Crusaders v Waratahs. Christchurch.

[waratahjesus]

To be honest, Robinson a decent enough player but I think that Braid has been better for the Reds this year than Robinson could have been.

agreed but if braid wasnt injured last year he wouldnt have been there, he was meant ot go to europe but his injury meant he couldnt start the season and they cut him so qld signed him for another year, before that, the reds were in the market for a seven and his name never seemed to come up

 

[Scott Allen]

Even though referees make plenty of mistakes, let's be fair.

There has been mention in the posts that the offide line proposed by Harfish was incorrect as the line should be where the last player on their feet was. There is no mention in the laws of the last feet belonging to a player on his feet.

Law 16.5 (a) says:

There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team.

Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the
hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the
defending team is the goal line.

Therefore the offside line drawn by Harfish is correctly placed.

There has also been mention that the ball was out because the halfback had his hands on the ball. The ball is not out just because the halfback has his hands on the ball. Once the halfback places their hands on the ball, they must play it but it is still not out until it leaves the ruck, which is generally considered to be once the halfback picks it up off the ground.

The management guideleines say:

* The ball is out of a ruck or scrum when it is totally exposed or it is clear of bodies
* If the ball is being dug out (after being won) or is under the feet of players at the back of the Ruck, the half cannot be touched until the ball is clearly out of the Ruck.
*The benefit of any doubt should go to the scrum half
* Once the scrum half puts his hands on the ball he must play it
*"Ball out" may be called if it is unclear

So, I think Beale was offside - he was in front of the offside line when the ball was still on the ground, regardless of the fact that the halfback had his hands on it.

The referee awards the penalty for offside, not for diving over the ball. That is clear as he runs to the spot where Beale was to award the penalty.

The referee got this one right.

 

[Lindommer]

As a practising referee, and with the hindsight of Foxtel iQ, I disagree. Beale was a champion schoolboy athlete and, although slowing down a bit over 100m, he's lightning over 20/30m. As happened in the 2008 final when he was also wrongly pinged after charging off the defensive line I saw nothing wrong with his foot placement in this instance on Saturday night.

 

[Lindommer]

He certainly burned some bridges when he was at Norths just out of school.

I stand to be corrected but I thought Beau went to league (Bulldogs?) for a year or two straight out of school.

 

[the gambler]

Even though referees make plenty of mistakes, let's be fair.

There has been mention in the posts that the offide line proposed by Harfish was incorrect as the line should be where the last player on their feet was. There is no mention in the laws of the last feet belonging to a player on his feet.

Law 16.5 (a) says:

There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team.

Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the
hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the
defending team is the goal line.

Therefore the offside line drawn by Harfish is correctly placed.

There has also been mention that the ball was out because the halfback had his hands on the ball. The ball is not out just because the halfback has his hands on the ball. Once the halfback places their hands on the ball, they must play it but it is still not out until it leaves the ruck, which is generally considered to be once the halfback picks it up off the ground.

The management guideleines say:

* The ball is out of a ruck or scrum when it is totally exposed or it is clear of bodies
* If the ball is being dug out (after being won) or is under the feet of players at the back of the Ruck, the half cannot be touched until the ball is clearly out of the Ruck.
*The benefit of any doubt should go to the scrum half
* Once the scrum half puts his hands on the ball he must play it
*"Ball out" may be called if it is unclear

So, I think Beale was offside - he was in front of the offside line when the ball was still on the ground, regardless of the fact that the halfback had his hands on it.

The referee awards the penalty for offside, not for diving over the ball. That is clear as he runs to the spot where Beale was to award the penalty.

The referee got this one right.

I may be wrong but if you are on the ground are you not out of the game and therefor not part of the ruck? To be part of a ruck you must have one arm bound etc etc all of which suggests you have to be on your feet.

 

[topo]

He certainly burned some bridges when he was at Norths just out of school.

I stand to be corrected but I thought Beau went to league (Bulldogs?) for a year or two straight out of school.

Yeah, he finished school 2004 and played 1 year of Jersey Flegg for Bulldogs and went to Norths in 06. It didn't end well, from what I hear.