• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Alan Lewis strikes again

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
NTA said:
No - refs are sacred cows under IRB guidelines. There are pre-game discussions but more often than not the ref has last say on anything. The assessment process for refs is not very transparent and, with such a shortage of refs at all levels of the game, we're kind of lucky to have what we've got...

When you say not very transparent, many people have no idea.
As a level II referee and referee coach I personally have been 'hauled over the coals' for daring to criticise a referee. The various refereeing bodies are extremely sensitive when it comes to 'negative comment' on their own. Suffice to say I doubt Alan lewis will field any comment other than 'well done old chap'.
Granted the Qld association has made some ground and is a bit more tolerant nowadays and are working towards a better reporting system but generally the other bodies do not like criticism and are more prepared to bury their heads and all will pass.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Aus knew that going off their feet was going to be punished but they didn't adjust, but he was just as crap for both sides.

The Aus scrum continually is last the pack and neither prop touches on anything other than the arm or binds correctly. Robinson puts a hand on the ground and then levers off the ground to drive up and under. Baxter binds on the arm. They are still an accident waiting to happen.

Lewis's yellow card was highly questionable, especially as he showed no consistency through the rest of the game with like.
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
The yellow card for me is still one of the worse decisions I saw on the tour. I still think it was made because of the person he was penalising, rather than the offence.

Anyway, anyone else notice how few penalties were given for holding on? I saw many occasions which, in the S14, would've been penalties (or, rather, half-arms) for the tackled player holding on with a man on his feet, but they were rarely given. The refs seemed more worried about the attacking players leaving their feet rather than the tackled player holding on.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Agree, consistency and penalising for inconsequential activity is the main bug bear - and incompetance.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Ash said:
The yellow card for me is still one of the worse decisions I saw on the tour. I still think it was made because of the person he was penalising, rather than the offence.

Anyway, anyone else notice how few penalties were given for holding on? I saw many occasions which, in the S14, would've been penalties (or, rather, half-arms) for the tackled player holding on with a man on his feet, but they were rarely given. The refs seemed more worried about the attacking players leaving their feet rather than the tackled player holding on.
Reminds me there was one penalty in the 2nd half from memory where we we done (on attack) for a player off the feet, and they had 2 tacklers lying all over the tackled player, one completely on our side. Toss a coin, Mr Lewis!
 

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
To answer my own question (from today's Tele):

"The ARU will be sweating on the report of Sunday's official referee assessor, Michel Lamoulie of France. O'Neill is anxious to know how Lamoulie rated Lewis's performance.

"I'll have another conversation with the IRB and I'll ask about the assessment, just out of interest," O'Neill said. "
 

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
Re: Allan Lewis strikes again

PhucNgo said:
Cracker of a match, and Wales probably deserved to win, but can anyone tell me whether they were playing the offside-tackle ELV? If not then Jones' last penalty was fair as the Welsh player who went in to take the ball from Ione was onside i.e. it was general play as it could be argued that no ruck had formed, but if the ELV was in play then he was clearly offside i.e. on the wrong side of the tackle and Smith had plenty of reason to complain.

It's not part of the Global 13 ELVs, so presumably not.

If the players don't know what laws they're playing under at this stage of a tour, someone has cocked up badly on the preparation stakes.
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Interesting - the Welsh player was not offside, but we were penalised for going off our feet when the ball was essentially on the ground - allowing any player to dive on it without penalty. Its not a ruck after all...
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Ah ha - you are the only one to spot it.
A ruck had not formed and they were not playing the tackle law offside.
The only thing that Lewis could have interpreted is going to ground at the tackle (within 1 metre thereof). If that was his thinking, then he is correct. (law 15/6/a).
However, a tackle had occured and as such the Welsh player could not technically form or join a ruck without coming thru the gate, so he was technically offside.
A player forming or joining a ruck or playing the ball at the tackle must do so from behind the last feet (law 15/6/c).
From watching any and all replays, the Welsh player committed his offence BEFORE the Aussie infringement.
 
P

PhucNgo

Guest
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I think you are all missing the point in this discussion. Lewis clearly thinks there is different rules depending on the colour of your jersey. Once was excusable, two times in a row and it looks like bias. Surely some independant viewers are also seeing it this way?
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
PhucNgo said:
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

I think RW is right - the rule includes forming a ruck, and thus the Welsh player must have come through the gate. All players must come through the gate, no matter what. This was changed/chosen to be enforced way back around 2003/04 I think, before which previously you used to be able to do what the Welsh player did.
 
F

formeropenside

Guest
PhucNgo said:
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.

Correct, as I understand it (which I generally dont) save for the fact that the two wallaby support players there made it a ruck, and hands off by the defender. Don't forget too that Burgess (or someone) had the ball in his hands when the whistle blew against Digby for holding on.
 

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
formeropenside said:
PhucNgo said:
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.
Correct, as I understand it (which I generally dont) save for the fact that the two wallaby support players there made it a ruck, and hands off by the defender. Don't forget too that Burgess (or someone) had the ball in his hands when the whistle blew against Digby for holding on.

A ruck is one or more players from each side, but at least one from both, on their feet and bound over the ball on the ground. There was no Welsh player bound to an Aussie.

And you used to be an openside breakaway? :nta: :nta: :nta: I'll bet you got pinged a lot.
 
F

formeropenside

Guest
Lindommer said:
formeropenside said:
PhucNgo said:
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.
Correct, as I understand it (which I generally dont) save for the fact that the two wallaby support players there made it a ruck, and hands off by the defender. Don't forget too that Burgess (or someone) had the ball in his hands when the whistle blew against Digby for holding on.

A ruck is one or more players from each side, but at least one from both, on their feet and bound over the ball on the ground. There was no Welsh player bound to an Aussie.

And you used to be an openside breakaway? :nta: :nta: :nta: I'll bet you got pinged a lot.

Yes.

But seriously, I also thought the Welsh player was in contact with the Aussies with his arms.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Re: Allan Lewis strikes again

Virgil said:
So hows the loss and Dean in particular being taken back home?

Given this is not a rugby-centric country it barely raised a blip on the sporting community as a whole. The cricket season has started, the AFL draft was on - and the leaguies are still in shock from losing the LWC to NZ.

I thought it was a great result (the LWC) though I never wish that my country loses to anybody in any sport - but if it has to be to somebody, let it be the Kiwis (unless it's rugby union of course) - and in cricket I had to give India a big pat on the back for being too good for our spoilt brat team. It was a good result for world cricket and I suspect it will do us no harm in preparing for SA and the Ashes tour later on.

But I digress.

As for the referee - I thought he was a lot worse in Hong Kong where he was literally appalling, but Wales were the better team on the night and deserved to win.

I thought Wales were a great chance to knock us over as we had been lucky the week before in Paris, and they had played well despite losing to the Boks and Blacks. Of all the Euro sides, and probably of all top rugby nations, they were the team with fewest new players post RWC.

Oz had chances to score tries in the second half. Their try late in the game indicated how they should have played with good possession in the 2nd half but they persevered with pick and drives at the money end of the field instead and surrendered the ball as they have so often this year. Yet they seemed surprised.

The referee had nothing to do with that nor with a host of other deficiencies. Add in Mortlock's early injury which was more detrimental to us that any during or pre-match to our opponents, and things didn't look good. That injury knocked the stuffing out of us for quite some time.

It does not stop one from thinking "what-if" the ref did this or that, especially the card to Moore yet none given to Ryan Jones for a similar incident, but these miss the point that Oz could have scored more points and should have covered the breaks that Wales made, but they weren't good enough to do either.

The assessment on Deans will be quite good. I'd give him a B- but not a B+. He gets a big tick for introducing a lot of new players. Most teams do this post RWC but we thought that some of the players he picked for the various squads during the year weren't good enough, at least I didn't, but they all showed promise.

He doesn't get a tick for our good showing against the All Blacks (though we lost 3 tests to 1), because we were just as good against them with Knuckles. But he does get a tick for our win in Durban.

His biggest black mark was not fixing the bane of Knuckles Connelly - consistent inconsistency. For Connolly the tame game against the Poms in the last RWC was inexplicable as they weren't that good IMO - full marks for their improvement during the RWC and all that but we knew them well and still we didn't front up.

This year the Wallabies won against the All Blacks in Sydney but followed that with a flat losing display in Auckland the following weekend. Likewise a win in Durban was followed by our being thrashed in JHB. Yarda, yarda.

The other big negative was a lack of skill shown by the backs. Sure, the players available in the S14 don't compare with those of prior years in their ability to pass the ball accurately both ways at speed, to add value to the players inside and outside of them by using the ball better, nor are many of them elite kickers of the ball either for distance or to create attacking chances, but one didn't see the improvement during the year that one expected.

He gets a bigger tick in the forwards though one thinks that much of it is attributable to forwards coach Foley.

Usually they were diligent in the physical contests, choosing when to compete and when not to, but they didn't have the weight of participation that the All Blacks have and indeed Wales had, in those contests where counter rucking was on the cards. Nor was defence against weighty counter rucking big enough or timely enough as it should have been. They didn't shift opponents enough; literally.

I'm still not on the Deans band wagon, but I hope that I have reason to change that next year.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
So Lee, you keep saying you're not on the band wagon. Fair enough, but who would you rather have seen as coach, and how do you think they might have done better? Not fishing, genuine question.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
If this is Deans Bandwagon thread I just want to say that I'm the designated driver.

For all his faults, JO'N's greatest coup was pretending to be sick so that we could choose our coach after NZ chose theirs. Genius!
 
F

formeropenside

Guest
Yeah, re Deans: look, its a par for the course Wallabies year. Win one AB test, nearly win another but manage not too, beat the Boks while losing at least once, beat the NH tours in June, but lose a test on the return NH Spring Tour.

Last year it so happened that the NH loss was v England by 2 points in a WC QF. It happens.

Hopefully Deans can improve in Year 2.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
PhucNgo said:
I don't think a tackle constitutes a ruck, ergo the Welsh player helped himself to the ball in general play. I think the rule sucks, but there you go.
A player cannot play the ball even at a tackle unless he joins or plays that ball from behind the last feet,- so he was offside in playing that ball.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top