Wales vs England - 16/03/2013

[j'nuh]

I worded it wrong. Maybe not blaming the loss, but taking away the credit from Wales and covering up their own players failures.

Evidence? There is absolutely nothing anywhere which can be clearly shown to demonstrate this. Of the many reasons for a coach to ask for clarification from the referee on a few things, spiting a nation is one of the least likely.

England got some bad luck at the scrum lottery. But England themselves were gifted a match by an enormously worse ref performance by Joubert against France. And Clancy against Italy also was clearly favouring England to win and being more generous to them and more harsh to Italy with his whistle. Also when it looked like Italy could seriously have a chance of winning a draw in the final minutes he bottled a decision for Italy and ignored it and allowed England to clear their lines.

Both those matches, the referee impacted the result far more than this in favour of England.

Nothing was heard then of poor referees, and contrary to that Rowntree said he had "submitted glowing reports" (http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_8578516,00.html).

Let's say you sit two exams. You get 90+/100 in one of them, 20/100 in the other. I'm fairly certain I know which performance you're more concerned about.

Why didn't England flag up ref performances that went their way? Because why should they? The England coaches aren't supposed to be a fair arbiter of refereeing standards. The coaches of other nations may have submitted bad reports on the referee in those games to the IRB. But England needs to know why they were penalised when they were, so they can improve their own game.

I can guarantee you that whoever you would replace him with there would be the same issues. The scrum is a farce, regardless of the referee.

Just look at it. I am sure a lot of the time the scrum just collapses and nobody is really at fault, and there is a penalty which nobody has a clue about. The same penalties would happen whatever referee unfortunately.

I disagree. I think that the scrum has become a studied underhand tactic because so many penalties can be won through it. smartcooky put a very good post up on here about how simply enforcing correct binding would help to avoid a lot of collapsed scrums: read here. I think that players are taught to win penalties, not scrummage correctly and poor officiating is letting them get away with it. Some referees are definitely better than others at the scrum.

Also it wasn't just the scrum that England had issue with - Lancaster also flagged up the breakdown.

 

[Ospreylian]

One of the incidents that Lancaster has complained about is the build-up to the first try. I've looked back at this several times now, and I really do not think what Ken Owens did was illegal nor a knock on. If you look closely he attempts to rip the ball from Wood (I think it is Wood anyway, if someone wants to clarify) as he goes into the standing tackle. When this fails he stands up again and then dives onto the ball. His left foot gets lifted slightly with the momentum of how he dived into the ruck, but I am very adamant that by the time Owens does eventually rip the ball from Wood both of his feet are firmly on the ground. After the ball is ripped it looks to me like Wood taps it backwards towards his team mates (perhaps by accident or on purpose to save possession). Tipuric then picks up the spilled ball, completely legally.

Why didn't England flag up ref performances that went their way? Because why should they? The England coaches aren't supposed to be a fair arbiter of refereeing standards. The coaches of other nations may have submitted bad reports on the referee in those games to the IRB. But England needs to know why they were penalised when they were, so they can improve their own game.

I see what you're trying to say, but if they are really flagging it up just to improve their own game, why don't they flag up lots of other decisions that go against them from other matches? It's not as if this is the first time they've had multiple penalties given against them in a match, so why have the coaches never questioned the officials before? Well it's obviously because they were winning prior to this game. But the match vs. Italy was hardly something to be proud about, so why have Lancaster/Rowntree kept quiet about that one? If they had lost that game things might be different.

The main problem I have about all this is that Walsh is now under a lot of scrutiny from the English rugby watching public, and all because these requests for "clarification" came out. The IRB may conduct an investigation, and they may well find that Walsh acted completely within the IRB laws. However, because it has gone public Walsh's reputation has been tarnished, regardless of the outcome of all this. This sort of thing needs to stay between the RFU and the IRB.

In regards to how this all came to the media's attention, I'm sure I saw a video where Lancaster was saying he was seeking clarification. But I've looked again for it and couldn't find it - not sure if anyone on here knows where it is? But anyway, saying that to a media outlet, imo, is the wrong way to handle a situation like this.

EDIT: and as for that article that stated that the Welsh front row collapsed the scrum 6 times on purpose, if we're going to just say random things that have no evidence to back them up then I could just as easily say I just watched Scrum V and Richard Hibbard was saying that the Welsh front row try and go out of their way to operate as legally as possible, and try and stay as square as possible. Doesn't mean anything, I know, but some articles are intent on spouting **** about hearsay. Just thought I would flag up something a player from the Welsh front row said for an alternative opinion (watch here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rly6j/Scrum_V_2012_2013_Six_Nations_Special/ )

 

[ratsapprentice]

The Ken Owens incident is quite clear cut. After his failed initial attempt to rip the ball in the tackle made by Adam Jones, he dives over Wood. At this point he has joined the ruck with no attempt to come through the gate, and his body weight is fully pressed onto his right elbow. He is in no way entitled to touch the ball. You are misunderstanding what Ken Owens is obliged to do in order to play the ball legally. His feet must be supporting his weight not just on the ground, he can be on one foot and still play the ball. You need to look at his upper body, which had flopped onto the tackled player/floor.

The referees' reputations will continue to be tarnished should they continue to sitick their heads in the sand over a very serious officiating issue in the professional game.

 

[j'nuh]

I see what you're trying to say, but if they are really flagging it up just to improve their own game, why don't they flag up lots of other decisions that go against them from other matches? It's not as if this is the first time they've had multiple penalties given against them in a match, so why have the coaches never questioned the officials before? Well it's obviously because they were winning prior to this game. But the match vs. Italy was hardly something to be proud about, so why have Lancaster/Rowntree kept quiet about that one? If they had lost that game things might be different.

But the issue isn't in the amount of penalties given away. Lancaster and Rowntree are flagging up that they didn't know why those penalties were given away. I'd assume that they were happy with the officiating of previous matches because it was clear in their minds as to why their team was penalised. As has been reported, they are seeking clarification.

The main problem I have about all this is that Walsh is now under a lot of scrutiny from the English rugby watching public, and all because these requests for "clarification" came out. The IRB may conduct an investigation, and they may well find that Walsh acted completely within the IRB laws. However, because it has gone public Walsh's reputation has been tarnished, regardless of the outcome of all this. This sort of thing needs to stay between the RFU and the IRB.

I don't know why they went public about it and because of that, I'm not going to say whether it was a good or bad idea. There are reasons that going public might be helpful. For example, it puts more pressure on the IRB to respond to the bad report. The problem I have is people jumping from them going public about it, to them trying to undermine the Welsh loss and spoil the party.

 

[Ospreylian]

The Ken Owens incident is quite clear cut. After his failed initial attempt to rip the ball in the tackle made by Adam Jones, he dives over Wood. At this point he has joined the ruck with no attempt to come through the gate, and his body weight is fully pressed onto his right elbow. He is in no way entitled to touch the ball. You are misunderstanding what Ken Owens is obliged to do in order to play the ball legally. His feet must be supporting his weight not just on the ground, he can be on one foot and still play the ball. You need to look at his upper body, which had flopped onto the tackled player/floor.

The referees' reputations will continue to be tarnished should they continue to sitick their heads in the sand over a very serious officiating issue in the professional game.

I think he does make a perfectly legal attempt through the middle of the ruck. The IRB rules also state nowhere that you must support your weight on just your feet. That would be ridiculous and pretty much physically impossible. If you watch when players are competing for the ball at a breakdown they are always supporting themselves on their feet but also using their arms, hands, or leaning on the player below them. Here are three laws about rucking and competing for the ball:

16.1 (b): "How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet.At least one player must be in physical contact with the opponent."

and,

16.2 (d): "All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet"

also,

16.3 (a): "players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet"

As far as I can see Owens adhered to all three of those laws, and not one of them says anything at all about having to support your own body weight. So I still don't see what Owens did wrong. And if it's about the entry, I can't see how that can be classed as a side entry. If that is a side entry then players would be being penalized left right and centre. Nor can I see how he could be penalized for not releasing the tackled player.

 

[dullonien]

I think he does make a perfectly legal attempt through the middle of the ruck. The IRB rules also state nowhere that you must support your weight on just your feet. That would be ridiculous and pretty much physically impossible. If you watch when players are competing for the ball at a breakdown they are always supporting themselves on their feet but also using their arms, hands, or leaning on the player below them. Here are three laws about rucking and competing for the ball:

16.1 (b): "How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet.At least one player must be in physical contact with the opponent."

and,

16.2 (d): "All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet"

also,

16.3 (a): "players in a ruck must endeavor to stay on their feet"

As far as I can see Owens adhered to all three of those laws, and not one of them says anything at all about having to support your own body weight. So I still don't see what Owens did wrong. And if it's about the entry, I can't see how that can be classed as a side entry. If that is a side entry then players would be being penalized left right and centre. Nor can I see how he could be penalized for not releasing the tackled player.

Sorry, you're wrong here. A player competing for the ball must support all his weight on his feet. He's not allowed to support himself with hands, arms or other players. Whether this always happens it debatable.

Owens was illegal. He entered from the side, and initially went off his feet.

 

[RugbyKing]

Sorry, you're wrong here. A player competing for the ball must support all his weight on his feet. He's not allowed to support himself with hands, arms or other players. Whether this always happens it debatable.

Owens was illegal. He entered from the side, and initially went off his feet.

But I've never seen anything in the IRB rules and regulations that actually states that you must support all your weight on your feet. Also, how is it physically possible to bend over that far and still be supporting your whole weight solely on your feet? Especially during a fast paced game where rucks form and end within seconds. It just seems silly to me. All I'm saying is I've never seen anyone ever compete for the ball at a ruck WITHOUT using their hands or other body parts to support their weight. So should every player who does this be penalized? Even though it states nowhere in the IRB rules that they are not allowed to do this.

I also think it's very debatable as to whether it was a side entry or not. Perhaps I can see cases for and against it being a side entry, but it's not clear cut enough to definitively be one or the other imo. He went off his feet initially, yes, but during the act of ripping the ball both feet were on the ground.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Why do you think jackalers are so highly treasured? Because staying on your feet while competing for the ball is very, very difficult, it's a skill.
I can lie on the floor and still have both soles of my feet in contact with the ground, you are both misinterpreting the rules.
You are right in that not literally 100% of their weight will be on their feet, but as long as they are not leaning on the ground then there is no issue.
You could think of it this way: "Can the player contesting for the ball stand up in one movement without using his arms?"
For a masterclass, watch this:



Notice that his arms are on the ground, however he is able to essentially deadlift the ball from the ruck.

Also, technically I don't think he has to come through the gate as there is only 1 England player set up to ruck, and thus the ruck is not technically formed.
But in my experience refs at all levels will usually ping you for coming in from the side at that stage.

 

[Ospreylian]

But I've never seen anything in the IRB rules and regulations that actually states that you must support all your weight on your feet. Also, how is it physically possible to bend over that far and still be supporting your whole weight solely on your feet? Especially during a fast paced game where rucks form and end within seconds. It just seems silly to me. All I'm saying is I've never seen anyone ever compete for the ball at a ruck WITHOUT using their hands or other body parts to support their weight. So should every player who does this be penalized? Even though it states nowhere in the IRB rules that they are not allowed to do this.

I also think it's very debatable as to whether it was a side entry or not. Perhaps I can see cases for and against it being a side entry, but it's not clear cut enough to definitively be one or the other imo. He went off his feet initially, yes, but during the act of ripping the ball both feet were on the ground.

Exactly, if the rules don't say you have to support your weight on your feet, then why should you? Players use other body parts to support themselves all the time.

 

[RugbyKing]

Sorry to everyone. The last thing I put on this page was a good friend of my. I'm new to watch the rugby, so my friend help me understand the rules. He likes to argue so he pushed me aside to argue with everyone on here haha. He has much knowledge, you see

But I want to know from people, can a ruck collapse? What will happen if it collapsed? Thank you all a lot for your answers.

 

[Peat]

Exactly, if the rules don't say you have to support your weight on your feet, then why should you? Players use other body parts to support themselves all the time.

It is the commonly understood interpretation of the laws and to argue that it's suddenly not the case is quite simply wrong. That it is honoured as much as in the breach as in the observance is besides the point, as otherwise there would be very little rules left to rugby at all.

 

[psychic duck]

This is the turnover Lancaster wants "clarification" on.

 

[dullonien]

Ok, no ruck was formed, so he's not coming in from the side. But he still goes off his feet.

Ultimately, these things happen every-single-game, and sometimes they are missed. It is unfortunate that this particular one led to a try, but does that make this 'miss' by the ref any worse than any others?

Regarding the rules, the rules state that you must be on your feet, and the interpretation of 'on your feet' is that a player must support his body weight. Of course a little lee way is given, as there is in most aspects of the game, so occasionally a jackler may momentarily be slightly unbalanced and not penalised. It's down the the ref to decide, after all no one wants the whistle blown ever 30sec.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yeah, it would have been forgotten completely with 30 seconds had it not directly led to a try.
The reason "clarification" is being sought on it, is that Walsh actually said it was fine, he didn't miss it.

Realistically though, as a fan, in that situation I would have liked to have seen a short advantage been given to England to regain the ball and their momentum. Unless it was a repeat infringement.
I'm guessing most people would? (in general, not specifically that game)

 

[djames6]

If contributors believe that the Welsh penalties were guesswork then 'dream on'. Firstly, Adam J was on the blind side to the cameras during his 1st half drubbing of Marler, secondly, Cole was binding on Gethin J's arm and still getting a drubbing. The other English loose head was a joke, he just flopped to the ground. With Brian Moore commentating, who is not always unbiased when England are playing and considers himself a front row expert, I heard NO complaints at all from him re the Welsh scrummaging. As Hibbard says, its Rowntree trying his best to sound positive to his players.

Note, Ken Owens is the tackler so has his own set of laws during the formation of a ruck, he is allowed to go in the side.

The problem with the word 'set' is that it starts with a letter 's', this last word needs to start with a hard letter like a 'K'.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Yes you are right, as no ruck had been formed he had no real obligations in terms of positioning.
But being the tackler does not give you carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want at a ruck. He still needs to stay on his feet.
There is no real argument to be made against this, his handling of the ball was not legal.
Unless of course you have not naturally developed even a basic understanding of biomechanics and the laws regarding the ruck.

The apparent "issue" of scrums engaging before the referee wants them to is overblown by the refs themselves.
The reason the ref wants the packs to wait for his command is because he needs to check certain things in order to lessen the chance of a collapse.
Now, imagine that both packs engage at the same time, but before the referee wants them to. As long as the scrum stays up then there is no reason for the ref to restart it, although he inevitably will.
Only if the scrum collapses should it be reset, a matter of waiting 1-2 seconds to see if they stay up could save a whole minute. A measure intended to reduce the amount of scrum resets has seen referees prolong the entire process by being pedantic, and forgetting that as long as neither side has gained any advantage or collapsed then the engagement is successful.
The number of restarts could be further lessened by actually applying the laws which state very clearly that you can not drive until the ball is put in.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Duck'll enjoy this: GIF time!


Dived straight in off his feet and then handled the ball in the ruck:

He regained his feet afterwards, but he still went straight off to start with so should've been penalised.


Also:
Adam Jones illegally binding on the arm and also dragging Vunipola downwards:

Binding on the arm and then dropping his bind:

 

[dullonien]

The apparent "issue" of scrums engaging before the referee wants them to is overblown by the refs themselves.
The reason the ref wants the packs to wait for his command is because he needs to check certain things in order to lessen the chance of a collapse.
Now, imagine that both packs engage at the same time, but before the referee wants them to. As long as the scrum stays up then there is no reason for the ref to restart it, although he inevitably will.
Only if the scrum collapses should it be reset, a matter of waiting 1-2 seconds to see if they stay up could save a whole minute. A measure intended to reduce the amount of scrum resets has seen referees prolong the entire process by being pedantic, and forgetting that as long as neither side has gained any advantage or collapsed then the engagement is successful.
The number of restarts could be further lessened by actually applying the laws which state very clearly that you can not drive until the ball is put in.

But this would send out the wrong message to teams, especially the ones with the weaker scrums. The ref has to be strict here, due to the importance the 'hit' has in determining who wins the scrum. Getting the jump on the opposition really puts that team on the front foot from the off, and only the strongest of scrummaging props can recover from a lost 'hit' to re-gain ascendency.

Saying that it should just be allowed if the scrum stays up, or if both go early is akin to saying that it's OK for sprinters to jump the gun by a couple hundredths of a second so long as they all do it, or as long as only the slowest athletes in the race do. In the scrum, going early is illegal and ref's have to be strict from the outset to assert themselves, or teams will take the ****. This unfortunately might have to include re-setting a scrum where both sides have gone early.

There are timing issues with referees, but the biggest problem is with the 'hit' itself. Because it is so important to win this initial collision, sides are really on the edge when it comes to timing (like a sprinter, except with 8 working together). It wouldn't be difficult for a side to hold back and make sure the set command has been given, but they would then run the risk of losing the hit. Sprinting has solved their issue of false starts by being so harsh with the penalties that it becomes unthinkable to jump the gun, the same tactic isn't possible with rugby, so another solution must be found. It's an area of the game that won't be solved without a rule change to decrease the importance/remove the 'hit' imo.

Edit. Olyy, true, true and true. However we cannot see the other side of the scrums where Walsh is. He gave penalties from what he saw there, so there may very well have been similar issues from Cole. Slightly unfair? Maybe, but there were plenty of worse refereeing decisions this 6 nations.

 

[lynam1104]

Duck'll enjoy this: GIF time!


Dived straight in off his feet and then handled the ball in the ruck:

He regained his feet afterwards, but he still went straight off to start with so should've been penalised.


Also:
Adam Jones illegally binding on the arm and also dragging Vunipola downwards:

Binding on the arm and then dropping his bind:

I think you just out GIF'd duck

Well done

 

[Draggs]

A good prop cheats, a great prop gets away with it.