Steve Walsh

[naza]

and... video
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/hoiles-vs-walsh-extended-video-highlights/

Walsh correct and correct. Someone on this board (FatProp?) a few weeks ago brought up that tackled players were crawling another 5-10 metres. The consensus, IIRC, was that crackdown was needed.

Indeed he did, prophetic
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/index.php/topic,10176.0.html

I'm staggered this is a surprise to people and that people reckon its a try.

We lost a rugby world cup off this. Matt Rogers 2003 RWC Final vs the Poms. Larkham passes, Rogers makes a half bust, is tackled 22 out from their tryline, knee hits ground, he gets up and tries to go again. Penalty England. Game over Oz. I've never forgiven him for committing such a howler.

 

[Hawko]

Lots of discussion on Walsh's performance but I think its time to move on. I've said on other threads I didn't think he had a good game and after all this reflection I still think he didn't go well, mainly as other posters have said, he just talks too much.

But Gits and Hoiles reaction is way over the top. They've had one bad game. The Waratahs have had Kaplan 15 times for 14 losses. They really do have a beef. But if they make the final they'll get Kaplan for sure; they would have had him last year, as the announcement of the refs for the finals was made before the last round. And if they had made the final they would have turned up and played under him, none of this "why bother to turn up" stuff.

All refs have bad days, Walsh had one last week, but it wasn't so bad that he needs to be canned. Sometimes you just have to cop it sweet and move on. The Brumbies are not playing well and they know it, maybe that's behind why they arced up so badly. In psychology-speak a transferrence of anger. Did it myself when I was playing footy (badly).

 

[Epi]

I'm staggered this is a surprise to people and that people reckon its a try.

We lost a rugby world cup off this. Matt Rogers 2003 RWC Final vs the Poms. Larkham passes, Rogers makes a half bust, is tackled 22 out from their tryline, knee hits ground, he gets up and tries to go again. Penalty England. Game over Oz. I've never forgiven him for committing such a howler.
[/quote]

On the other hand - I've seen this go uncalled plenty... Doesn't mean it's not a penalty though. If you can't dive on the player when he's on the ground then you can't be allowed to crawl or get up again without playing the ball...

 

[chief]

Walsh will not be refereeing this game because of the controversy. He either will be swapped with another ref, or dropped for the week. It's a little too much having a ref, who is the talk of the rugby news, referee a match within the same week.

All eyes on Lyndon

 

[Spook]

and... video
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/hoiles-vs-walsh-extended-video-highlights/

Walsh correct and correct. Someone on this board (FatProp?) a few weeks ago brought up that tackled players were crawling another 5-10 metres. The consensus, IIRC, was that crackdown was needed.

Indeed he did, prophetic
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/index.php/topic,10176.0.html

I'm staggered this is a surprise to people and that people reckon its a try.

That's because it was a try.

 

[Biffo]

I'm staggered this is a surprise to people and that people reckon its a try.

That's because it was a try. [/quote]

Read Sunday's paper to find out whether it was a try. :lmao:

 

[Spook]

I'm staggered this is a surprise to people and that people reckon its a try.

That's because it was a try.

Read Sunday's paper to find out whether it was a try. :lmao:
[/quote]

Umm ok. . whatever that means. :nta:

He had momentum - he never stopped going forward - knee hitting the ground did little to change the momentum he already had.

The other non-tackle on Hoiles would also have result in a try.

 

[Biffo]

You claim Walsh got "both" decisions right. : Thanks for proving my point.

:nta: so when a player is tackled and his knees hit the ground, he can either just get up and continue running or just crawl along the ground under your understanding of the rules?

How do you define when a player is tackled in a world when the tackler has to roll away immediately?

My understanding is that Hoiles should have released the ball, stood up, picked up the ball and continued running and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) should set up his outside instead of getting tackled and choosing to crawl along the ground instead of placing the ball.

FP, you have it exactly right. There are those who claim a player “was not tackled because he was not held”. The player has to be held only while one or both of his knees touch the ground. The Law requires that the tackler then immediately releases the tackled player.

If the “he wasn’t tackled because he wasn’t held” argument holds then no player is ever tackled.

 

[Spook]

You claim Walsh got "both" decisions right. : Thanks for proving my point.

:nta: so when a player is tackled and his knees hit the ground, he can either just get up and continue running or just crawl along the ground under your understanding of the rules?

How do you define when a player is tackled in a world when the tackler has to roll away immediately?

My understanding is that Hoiles should have released the ball, stood up, picked up the ball and continued running and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) should set up his outside instead of getting tackled and choosing to crawl along the ground instead of placing the ball.

FP, you have it exactly right. There are those who claim a player “was not tackled because he was not held”. The player has to be held only while one or both of his knees touch the ground. The Law requires that the tackler then immediately releases the tackled player.

If the “he wasn’t tackled because he wasn’t held” argument holds then no player is ever tackled.

Nonsense, the tackle was never completed. You're basically suggesting that someone pushed over is tackled.

 

[Biffo]

You claim Walsh got "both" decisions right. : Thanks for proving my point.

:nta: so when a player is tackled and his knees hit the ground, he can either just get up and continue running or just crawl along the ground under your understanding of the rules?

How do you define when a player is tackled in a world when the tackler has to roll away immediately?

My understanding is that Hoiles should have released the ball, stood up, picked up the ball and continued running and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) should set up his outside instead of getting tackled and choosing to crawl along the ground instead of placing the ball.

FP, you have it exactly right. There are those who claim a player “was not tackled because he was not held”. The player has to be held only while one or both of his knees touch the ground. The Law requires that the tackler then immediately releases the tackled player.

If the “he wasn’t tackled because he wasn’t held” argument holds then no player is ever tackled.

Nonsense, the tackle was never completed. You're basically suggesting that someone pushed over is tackled.

The tackler is “completed” if a player is held and at least one knee touches the ground. What happens after that is irrelevant to whether the player is tackled or not. Please read the Law.

I am certainly NOT suggesting that someone who is pushed over is tackled. In that event, he would not be held while a knee touched the ground, would he?

 

[Spook]

At no point does Turner halt AACs momentum. Watch it at full speed. He doesn't stop and start at any point. Momentum = mass x velocity. Hitting your knee on the ground is not an issue. We'll have to agree to disgree.

 

[Biffo]

At no point does Turner halt AACs momentum. Watch it at full speed. He doesn't stop and start at any point. Momentum = mass x velocity. Hitting your knee on the ground is not an issue. We'll have to agree to disgree.

The ball carrier's knee hitting the ground is the WHOLE issue - when that happens, he is tackled and must either release the ball or place it immediately over the line.

 

[Lee Grant]

I think that Spook is saying that if AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had momentum on the ground after the tackle it didn't matter that his knee hit the ground metres out. Then he could have placed the ball to score the try.

Had he done nothing more than remain passive and placed the ball on or over the goal line Spook would be right and it would be a fair try.

But AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) didn't remain passive. I am watching a replay as I type this. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) lands on the ground and is sliding on his back. He digs his left heel when on his back to thrust him self forward a bit more and help with a twist around. Then in the roll he definitely uses his left knee then his right knee to thrust himself forward and up over Turner to place the ball and ends up with his legs straight from the effort. Had Turner not been there he wouldn't have had to do it.

The overall impression was a knee crawl. Whether he had momentum to get over the line and up over Turner, or not, without the knee action became irrelevant once the knees were used. It wasn't a matter of his knees just being on the ground, it was the action they were used for that made the case for a try fail.

 

[Spook]

I still think it was valid, especially when you watch it in real time. Anyway, some more dirt between Walsh and the Brumbies

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new...ing-ban-for-ref-rant/1814528.aspx?storypage=0

And The Canberra Times has learned of another extraordinary public outburst involving Walsh and the Brumbies during an incident at a team hotel in Cape Town two years ago.

The team's strained relationship with the decorated whistle-blower reached a new low in 2008 when Walsh refereed a game between the Brumbies and Stormers at Newlands.

On that occasion he sin-binned Christian Lealiifano and awarded the Stormers a penalty try, ruling the-then Brumbies flyhalf had tackled Cape Town winger Gcobani Bobo without the ball.

Back at the team hotel that night Walsh approached four members of the Brumbies coaching staff and management and said, among other things, ''chin up ... it's not the end of the world'' and ''you're pathetic''.

Irate at his comments, the Brumbies made an official complaint to the New Zealand Rugby Union, which was Walsh's employer at the time. In a series of emails, then-NZRU High Performance referee coach Colin Hawke accepted Walsh had behaved inappropriately.

SANZAR even asked the Brumbies if they wanted Walsh, who was scheduled to officiate their next match against the Bulls in Pretoria that week, to be stood down.

They said no but received a personal apology after Walsh admitted his on-field decisions regarding Lealiifano and the ensuing penalty try were incorrect and that his post-match behaviour was out of line.

 

[TheRiddler]

Anyone else see the ABC coverage of the Shute Shield game between Randwick and Easts on Saturday? I think the first Randwick try to their No. 8 should have been disallowed for similar reasons yet it wasnt even mentioned in the coverage.

The phase before the try, a Randwick player had made a go for the tryline but was tackled a couple of cm short.He successfully placed the ball behind him where his number 8, leaning all over him (i.e. not supporting his own body weight) and with his knee on the ground, picked up the ball and fell over the line.

Is it any wonder we all get so confused?

 

[Newb]

I think that Spook is saying that if AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had momentum on the ground after the tackle it didn't matter that his knee hit the ground metres out. Then he could have placed the ball to score the try.

Had he done nothing more than remain passive and placed the ball on or over the goal line Spook would be right and it would be a fair try.

But AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) didn't remain passive. I am watching a replay as I type this. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) lands on the ground and is sliding on his back. He digs his left heel when on his back to thrust him self forward a bit more and help with a twist around. Then in the roll he definitely uses his left knee then his right knee to thrust himself forward and up over Turner to place the ball and ends up with his legs straight from the effort. Had Turner not been there he wouldn't have had to do it.

The overall impression was a knee crawl. Whether he had momentum to get over the line and up over Turner, or not, without the knee action became irrelevant once the knees were used. It wasn't a matter of his knees just being on the ground, it was the action they were used for that made the case for a try fail.

exactly how i saw it. thank you, your graciousness

 

[AussieDominance]

Giteau's comments made me :nta: that lunge forward to the tryline allowed him to score the try as others have said if he not proceeded to lunge forward and rather placed the ball forward in the release stage of the tackle then it would have been fine.

 

[Ruggo]

While all this is happening the Reds are up in Brisbane quietly preparing for this match.

 

[en_force_er]

It just seems to me that whether AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had momentum or not he wasn't released.

Surely the advantage should go to the attacking team? I'm no Brumbies fan but a 5m Scrum/Lineout or 3 points really should of come from this for the Brums.

 

[AussieDominance]

It just seems to me that whether AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had momentum or not he wasn't released.

Surely the advantage should go to the attacking team? I'm no Brumbies fan but a 5m Scrum/Lineout or 3 points really should of come from this for the Brums.

Although AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) never stopped momentum, he launched from his knees for the try, as a referee you can't fault a tackler for holding on to the player(if both players are on the ground) till his momentum is stopped.

You could go either way but I doubt you could find a ref in the game who would penalise that, that's like penalising a tackler every time he takes a player to ground for not releasing the tackled player.