Planet Rugby Forum

4071 wrote:

Farva wrote: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

pigaaaa wrote:

4071 wrote:

Farva wrote: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

c69 wrote:

RoscoPColtrain wrote:

c69 wrote:

Chilli wrote: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.

Fat Old Git wrote:

c69 wrote:

RoscoPColtrain wrote:

c69 wrote:

Chilli wrote: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.

Mr Fedora wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Crash_12 wrote: 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?

sorCrer wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:
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.

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

Enzedder wrote:

sorCrer wrote:
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 wrote:

Enzedder wrote:

sorCrer wrote:
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.

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

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

Ted. wrote:

naki wrote: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.

Crazy Ed wrote: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.

Crazy Ed wrote: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.

Crazy Ed wrote: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.

jdogscoop wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote: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.

Chilli wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Chilli wrote: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

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

Salient wrote:

Chilli wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Chilli wrote: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 wrote:

Clogs wrote: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.

Clogs wrote:

RoscoPColtrain wrote:

Clogs wrote: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.

sonic_attack wrote: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.

FairWeather_Aussie wrote: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.

Clogs wrote:

RoscoPColtrain wrote:

Clogs wrote: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.

TheFrog wrote:

sonic_attack wrote: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.

Enzedder wrote:

TheFrog wrote:

sonic_attack wrote: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?

FairWeather_Aussie wrote: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.

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

Wilderbeast wrote:

FairWeather_Aussie wrote: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.

FairWeather_Aussie wrote: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.

BlueThunder wrote: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.

Vahian wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

FairWeather_Aussie wrote: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.

merlin the happy pig wrote:

BlueThunder wrote: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.