NZ v SA

kudu314

Rugby Club Member
Just goes to show, there were indeed some things to look forward to being discussed on this thread. The Bledisloe Cup, the Ashes and something about leggings which I'll have to find out about! :D
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
Even though I am happy with the try being awarded I also think Kaplan has a point in saying that it probably should have been referred to the TMO. That's not to say that the TMO would have disallowed the try because as we have seen on this forum, it is a grey area where professional referees don't even agree with the interpretation!
Why? The TMO is there for when the referee is not sure. Here, it is to be presumed, he was happy with the play swo saw no need to "go upstairs". If we are going to do that for everything "just in case" games will take hours.

Kaplan's comment are sour grapes (as usual).
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
From Damo: Seems that pretty much every viewpoint on the issue has been expressed. Time for the thread to die a natural death I would have thought.

For an incident where pretty much everyone agrees that they would allow RM's try this thread has staying power.

There is good reason for that. It is it the only active thread of note. It is concerning critical action in a major game. It is borderline legal. It has video and colorful diagrams.

And, most importantly, it is multi faceted. Was RM 2m from the LO? Did he start early? Is a pod retreating past the 15m material? Is the jumper starting his jump early material?

Those are four challenging judgement calls. The first two on fact and whether C & O and the last two on materiality.
I've never had a problem with a referees judgement of fact. "That is what I saw" is always a good answer even when I saw something different.

However, 'materiality' is a whole new ball of wax. How a referee manages the game and interprets and handles the materiality of illegal actions will greatly influence the nature of the game.

For those that would sanction the ABs for lifting early because the deception drew the defenders away I ask:

"Do you also sanction a team when the ball is passed behind a decoy strike runner even when the decoy does not make contact with an opponent?". All too frequently the decoy is in front of the passer and is in an offside position and is influencing the defenders with their deception.

So, would you rule that the early LO jump is material but the decoy runner is not?
 
From Damo: Seems that pretty much every viewpoint on the issue has been expressed. Time for the thread to die a natural death I would have thought.

For an incident where pretty much everyone agrees that they would allow RM's try this thread has staying power.

There is good reason for that. It is it the only active thread of note. It is concerning critical action in a major game. It is borderline legal. It has video and colorful diagrams.

And, most importantly, it is multi faceted. Was RM 2m from the LO? Did he start early? Is a pod retreating past the 15m material? Is the jumper starting his jump early material?

Those are four challenging judgement calls. The first two on fact and whether C & O and the last two on materiality.
I've never had a problem with a referees judgement of fact. "That is what I saw" is always a good answer even when I saw something different.

However, 'materiality' is a whole new ball of wax. How a referee manages the game and interprets and handles the materiality of illegal actions will greatly influence the nature of the game.

For those that would sanction the ABs for lifting early because the deception drew the defenders away I ask:

"Do you also sanction a team when the ball is passed behind a decoy strike runner even when the decoy does not make contact with an opponent?". All too frequently the decoy is in front of the passer and is in an offside position and is influencing the defenders with their deception.

So, would you rule that the early LO jump is material but the decoy runner is not?
Exactly Marauder, you've now open the Chapter entitled 'selective materiality'
& the Section headed 'Personal interpretation' ,
which interestingly are to be found ahead of the page called "we'd like them to be penalised for everything we do & we wish we'd thought of and would like to get away with, but only if it results in a winning score against us"


OB, wasn't "spurious precision" introduced into this thread here
McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT
??
 

TheBFG

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
I still think the JG was very quick on the whistle, had he just taken a moment to eyeball his AR, take a breath etc etc he MIGHT have made another decision
 

OB..

, Advises in England
McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT
OB, wasn't "spurious precision" introduced into this thread here ??
No, it comes from the Laws, which was the point of my comment.
You have taken a couple of short extracts, out of context, with no references, and without making a point.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that you are taking a dig at somebody.

Here, for completeness, are the original contexts. Ian was simply applying what I later categorised as "spurious precisioin" in the Laws. Are you really saying you did not know that?

I reject any contention that McCaw was only 1m from the line-out, and that he moved toward the lineout before the ball was thrown, and here is the proof that he was in fact legally positioned

►The line-out (therefore LoT) was on the 5m line
► The line-out players are required to be 0.5m from the LoT therefore McCaw was required to be positioned 2m beyond them, at 2.5m from the LoT
In order to insist on a clear gap, 2m was specified, but as I have shown that is very difficult to measure accurately, and referees are happy if there is an unambiguous gap.

"2m" inthis case is an example of spurious precision.
 

B52 REF

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
dickie E -"Bledisloe 1 in 72 hours. This thread will be a distant memory by Sunday " NOT when wayne YC's RM for being within 2m of his LO (or tries to enter it contary to WB's guidance) when he knows he's not allowed to be therefore intentionally offending :)
 
OB,
I definitely didn't introduce precise measurement to this thread, in fact to the contrary, if you look at my post No2 it was 'pseudo predictive' in summarised the subsequent debate.
Nice to see NZ profit from a lineout variation, and for a change its one that was 'materially' Legal.
Kudu314's highlighting of a 'precise 2m' was merely following the precision lead set earlier in the thread, i drew your attention to that fact, in case you'd forgotten.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
I still think the JG was very quick on the whistle, had he just taken a moment to eyeball his AR, take a breath etc etc he MIGHT have made another decision
Yes, quick whistle because he saw no reason for otherwise. That begs the question: Should the man in the middle always check with his ARs? Or, should he expect the AR to pipe up if something is askew? The law supports reversing his decision if the AR spots a foot in touch but what about a judgement call like the RM try? Personally I'd rather leave the judgement issues of fact and materiallity to the referee.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
Yes, quick whistle because he saw no reason for otherwise. That begs the question: Should the man in the middle always check with his ARs? Or, should he expect the AR to pipe up if something is askew? The law supports reversing his decision if the AR spots a foot in touch but what about a judgement call like the RM try? Personally I'd rather leave the judgement issues of fact and materiallity to the referee.
if you want the AR to pipe up when he sees something, then you have to allow an extra second..
 
Overstepping the 15m line by even a little can be material. As soon as you overstep it, the defence know the ball MUST (by law) be thrown beyond the 15m line. Therefore they will concentrate their defence on attacks launched off the back jumper. Also the backs are allowed to approach as well.

So for me - a clear and obvious overstepping of the 15m line is always material, especially at the higher levels (as the players are more likely to notice and react to this)
Here is an example of a defender concentrating his efforts .... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ylKFlx6Wp50
 

OB..

, Advises in England
ob,
i definitely didn't introduce precise measurement to this thread, in fact to the contrary, if you look at my post no2 it was 'pseudo predictive' in summarised the subsequent debate.


Kudu314's highlighting of a 'precise 2m' was merely following the precision lead set earlier in the thread, i drew your attention to that fact, in case you'd forgotten.
zzzzzz
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
if you want the AR to pipe up when he sees something, then you have to allow an extra second..
If you don't whistle as soon as you see the ball grounded won't that promote wrestling and confusion?

Seems to me that you can insert a small delay between whistle and raising the arm.
 

TheBFG

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
Like I've said previously in this thread, "Damned if they do damned if they don't", but when I've got AR's I always eyeball them expecting a little thumbs up before I blow (as per my PMB to them).

In this case JG was unsighted for a crucial part of the lead up to the grounding and I THINK he should have eyeballed the AR on that touch just to clarify.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
If you don't whistle as soon as you see the ball grounded won't that promote wrestling and confusion?

Seems to me that you can insert a small delay between whistle and raising the arm.
blow the whistle, blow time off, go and have a chat, make decision