Blues v Hurricanes Super Rugby rd 1 2013

[Inside Shoulder]

Huge call from TMO, Vinny Munro.
Wingers shoulder to shoulder and blue knocks the ball dead.
TMO conclude he did so deliberately: i dont agree but accept that minds could reasonably differ on this issue.

Law 10.2 says:

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that
would probably otherwise have been scored.

Munro said "take him (i.e. the player who knocked the ball dead) out of the equation and a try would have been scored".
The test is, however, that the infringement prevents a try: that is not the same as removing the player who committed the offence from the whole transaction.
The player could have dealt with the situation other than by knocking the ball dead: any one of the alternatives he had would have prevented a try being scored. For instance trying to grab and ground the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it was worthy of a penalty but no penalty try nor sin bin.

It was definitely an over the top call from Munro. The premise of pretending the offending player no longer exists is stupid.

 

[Bardon]

Thought this was a fantastic game and the Blues did really well to come back after that penalty try. It's just a pity there were so few fans there to witness it, but I guess Hurricanes fans will be glad they stayed at home.

 

[Riptide]

NZ Conference is superbly entertaining. The attitude to the game to give it a go is the way it should be in Aus. Blues look like they will be very formidable and their ridiculous talent should help sell a few tickets when they travel.

 

[Ash]

Those back three for the Blues look very dangerous with some space. If Ranger passed a few they would've scored a few more, but then Ranger also looked very dangerous.

I thought it was deliberate and a yellow was probably fair, but the penalty try was too much. It was not guaranteed at all that Savea would've out it down cleanly under pressure.

 

[Bullrush]

I think it was worthy of a penalty but no penalty try nor sin bin.

It was definitely an over the top call from Munro. The premise of pretending the offending player no longer exists is stupid.

This. TMO said that if Halai wasn't there then Savea would have scored the try. Wow. Really? Well let's pretend that none of the defenders were there, how many tries could you award then?!?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

This. TMO said that if Halai wasn't there then Savea would have scored the try. Wow. Really? Well let's pretend that none of the defenders were there, how many tries could you award then?!?

Probably would have been better off if he hadn't explained his reasoning

 

[Braveheart81]

Can a moderator rename this thread to Hurricanes vs Blues?

 

[Dan54]

I think the rules now say if an offender infringes, you have to take him out of the picture,ie Halai did nothing except try and pat ball dead, and as he did nothing else to prevent try he has to be taken out of situation, so a penalty try. I didn't think it was myself, but I thought Halai definitely batted ball dead, so it's not Munro's fault, he just sticking to rules as far as I see. I personally thought it a penalty and yellow card, but not sure what else.
Still when you think yellow card to stop try maybe it was a penalty try.......

 

[Dan54]

Huge call from TMO, Vinny Munro.
Wingers shoulder to shoulder and blue knocks the ball dead.
TMO conclude he did so deliberately: i dont agree but accept that minds could reasonably differ on this issue.

Law 10.2 says:


Munro said "take him (i.e. the player who knocked the ball dead) out of the equation and a try would have been scored".
The test is, however, that the infringement prevents a try: that is not the same as removing the player who committed the offence from the whole transaction.
The player could have dealt with the situation other than by knocking the ball dead: any one of the alternatives he had would have prevented a try being scored. For instance trying to grab and ground the ball.

Sorry IS hadn't read this, but it exactly what I meant, the player COULD of dealt with situation in other means but didn't, you cannot surely say from now on that you have to take into account what a player could of done legally and then say oh well it MIGHT NOT of been a try.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Sorry IS hadn't read this, but it exactly what I meant, the player COULD of dealt with situation in other means but didn't, you cannot surely say from now on that you have to take into account what a player could of done legally and then say oh well it MIGHT NOT of been a try.

The rule tests the outcome achieved against the infringement not the presence of the infringer.

 

[Dan54]

Yep, but only way you it has to be ruled , it is the infringement that is judged. Anyway like you ,I thought it a little harsh, the bottom line is you are not allowed to bat ball over dead ball line, and Hallai,if he could of prevented the try legally, should of.

 

[No.8]

Any reason why Jack Lam wasnt playing?

 

[qwerty51]

Read he's still injured

 

[ACT Crusader]

Lam is still out and won't play again this week. Its a shame because they really need his style of play