2015/16 Rugby 7's Round 4 - Sydney 6/7 February
- Thread starter Hugh Jarse
- Start date
- Status
All 8 players were lined out across the field attempting to be involved in the play. Who exactly was the extra player? Maybe it was Ioane who scored the try?
That meant the Australian players were trying their best to cover them.
Of course it has a substantial impact.
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
The extra player is #5 in this clip
He was meant to be subbed off (and indeed did come off before the try).
I dunno if you can say it's a substantial impact, he was out on the wing and no one slid out to cover him. There's maybe one bit at about :28 where you can see a guy 9top of the frame) tracking across in case he received a pass, but that guy has loads of time to reset himself (and indeed, I believe he's the guy who gets over the other side and is the last man drawn before Savea scores).
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
does it matter? I mean all seven in the team contribute to the game. Even in the case of exceptional individual brilliance the team still provide the framework.
same deal here, surely it is disingenuous to look at the vision 'to see if he participated'. If he is on the field playing (as opposed to running off) then he has contributed.
same deal here, surely it is disingenuous to look at the vision 'to see if he participated'. If he is on the field playing (as opposed to running off) then he has contributed.
If the extra player hadn't been out on the left hand side then Australia would have likely had one less player lined up on that side (given that you leave the outside player unmarked as you are playing a sweeper) and therefore been marking up better on the other side of the field.
In a game of so few players it is ridiculous to argue that an extra player doesn't make a big impact. Every player doesn't have to touch the ball for that impact to occur because the main tactic in attack is to try and create an extra player somewhere with some space and take advantage of that.
In a game of so few players it is ridiculous to argue that an extra player doesn't make a big impact. Every player doesn't have to touch the ball for that impact to occur because the main tactic in attack is to try and create an extra player somewhere with some space and take advantage of that.
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
Sure, and that's why it's a penalty offence. I'm disputing whether he had an impact on the try, not whether it should have been called. And to be honest, I wouldn't be against them introducing a harsher sanction for something like this if it's not noticed by the officials. But given there isn't a harsher sanction, it seems to me people calling for the match result to be over-turned or whatever are dreaming.
It's also worth bearing in mind that England in 03 were found to have ignored an instruction from the officials not to send the replacement on. That didn't happen in this case.
I don't think anyone has argued for the result to be overturned. I and others have argued they should be docked a couple of points in the series points total.
The result that the onus has been left to the referee to be responsible for it and that a team playing with an extra man only did it 'inadvertently' just encourages teams to cheat.
If the outcome from this situation was sufficiently harsh as should be warranted from fielding an extra player at a crucial time in a crucial match, then you'd never see it happen again.
Let's not forget that if a penalty had been called against NZ for having an extra player they would have lost the match.
The result that the onus has been left to the referee to be responsible for it and that a team playing with an extra man only did it 'inadvertently' just encourages teams to cheat.
If the outcome from this situation was sufficiently harsh as should be warranted from fielding an extra player at a crucial time in a crucial match, then you'd never see it happen again.
Let's not forget that if a penalty had been called against NZ for having an extra player they would have lost the match.
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
Yeah, but it wasn't called.
They don't change match results after the fact or dock competition points just cause a penalty was missed or called incorrectly. Ask the 2014 Waratahs.
As I said, I wouldn't have a problem with them introducing a harsher measure. But I would have a problem with a harsher measure being introduced retrospectively.
They don't change match results after the fact or dock competition points just cause a penalty was missed or called incorrectly. Ask the 2014 Waratahs.
As I said, I wouldn't have a problem with them introducing a harsher measure. But I would have a problem with a harsher measure being introduced retrospectively.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Nah, this is not a technical breach where the replacement player was over eager to get on & crossed briefly on the field.
I agree you can't take the tournament off them,but you can deduct points.
The major worry is that they have not introduced any protocols to ensure its never repeated.
Arrogance or incompetence?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
The IRB has really done them selves a massive disservice in a number of these "incidents and this is just the latest one.
How about the English inadvertent changing of the ball for Wilko to kick in the 2011 RWC. there have been other failures like this in the past. Where discretion is exercised on too many occasions to excuse management offences like this people rightly begin to complain. This is basic level ethics when it comes to enforcement of rules/laws. The fascination with legal types to hear all matters that occur has led to this pass where nobody is ever accountable for outcomes as their actions are always open to that discretion which allows a finding on "intent". Such an approach leads to a system being held in suspicion if not outright contempt.
How about the English inadvertent changing of the ball for Wilko to kick in the 2011 RWC. there have been other failures like this in the past. Where discretion is exercised on too many occasions to excuse management offences like this people rightly begin to complain. This is basic level ethics when it comes to enforcement of rules/laws. The fascination with legal types to hear all matters that occur has led to this pass where nobody is ever accountable for outcomes as their actions are always open to that discretion which allows a finding on "intent". Such an approach leads to a system being held in suspicion if not outright contempt.
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
This ruling tells me that the NZ education system is in such crisis that adults cannot count beyond seven, and that the IRFB recognise this and exonerate their rugby sevens team of accountablility.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
In the trial match last night, the Brumbies subbed on Smiler when Pocock was yellow carded and continued to play with 15 men until the next scrum was set. Frisby, the Reds' No 9, refused to feed the ball pointing out to the Ref that the Brumbies still had 15 on the ground. The matter was then resolved by Smiler leaving the field.
Just an illustration of how the officials, especially the Referee, cannot be held responsible for errors of this kind. They are just too busy handling the multitude of issues that arise in the normal play.
World Rugby were way off in their decision regarding the NZ infraction. Intent notwithstanding, an appropriate sanction is required to be levelled at the offending team to ensure instances like this do not get repeated.
Just an illustration of how the officials, especially the Referee, cannot be held responsible for errors of this kind. They are just too busy handling the multitude of issues that arise in the normal play.
World Rugby were way off in their decision regarding the NZ infraction. Intent notwithstanding, an appropriate sanction is required to be levelled at the offending team to ensure instances like this do not get repeated.
- Status