Reds vs Crusaders Super Rugby Rd11 2012

[Cave Dweller]

Did anyone else notice the obstruction of defenders that was going on? I've only been able to watch the highlights, but it's a deliberate tactic, and one used by the All Blacks in the world cup as well.

You talking about this?
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/rugby-not-set-pieces.7409/page-21



Got some video clips will answer more of the queries

12. 31:06 – black 15 knocked on but should have been a penalty to reds (instead of a scrum) for accidental offside by black 10 for picking up the ball.

This match the commentators do not do the public any justice. They query it but listen to what Bryce said.

“There’s no one there to pick it up guys”.

Law 11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The referee was correct. No Reds near enough to take advantage of it and to pick it up that is why he gave it as accidental offside. It is a very good call I must add.

But look when Zac Guildford throw the ball in. His foot was in the field of play with the quick throw in meaning the AR made the error there and that quick throw in should not have been allowed.

 

[gel]

So reds 2 and 5 were not capable of picking it IF the saders player had left it alone?

 

[Scotty]

Exactly. The reality of the situation was that the Saders player was around 3m in front of the player who knocked the ball on. You could easily argue that they did indeed stop Reds from gaining an advantage (Reds were moving forward and Saders backwards would make it a lot easier for the Reds to get to the ball first had the Saders player not picked it up).

In fact if you look at the video again, Horwill is the closest 'legal' player to the ball. There are two closer players, both Saders, but both are offside. (Apart from 15 who had overrun the ball after knocking it on, and had his back to it.)

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Thanks for posting that Cave Dweller, I originally thought it was a blatant wrong call, but Bryce seems to have justification on his side.

It's kind of a 50/50 one here. All about interpretation. Depends on what you call a player "ready to pick up the ball".

As people say, all we want is a consistent interpretation. Through the week I imagine they will discuss this to either accept or reject that call. Definitely a borderline one though.

edit: and CD, I think you should always reference the SA refs site when you post their video's here, they are great articles: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829656/

 

[vidiot]

Wow, what bullshit. I'm not going to write a 60 line post abusing Lawrence, but why pick things that are clearly fuck-ups to defend?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I didn't pick it, others have. But if you look at the laws, note what Bryce saw and watch the clip in full speed it looks like an acceptable ruling. I just posted to say I'd changed my mind, as I originally thought it was a fuck up.

(ie: most people think he got the law wrong, when in fact knowing the law off by heart was what drove this decision)

 

[Lee Grant]

Can anybody find footage of the McCaw obstruction of Gill in the 53rd minute? TIM ("The Invisible Man") McCaw was breathtakingly blatant.

 

[Scotty]

Thanks for posting that Cave Dweller, I originally thought it was a blatant wrong call, but Bryce seems to have justification on his side.

It's kind of a 50/50 one here. All about interpretation. Depends on what you call a player "ready to pick up the ball".

As people say, all we want is a consistent interpretation. Through the week I imagine they will discuss this to either accept or reject that call. Definitely a borderline one though.

edit: and CD, I think you should always reference the SA refs site when you post their video's here, they are great articles: http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829656/

The law that cd quoted doesn't say 'ready to pick up' it says 'preventing the opposition from gaining an advantage'.

It is pretty clear that horwill had a good chance of being the first legal player there and it would be hard to argue that if he had been then there wouldn't have been an advantage to the reds.

Knowing the law is one thing, knowing how it applies is clearly another, and I suspect that most other referees would have blown a penalty at that point.

Lawrence didn't have much of a basis for his explanation nor did he have grounds for his reasoning when he penalised Gill. CD seems to want to try to defend the indefensible.

 

[MrTimms]

Can anybody find footage of the McCaw obstruction of Gill in the 53rd minute? TIM ("The Invisible Man") McCaw was breathtakingly blatant.

53rd minute is the start of 3 minutes of scrum resets that ends with a Reds tighthead.

Was it before or after? I will cut the footage.

 

[Gnostic]

Rubbish Cave Dweller. Guilford intentionally played the ball in an offisde position. If he had not advancing Reds players would most likely have gained advantage.

In any event consistancy in application of the laws would lrequire a penalty be given as in every other instance such as this that sanction was applied.

 

[MrTimms]

Can anybody find footage of the McCaw obstruction of Gill in the 53rd minute? TIM ("The Invisible Man") McCaw was breathtakingly blatant.

Actually, here it is...

 

[p.Tah]

Just looking at that video Richie has certainly lost a yard or two of pace. Some clever coach is going to find a way to exploit that.

 

[biggsy]

Higgers is good at doing the same thing as that pest of a player is doing to Gill.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

It is pretty clear that horwill had a good chance of being the first legal player there and it would be hard to argue that if he had been then there wouldn't have been an advantage to the reds.

Knowing the law is one thing, knowing how it applies is clearly another, and I suspect that most other referees would have blown a penalty at that point.

Lawrence didn't have much of a basis for his explanation nor did he have grounds for his reasoning when he penalised Gill. CD seems to want to try to defend the indefensible.

True.

 

[biggsy]

Just looking at that video Richie has certainly lost a yard or two of pace. Some clever coach is going to find a way to exploit that.

He gains that lose of pace by pilfering in the offside position by a yard or 2.

 

[p.Tah]

Higgers is good at doing the same thing as that pest of a player is doing to Gill.

Yes, just ask Drew Mitchell...

 

[biggsy]

Yes, just ask Drew Mitchell...

Yep, every thing seems to go to shit when qld players leave for other clubs.

 

[Cave Dweller]

So reds 2 and 5 were not capable of picking it IF the saders player had left it alone?

No. They were too far away. Advantage means immediately. If 2 and 5 were standing next to 10 yes. But they were meters away.

The law that cd quoted doesn't say 'ready to pick up' it says 'preventing the opposition from gaining an advantage'.

It is pretty clear that horwill had a good chance of being the first legal player there and it would be hard to argue that if he had been then there wouldn't have been an advantage to the reds.

Knowing the law is one thing, knowing how it applies is clearly another, and I suspect that most other referees would have blown a penalty at that point.

Lawrence didn't have much of a basis for his explanation nor did he have grounds for his reasoning when he penalised Gill. CD seems to want to try to defend the indefensible.

No. Those players were nowhere near the ball nor were being obstructed. This is the law of advantage add it to above laws I mentioned

8.2 WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE
The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough.
If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and
brings play back to the place of infringement.

Here is the images extracted where is 2 and 5?

They are nowhere near the ball. Who is being obstructed there to play? They cannot wait 3 seconds for the opposition to arrive there as the player would have been played onside before they got the ball.

 

[Tordah]

Actually, here it is...

all I see is red loosehead hands on the ground at the scrum, gaining leverage and some petty running interference which would not be blown up in most games, and rightly so.
This is just getting ridiculous, guys. I understand you were given the rough end of the stick, and Bryce probably isn't the best ref running around. Everyone misses things, he might well have missed more offences from the Crusaders, but you can do that in any game, basically because rugby is so overloaded with rules, almost any ruck would be penalisable one way or another

 

[cyclopath]

Tordah, let us have our bete-noire Brycey!
I mean, you guys got to have Barnes.