CAS Rugby 2023

[Jonte]

No. Cranbrook never joined the maul BUT ball was never passed back. Therefore, an obstruction never occurred. Play on.

Hopefully the Cranbrook boys learnt something from all this.

Lets stop calling it a Maul as it wasn't, it would require a player from either team.
1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.
2. It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet. A player ripping the ball from the ball carrier must stay in contact with that player until they have transferred the ball.
Given the ref blew his whistle prior to the grounding means the play has stopped. In this instance he could have agreed he got it wrong and maybe awarded a scrum to barker.
The ref can confer with his Assistant Referees (yes thats what they are called now) however is still 'The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match'

 

[RedOrDead]

Lets stop calling it a Maul as it wasn't, it would require a player from either team.

"Asks if the jumper retained ball when maul shape forms (not an actual maul as Cranbrook doesn't join)" - RedOrDead

I'm very aware, and covered that in my initial response to the video.

As was already stated. By the laws of the game. Yes. Should have been a scrum restart. But rugby is often criticised for a lack of common sense. Common sense prevails here. Try call was correct on that basis. Even if a scrum was awarded 5 metres out... You're probably seeing a Barker try anyways (I wish this was the case, because the whinging is ridiculous).

As I've previously stated, if you really think that Barker should be punished in this scenario because they understand the laws of the game and the Cranbrook pack / ref has no idea... I'd say that's illogical.

 

[james richards]

"Asks if the jumper retained ball when maul shape forms (not an actual maul as Cranbrook doesn't join)" - RedOrDead

I'm very aware, and covered that in my initial response to the video.

As was already stated. By the laws of the game. Yes. Should have been a scrum restart. But rugby is often criticised for a lack of common sense. Common sense prevails here. Try call was correct on that basis. Even if a scrum was awarded 5 metres out... You're probably seeing a Barker try anyways.

As I've previously stated, if you really think that Barker should be punished in this scenario because they understand the laws of the game and the Cranbrook pack / ref has no idea... I'd say that's illogical.

"Yes. Should have been a scrum restart." common sense isnt a law unfortunately you juststates it should have been a scrum restart. if common sense was a law then sure but it isn't the law states it should've just been a scrum restart

 

[RedOrDead]

"Yes. Should have been a scrum restart." common sense isnt a law unfortunately you juststates it should have been a scrum restart. if common sense was a law then sure but it isn't the law states it should've just been a scrum restart

Common sense has a place in every sport.

Whistle was blown during the process of diving for a certain try.

Even if it's a scrum 5 out, Barker probably score.

Better team won (as evidenced by only one team understanding the laws). Move on its boring.

 

[james richards]

Common sense has a place in every sport.

Whistle was blown during the process of diving for a certain try.

Even if it's a scrum 5 out, Barker probably score.

Better team won (as evidenced by only one team understanding the laws). Move on its boring.

common sense does not over-ride law.

the law is the law so it shouldn't have been a try.

we can move on no worries we know it's wrong even though you stated that it should have been a try.

 

[RedOrDead]

Which happened first? Would the player standing next to him have heard the whistle so stopped playing?

Whistle didn't blow until Barker player was starting to dive for line. Cranbrook player was chasing, and was never a chance.

 

[RedOrDead]

common sense does not over-ride law.

the law is the law so it shouldn't have been a try.

we can move on no worries we know it's wrong even though you stated that it should have been a try.

Even in the court of law equity exists...

Whistle was blown as player is diving. There is quite literally no way the Cranbrook player stops him, he isn't even close. Play on.

And as I've stated... What you are saying is the team who didn't understand the laws should benefit because the ref also doesn't know the laws.

Additionally, even if you believe there should have been a scrum 5 metres out (which I would have preferred, now we have to deal with this), chances are Cranbrook lose.

We are going in circles. So let's leave it here.

 

[scrumhead99]

Knox 17+
Barker 21+
Waverley 35+

 

[workingdasnipe]

Imagine a repeat of this. It would take all the power of the rugby gods...

Fun Fact: Waverley have not beaten Aloys at QP1 since 2017.

 

[RedOrDead]

Fun Fact: Waverley have not beaten Aloys at QP1 since 2017.

Really looking forward to a potential huge Waves underdog story this Saturday !

 

[Running_rugby_1954]

Fun Fact: Waverley have not beaten Aloys at QP1 since 2017.

Fun fact 2:

If Waverley win, it is their 4th premiership in 8 years.

Sadly, the best team Waverley has ever had missed their chance in 2021 due to Covid. So looking at 5 in the past 8 years. With Barker next at 3.

 

[Ziggy]

Even in the court of law equity exists...

Whistle was blown as player is diving. There is quite literally no way the Cranbrook player stops him, he isn't even close. Play on.

And as I've stated... What you are saying is the team who didn't understand the laws should benefit because the ref also doesn't know the laws.

Additionally, even if you believe there should have been a scrum 5 metres out (which I would have preferred, now we have to deal with this), chances are Cranbrook lose.

We are going in circles. So let's leave it here.

 

[bullocks]

As a neutral and having watched the play, imo :

The Ref ( who is in charge of the game and should know the rules ) blows the penalty and lifts his arm to Cranbrook as the Barker player breaks from the lineout/maul before the Barker player crosses the try line or dives over and grounds the ball.

The problem is, according to the Ref, he has seen a penalty ( correctly or incorrectly ) and the Cranbrook players make no attempt to tackle the Barker player as the penalty should halt play when the ref blows his whistle.

The Barker players approach the ref, the ref seeks advise from the touchy and after consultation, reverses his decision and awards the try.

Regardless if the ref was right/wrong in calling the penalty ( which ref has never made an incorrect call ), he is the boss. Not the
touch judge. Yes he can take advice but reversing the call is huge and causes these debates.

I don't blame the players for protesting the call cause is a big one yet the original penalty should have stood and no try to Barker.

Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision. Add to the fact the controversy about the touch judges relationship with a player, and the whole world blows up.

Ref needed to stand his ground and back his original decision. He is the one to take the blame for reversing it. No Try

 

[Hankspank]

As a neutral and having watched the play, imo :

The Ref ( who is in charge of the game and should know the rules ) blows the penalty and lifts his arm to Cranbrook as the Barker player breaks from the lineout/maul before the Barker player crosses the try line or dives over and grounds the ball.

The problem is, according to the Ref, he has seen a penalty ( correctly or incorrectly ) and the Cranbrook players make no attempt to tackle the Barker player as the penalty should halt play when the ref blows his whistle.

The Barker players approach the ref, the ref seeks advise from the touchy and after consultation, reverses his decision and awards the try.

Regardless if the ref was right/wrong in calling the penalty ( which ref has never made an incorrect call ), he is the boss. Not the
touch judge. Yes he can take advice but reversing the call is huge and causes these debates.

I don't blame the players for protesting the call cause is a big one yet the original penalty should have stood and no try to Barker.

Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision. Add to the fact the controversy about the touch judges relationship with a player, and the whole world blows up.

Ref needed to stand his ground and back his original decision. He is the one to take the blame for reversing it. No Try

Could not agree more. Refs get a call wrong all the time but the thing is that was their decision at the time. It's not a case of common sense or the vibe, that was the decision and should have stood if it was right or wrong. The penalty being blown stops the play on the spot and the touchy doesn't come into it.

 

[RedOrDead]

The problem is, according to the Ref, he has seen a penalty ( correctly or incorrectly ) and the Cranbrook players make no attempt to tackle the Barker player as the penalty should halt play when the ref blows his whistle.

The Barker players approach the ref, the ref seeks advise from the touchy and after consultation, reverses his decision and awards the try.

Regardless if the ref was right/wrong in calling the penalty ( which ref has never made an incorrect call ), he is the boss. Not the
touch judge. Yes he can take advice but reversing the call is huge and causes these debates.

I don't blame the players for protesting the call cause is a big one yet the original penalty should have stood and no try to Barker.

Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision. Add to the fact the controversy about the touch judges relationship with a player, and the whole world blows up.

Ref needed to stand his ground and back his original decision. He is the one to take the blame for reversing it. No Try

Firstly, let's not pretend the Cranbrook players weren't able to make the tackle because the whistle was blown. That's utter crap. The whistle is blown when the player is in the process of diving. EVERY SINGLE Cranbrook player (except Brook 10) is looking at the ref appealing for a penalty (BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE LAWS). Barker player has broken the line and is already in the motion of scoring when the whistle is blown. The whistle had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the players not chasing. They're too busy incorrectly appealing for a penalty. That is their fault and their own stupidity. Learn the laws. Teams should not be rewarded for blatant incompetence. This isn't a thugs game like rugby league, this is a thinking mans game, and the thinking man should be rewarded.

Secondly... A bunch of schoolboys make up that the touchy is the hookers father and we run with that? Really?

Thirdly... "Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision." There would absolutely be debate... From anyone who knows the laws of the game who knows that wasn't a penalty.

 

[RedOrDead]

Could not agree more. Refs get a call wrong all the time but the thing is that was their decision at the time. It's not a case of common sense or the vibe, that was the decision and should have stood if it was right or wrong. The penalty being blown stops the play on the spot and the touchy doesn't come into it.

The issue is though... It was overturned. So there is no point saying it shouldn't have been. The fact of the matter is it was overturned and the right call was made in the end. I don't understand how so many can be frustrated when the right call was made.

Also how is this a "same old Barker" conspiracy when it everyone agrees the only person in the wrong is the referee?

It's also not a question of whether or not the penalty was wrong... It absolutely was the wrong call. Can't be an obstruction if the ball remains with the jumper.

 

[RedOrDead]

Fun fact 2:

If Waverley win, it is their 4th premiership in 8 years.

Sadly, the best team Waverley has ever had missed their chance in 2021 due to Covid. So looking at 5 in the past 8 years. With Barker next at 3.

Don't think it's fair to claim 5, even if it was your most talented Waves team. In a 5 round comp anything can happen. This rings especially true for Waverley after that 2019 Waverley team. Multiple professional rugby league and union players on that team (5 I believe), and they struggled to say the least (think they went 2/5 including that Aloys loss).

There was also a kings team with like 12 Australian Schoolboys in the 90's who didn't win the GPS and lost to Joeys at home with some significant ego clashes (apparently).

Anyways, it's fair to say that often the most talented teams don't go on to win.

4 to Waverley.

3 to Barker.

Knox very unlucky not to grab 1 or 2 over the last 8. Some very very strong Knox teams.

 

[bullocks]

RedorDead
The Cranbrook boys probably could have attempted to make the tackle however,
It doesn't matter whether the Cranbrook boys know the laws or not, they appealed and the Ref blew the whistle as did the Barker boys appealed and the try was awarded. The only person that NEEDS to know the laws is the Ref. The old saying of "playing the whistle" applies. The boys could have/should have/ would have chased but they heard the ref's whistle and stopped. What did you want them to do ? The penalty was blown by the Ref who is in control. He should not be influenced by either Cranbrook or Barker boys or the Touch Judge. Again, don't blame the boys. They aren't "blatantly incompetant" and the one person who should be thinking about the laws who has control of the game is the Ref. I argue that the Barker boy broke from the maul before the whistle was blown but that has nothing to do with the final decision.
Is the touchy the father of the player ? yes or no. If yes, very dumb to appoint him cause it opens this sort of debate. No and all is BS.
If the penalty was awarded as originally done, then the Ref's decision is upheld and not overturned. End debate. The fact it was overturned makes the Ref look incompentant and weak causing debate.

 

[Jumping_jack]

Don't think it's fair to claim 5, even if it was your most talented Waves team. In a 5 round comp anything can happen. This rings especially true for Waverley after that 2019 Waverley team. Multiple professional rugby league and union players on that team (5 I believe), and they struggled to say the least (think they went 2/5 including that Aloys loss).

There was also a kings team with like 12 Australian Schoolboys in the 90's who didn't win the GPS and lost to Joeys at home with some significant ego clashes (apparently).

Anyways, it's fair to say that often the most talented teams don't go on to win.

4 to Waverley.

3 to Barker.

Knox very unlucky not to grab 1 or 2 over the last 8. Some very very strong Knox teams.

And if you include all the times Barker should have been stripped of points for breaking By laws.. barker have 1.

Blue cards, Dads as touch judges, microphones, 19 year olds playing and the many more…

 

[RedOrDead]

And if you include all the items Barker should have been stripped of points for breaking By led.. barker have 1.

Goodness.

Blue cards, Dads as touch judges, microphones, 19 year olds playing and the many more…

The blue card that was cleared by a doctor associated with the ARU.

The "dad" who is a touch judge (which has not once been confirmed and was not in a premiership winning season).

The "microphone" that never existed.

Spreading false propaganda is the lowest of lows.

Now the Narcessian scandal is the only valid criticism, and I don't know enough about it do tell you whether it was/wasn't illegal. But what I can tell you is the Colts program has kids who are't even 16 yet playing against 20 year olds... so the idea of 17 year olds playing against a 19 year old is hardly an issue for me from a safety stand point. If it is against CAS rules there's obviously that. But if it really was against the laws I am not sure how that could possibly happen. Another schools 1stXV coach/parent/player would have complained (validly I might add) to the CAS, the CAS would have looked into it and prevented the kid from playing. Don't know how something like that could have happened. If someone knows the entire backstory on that (including how it was allowed) I would be interested in hearing.