England v New Zealand @ Twickenham

[Dan54]

Geez gwerty, I agree wholeheartedly with Hansen on that one, both son and I said at time it looked pretty easy, no one laid a hand on him!!
Not sure what you would call a soft try,but that was one in my book!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Conrad Smith heading home for family reasons, no details yet.

www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/10725223/Conrad-Smith-leaves-All-Blacks-northern-tour

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Might be hard for Bird to start WOB, he not in touring party, perhaps you thinking Thrush.

Nah but yeah..... Bird joined the squad after playing for the Barbs but only as cover so, yes, Thrush to start.

 

[ACT Crusader]

2 previous penalties are completely irrelevant in determining a penalty try.

A team that continues to repeatedly infringe at scrum time because they are being dealt too can just keep infringing can they without repercussions?

In the context of what was happening that was an easy call for Owens.

 

[Grant NZ]

A team that continues to repeatedly infringe at scrum time because they are being dealt too can just keep infringing can they without repercussions?

In the context of what was happening that was an easy call for Owens.

The sanction for repeat offences is a yellow card, not a penalty try.

 

[ACT Crusader]

But the way the English pack were moving forward with ball control under the no8 only 5m out shows that the ABs scrum infringement was stopping a probable try.

Law 10.3 (b) definitely contemplates penalty try for repeated team infringements

 

[Grant NZ]

But the way the English pack were moving forward with ball control under the no8 only 5m out shows that the ABs scrum infringement was stopping a probable try.

Law 10.3 (b) definitely contemplates penalty try for repeated team infringements

Only if you're reading it wrong.

It doesn't require repeated offences, nor do repeated offences make it more likely. The ONLY thing it requires and the ONLY thing that is relevant to deciding a penalty try is in that sentence.

There's a reason it's set apart from the rest of the paragraph.

 

[qwerty51]

Geez gwerty, I agree wholeheartedly with Hansen on that one, both son and I said at time it looked pretty easy, no one laid a hand on him!!
Not sure what you would call a soft try,but that was one in my book!

It's the fact that he's a ungracious smug bastard. I think you'll find 90% of other coaches would've called that try a piece of individual brilliance but rather Steve comments that it's all his own team's doing.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's the fact that he's a ungracious smug bastard. I think you'll find 90% of other coaches would've called that try a piece of individual brilliance but rather Steve comments that it's all his own team's doing.

I think 100% of other international coaches wouldn't get away with it.

He'd be ridiculed for much of what he said if NZ didn't win just about every bloody game.

 

[Dan54]

Yep but let's face it if Cheika said it, half the team would come out in arms saying they support the players that missed tackle etc, and you would have to get another new coach next week!! To be honest I didn't take it as playing down the players ability, rather pointing out he thought the defence system stuffed up badly. Did you see the whole interview?

 

[Ulrich]

Hansen is not a wanker. I thought so too during his 1st year in charge and I was a little confused last year when he said Bismarck deserved the red.

He has a way with his words but he is actually a very nice bloke with some dry humour. Much of what he says is probably just to humour himself. He has shown respect to opponents and has taken a very valid stance toward the RWC. I think people just don't understand the bloke because we don't know him personally.

Hansen has given some nice compliments as well. He said McKenzie is a great coach and Australia are a great team. He told the SA media to finally get off H. Meyer's back after the Springboks' win over the All Blacks because it's unwarranted. He has spoken about his admiration for Schalk Burger.

We need to take the entire context of his words into consideration because we often just read or hear about one or two things in the media.

Meyer has spoken glowingly of Hansen and the two of them seem to have a nice bit of respect for each other and perhaps even friendship.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Only if you're reading it wrong.

It doesn't require repeated offences, nor do repeated offences make it more likely. The ONLY thing it requires and the ONLY thing that is relevant to deciding a penalty try is in that sentence.

There's a reason it's set apart from the rest of the paragraph.

Whether it's in a different paragraph or not it's still in the same section of the law regarding repeated infringements?

All I said is that penalty try is contemplated under that section of the law. Yes the normal sanction is a penalty kick and then referee discretion to bin a player.

It really is a simple question, did the infringement (which was a repeated infringement at that point) prevent a probable try being scored? If the answer is yes (which in my view it is) then the law is clear that a penalty try MUST be awarded.

It appears that you are hung up on the fact that Owens, after cautioning the team for the offside penalty after the quick tap, failed to bin a player at the scrum that resulted in the PT.

This is not unusual in the context of what happens as there have been numerous times where a team has been cautioned after repeated infringements and then in general play committed another infringement, the attacking team has received an advantage and a try has been scored through general play. Referees have not gone to the pocket after the try, even though the law says that is what should occur.

 

[Grant NZ]

Whether it's in a different paragraph or not it's still in the same section of the law regarding repeated infringements?

All I said is that penalty try is contemplated under that section of the law. Yes the normal sanction is a penalty kick and then referee discretion to bin a player.

It really is a simple question, did the infringement (which was a repeated infringement at that point) prevent a probable try being scored? If the answer is yes (which in my view it is) then the law is clear that a penalty try MUST be awarded.

It appears that you are hung up on the fact that Owens, after cautioning the team for the offside penalty after the quick tap, failed to bin a player at the scrum that resulted in the PT.

This is not unusual in the context of what happens as there have been numerous times where a team has been cautioned after repeated infringements and then in general play committed another infringement, the attacking team has received an advantage and a try has been scored through general play. Referees have not gone to the pocket after the try, even though the law says that is what should occur.

The thing is the 'did it prevent a probable try' test by it's very nature can't contemplate repeat offences. It's entirely down to the last penalised offence. If a team deliberately collapses a scrum 10 times in a row before it's moved an inch off the mark are they gonna concede a penalty try? No, they're not. If, on the 11th time they collapse it when they've been driven back 4.5m they probably are - but the 10 times before that don't actually have any relevance to that call.

 

[Dan54]

Actually fellas, when looking at these laws to decide if it was a penalty try (I think it was right call), you perhaps need to look at law book that says the ref has discretion, which more or less takes away a lot of arguments on most decisions, if he thinks it should be or should not be he can use his discretion to award or not award penalty try.

 

[Grant NZ]

Actually fellas, when looking at these laws to decide if it was a penalty try (I think it was right call), you perhaps need to look at law book that says the ref has discretion, which more or less takes away a lot of arguments on most decisions, if he thinks it should be or should not be he can use his discretion to award or not award penalty try.

Sure, but the test for a penalty try is always "Did the offence prevent a probable try". If the offence prevents a probable try, it doesn't matter if it's the first offence or the 12th - it's a penalty try. Likewise, if it didn't prevent a probable try then it doesn't matter if the team has conceded 12 consecutive penalties previously.

That's the difference in this case and the 09 AB's v Italy test match. In that test, they conceded multiple penalties and got a prop binned but never gave away a PT because, despite the ref penalising them repeatedly, the scrum never really got shoved back more than a foot or so. Against England the scrum had already been shoved back 4m or so and was still retreating when they infringed. I don't really have a problem with the decision to award it, I have a problem with people (not Owens, incidentally) using bogus reasons to justify the call.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

 

[Grant NZ]

I vehemently disagree.

Nah, fair enough.

 

[boyo]

Hansen is not a wanker. I thought so too during his 1st year in charge and I was a little confused last year when he said Bismarck deserved the red.

He has a way with his words but he is actually a very nice bloke with some dry humour. Much of what he says is probably just to humour himself. He has shown respect to opponents and has taken a very valid stance toward the RWC. I think people just don't understand the bloke because we don't know him personally.

Hansen has given some nice compliments as well. He said McKenzie is a great coach and Australia are a great team. He told the SA media to finally get off H. Meyer's back after the Springboks' win over the All Blacks because it's unwarranted. He has spoken about his admiration for Schalk Burger.

We need to take the entire context of his words into consideration because we often just read or hear about one or two things in the media.

Meyer has spoken glowingly of Hansen and the two of them seem to have a nice bit of respect for each other and perhaps even friendship.

So he's just misunderstood?

Yeah, right.