Romain Poite

[Jay Cee Gee]

Question for the refs -

Given it doesn't appear it was a knock on, can it still be offside?

The definition of offside is to be in front of a team-mate who last played the ball and Owens was due to Williams falling backward. It would seem a bit harsh to call that offside though, surely?

[Clogs]

Question for the refs -

Given it doesn't appear it was a knock on, can it still be offside?

The definition of offside is to be in front of a team-mate who last played the ball and Owens was due to Williams falling backward. It would seem a bit harsh to call that offside though, surely?

I believe it can be ruled as offside.

[Wilderbeast]

I don't want to get into whether it was a penalty or not. My issue was the lack of playing advantage. If he played advantage, a try may not have arisen, but it certainly allowed the test not to be decided by a controversial call. Penalty advantages normally last a few phases so the ab's would've had their chance. Knock-on advantage would've run out almost straight away but the ab's will still in in a position to press. This is the fair outcome from what happened imo.

However, I think Poite panicked because he didn't want the tour decided by a controversial penalty. That said, Read and TJP should've clicked after this that Poite was not going to give any penalties that weren't clear as day. Chasing the penalty in the scrum was a massively risky thing to do, and TJP should simply have been ready to clear asap.

[Sundy]

Question for the refs -

Given it doesn't appear it was a knock on, can it still be offside?

The definition of offside is to be in front of a team-mate who last played the ball and Owens was due to Williams falling backward. It would seem a bit harsh to call that offside though, surely?

Yes by definition it is offside as the laws speak about 'in front of the player' rather than where the incident took place which to me is harsh. I reckon most refs wouldn't call it as offside if there hadn't been what appears to be a knock on

[deadduck]

It would have a been a shit way for the series to be decided, although that really shouldn't be a factor for the ref when making a call. I said the following on the drawn series thread which I think still applies.

I don't get this point of view
The second test ended in equally shit fashion with a farcical penalty

Perhaps both should just be expunged from the record

[Jay Cee Gee]

The pen a minute earlier was also a shit way to determine a series.

[Fat Old Git]

It would have a been a shit way for the series to be decided, although that really shouldn't be a factor for the ref when making a call. I said the following on the drawn series thread which I think still applies.

I don't get this point of view
The second test ended in equally shit fashion with a farcical penalty

Perhaps both should just be expunged from the record

Shite, because the points would have came from something fairly innocuous, rather than something that was a reward for genuine effort, or a punishment for a genuine act of cheating. But rugby is like that. Penalties are often given away for infringements that were timing errors or in some cases just bad luck. And as I said, it shouldn't really be a factor when a ref is making their decision. If they thought it had a negative impact then they really have to apply the laws regardless.

[Clogs]

Should this be considered a high tackle?:

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

[Fat Old Git]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

[Clogs]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

I can't see where there is anything about the "top of the arm" in that law. Do you mean the ref will interpret this as you describe in order to not award a penalty?

[Enzedder]

It would have a been a shit way for the series to be decided, although that really shouldn't be a factor for the ref when making a call. I said the following on the drawn series thread which I think still applies.

I don't get this point of view
The second test ended in equally shit fashion with a farcical penalty

Perhaps both should just be expunged from the record

Hell, the one in the previous move to this farce was a shit penalty from an arsehole move

[Enzedder]

Should this be considered a high tackle?:

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

In asking the question you should bugger off to the tiddlywinks leagues

[Sundy]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

According to the letter of the directive from World rugby it's a penalty As a referee we have been told that this is a penalty as the arm is above the shoulder and it has been reemphasised by the ARU that this is how the law should be applied. My issue is professional referees never give them (which as a former player I agree with) however when World Rugby referees don't referee the directives the same way as they expect local referees to it's a whole load of undermining BS.

[Clogs]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

According to the letter of the directive from World rugby it's a penalty As a referee we have been told that this is a penalty as the arm is above the shoulder and it has been reemphasised by the ARU that this is how the law should be applied. My issue is professional referees never give them (which as a former player I agree with) however when World Rugby referees don't referee the directives the same way as they expect local referees to it's a whole load of undermining BS.

So according the laws of the game that should be a penalty but I think 100% of us will all agree that should never be penalty and the law is a horses arse?

[Enzedder]

Hey Clogs - This is a head high challenge.

[Clogs]

Hey Clogs - This is a head high challenge.

No mate that was out and out assault!

[vh5150]

Still no statement from World Rugby on the penalty that wasn't and remedys for the future? Astonishing. Rugby may be a professional game now but still not run professionally. If it were Poite would be sidelined from the Rugby Championship and supported thru a reconditioning program.

[Clogs]

Should this be considered a high tackle?:

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Sanction: Penalty kick
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

In asking the question you should bugger off to the tiddlywinks leagues

You do understand why I am using that image and asking the question don't you? In case you don't it is to illustrate the point that according to the letter of the law that is a high tackle, but I think all of us would agree that it would be absurd to award a penalty for that.

Imagine the scenario: Wales v All Blacks RWC final 2019. Scores are level with a minute to go and an AB player tackles a Welsh player like what you see in that image. The ref decides it is deserving of a penalty which Wales duly convert to win. I think even the Welsh would agree that does not deserve to be a penalty.

















Admittedly this is an absurd scenario. There is no way the All Blacks will make 3 RWC finals in a row.

[Sundy]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

According to the letter of the directive from World rugby it's a penalty As a referee we have been told that this is a penalty as the arm is above the shoulder and it has been reemphasised by the ARU that this is how the law should be applied. My issue is professional referees never give them (which as a former player I agree with) however when World Rugby referees don't referee the directives the same way as they expect local referees to it's a whole load of undermining BS.

So according the laws of the game that should be a penalty but I think 100% of us will all agree that should never be penalty and the law is a horses arse?

Well it's impossible for players to adhere to it, and it's near impossible for referees to correctly and consistently ref without making the game a farce so your conclusion is just about spot on.

I agree however that neck rolls, high swinging arms and shoulders to the head should be penalised but putting a hand over someones shoulder

[jimmy speights]

First off, the All Blacks didn't win because they botched too many opportunities, they should've finished the game as a contest in the first half. Credit to the Lions for their defensive effort and grit.

Poite bottled it, his initial instincts were correct, just like the Garces ruling on Charlie Faumuina last week the law can seem unfair, but has to be applied objectively without regard to the impact it'll have on the outcome of the match. Warburton did well to con him into the TMO review, but even after that the conclusion was that the initial ruling was correct. Disappointing that he choked at a critical moment in the series, but it was a high pressure situation and he's only human.

[The Ginger Jedi]

Lots of Kiwis who are criticising Poite defended Joubert during the Australia/Scotland debacle...........

[Frodder]

Captain Sam showed the qualities as captain we expect. Well dome Sam in talking the ref around

He did nothing of the sort. A load of twaddle perpetuated by the media that will go down in lions folklore over the years.

But it's a load of bollocks

Have a relax and keep up the Booze

[SecretAgentMan]

Lots of Kiwis who are criticising Poite defended Joubert during the Australia/Scotland debacle...........

Lots? Really? You shouldn't have any trouble naming a goodly few then, right?

[Clogs]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

According to the letter of the directive from World rugby it's a penalty As a referee we have been told that this is a penalty as the arm is above the shoulder and it has been reemphasised by the ARU that this is how the law should be applied. My issue is professional referees never give them (which as a former player I agree with) however when World Rugby referees don't referee the directives the same way as they expect local referees to it's a whole load of undermining BS.

So according the laws of the game that should be a penalty but I think 100% of us will all agree that should never be penalty and the law is a horses arse?

Well it's impossible for players to adhere to it, and it's near impossible for referees to correctly and consistently ref without making the game a farce so your conclusion is just about spot on.

I agree however that neck rolls, high swinging arms and shoulders to the head should be penalised but putting a hand over someones shoulder

Yep, sometimes it is about the ref 'interpreting' the letter of the law and using some common sense. I guess the same principle could be applied to other areas of the game, like at each ruck or say something even as innocuous as ruling an accidental vs deliberate off side..?

[booze]

Captain Sam showed the qualities as captain we expect. Well dome Sam in talking the ref around

He did nothing of the sort. A load of twaddle perpetuated by the media that will go down in lions folklore over the years.

But it's a load of bollocks

Have a relax and keep up the Booze

I'm pretty relaxed mate. Keeping up the booze though.

[booze]

Just seen the replay of the incident and Poite/Garces have completed made up the touching of the shoulder. It goes nowhere near it

[theo]

Still no statement from World Rugby on the penalty that wasn't and remedys for the future? Astonishing. Rugby may be a professional game now but still not run professionally. If it were Poite would be sidelined from the Rugby Championship and supported thru a reconditioning program.

[Enzedder]

Lots of Kiwis who are criticising Poite defended Joubert during the Australia/Scotland debacle...........

Lots? Really? You shouldn't have any trouble naming a goodly few then, right?

Maybe just one would be a start Ginge

[theo]

Kiwis showing their true colours as ref whingers here
Your team conceded 22 turnovers and butchered several try-scoring opportunities.
That is why you couldn't beat "Easy Rugby," not because of Romain Poite ffs.

Savea should be the fall guy here. It was a run in.

[Keith]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

[Enzedder]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

Irish arses are still the softest arses

[Enzedder]

Kiwis showing their true colours as ref whingers here
Your team conceded 22 turnovers and butchered several try-scoring opportunities.
That is why you couldn't beat "Easy Rugby," not because of Romain Poite ffs.

Savea should be the fall guy here. It was a run in.

Look at the turnovers (both ways) bullshitter

[Leinsterman]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

Irish arses are still the softest arses

He's not Irish, you dope.

[booze]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

Irish arses are still the softest arses

He's not Irish, you dope.

His point still stands

[Enzedder]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

Irish arses are still the softest arses

He's not Irish, you dope.

Well he's bloody acting like one. You all look the bloody same to me.




Sorry.

[Openside]

Ooops- Jakey here, I pressed edit instead of quote. Sorry.

[Sundy]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

According to the letter of the directive from World rugby it's a penalty As a referee we have been told that this is a penalty as the arm is above the shoulder and it has been reemphasised by the ARU that this is how the law should be applied. My issue is professional referees never give them (which as a former player I agree with) however when World Rugby referees don't referee the directives the same way as they expect local referees to it's a whole load of undermining BS.

So according the laws of the game that should be a penalty but I think 100% of us will all agree that should never be penalty and the law is a horses arse?

Well it's impossible for players to adhere to it, and it's near impossible for referees to correctly and consistently ref without making the game a farce so your conclusion is just about spot on.

I agree however that neck rolls, high swinging arms and shoulders to the head should be penalised but putting a hand over someones shoulder

Yep, sometimes it is about the ref 'interpreting' the letter of the law and using some common sense. I guess the same principle could be applied to other areas of the game, like at each ruck or say something even as innocuous as ruling an accidental vs deliberate off side..?

Correct, I always try to use common sense, if it looks bad or the player is an idiot and or continues to hold the neck after an initial contact well then they are getting in trouble.

The principle I generally follow is a player being denied a contest or are they being denied the option to use the ball as they wish. If it's one of those 2 I'm always blowing the whistle, if its not I'll try to manage it and maybe have a word with the player on the go not to repeat what he did. If it happens again, whistle.

[Keith]

Kiwi tears are saltiest tears

Irish arses are still the softest arses

He's not Irish, you dope.

Well he's bloody acting like one. You all look the bloody same to me.




Sorry.

A swing and a miss You can open both eyes now the rugby has finished, old man.

[Fat Old Git]

Top of the arm. Not above the line of the shoulder. Next.

I can't see where there is anything about the "top of the arm" in that law. Do you mean the ref will interpret this as you describe in order to not award a penalty?

I would hope so. I can see the line of the shoulder above McCaws arm which would indicate that it he hasn't hit him above it or had his arm ride up.

[shanky]

Only the stupidest of the stupid would imagine that saying someone had 'the saltiest tears' was some kind of savage out-down.

What a dick