult to understand game all the more difficult and sets up referees for criticism when fans aren't party to sufficient facts to understand the decision that they made.

I agree with this.

What the referee did was wrong. It wasn't legislated in the law, but the fact that this is the first time it has happened shows that there was already a VERY clear understanding in place across the rugby world (professionals, amateurs, fans, referees alike) that referees should not restart until both teams are ready. There are more sources than just the written law book for codifying how rugby is officiated, the game is chock full of stuff that isn't written down in the laws but is how things are done. If tomorrow a referee refereed a game by the letter of the law and nothing else, it would be chaos, and close to unrecognisable as our sport.

I was thinking of it as "convention" or "precedent", but "protocols" is probably a better way of looking at it.

So - why not just write it into the ******* rulebook??

 

[Alanx7]

I agree with this.

What the referee did was wrong. It wasn't legislated in the law, but the fact that this is the first time it has happened shows that there was already a VERY clear understanding in place across the rugby world (professionals, amateurs, fans, referees alike) that referees should not restart until both teams are ready. There are more sources than just the written law book for codifying how rugby is officiated, the game is chock full of stuff that isn't written down in the laws but is how things are done. If tomorrow a referee refereed a game by the letter of the law and nothing else, it would be chaos, and close to unrecognisable as our sport.

I was thinking of it as "convention" or "precedent", but "protocols" is probably a better way of looking at it.

So - why not just write it into the ******* rulebook??

Whatever the rules say & whatever we may think the fact is the ref is always right & if he gives it then that's it. I doubt if he would make that decision again? No point discussing otherwise....we move on to the next game

 

[RedruthRFC]

Whatever the rules say & whatever we may think the fact is the ref is always right & if he gives it then that's it

I know this is what you tell the U8s on a Sunday morning, but nobody actually believes it do they? Least of all unions who employ citing officers and referees assessors.

 

[Every Time Ref]

It depends on context. If you're a player then focusing on feeling hard done by does you no favours, the best you can do is move on, but if you're a fan of the game and want the game to solve its problems then yes you should complain when something's wrong.

And if you're a rugby fan online then you need something to talk about right??

 

[bushytop]

It depends on context. If you're a player then focusing on feeling hard done by does you no favours, the best you can do is move on, but if you're a fan of the game and want the game to solve its problems then yes you should complain when something's wrong.

And if you're a rugby fan online then you need something to talk about right??

I'm inclined to agree but I think this comes back to 'smaller' nations (with less fans vocalising their grumbles) getting absolutely pilloried by a large number of English fans for complaining about poor refereeing decisions in the past. Without wanting to sound condescending, you can't have it both ways and eventually you will always reap what you sow.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'm inclined to agree but I think this comes back to 'smaller' nations (with less fans vocalising their grumbles) getting absolutely pilloried by a large number of English fans for complaining about poor refereeing decisions in the past. Without wanting to sound condescending, you can't have it both ways and eventually you will always reap what you sow.

Or it comes down to the fact that some people just want to play "blame England" even when there is a clear issue in the law that is highlighted in a game against England. Scrum laws were changing anyway regardless of the 30-3 win. The offside law would also have been changed if that same tactic was applied against another side. The thing is people taking the **** like that doesn't tend to happen so much to other sides though. England is the game where it's deemed that bending the legality of the game to the extreme is ok because it's England. Rather than go "yes that is a serious loophole in the game that needed closing" we instead get "hurr durr England don't like it" knowing full well if employed against anyone else, they would complain just the same and world rugby would react just the same. Hell remember the shitstorm the Welsh kicked up about Webb not being in touch or even the disallowed try against England? You complained so much that you even dragged world rugby in to comment on a simply wrong decision for a try.

Our comments to World rugby have been about addressing loopholes in the law, you lot went to world rugby because you wanted a whinge with absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the actual soundness of the laws.

Also you all forget that we dominated in driving mauls so world rugby changed the laws so much that they completely vanished from the game overnight, immediately taking away a major advantage England had over pretty much every other nation.

Ultimately ask yourself, are England being unreasonable for having this or the offside loopholes addressed? Also ask yourself would you be perfectly happy with there being no change and your side then being on the receiving end of it?

 

[bushytop]

Or it comes down to the fact that some people just want to play "blame England" even when there is a clear issue in the law that is highlighted in a game against England. Scrum laws were changing anyway regardless of the 30-3 win. The offside law would also have been changed if that same tactic was applied against another side. The thing is people taking the **** like that doesn't tend to happen so much to other sides though. England is the game where it's deemed that bending the legality of the game to the extreme is ok because it's England. Rather than go "yes that is a serious loophole in the game that needed closing" we instead get "hurr durr England don't like it" knowing full well if employed against anyone else, they would complain just the same and world rugby would react just the same. Hell remember the shitstorm the Welsh kicked up about Webb not being in touch or even the disallowed try against England? You complained so much that you even dragged world rugby in to comment on a simply wrong decision for a try.

Our comments to World rugby have been about addressing loopholes in the law, you lot went to world rugby because you wanted a whinge with absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the actual soundness of the laws.

Also you all forget that we dominated in driving mauls so world rugby changed the laws so much that they completely vanished from the game overnight, immediately taking away a major advantage England had over pretty much every other nation.

England feels hard done by, Wales feel hard done by... tomAto, TOMaTO...

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

England feels hard done by, Wales feel hard done by... tomAto, TOMaTO...

England address a loophole in the laws that requires world rugby attention to potentially fix
Wales get world rugby attention just for a whinge about a try. Not aiming to change anything, just to feel vindicated.

That's the difference.

 

[bushytop]

@ragerancher

I actually haven't spoken specifics and am not complaining about 'England' (or Wales or the union of any other country for that matter) contacting World Rugby to seek greater clarity/close of any potential loop holes, my point was that when English fans on here (as opposed to the RFU) are reacting like it's the end of the world because a decision that wasn't explicitly illegal went against you in a warm up (a bloody warm up mind) get some stick for this... it is in all probability precipitated by English fans dishing out a whole truck load of stick when fans of other countries (apwho are vastly outnumbered on here) have moaned about refereeing decisions.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

@ragerancher

I actually haven't spoken specifics and am not complaining about 'England' (or Wales or the union of any other country for that matter) contacting World Rugby to seek greater clarity/close of any potential loop holes, my point was that when English fans on here (as opposed to the RFU) are reacting like it's the end of the world because a decision that wasn't explicitly illegal went against you in a warm up (a bloody warm up mind) get some stick for this... it is in all probability precipitated by English fans dishing out a whole truck load of stick when fans of other countries (apwho are vastly outnumbered on here) have moaned about refereeing decisions.

Largely because it was so extraordinarily blatant and well beyond the realms of just a simple mistake by a ref, which happens all the time. This not including Biggar jumping at Itojes head. Funny this is a while back Webb jumped at an English players head and got away with it then too. General reffing gripes would have been the getting away with murder at the breakdown, whilst frustrating that tends to boil away soon. Something like the events that happened in the last game go beyond that because of how there really is no 2 ways about it or any room at all to argue in favour of the decisions. There is quite simply no excuse at all, it's sheer incompetence of the highest order. These are only warm up games but this same guy is going to be a ref in the world cup. This nonsense needs to be addressed now or would you prefer people kicked up a fuss later during the world cup instead and try to address it when it could have potentially already ****** up the chances of 1 team?

 

[bushytop]

Largely because it was so extraordinarily blatant and well beyond the realms of just a simple mistake by a ref, which happens all the time. This not including Biggar jumping at Itojes head. Funny this is a while back Webb jumped at an English players head and got away with it then too. General reffing gripes would have been the getting away with murder at the breakdown, whilst frustrating that tends to boil away soon. Something like the events that happened in the last game go beyond that because of how there really is no 2 ways about it or any room at all to argue in favour of the decisions. There is quite simply no excuse at all, it's sheer incompetence of the highest order. These are only warm up games but this same guy is going to be a ref in the world cup. This nonsense needs to be addressed now or would you prefer people kicked up a fuss later during the world cup instead and try to address it when it could have potentially already ****** up the chances of 1 team?

Well if the comments earlier in this thread on the subject are anything to go by... you'll (England) just appeal the decision and I'm sure the World Cup will be put on hold while a rematch is quickly organised (obviously after the rules have been changed/clarified that relates to the incident that caused you to lose in the first place) and then after you win the rematch (with the clarified/new rules) rugby's global hegemony will have returned and you will then 'allow' the competition to proceed.

How many 'mulligans' do England get in this fantasy anyway?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

There is a certain irony about the Welsh, of all people, saying other nations get special treatment

 

[bushytop]

There is a certain irony about the Welsh, of all people, saying other nations get special treatment

Mike at his sh@-house best there, good times.

 

[Scotty]

There is a certain irony about the Welsh, of all people, saying other nations get special treatment

Hope the player got cited and a 6 month ban and a pay cut for that! Outragous that he took a chance and played the ref like that. Not the refs fault he was an idiot.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

There is a certain irony about the Welsh, of all people, saying other nations get special treatment

They changed the TMO rules multiple years later just because it happened against Ireland you know!

 

[MikeTheNative]

Incorrect and 50/50 decisions are just part of the game............................ unless they affect my team and then they are a travesty.