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

[tragic]

Agreed. Which is why it should have been ruled accidental offside, and a scrum. If even by slow motion you cannot determine it a 100%, how the hell was the player supposed to know, at full speed, in the heat of the moment, who it last touched? At full speed, you can fully see why the Scot thought it came off an Aussie.

How Craig Joubert made the call with 100% certainty only he will know.

He didn't make it with 100% certainty - never is.
He made a judgement call based on what he saw - and given we cant agree with the benefit of repeated slow motion analysis then it definitely wasn't a howler.
It could have gone either way - and thank Christ it went ours!!
There have certainly been many worse decisions (or non decisions) that have decided the outcomes of a game, and many times we have lost in similar circumstances. And there will be again.
Time to move on and look at the more important things that made the game as close as it was.

 

[Cardiffblue]

5 good tries to 3 crap against the run of play - right team one.
Now we get the Northern Hemisphere complaining.

Excellent idea. I've long thought that we should get the Tmo to give points for artistic impression and technical merit. And the better team should be given a free penalty shot at goal if they are behind approaching full time.

Doh!. That's already happened

 

[Dewald Nel]

He didn't make it with 100% certainty - never is.
He made a judgement call based on what he saw - and given we cant agree with the benefit of repeated slow motion analysis then it definitely wasn't a howler.
It could have gone either way - and thank Christ it went ours!!
There have certainly been many worse decisions (or non decisions) that have decided the outcomes of a game, and many times we have lost in similar circumstances. And there will be again.
Time to move on and look at the more important things that made the game as close as it was.

This was uncertain enough that it should have been accidental offside. He had options that he didn't use.

 

[Gnostic]

If Phipps touched it last - which is still 50/50 even on slow motion replays - he was not offside. Fair call would have been accidental offside if Joubert was unsure - which he wasn't, but for no obvious reason, as everyone else is still unsure.

But as was mentioned, this was far from his only mistake. On the other side, it's fantasy to think the last wrong call that caused the last lead change won't get the most attention. It's human.

I believe your interpretation of the laws are wrong Dewald Nel.

As you can see in the attached excerpts from the 2015 Law Book the correct Law is 11.7 the diagrams provided illustrate the section you quoted is more about general play positioning and not a player intentionally playing a knocked on ball as is specifically mentioned in 11.7

 

[Pfitzy]

Fuck I feel sorry for Joubers.

 

[the sabanator]

I'm still tired af from three hours sleep and a 9 hour work day, but now that I've composed myself:

• Foley seems to have reverted back to his usual service. The England game was 10/10 superb but he was average against Fiji, Wales and probably our worst last night. Does QC (Quade Cooper) make that kick? I don't know. But we should not have been in that position after scoring 5 tries and a lot of it goes back to Foley. He's touted as some model of consistency over Cooper but the fact is neither of our 10's are consistent. That chip kick was awful. This forum, and social media in general, would be baying for blood if Quade turned in that crap. To Foley's credit, he put it all behind him and kicked the winner.
• Defence was pretty average.
• We struggle against a rush defence, which Argentina will employ next week. Foley in particular struggles when forced to make a decision quickly. Whether this is due to perceived slower delivery from Genia or just not being able to do the job I'm not sure.
• Would have loved to see To'omua come on into 10 when Foley was struggling. I know the obvious problem is kicking, but I can't help but think To'omua would have steadied a quickly sinking ship.
• Pocock > Hooper and it's not an argument. Australia should not field an XV without a dedicated pilferer, whether it be Pocock or Gill. We absolutely missed having a breakdown presence last night and it nearly put us on the next Qantas flight out of Heathrow.
• Beale was good. I kept waiting for him to make a horrible mistake but he played well.
• Kuridrani looks like he has some form back.
• AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Mitchell are our wingers.
• A lot of whinging on social media about Joubert favouring Australia, but this was a vintage Joubert performance. Both teams won some and lost some with him, but I actually think we got a little bit worst. Scotland got 15 cheap points off rather crappy penalties that kept them in the game. Joubert referees to the absolute letter of the law. That call was correct even if I think it's a harsh law (having been personally pinged for it at least twice).
• WP Nel might be the best scrummaging tighthead in the world. Put on an absolute masterclass. The Scottish scrum was not dominant, but Nel absolutely mastered the dark arts to beat Sio (who is probably our best scrummager). On Sio - hope he's alright. Also think he should have been hooked after his third penalty by Cheika. It's at that point you risk a binning by leaving a player on and thought he got lucky.
• Sean Maitland should not have been sent off and I personally would not have penalised him. It seems like you can't go for an intercept nowadays in union.
• Laidlaw is a good player. Would take him at 9 anyday.
• At the end of the day we scored 5 tries to 3 flukes. We didn't get gifted this game. If anything Joubers kept Scotland in it for a long time with penalties.

Anyway onto Argentina. We have a lot of work to do to beat them next week! #strongerasone

 

[Dewald Nel]

I believe your interpretation of the laws are wrong Dewald Nel.

As you can see in the attached excerpts from the 2015 Law Book the correct Law is 11.7 the diagrams provided illustrate the section you quoted is more about general play positioning and not a player intentionally playing a knocked on ball as is specifically mentioned in 11.7

I think yours is wrong, Gno Stic.

If Phipps last touched it, according to 11.3(c), the Scot is onside. 11.7 is only valid if 11.3(c) didn't happen, but probably did. You can also argue that the Scot didn't knock it forward, but backwards into Phipps, who knocked it backwards into the Scot, which all happened after the lineout was over, so it was general play.

 

[Gnostic]

The calls for Joubert to call in the TMO are also out of line. Unless there have been changes to the rules surrounding the TMO Joubert couldn't call him in on this and the TMO didn't intervene because he also knew the laws which state the TMO has no role to play in this case.

LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL
(b) A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television Match Official (TMO) who
uses technological devices to clarif y situations relating to;
(i) When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a
touchdown.
(ii) Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
(iii) Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before
grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead.
(iv) Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred in the field
of play leading to a try or preventing a tr y.
(v) Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred.
(vi) Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play.
(c) Any of the match officials including the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO. The
reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol in place at the time which will
be available at laws.worldrugby.org.
(d) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(e) The referee must not consult with any other persons.
[\quote]

Cut and paste directly from the 2015 World Rugby Law Book

 

[KOB1987]

I've just had a good hard look at the incident again. In real time it 100% looks like its projected forward by the Scottish player to the one that then picks it up. So he called it as he saw it and awarded the penalty. Bear in mind that it's not something he can refer to the TMO.

Despite this, the TMO decides to have a good look at it anyway. On the slow motion Phipps does attempt to play at the ball but he doesn't even know where it is and his arms are nowhere near it and it deflects off his chest. This would mean that it's an unintentional touch in my books.. So the TMO doesn't intervene.

Correct decision.

Edit: on another look Phipps doesn't know where the ball is because he is playing at where he was expecting it to be had the Scot missed it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tragic]

This was uncertain enough that it should have been accidental offside. He had options that he didn't use.

In your opinion
Obviously not in his - which is the more important one.
Me thinks there are a few kiwis and Saffers on this site who would rather play Scotland or Argentina in the final and are a tad miffed..

 

[Dewald Nel]

I've just had a good hard look at the incident again. In real time it 100% looks like its projected forward by the Scottish player to the one that then picks it up. So he called it as he saw it and awarded the penalty. Bear in mind that it's not something he can refer to the TMO.

Despite this, the TMO decides to have a good look at it anyway. On the slow motion Phipps does attempt to play at the ball but he doesn't even know where it is and his arms are nowhere near it and it deflects off his chest. This would mean that it's an unintentional touch in my books.. So the TMO doesn't intervene.

Correct decision.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

From other angles at full speed it looks 100% like it came off Phipps, though. The live angle you're talking about, is directly on the opposite side of where Joubert is, so it may come down to perception and angles, but from the other side 45 degrees to the Wallaby goal line, it looks like Phipps knocks it.

Phipps had every intention of playing the ball, even if he didn't catch it.

Nothing I've seen justifies anything more than an accidental offside call, at best.

 

[Dewald Nel]

In your opinion
Obviously not in his - which is the more important one.
Me thinks there are a few kiwis and Saffers on this site who would rather play Scotland or Argentina in the final and are a tad miffed..

It's a laws discussion. If you don't like us discussing it, maybe return after the final. Or not.

 

[KOB1987]

From other angles at full speed it looks 100% like it came off Phipps, though. The live angle you're talking about, is directly on the opposite side of where Joubert is, so it may come down to perception and angles, but from the other side 45 degrees to the Wallaby goal line, it looks like Phipps knocks it.

Phipps had every intention of playing the ball, even if he didn't catch it.

Nothing I've seen justifies anything more than an accidental offside call, at best.

Phipps played at it BEFORE the Scot touched it. The subsequent touch on Phipps was an unintentional deflection off his chest.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tragic]

It's a laws discussion. If you don't like us discussing it, maybe return after the final. Or not.

The Laws are what they are.
They've been posted verbatim, analysed and the results are inconclusive. It was 50/50 and it went our way.
Endless harping on wont change that.
I'm going to invoke rule whatever it is and let you keep going around in circles.

 

[Gnostic]

From other angles at full speed it looks 100% like it came off Phipps, though. The live angle you're talking about, is directly on the opposite side of where Joubert is, so it may come down to perception and angles, but from the other side 45 degrees to the Wallaby goal line, it looks like Phipps knocks it.

Phipps had every intention of playing the ball, even if he didn't catch it.

Nothing I've seen justifies anything more than an accidental offside call, at best.

Watch Joubert and you can see his reasoning, he is indicating a knock on and scrum until the Scottish player offside takes the ball and moves to set up a Scottish ruck. He immediately indicates the penalty, there is no hesitation. So it seems to me Joubert has seen the knock on, no touch (assuming your argument above is correct (something I remain unconvinced of)) and then observes the offside player taking the ball and preventing advantage. It is a clear penalty under those circumstances and something that Joubert doesn't have discretion for and cannot refer to the TMO.

Now if that POV and explanation was given to the uneducated Rugby public it would take a bit of unjustified heat off the referees.

I am amazed that the yellow card call hasn't been more discussed really, in that case I think both Joubert and the TMO made a mistake and it impacted far more on the game.

We could also discuss the scrums with the Scottish flankers sliding up onto the Wallaby props and driving them in and some pretty clear collapses by the Scots getting them awarded penalties.

 

[Dewald Nel]

The Laws are what they are.
They've been posted verbatim, analysed and the results are inconclusive. It was 50/50 and it went our way.
Endless harping on wont change that.
I'm going to invoke rule whatever it is and let you keep going around in circles.

Lol. Not trying to change what happened. At least many other Aussies admitted that it was lucky. You don't have to agree with them, of course. You, however, seem to be scrambling like a dog with a guilty conscience, trying to get the attention off the subject, which is enough proof for me that you have doubt about what happened. So fair enough.

Either way, it has nothing to do with what Aus did or did not do - it was Joubert's decision and Aus don't deserve any berating for it.

But hopefully Joubert doesn't get another game in the world cup. He doesn't deserve one. That is the general consensus I think. There are at least 2 refs who have been better than him at this tournament, and they should take control of the final 3* matches.

*nobody gives a toss about who the ref is in the 3rd/4th place playoff, do they?

 

[BDA]

Thank god Joubert wasnt able to refer that incident to the TMO otherwise they'd probably still be looking at it.

 

[Tahtrajic]

Oh well I think I've read enough of all sides of this I'm unfollowing this thread. I hope you all enjoy the discussion.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Watch Joubert and you can see his reasoning, he is indicating a knock on and scrum until the Scottish player offside takes the ball and moves to set up a Scottish ruck. He immediately indicates the penalty, there is no hesitation. So it seems to me Joubert has seen the knock on, no touch (assuming your argument above is correct (something I remain unconvinced of)) and then observes the offside player taking the ball and preventing advantage. It is a clear penalty under those circumstances and something that Joubert doesn't have discretion for and cannot refer to the TMO.

Now if that POV and explanation was given to the uneducated Rugby public it would take a bit of unjustified heat off the referees.

I am amazed that the yellow card call hasn't been more discussed really, in that case I think both Joubert and the TMO made a mistake and it impacted far more on the game.

We could also discuss the scrums with the Scottish flankers sliding up onto the Wallaby props and driving them in and some pretty clear collapses by the Scots getting them awarded penalties.

Exactly. We can discuss so many things in this match. That try from the ruck from Horne, for example. I think there was enough doubt in that one too to at least refer it.

I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of the last penalty, but neither do you with mine.

Which is exactly the point. Joubert had a clanger.

 

[Braveheart81]

From other angles at full speed it looks 100% like it came off Phipps, though. The live angle you're talking about, is directly on the opposite side of where Joubert is, so it may come down to perception and angles, but from the other side 45 degrees to the Wallaby goal line, it looks like Phipps knocks it.

Phipps had every intention of playing the ball, even if he didn't catch it.

Nothing I've seen justifies anything more than an accidental offside call, at best.

The second Scottish player touching it isn't accidental. It is fully intentional.

That means it is either a penalty if Joubert doesn't think Phipps touched it or played at it and touched it, or a knock on if Phipps did touch it intentionally meaning there was no offside.

Clearly Joubert didn't think Phipps touched it intentionally so it was offside.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk