The Rugby Union Thread

bertie

ewal said:

 

Not quite the farce that VAR has become in football, but getting there.
 

imagine how the blue card's going to map out !!

Gassage

For all the furore of the Scotland no try I am glad it wasn't awarded.

I felt it probably was a try, but given the clear offside in the DvdM intercept and also the strange decision not to card Tuipuloto after his clear and obvious no arms clear out on Alldritt at the ruck where Alldritt went off I kinda felt justice was done

Blaendulais

Gassage said:

For all the furore of the Scotland no try I am glad it wasn't awarded.

I felt it probably was a try, but given the clear offside in the DvdM intercept and also the strange decision not to card Tuipuloto after his clear and obvious no arms clear out on Alldritt at the ruck where Alldritt went off I kinda felt justice was done

Justice ...also Scotland need to kill teams off and not dick around

Rocker

@Gassage,

Interesting report on the Ireland -v- Italy match in Dublin.  I was not at that game but I saw it on ITV HD so my opinion is solely based on what was broadcast on TV.

The Ireland lineout continued where they left off in France.  I don't remember Ireland losing a lineout and they disrupted a few Italian lineouts.  I don't understand scrums but the referee pinged both teams for some infringement or other.  The commentary team were a bit unclear on why this happened so they were no help.  From the TV camera angle, which included the useless bodycam on the referee, it appeared that on the whole the Ireland scrum more than held its own.

Despite winning handsomely, watching the game on TV as I did, I seldom got the impression that Ireland played as good as the 'first choice players' would have played.  I know Ireland are one of the top teams in the world but is my last comment a true reflection of the qualities of the  Ireland squad or on the standards of the opposition teams?

p90fool

Gassage said:

bertie said:

koneguitarist said:

bertie said:

at the end of the day,  we won, the welsh didnt  so it doesnt matter.  The ref, generally was appalling tho

Yep, some decisions against England and some against Wales. Terrible reffing, we didn’t pay him all that money to ref us!  ;-)

yes,  playing against 13 for 8 minutes rather than 14 for most of the match must be hard

I genuinely thought, after not scoring with that early pressure, and then the penalty try, we were in for a mauling.

What was "amusing" was reading the individual player scores /10 in different papers    same player could get 9/10 in one and 5/10 in another.................

Interesting you say this- we publish this particularly for this reason....

11. Particularly fit Italian number 8

koneguitarist

sev112 said:

koneguitarist said:

sev112 said:

koneguitarist said:

Ref the Ford conversion, referee was right. This is the difference between knowing the laws and updates as opposed to just blindly going along with what you’ve always done. Macaw was a master and often talked to ref where ref was going wrong! 

Wales are in complete meltdown and disarray as a team. 

1.Promising players leaving for more money and then excluded falling foul of cap rule. 
2. Two many retirements at once.
3. too many injuries for such a small squad, Faletau, Tsiunza, Lake, Morgan.
4. Players leaving for last big paydays before retirement and taking a year out or even leaving Rugby altogether.
5. Regions are two too many, no money, no backing from WRU, no set plan on how to stop the rot.
so to lose both opening games by a total of 3 points is quite lucky I feel. Both were games we could have won, maybe not deserved but could have. 

Ireland will be the test of where we truly are and will be same test for England. 

If we don’t get the wooden spoon this year, I will be taking that as a win. 

Pleas explain why you think the ref was right? What part of stepping to the side is “approaching” the ball.  If it is any movement, then he had better hold his breath and make sure his chest doesn’t move ?!  Terrible decision , not even a legal basis under the laws,  

“If player moves in any direction to start his approach”
sideways even backwards. 

That’s the law, not moving forward. 

“Approach” which is defined as moving towards 

No, the approach was defined as moving in any direction otherwise refs would have to guess when they are starting approach which leads to confusion. This gives clarity to ref. 

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.
Some refs will immediately penalise defender putting hands on floor before going for ball, some don’t. 

Either way, teams analyse refs as much as opposing teams. Wales lost, did they deserve to win? Certainly not. I thought we were lucky in places, I wouldn’t have given yellow to Chessum, but I would have given a yellow and penalty try for maul as the speed it was going over made it pretty certain. 

I would have given a penalty against Ford at end as well, would it have changed the result? I doubt it and we will never know now. Swings and roundabouts. 

All I know is when I have moaned about refs decisions I get sour grapes accusations. ;-) 

digitalscream

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

bertie

digitalscream said:

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

digitalscream

bertie said:

digitalscream said:

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

In that case, I've misunderstood - and my point is sunk

drofluf

bertie said:

digitalscream said:

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

Well if England's representatives were at that meeting when the "conversion" was discussed there's pretty poor communication in that camp.

Pjon

Blaendulais said:

Gassage said:

For all the furore of the Scotland no try I am glad it wasn't awarded.

I felt it probably was a try, but given the clear offside in the DvdM intercept and also the strange decision not to card Tuipuloto after his clear and obvious no arms clear out on Alldritt at the ruck where Alldritt went off I kinda felt justice was done

Justice ...also Scotland need to kill teams off and not dick around

Yep. They were well into injury time and knew that if a try wasn't given then it would be game over, but still tried to force the ball into a place where it would be difficult for the TMO. A better team would have seen that it wasn't a good position, carried on playing and if nothing came of it asked the ref to look back. Grounding the ball on someone's leg and then fiddling around trying to find grass was the wrong decision - if it wasn't grounded immediately it should have been recycled.

TJT1979

digitalscream said:

bertie said:

digitalscream said:

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

In that case, I've misunderstood - and my point is sunk

I had also understood that they were separate meetings with both teams. There have been a few examples over the years where a team surprised the other having cleared something with the ref beforehand. Eg. a number of years ago, Italy (I think) surprising Eng by not contesting any rucks, therefore not creating an offside line. Apparently that had been discussed with the ref (without Eng being present). Perhaps this changed at some point?

bertie

TJT1979 said:

digitalscream said:

bertie said:

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

In that case, I've misunderstood - and my point is sunk

I had also understood that they were separate meetings with both teams. There have been a few examples over the years where a team surprised the other having cleared something with the ref beforehand. Eg. a number of years ago, Italy (I think) surprising Eng by not contesting any rucks, therefore not creating an offside line. Apparently that had been discussed with the ref (without Eng being present). Perhaps this changed at some point?

my remark was 50% statement and 50% question, and on reflection,  a joint meeting would be somewhat counter productive as you could be giving away game plans/tactics

bertie

ooh,  some sugar with those grapes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Gassage

TJT1979 said:

digitalscream said:

bertie said:

digitalscream said:

koneguitarist said:

All teams have same information and can then speak with ref how he interprets a rule, as in offside, or not competing in the air for a kick as examples.

Y'know, I mentioned that earlier and it didn't twig...why on earth are teams allowed to do that, effectively in confidence? It occurs to me that it should be something closer to legal discovery, whereby anything the ref tells one team should also be given to the other in order for the game to be fair. For one team to know something concrete about the ref's own personal interpretation of any rule that the other team doesn't isn't sporting at all and definitely against the spirit of the game.

I always thought it was a "joint venture" meeting, representatives from both teams,  with the officials. 

In that case, I've misunderstood - and my point is sunk

I had also understood that they were separate meetings with both teams. There have been a few examples over the years where a team surprised the other having cleared something with the ref beforehand. Eg. a number of years ago, Italy (I think) surprising Eng by not contesting any rucks, therefore not creating an offside line. Apparently that had been discussed with the ref (without Eng being present). Perhaps this changed at some point?

No- not any more. Just the scrum coaches and pack leaders on scrummaging ONLY.

@koneguitarist you are spot on regarding Ford and the conversion. The law was changed to include any movement of feet.

sev112

But that's not what it says, otherwise they couldn't even move back from the ball after putting it down. (any direction as above).  The bloke is standing still.  Stupid decision, stupid interpretation and stupid "rule" in every sense.  World Rugby should just feel glad that it didn't influence the result and have 2 games affected.  

koneguitarist

sev112 said:

But that's not what it says, otherwise they couldn't even move back from the ball after putting it down. (any direction as above).  The bloke is standing still.  Stupid decision, stupid interpretation and stupid "rule" in every sense.  World Rugby should just feel glad that it didn't influence the result and have 2 games affected.  

I think once you have prepared yourself and stood still for shot, it’s then any movement in any direction. 

There is nothing to stop a kicker putting ball down in front of posts taking a step back then immediately step forward and kick the ball over. Each player has a routine and this is what teams do, study opposition to learn anything that can give their team the edge. 

In a tight game it could be the difference. AND they all study the ref, which begs the question why England has so many problems in this area. Are they overcoached? 

digitalscream

Gassage said:

The law was changed to include any movement of feet.

...which sort of begs the question as to why the law doesn't just say that, then?

It's like they deliberately leave these things open to interpretation to cause problems

ewal

bertie said:

ooh,  some sugar with those grapes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

And of course if it had been England on the end of that refereeing performance, we wouldn't have heard anything about it...

bertie

ewal said:

bertie said:

ooh,  some sugar with those grapes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

And of course if it had been England on the end of that refereeing performance, we wouldn't have heard anything about it...

we've had quite a few in the past 12 months or so,  cant remember any reports to World Rugby