CAS Rugby 2023

[Running_rugby_1954]

Round 5 predictions
Cranbrook 20+
Barker 20+
Waverley vs Aloys at Death Valley The Public Park will be closer than people think, this is a matchup St Aloysius often gets up for. However, I think R.Stock will get up for this fixture, and as I will be in attendance it would be a delight to meet the young man. Good luck to both sides.

Fun fact 3: Aloys have beaten Waverley at QP more times in the last 20 years than Cranbrook with 3 wins. Cranbrook has 2 - both in their great 2014 team who played Waverley twice at QP.

 

[Lachie Goon]

Fun fact 3: Aloys have beaten Waverley at QP more times in the last 20 years than Cranbrook with 3 wins. Cranbrook has 2 - both in their great 2014 team who played Waverley twice at QP.

How do you find your stuff RR1954? terrific CAS rugby knowledge!!!

 

[BarkerFan420]

Don't be surprised if Juan De Lange comes off the bench for Barker this Saturday. I've heard he's been running well for the 2nd xv! Big, hard-running South African boy, built like a rhino, they just breed them differently over there. After a stint back home in South Africa he will be rampaging, I'd be cautious if I was trinity. Also heard he causes a ruckus on and off the field

 

[RedOrDead]

I watched the Barker/Cranbrook incident again. It's kind of hypnotic, because it's so unusual. You could set it as a question in a refereeing exam. I think the correct decision would have been to penalise Barker for using a flying wedge - you can't bind onto the ball carrier before contact, and Barker certainly did that. I don't, however, put that down to malfeasance on the part of the referee, assistant referee or Barker. It's just that everyone involved was confronted with a very, very unusual situation (who doesn't defend an attacking lineout in any way?) and in the heat of the moment, which is when these decisions are made, the focus was on obstruction and the flying wedge rule was overlooked. Which is understandable - when did you last see a flying wedge penalised?

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine, need more then 1 player bound to constitute a flying wedge. Additionally, the rule exists because the wedge creates too much force (three players or more players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. The flying wedge shape is something teams I have played in have used, so something we discussed in detail with Shute shield referees. In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

 

[BarkerFan420]

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine. Additionally, the rule exists because it creates too much force (three players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. This is also a tactic I have personally used (and not been pinged for). In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

W opinion

 

[Snort]

Hey Snort,

Definition of flying wedge is ambiguous. However, purely from experience, this would not constitute a flying wedge. The flying wedge is something I have specifically discussed with a couple of Shute Shield referees last year. They say that one player can bind before contact and that's fine, need more then 1 player bound to constitute a flying wedge. Additionally, the rule exists because the wedge creates too much force (three players or more players bound at full speed), and prevents a tackler from having a safe place to put head in tackle. Therefore, the action would need to be forceful for a "flying wedge" to be called. The flying wedge shape is something teams I have played in have used, so something we discussed in detail with Shute shield referees. In this scenario, we see that the players bind when stationery. Hence it is not forceful and from that conversation alone, I do not believe it would constitute a flying wedge.

Additionally, please see below an article I have just found:

Ask the Ref - 'The Flying Wedge' | Ospreys

www.ospreysrugby.com

With that said, I don't think this video constitutes a flying wedge, and at no point should Barker have been penalised... however... just to make this even more complicated then it already is... Cranbrook could have potentially been pinged for stepping away from the line-out before it was finished.

Because that's what we need here... More confusion.

That's a valid view. It's a highly unclear situation, because you so rarely see a team not attempt to defend at all, and the Laws don't really contemplate the idea that players won't defend. This is why I say the video could be used in a refereeing exam - there's nothing but confusion here!

 

[BarkerFan420]

Cranbrook has crunched everyone in the cricket the last few years. A Cranbrook parent told me the other day that last season's 1st XI contained seven scholarship boys. "It might have gone a bit far", was his comment.

rugby forum champion

 

[RedOrDead]

rugby forum champion

It's relevant.

It's a rebuttal to the Barker "S word" debate.

The point being Cranbrook do it for cricket. Trinity for athletics and basketball (do they do it for vollyeball? or are Trinity genuinely just a volleyball powerhouse). Waverley for rugby. Knox for tennis and swimming. It's just business as usual.

I don't think Aloys do it for anything but could be wrong.

 

[james richards]

It's relevant.

It's a rebuttal to the Barker "S word" debate.

The point being Cranbrook do it for cricket. Trinity for athletics and basketball (do they do it for vollyeball? or are Trinity genuinely just a volleyball powerhouse). Waverley for rugby. Knox for tennis and swimming. It's just business as usual.

I don't think Aloys do it for anything but could be wrong.

the Assistant referee was the dad of the hooker ... sounds a bit sketchy to me having him making a decision like that at such a crucial point in the game the dad shouldn't be there at all he's a barker dad and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a flag for a 1sts game

 

[RedOrDead]

the Assistant referee was the dad of the hooker ... sounds a bit sketchy to me having him making a decision like that at such a crucial point in the game the dad shouldn't be there at all he's a barker dad and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a flag for a 1sts game

Prove it.

 

[Jumping_jack]

Prove it.

I’m not going to post it, because that would not be fair. But I did just find a picture in a matter of 2 minutes on Facebook of the touchy and his son standing together.

So yeah, jump on Facebook and that proves it.

A good reminder for everyone to check privacy settings on your socials.

 

[RedOrDead]

I’m not going to post it, because that would not be fair. But I did just find a picture in a matter of 2 minutes on Facebook of the touchy and his son standing together.

So yeah, jump on Facebook and that proves it.

A good reminder for everyone to check privacy settings on your socials.

Even if this is true (kid does have his privacy settings on... go figure) schools DO NOT appoint referees.

And additionally, we've boiled this whole situation down to this:
- No penalty should have been called against Barker in the first place.
- Referee voluntarily approached touch judge.
- Touch judge makes the right call.
- Referee decides to award try... not assistant referee.

The only thing that is up for debate really is whether play should have died when whistle was blown (which would have resulted in Barker having another opportunity to score 5 metres out, which probably ends in a Barker try anyways), or whether because the whistle was blown when Barker player was in process of diving for line, it is reasonable to deduce that a try was CERTAIN and hence try is good.

 

[Jumping_jack]

Even if this is true schools DO NOT appoint referees.

And additionally, we've boiled this whole situation down to this:
- No penalty should have been called against Barker in the first place.
- Referee voluntarily approached touch judge.
- Touch judge makes the right call.
- Referee decides to award try... not assistant referee.

The only thing that is up for debate really is whether play should have died when whistle was blown (which would have resulted in Barker having another opportunity to score 5 metres out, which probably ends in a Barker try anyways), or whether because the whistle was blown when Barker player was in process of diving for line, it is reasonable to deduce that a try was CERTAIN and hence try is good.

It’s also against CAS by laws and St aloysius had points taken off then for doing the same in football.

Those still searching for the photo(if you don’t believe me), Barker congratulated all CAS reps on the 21st of June and posted it on Facebook. And that post has a lot of likes.

 

[RedOrDead]

It’s also against CAS by laws and St aloysius had points taken off then for doing the same in football.

Those still searching for the photo(if you don’t believe me), Barker congratulated all CAS reps on the 21st of June and posted it on Facebook. And keegans family were very happy to like the post.

Once again. Even if this is true... Schools do not appoint refs for 1stXV games... and the right call by law was made (worst case scenario for Barker should have been their ball 5 metres out).

At worst this is a bad look.

 

[Jumping_jack]

Once again. Even if this is true... Schools do not appoint refs for 1stXV games... and the right call by law was made (worst case scenario for Barker should have been their ball 5 metres out).

At worst this is a bad look.

You did ask it to be proven.

Done.



Schools do appoint one touch judge for firsts games. The ref and one touchy by nsw refs.

 

[RedOrDead]

You did ask it to be proven.

Done.

Yes. Fair enough. His father does look like the touchy (can't see touches face, but similar beard).

Let's just say for arguments sake we can confirm it is his father.

Everything else I have argued is still true.

This isn't some cheating scandal because NSW referees appoint refs AND additionally I have completely broken down every potential infringement Barker could have been called for, and its evident that there should never have been a penalty blown in first place.

The right call was made and the only thing that is up for debate is whether play should have died when whistle was blown (which would have resulted in Barker having another opportunity to score 5 metres out, which probably ends in a Barker try anyways), or whether because the whistle was blown when Barker player was in process of diving for line, it is reasonable to deduce that a try was CERTAIN and hence try is good. And as I said earlier ref made this call, not assistant ref.

This is merely a really bad look, but the right call was made in the end.

 

[CAS_Rugby]

That is terrible. Barker appointed a touchy to a game, whose son was playing in that game.

Thats almost the worst thing they could do. What a terrible look.

 

[Snort]

I refuse to believe that the touch judge is the player's father. Or anyone's father. No woman I ever met would sleep with a man with that ponytail.

 

[Running_rugby_1954]

That is terrible. Barker appointed a touchy to a game, whose son was playing in that game.

Thats almost the worst thing they could do. What a terrible look.

I mean, not the worst.

But why on Earth would they let that happen?

But also, how could the dad possibly do it? I could not touch judge my sons or daughters rugby games with the knowledge it would create this situation.

 

[RedOrDead]

I mean, not the worst.

But why on Earth would they let that happen?

But also, how could the dad possibly do it? I could not touch judge my sons or daughters rugby games with the knowledge it would create this situation.

Believe to or not... I do agree.

Blatantly stupid on the fathers behalf. Stupid on NSW rugby's behalf too, but the father should have known better.