Force vs Waratahs - Super Rugby R17 2013

[Slim 293]

but he regained it before the ball touched the turf? same basic principle as a player receiving a pass and juggling it, so long as no one else touches the ball its play on). The knockon was called on the actual grounding with the ball, I understand the reasoning for not giving it as it was a close one but I would have awarded it

You might want to think about that analogy for a moment.......

Anyways, the correct decision was given.........

 

[southsider]

You might want to think about that analogy for a moment...

Anyways, the correct decision was given...

why is that?

 

[Slim 293]

The ball has come out of his hand over the line

Just because he taps his hand back down on it doesn't mean he's "regathered it"........

Anyways, it was the correct decision.........

 

[Lindommer]

But he regained it before the ball touched the turf? Same basic principle as a player receiving a pass and juggling it, so long as no one else touches the ball its play on). The knock-on was called on the actual grounding with the ball, I understand the reasoning for not giving it as it was a close one but I would have awarded it.

If you check Law 12 it says a player has to CATCH a ball accidently knocked forward for it not to be a knock-on. Betham's finger was on the ball before it was grounded but he didn't catch it before placing it on the goal line. Very technical but probably correct.

 

[Slim 293]

If you check Law 12 it says a player has to CATCH a ball accidently knocked forward for it not to be a knock-on. Betham's finger was on the ball before it was grounded but he didn't catch it before placing it on the goal line. Very technical but probably correct.

Also, if you think about it in a context that doesn't involve the touch line it would be classed as a knock on in regular play rather than "placing the ball on the ground"..........

Essentially he would've had to get his hand under the ball to catch it again before placing it........

 

[southsider]

If you check Law 12 it says a player has to CATCH a ball accidently knocked forward for it not to be a knock-on. Betham's finger was on the ball before it was grounded but he didn't catch it before placing it on the goal line. Very technical but probably correct.

jeez that tough, but fair enough

 

[southsider]

Also, if you think about it in a context that doesn't involve the touch line it would be classed as a knock on in regular play rather than "placing the ball on the ground"....

Essentially he would've had to get his hand under the ball to catch it again before placing it....

why under? ive seen many players able to gain full control or "catch" a ball with their hand coming straight down on top of the ball

 

[Forcefield]

Still think Skelton is lazy?

Had to wait 24 hours. Too upset to post. I actually missed the game and I'm not sure I actually want to see it. But of course I will humbly take back what I said and crawl back under my rock to wallow in my misery.

 

[The Rant]

Nah, there was no doubt he lost the ball....

In fact, the TMO was able to freeze the vision on the exact moment the lost the ball and you can see quite clearly a visible gap between his hand and the ball....

that was up higher, i agree the ball clearly separated fomr the hand for a split second but the hand came back in contact to force it downward and was still in connection with it when it touched the line. Try.

 

[Slim 293]

So he lost it?

No try.

End of story.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Would an extra bonus point to the Tahs for Bethams "try" actually make a difference in the grand scheme of things?

 

[Slim 293]

Would an extra bonus point to the Tahs for Bethams "try" actually make a difference in the grand scheme of things?

Nope.

The current table is misleading as the Kiwis and Saffas have two extra rounds to play so those second placed teams (most likely the 'Saders and Cheetahs) in their respective conferences will push well ahead of the Tahs.........

 

[I like to watch]

Would an extra bonus point to the Tahs for Bethams "try" actually make a difference in the grand scheme of things?

It would have made my fucking day!

 

[The Rant]

Would an extra bonus point to the Tahs for Bethams "try" actually make a difference in the grand scheme of things?

yep. Although you'd have to say they are no chance of making the finals. the bonus point gave a slither of hope.

Assume they got the bonus point and then win over Qld with bonus point - they could have finished on max finish on 50points. With 50 they COULD have replaced the cheetahs if the cheetahs don't win their last 2 games (who play the stormers(A)/blues(H) and don't get a losing BP) .

But now their only hope is:
Crusaders lose last 3 (highlanders (A)/chiefs (H)/canes(H) with max 2 bonus points or heavy points deficit)

and blues win only one of these: (sharks (A), Cheeters (A), Cheifs(H))

and they beat QLD...

I think they will enjoy the september holidays!

 

[Bad boy]

As Marto said, the real telling of a coach is how the 2nd stringers go with no superstars. Massive tick for Cheika and the assistants coaching. Very promising for next year.

Hello....how many times have we heard the waratahs supporters saying "very promising for next year". He had the team to do it this year!!!

 

[ChargerWA]

I can't believe I am defending the Waratahs, but here we go.

This is his first season and they lost quite a few games at the start of the season while they came to grips with the new game plan. If they carry this form they currently have into a full season next year they will make the finals.

On equal footing with Jake Whites efforts at the Brumbies. Finals in the second season of their coaching contract.

Every Force and Rebel supporter would give their left nut for that.

 

[BPC]

Ive never been a fan of ARU/Tahs picking people because they are big with the hope they will develop skills rather than picking people with talent.

Picking locks based on their size (in the vertical dimension at least) is pretty common to most teams.

 

[southsider]

Picking locks based on their size (in the vertical dimension at least) is pretty common to most teams.

true, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere where a coach says "this guy simply isnt talented enough he doesnt deserve it". Another example is greg peterson, isnt dominant in the SS, why is he in the tahs then?

 

[Braveheart81]

true, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere where a coach says "this guy simply isnt talented enough he doesnt deserve it". Another example is greg peterson, isnt dominant in the SS, why is he in the tahs then?

This definitely seems to be a poor signing for the Tahs.

He was signed for two years in 2012 and he really hasn't developed.

He played at the Under 20 RWC so it's not like he was plucked from obscurity due to being big though.

Maybe if he hadn't had serious injuries each season he'd have developed faster. I can't see him having his contract renewed by the Tahs though.

 

[Bruce Ross]

southsider, you describe Greg Petersen as "another example" of someone of whom a coach would say "this guy simply isn't talented enough he doesnt deserve it". The inevitable inference is that this also applies to Will Skelton.

If what the young bloke did on Sunday is indicative of his true potential - and I admit even I was surprised by his exceptional work rate and creativity in the maul - we may have unearthed an exceptional second rower and one who because of his size could have the potential to be a real crowd drawer, almost unique for a tight forward.

One of us has no ability to spot rugby talent.
.