RWC QF 4 AUS v SCO (Twickenham) 19th Oct 0200 AEDT

[TahDan]

Looks like the ridiculousness of this whole situation is being noticed even by our satirists:

http://www.thefaultreport.com.au/sport/scotland-fuming-that-referee-didnt-stop-australian-tries/

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think it isn't an intentional knock on because the ball doesn't touch the ground. You have to read the laws together.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

12.1 The outcome of a knock-on or throw forward

(f)
Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

When you read all three in concert (f) doesn't apply because no knock on occurred. ​

I agree it's not an intentional "knock-on"

12(f) doesn't reference a knock-on though BH - it references a "knock forward". Two separate things, and presumably the law makers intended them to be separate otherwise they would have used consistent terminology as they did with a) through e)

 

[ACT Crusader]

Is Sumo Stevenson the best voice in rugby? He's smart, funny, articulate and always on point.

Everything he does from commentary, to analysis, to humour pieces is superb.

He frequents TSF, so is very well informed of the "facts". My jokes are yet to make one of his pieces though surprisingly.....

 

[cyclopath]

Yep, they are separate. I've seen a player try to deliberately bat the ball over another player get called back. In that situation above it would be hard to assess, given that players going for an intercept or contested possession may well knock the ball forward, so it comes down to interpretation of intent.

 

[cyclopath]

He frequents TSF, so is very well informed of the "facts". My jokes are yet to make one of his pieces though surprisingly...

Shame he hogs the facts from some of the posters.

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree.

If it is not meant to be read in concert then every single intercept that isn't caught cleanly would be or should be penalised.

I think you have to consider the way the laws are consistently applied here as evidence of the intention.

I agree that there is some ambiguity in the way it is phrased.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I disagree.

If it is not meant to be read in concert then every single intercept that isn't caught cleanly would be or should be penalised.

I think you have to consider the way the laws are consistently applied here as evidence of the intention.

I agree that there is some ambiguity in the way it is phrased.

I suppose that's all I was trying to raise. The laws are often poorly worded, so if a captain reviews something, as has been mooted, will the TMO assess it according to the laws as written, or according to the conventions?

Tricky either way.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

When you read all three in concert (f) doesn't apply because no knock on occurred.

because he didn't "throw" it?

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

It might be a pass.
I couldn't make my mind up about how you read that law - just like the issue of intent in the Joubert brouhaha is a difficult one - but the point is @strewthcobber's point: if you're going to start critiquing the ref using official channels you'll need to make sure everyone on Manu Samoa knows why it isn't a no try.
Maybe Scotland shouldn't even have been playing on Sunday???

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Refs get stick from all quarters and the majority of G&GR posters aren't whiter than white on the issue. They get far too much stick as it is and to have it almost officially endorsed by World Rugby is just sickening.

I wish they didn't, I firmly subscribe to the attitude that when the game's over, congratulate the winner and look at how you can improve in the future. The best way is to play so well next time that there's no way the result rests on one decision from the ref or more likely one mistake from your team.

The difference is that none of us speak with any authority - so just as the ref always gets used to get the last word, World Rugby gets the last word, and its definitive.
Besides which it is only going to make refs more timid for fear of public humiliation by their employer after leisurely review of 47 camera angles and super slowmo - that timidity will lead to just as many errors, if not more.
I think most people are calling out World Rugby, rather than Joubert, for not following their own protocol of banning criticism of the ref.
So Cheika has snookered them by bagging them: apparently there's no reg against that!

 

[Dewald Nel]

As is the borderline trolling by a few.

Obviously you're not only referring to Non-Australians only here. And you're obviously not calling me a troll, unless you're calling the IRB/World Rugby trolls. It was nothing more than rules discussions.

 

[drewprint]

Is Sumo Stevenson the best voice in rugby? He's smart, funny, articulate and always on point.

Everything he does from commentary, to analysis, to humour pieces is superb.

I saw this clip from the ITM Cup a few weeks back where a player, who's name was Mama or something similar, pulled off a massive hit. The commentators blew up with excitement and Stevenson, quick as a flash, quipped 'Mama! Just killed a man!'

It's hard to properly convey in writing but jesus it was funny. I wish I could track it down and repost it here.

 

[Dan54]

I was watching that game too drew, I cracked up! I like the man, he knows his rugby,but just drops in the odd good one like that.

 

[I like to watch]

because he didn't "throw" it?

It might be a pass.
I couldn't make my mind up about how you read that law - just like the issue of intent in the Joubert brouhaha is a difficult one - but the point is @strewthcobber's point: if you're going to start critiquing the ref using official channels you'll need to make sure everyone on Manu Samoa knows why it isn't a no try.
Maybe Scotland shouldn't even have been playing on Sunday???

I think we can learn something from our league cousins in this regard.
Improving the technology,the number of refs and the emphasis on whether or not a particular ruling was technically correct within 000's of a millimetre does nothing to improve the game.

As many point out,Its disingenuous to focus on just the one decision.
There were plenty of decisions that went their way in that game, and in previous games that allowed them to get to this stage.
Bottom line 5 tries to 3,AND they choked on their lineout throw.
They don't choke there,and Joubert doesn't need to make a decision.

Bottom line,we don't want to go the Mungo route and moan about a refs call,when we were beaten by 30.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Just watched the first half and Joubert had an almost flawless half. Reffed really well. The only clanger in my view was awarding Sio a breakdown penalty. Sio clearly had his arms all over the deck before competing for the ball and his torso leaning on the ball carrier.

Other than that well done.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Just watched the first half and Joubert had an almost flawless half. Reffed really well. The only clanger in my view was awarding Sio a breakdown penalty. Sio clearly had his arms all over the deck before competing for the ball and his torso leaning on the ball carrier.

Other than that well done.

Apparently Horne was offside when he scored picked up the ball in front of the ruck to score Scotland's first try.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Apparently Horne was offside when he scored picked up the ball in front of the ruck to score Scotland's first try.

Was a tackle still, as no Aussies in contact. The way he played it was not legal though

15.6 (d)At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

At the pro level everyone seems to have decided that most of the laws don't apply to the attacking team so by precedent it's hard to get too upset by that "miss".

 

[saulityvi]

Watched the replay and have read almost all of this thread and think much of it has been said, but I think the the interviewer after full time deserves more attention, what was going trough his mind asking those questions right after the hooter? Hope we wont hear him anymore in this tournament.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Some commented on the post game interviewer @Saultyvi

 

[saulityvi]

Some commented on the post game interviewer @Saultyvi

Nice touch HJ. That tittsy shouldnt get a mic anymore before someone teaches him some manners

 

[Gnostic]

It was a panel review and the statement would not have been released without consensus. It's not some rogue individual trying to seek some form of vindication for his countrymen.

You've missed my point. It is about the perception of integrity of both the individuals and the process. Not only here but elsewhere there have been statements made by people questioning the process and the individuals, not only on the outcomes against Joubert but in the motivation to take such an extraordinary, rare step. When the system is compromised such that it can be questioned it speaks poorly to me of the management that hasn't put in place the correct procedures to ensure the probity and integrity of the system itself. A simple step is that a process of the panel would be for any member to be recused from hearing a matter involving their home Union.