Nigel Owens yellow card

[Mr Fedora]

His hands were on the floor in front of the backfoot. Offside.

He threw himself into the attacker without using his arms and bounced into the base of the post. No arms tackle.

You're just making things up now. Niether of those things happened. Honest question, are you Nigel Owens?

[pigaaaa]

Its an interesting one and like has bee said, its not happened before at least at this level.
There is a legitimate argument that he held the ball up like you do when a player goes over the line and a defender prevents grounding. He effectively did that.
But Owens said he was part of the ruck so he cant go off his feet and play the ball which he kind of did. And given it was deliberate he wasnt rolling away which as a tackler he should have, its a penalty and given deliberate a card.

Was he part of the ruck in any way?

He wasn't part of the ruck, he wasn't the tackler and he wasn't offside.

The offence was by SBW, who never go onside from making the previous tackle and who - when he saw which way the Irish were going - stood in front of the post to stop the Irish scoring there. That was a cynical offence and could legitimately have been a card. However, it did not prevent a try because Todd legally getting himself between the post and the Irish ball-carrier was what prevented the try.

It should have been a penalty and maybe a yellow against SBW, but Owens jumped the gun and did not give the Irish the advantage from the penalty. Once he had blown the whistle he had to justify his decision.

The possible offence that Todd committed was going in with his shoulder on the ball-carrier, rather than making a tackle. But it's notable that Owens only brought that up as an afterthought after several replays, so that was not what he was penalising Todd for.

Highlights up: https://youtu.be/e8O3GO-9YBQ?t=617

Tbf you can see Todd has busted his shoulder in the previous ruck. Probably why his ‘tackle’ ended up the way it did

[Mr Fedora]

Its an interesting one and like has bee said, its not happened before at least at this level.
There is a legitimate argument that he held the ball up like you do when a player goes over the line and a defender prevents grounding. He effectively did that.
But Owens said he was part of the ruck so he cant go off his feet and play the ball which he kind of did. And given it was deliberate he wasnt rolling away which as a tackler he should have, its a penalty and given deliberate a card.

Was he part of the ruck in any way?

He wasn't part of the ruck, he wasn't the tackler and he wasn't offside.

The offence was by SBW, who never go onside from making the previous tackle and who - when he saw which way the Irish were going - stood in front of the post to stop the Irish scoring there. That was a cynical offence and could legitimately have been a card. However, it did not prevent a try because Todd legally getting himself between the post and the Irish ball-carrier was what prevented the try.

It should have been a penalty and maybe a yellow against SBW, but Owens jumped the gun and did not give the Irish the advantage from the penalty. Once he had blown the whistle he had to justify his decision.

The possible offence that Todd committed was going in with his shoulder on the ball-carrier, rather than making a tackle. But it's notable that Owens only brought that up as an afterthought after several replays, so that was not what he was penalising Todd for.

Highlights up: https://youtu.be/e8O3GO-9YBQ?t=617

Tbf you can see Todd has busted his shoulder in the previous ruck. Probably why his ‘tackle’ ended up the way it did

Reckon he busted it scoring his try, when one of the reserve Irish props landed on him. Tough bugger to carry on if that was the case.

[Fat Old Git]

New Zealand win by 40 points, make it into the semi finals and then whine about the ref.

Will it never stop?

I know what a precious bunch of twats

Do both of you miserable plum realise this is a rugby forum?

Are we not allowed to discuss the technicalities of a contentious decision in a World Cup quarter final involving our own team?

No not when there were far more contentious calls and not when you win easily. Show some class ffs.

The only thing classless on this thread so far is the determination of some to see this as ref whinging and to have a go.

It was a genuinely interesting situation that most of us have never seen, or probably even considered before. I'd still like to know what the laws or guidance actually says about blocking the base of the posts and if that is or isn't seen as being similar to someone getting under a player or the ball to hold up a try in goal.

[sorCrer]

New Zealand win by 40 points, make it into the semi finals and then whine about the ref.

Will it never stop?

I know what a precious bunch of twats

Do both of you miserable plum realise this is a rugby forum?

Are we not allowed to discuss the technicalities of a contentious decision in a World Cup quarter final involving our own team?

No not when there were far more contentious calls and not when you win easily. Show some class ffs.

The only thing classless on this thread so far is the determination of some to see this as ref whinging and to have a go.

It was a genuinely interesting situation that most of us have never seen, or probably even considered before. I'd still like to know what the laws or guidance actually says about blocking the base of the posts and if that is or isn't seen as being similar to someone getting under a player or the ball to hold up a try in goal.

I suspect Owens saw it as cynical i.e. against the spirit.

[Ted.]

His hands were on the floor in front of the backfoot. Offside.

He threw himself into the attacker without using his arms and bounced into the base of the post. No arms tackle.

You're just making things up now. Niether of those things happened. Honest question, are you Nigel Owens?

That's definitely the most logical conclusion, AC.

[Fat Old Git]

The only thing classless on this thread so far is the determination of some to see this as ref whinging and to have a go.

It was a genuinely interesting situation that most of us have never seen, or probably even considered before. I'd still like to know what the laws or guidance actually says about blocking the base of the posts and if that is or isn't seen as being similar to someone getting under a player or the ball to hold up a try in goal.

I suspect Owens saw it as cynical i.e. against the spirit.

Quite possibly. It would quite nice to know that answer one way or the other though.

Logic would suggest it shouldn't be seen any differently than being held up in goal. But that gets complicated by the fact that the player won't be able to block it without being in the field of play.

[Enzedder]

I suspect Owens saw it as cynical i.e. against the spirit.

Nope or else he would have said something like that. I think 4071 has it spot on - he made a blue by whistling and wasn't man enough to wear it.

[True Blue]

I suspect Owens saw it as cynical i.e. against the spirit.

Nope or else he would have said something like that. I think 4071 has it spot on - he made a blue by whistling and wasn't man enough to wear it.

I think it's more likely he got SBW and Todd confused.

[Ted.]

I suspect Owens saw it as cynical i.e. against the spirit.

Nope or else he would have said something like that. I think 4071 has it spot on - he made a blue by whistling and wasn't man enough to wear it.

I think it's more likely he got SBW and Todd confused.

SBW did not prevent a try from being scored, so why the PT?

[naki]

Todd got injured here, in another totally legal and above board incident

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/11 ... mp4?tag=10

[Ted.]

Todd got injured here, in another totally legal and above board incident

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/11 ... mp4?tag=10

fudge that, shades of BBBR's injury.

[merlin the happy pig]

Todd got injured here, in another totally legal and above board incident

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/11 ... mp4?tag=10

fudge that, shades of BBBR's injury.

Couple of weeks off for that bit of foul play.
They'll miss him later in the tournament for that.

Oh wait ..

[Crazy Ed]

Have you guys got that used to getting away with cynical play that you genuinely can't believe you get penalised?

The dual standard on ref whingings is also laughable when anybody else does it it is classless and poor yet you alone as spiritual guardians get a free pass to behave like chops and demand to have Wr explain it to you.
Yes it is a case that hasn't come up before but it is cynical and when combined with involving an offside player it always had to be a penalty try.

[Fat Old Git]

Have you guys got that used to getting away with cynical play that you genuinely can't believe you get penalised?

The dual standard on ref whingings is also laughable when anybody else does it it is classless and poor yet you alone as spiritual guardians get a free pass to behave like chops and demand to have Wr explain it to you.
Yes it is a case that hasn't come up before but it is cynical and when combined with involving an offside player it always had to be a penalty try.

You're following a narrative that isn't there.

[merlin the happy pig]

Have you guys got that used to getting away with cynical play that you genuinely can't believe you get penalised?

The dual standard on ref whingings is also laughable when anybody else does it it is classless and poor yet you alone as spiritual guardians get a free pass to behave like chops and demand to have Wr explain it to you.
Yes it is a case that hasn't come up before but it is cynical and when combined with involving an offside player it always had to be a penalty try.

What are you smoking/ingesting/shooting up?

[terangi48]

Read what FOG actually wrote........it was a rare circumstance.......an onside player falling and being wedged against the post by a crabbing ruck.

My bobs worth......Todd did stop the try. Whether it was legal or not, I've never seen a rule to cover an incident like this. I think Nige hadnt either. He sensed they would have scored so gave a try.......but then didnt know how to explain it so waffled garbage.

Personally, I dont think it was a try......it was short of the post.......in the same way it would have been short of the line if the post wasnt there........TBF.....the try didnt matter a feck at that stage of the game.

[RoscoPColtrain]

Have you guys got that used to getting away with cynical play that you genuinely can't believe you get penalised?

The dual standard on ref whingings is also laughable when anybody else does it it is classless and poor yet you alone as spiritual guardians get a free pass to behave like chops and demand to have Wr explain it to you.
Yes it is a case that hasn't come up before but it is cynical and when combined with involving an offside player it always had to be a penalty try.

Hilarious how we’re constantly being told we’re whinging for simply discussing the technicalities of the incident (that could well happen again in a much more crucial situation in a semi or final) yet you ‘classy’ neutrals can’t even keep your story straight on why it was a PT, I’ve heard about 5 different reasons including he had his hands offside on the ground FFS. You’re just making things up as you go along. Just shrieking “Cynical! Whingers!” isn’t really helping.

[Clogs]

A probable try was prevented by an illegal tackle. There was no attempt to use arms, none. Lucky it wasnt a red card.

[Openside]

Just rewatched the game. I'm still gobsmacked with Owens's decision against Todd. WR need to clarify the decision asap.

Who'd be a ref?

You control a game beautifully, and then after a massive brainfart it's all anyone talks about.

You shag one goat...

[Salient]

Have a good cry.

Cry? My team just had an amazing win in a QF against Ireland. Why would I be crying?

Cry, whinge, whine it is all the same. You put 40 over Ireland. Stop complaining

Is English a second language for you? Most posters simply want to know what the rules are around an incident I've never seen before.

[RoscoPColtrain]

A probable try was prevented by an illegal tackle. There was no attempt to use arms, none. Lucky it wasnt a red card.

That’s more like it, at least you’re trying to explain it using something that might have actually happened now. I’ll be interested if they’re consistent applying that interpretation for future goalline defence in the semis and final. Could be an interesting couple of weeks.

[Ali's Choice]

Have a good cry.

Cry? My team just had an amazing win in a QF against Ireland. Why would I be crying?

Cry, whinge, whine it is all the same. You put 40 over Ireland. Stop complaining

Is English a second language for you? Most posters simply want to know what the rules are around an incident I've never seen before.

Why are you trying to have a sensible chat with someone who is trolling?

[Clogs]

A probable try was prevented by an illegal tackle. There was no attempt to use arms, none. Lucky it wasnt a red card.

That’s more like it, at least you’re trying to explain it using something that might have actually happened now. I’ll be interested if they’re consistent applying that interpretation for future goalline defence in the semis and final. Could be an interesting couple of weeks.

I would be very surprised if they didn't. That was blatantly obvious that ut was an illegal tackle. Surprised there is even a thread about it.

[mrbrownstone]

A probable try was prevented by an illegal tackle. There was no attempt to use arms, none. Lucky it wasnt a red card.

That’s more like it, at least you’re trying to explain it using something that might have actually happened now. I’ll be interested if they’re consistent applying that interpretation for future goalline defence in the semis and final. Could be an interesting couple of weeks.

I would be very surprised if they didn't. That was blatantly obvious that ut was an illegal tackle. Surprised there is even a thread about it.

Yeah, I think the call was right but Owens' explanation was wrong (initially at least). Todd was clearly onside, but no attempt to wrap the arms preventing a probable try.

Right call given for the wrong reason.

[Wilderbeast]

I didn’t think it was an illegal tackle, as Todd beat the try scorer to the post and the Irish player basically dives into him. Is that an illegal tackle?

[FairWeather_Aussie]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

[TheFrog]

Yeah I don't get it myself. Nige clearly said offside, he even said it twice. I can only assume he's gotten his feathers ruffled and confused himself, he might have truely believed Todd was offside but used TMO to check anyway and he clearly wasn't. He then waffled to the TMO about offside too. What the fudge was he actually on about?

I'm not sure if you can just drop in front of the post to stop a ball placed against it, I don't see how that's any different to flopping under a player over the line to hold a try up.
I don't know if I've ever seen that scenario before.

No attempt to tackle the ball carrier. Yellow.

[Wilderbeast]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

This is exactly as I see it.

[RoscoPColtrain]

A probable try was prevented by an illegal tackle. There was no attempt to use arms, none. Lucky it wasnt a red card.

That’s more like it, at least you’re trying to explain it using something that might have actually happened now. I’ll be interested if they’re consistent applying that interpretation for future goalline defence in the semis and final. Could be an interesting couple of weeks.

I would be very surprised if they didn't.

I’d suggest you pay attention next time there’s a few phases of defence on the goal line. That sort of ‘tackle’ happens constantly, players diving to block the line without tackling. You never see penalty tried + yellow handed out.

[Enzedder]

Yeah I don't get it myself. Nige clearly said offside, he even said it twice. I can only assume he's gotten his feathers ruffled and confused himself, he might have truely believed Todd was offside but used TMO to check anyway and he clearly wasn't. He then waffled to the TMO about offside too. What the fudge was he actually on about?

I'm not sure if you can just drop in front of the post to stop a ball placed against it, I don't see how that's any different to flopping under a player over the line to hold a try up.
I don't know if I've ever seen that scenario before.

No attempt to tackle the ball carrier. Yellow.

So that is 14 NZ players carded. Now what?

[Fat Old Git]

Yeah I don't get it myself. Nige clearly said offside, he even said it twice. I can only assume he's gotten his feathers ruffled and confused himself, he might have truely believed Todd was offside but used TMO to check anyway and he clearly wasn't. He then waffled to the TMO about offside too. What the fudge was he actually on about?

I'm not sure if you can just drop in front of the post to stop a ball placed against it, I don't see how that's any different to flopping under a player over the line to hold a try up.
I don't know if I've ever seen that scenario before.

No attempt to tackle the ball carrier. Yellow.

So that is 14 NZ players carded. Now what?

We'll probably have to sub the remaining player towards the end to give them a breather.

[mr bungle]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

Yeah, it was a weird play and I get your points. In fairness to Todd, he'd had his shoulder buggered by a bit of a shit cleanout by an Irishman. So was heavily favouring it.

[749a]

The actual offense that gets penalised by the "no arms tackle" would not seem to apply here

9.16 A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.

[Crazy Ed]

Similar in a way to the Samoan who got red carded against Scotland. Although I think that was 2 yellows making the automatic red.
Illegal technique prevented what the ref expected to be a certain try. I admit the ref didn't express this well at the time but a penalty try was surely the correct outcome once Todd's back was turned.

[Vahian]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

This is exactly as I see it.

Just watch ed the replay again of this and think Todd was going to attempt a tackle but pulled out as he realised it was going to be high.

Weird passage of play but thought overall Owens was pretty good, Was glad to see he didn't give a yellow card for the attempted intercept of Stockdales as i've never liked that as a card.

[Farva]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

If he wasnt part of the ruck (and I havent watched it more than once so cant recall) then its probably above board.
I think he was penalised for being a kiwi which I think most of us neutrals will agree is reasonable grounds.

Well done Owens on making a good decision.

[BlueThunder]

If the base of the posts is the equivalent of the tryline then it is not a "held up" ingoal situation. That means Todd's action is the equivalent of flopping down in the field of play in front of the tryline. Against the spirit of the game.

[merlin the happy pig]

If the base of the posts is the equivalent of the tryline then it is not a "held up" ingoal situation. That means Todd's action is the equivalent of flopping down in the field of play in front of the tryline. Against the spirit of the game.

Having goal post obstructing a player from getting under the player is also obviously against the spirit of the game, whatever you think that might mean.

Simple solution, get rid of the rule saying you can ground the ball against the post.
Better still move them to the dead ball line or use American football style style posts.

[merlin the happy pig]

It was completely cynical but didn’t seem to break any laws. He was certainly onside which was what he got yellow carded for. He also had his back to the ball runner, so it’s hard to argue he was attempting a tackle. A tenuous argument could be that by putting his body between the ball carrier and the goal post he was effectively carrying out a tackle and by facing the goal post not using his arms. but that is pretty tenuous. Really a better answer is to say that Owens saw it was cynical, blew it up, and then realized no laws had actually been broken, but was already too committed to reverse.

This is exactly as I see it.

Just watch ed the replay again of this and think Todd was going to attempt a tackle but pulled out as he realised it was going to be high.

Weird passage of play but thought overall Owens was pretty good, Was glad to see he didn't give a yellow card for the attempted intercept of Stockdales as i've never liked that as a card.

Stockdale's intercept attempt didn't seem obviously cynical, definitely seen worse.