• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Waratahs v Brumbies - Round 8, 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
liquor box

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
waiopehu oldboy said:
Up 26-17, 24 min to go, penalty in front & Moore says scrum? WTF? Gonna look pretty stoopid if this doesn't pay off. Doesn't pay off but in fairness to Moore that was one weird bit of refing, why start calling "use it or lose it" when it's still moving in a more-or-less forward(ish) direction?
Click to expand...

I can only explain the ruling as a biased referee.

When the ball is fed (if done correctly) it sits in the centre of the scrum until dominance is taken by one team. The ball then moves back and there is a chance that domination can change a number of times.

I mostly watch Reds games and can recall a couple of scrums this season where the ball stayed in the centre of the scrum for close to ten seconds before a significant shove gained dominance and the scrum moved. Should the ref have been screaming to use it? NO OF COURSE NOT because the ball is being contested!

This is one of the worst calls I have seen, how do you do a push over try if you have to use it?
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
liquor box said:
I can only explain the ruling as a biased referee.

When the ball is fed (if done correctly) it sits in the centre of the scrum until dominance is taken by one team. The ball then moves back and there is a chance that domination can change a number of times.

I mostly watch Reds games and can recall a couple of scrums this season where the ball stayed in the centre of the scrum for close to ten seconds before a significant shove gained dominance and the scrum moved. Should the ref have been screaming to use it? NO OF COURSE NOT because the ball is being contested!

This is one of the worst calls I have seen, how do you do a push over try if you have to use it?
Click to expand...

Well, they are different scenarios, for starters. You're not comparing like with like. Ball in the tunnel - no team has "possession" so it is no-one's to use. Ball at 8's feet, a team has possession.
If the scrum is static (which this one was, briefly) then the refs are supposed to call for it to be used under current law interpretations. He did that, but it moved straight away after, so I am baffled why he didn't just apply advantage to the team going forward with the ball under control. He bottled it, basically. Unless there is some law interpretation where, once "use it" is called, they must stick with that - certainly none that I am aware of. Very odd.
 
P

Pokinacha

Guest
So for mine it looks like the Brumbies are not releasing in the tackle. Countless times they were over the ball with no clear release and this is becoming a trend having been pinged for it in the previous few matches.

Secondly, Palu was stupid with the 'cleanout' however carter did the same thing with 4 to go without penalty.

Scrappy game, but the Tahs lost it with handling and poor ruck defence.
 
ChargerWA

ChargerWA

Mark Loane (55)
Gibson out scouring premier rugby for more prospects with way as the end of their last name.

Kellaway, Holloway, there's got to be a few more.
 
liquor box

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
cyclopath said:
Well, they are different scenarios, for starters. You're not comparing like with like. Ball in the tunnel - no team has "possession" so it is no-one's to use. Ball at 8's feet, a team has possession.
If the scrum is static (which this one was, briefly) then the refs are supposed to call for it to be used under current law interpretations. He did that, but it moved straight away after, so I am baffled why he didn't just apply advantage to the team going forward with the ball under control. He bottled it, basically. Unless there is some law interpretation where, once "use it" is called, they must stick with that - certainly none that I am aware of. Very odd.
Click to expand...

The ball was still between the front and second row. Is the half allowed to reach into the front rowers feet to get the ball?
I thought the ref was forcing the half to be penalized if he touched the ball in the scrum
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
liquor box said:
The ball was still between the front and second row. Is the half allowed to reach into the front rowers feet to get the ball?
I thought the ref was forcing the half to be penalized if he touched the ball in the scrum
Click to expand...

It was playable then went forward as the scrum did. I'm not defending the decision, but your analogy is all over the place comparing the ball in the tunnel to this. This was a bad decision, but it's not at all like what you said before.
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Maybe a good topic for the Rferee Decisions thread. Does the scrum moving forward constitute using the ball after the ref has given the direction?
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
A few other decisions left me wondering as well. I've noted elsewhere that the NZ refs this year appear to be letting knock-ons go and there seemed to be a couple of examples again tonight. One very early in the piece, may have been the first tackle of the match. And at the end, just before full time, I'll swear that Paddy Ryan knocked on around the 20m line in his own half but the Tahs were allowed to play on after regaining possession. Ultimately, Paddy did the right thing to correct that oversight much to my relief.

And did Michael Hooper not take the ball out near his own 20m line but the lineout throw was awarded to the Tahs? Fortunately, the Brumbies won the ball at the lineout, so no damage done.

Four tries to two (again) a preety accurate measure of the game imo. The Brumbies did everything they could in the second half to gift possession to the Tahs. Seemed like they lost it on first phase the bulk of times they had possession. However, their defense had tightened up a lot in the second half and they were able to hold the Tahs at bay most of the time. Their first half defense was very ordinary. Missing Pocock and Vaea closing down the inside passes in the 10/12 channels.

Need to do better. A couple of the starting side also need a rest - probably for the remainder of the season.
 
barbarian

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
FYI the relevant scrum law is:

20.10 (d)
When a team has the ball at the number 8’s feet, and is trying to move forward but is not succeeding in doing so, the referee will call “use-it” once the ball has been at the number 8’s feet for a reasonable amount of time (3-5 seconds). The team must then use the ball immediately.
Click to expand...

I didn't see where the ball was, but if it was at the back then the ref made the correct call as written in the laws. If not then I understand the issues.

I actually thought the ref was really good, and contributed to the game being a free-flowing, enjoyable affair. Yeah there were a few questionable calls but that's rugby.
.
 
mst

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
Slim 293 said:
I thought it was a bad decision, but I can't help but be annoyed that neither Butler/Cubelli attempted to play the ball after the ref made the call 2-3 times......
Click to expand...

Watching it live, I had to stop and think as the timing between the ref calling use it, and the next moment the scrum going forward, all as I was wondering how Butler could use the ball noting he couldn't reach it without going in with hands illegally really confused the whole issue.

So if this was a maul, and the referee called use it, if the team then started moving forward, isn't that usually considered as "using it" or am I misunderstanding?
 
mst

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
barbarian said:
FYI the relevant scrum law is:



I didn't see where the ball was, but if it was at the back then the ref made the correct call as written in the laws. If not then I understand the issues.

I actually thought the ref was really good, and contributed to the game being a free-flowing, enjoyable affair. Yeah there were a few questionable calls but that's rugby.
.
Click to expand...

The ball appeared not to be in reach of the 8 - it looked like it was under the chest of the second row (I think). Butler's initial complaint was he could not reach the ball until the scrum moved forward.
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
mst said:
The ball appeared not to be in reach of the 8 - it looked like it was under the chest of the second row (I think). Butler's initial complaint was he could not reach the ball until the scrum moved forward.
Click to expand...


The scrum was static, the ball was at his feet.
Well, within his reach
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
A mutterer said:
petition to have paddy ryans nickname changed from arse to tits . fuck me he is the last person you should pass to after the siren because he will always. fucking. drop. it.
Click to expand...


Two sides to this, he had played near the full 80 and was still putting his hand up to truck it up. That means he was putting in the effort to be available when other, fresher players weren't
 
G

galumay

Guest
Meh, another pedestrian and uninspiring aussie derby. Bush donkeys deserved to win, they were less worse than the Tah's. I guess we learnt a few things, Kellaway isn't a Super rugby player yet, actually I cant think of much else we learnt!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top