2014 Super Rugby Final: Waratahs v Crusaders

Discussion in 'Super Rugby' started by Jaguares, Jul 26, 2014.

  1. TRF Mr Fish

    TRF Mr Fish Your Piscine Overlord

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,172
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    To be honest there's a bit of a difference between the two calls. One was an error of law, one was a error of judgment. To the TMO it didn't look like Nadolo was out (I personally think it was a 50/50 call - don't recall any instance Nadolo losing the ball over the line?), and it's his prerogative to make that call. In contrast, incorrectly applying the law is a different kettle of fish - there shouldn't be any subjectivity in the law. Of course you could quite rightly argue that Joubert had to make a judgment call on what he saw, perhaps he wasn't able to visually see it was not a tackle etc. etc.

    Not that I think it makes a difference - a couple of calls here and there are always 50/50, such is the nature of the game. It's not like Joubert had an awful all round game, which he is prone to (last year's final, for example). The Waratahs won fair and square (though of course if the Crusaders had as favourable a draw as the Tahs then I'm sure they would have had the home final and won it ;)).
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. RoosTah

    RoosTah First XV

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Sydney

    I disagree and argue that the Nadolo case is a clear error of law. If you watch him as he slides over, the ball slips out of his hands has he's attempting to ground it and his foot is being dragged into touch. His fingers are barely touching the ball as it hits the grass and it's not technically being "grounded" when it does. So it's a clear error of law in my view.

    Have a look for yourself though:
    [​IMG]

    You can see right at the end he's clearly lost the ball.

    The only way that becomes an error of judgement is if you think that he judges the foot not to have gone in touch in spite of it being pretty clear that it does, and then also take the meaning of the verb "to ground" to include dropping something on the ground.

    It didn't matter thankfully, but it was a massive ​error.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  4. Darwin

    Darwin AKA Dingo_Darwin

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,156
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Highlanders

    I have to agree with Mr Fish in terms of Nadolo losing the ball. To me it doesn't look as though he loses contact with the ball at any stage before grounding it - it is much clearer in the side-on angle that they showed. I do think his foot touches the sideline before he grounds it though....
     
  5. RoosTah

    RoosTah First XV

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Sydney

    I wouldn't call that grounding the ball... I know Union doesn't technically require "control" like they do in League, but to me grounding implies you do have hold of it, and he clearly doesn't as it's not even touching his fingers, but rather his wrist when it hits the ground.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  6. TRF_nickdnz

    TRF_nickdnz Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,535
    Location:
    Paderborn, Germany
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Hurricanes

    He clearly had enough of a hold of it to ground it though or at least guide it to the ground.

    Either way I think the Crusaders were a tad unlucky with Joubert's call, but I think overall he had a good game.

    Funny it's coming from Kaplan, probably my least favorite referee of all time.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  7. Darwin

    Darwin AKA Dingo_Darwin

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,156
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Highlanders

    That's the point though. You don't need "control", therefore what Nadolo did was perfectly fine. There is no requirement to hold the ball in a particular way - Nadolo just chose a rather unconventional way to ground the ball ;)

    The question is how else could you rule on this? Nadolo never loses contact with the ball, therefore it clearly can't be a knock-on....
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  8. RoosTah

    RoosTah First XV

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Sydney

    I don't know that he does... I've seen a fair few like that that ref's have judged knock-ons and when you look at the high res in slow motion it actually does look like there is separation before it hits the ground, so I'd argue that would be fair.

    Either way though, I think it's contentious at best, and combined with the foot going into touch there's no way in hell it should have been awarded.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  9. TRF_nickdnz

    TRF_nickdnz Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,535
    Location:
    Paderborn, Germany
    Country Flag:

    New Zealand

    Club or Nation:

    Hurricanes

    I guess that's why they are called laws and not rules, they're open to interpretation. I would say having enough control to make sure your hand is touching the ball at the same time as the ball hits the ground is enough.

    I haven't seen all the angles the TMO had, but it certainly looks contentious.

    Interesting and on a totally irrelevant side note: This is a law I didn't know existed:

    22.4 (g)
    So you could technically run along the outside line to chase a kick, and have both feet out of play when you ground the loose ball. Interesting, I wonder if that happened in a club game if the referee would rule I was out.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  10. InsaneAsylum

    InsaneAsylum First XV

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,335
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Rebels

    Almost a week now and this is still getting hashed and rehashed. Nadolo scored, McCaw infringed, Waratahs won.
     
  11. RoosTah

    RoosTah First XV

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Sydney

    I'm happy with the end result (obviously). I only brought up Nadolo's "try" because Larksea tried to argue that the McCaw decision was the "controversial" one.
     
  12. Sam Owen

    Sam Owen BANNED!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Samoa and Auckland NZ
    Country Flag:

    Samoa

    Club or Nation:

    Blues

    The grounding is JUST ok to me but I think his big feet surely cut the chalk and beyond very quickly but even the feet going out is not clear cut obviously. I would've ruled no try, brilliant run but I assume that he was out.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
  13. lynam1104

    lynam1104 First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,231
    Location:
    Singapore
    Country Flag:

    Ireland

    Club or Nation:

    Leinster

    On Nandolo's try TBH I would have ruled it as inconclusive as its hard to say for sure if he got it down before his touch hit the chalk due to the shadow from the corner flag.
     
  14. RoosTah

    RoosTah First XV

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Sydney

    The thing with it is, is that on HD if you slow it down there appears a clear separation between his hands and the ball before it hits the ground. Combined with his foot and the touch line, it just casts far too much doubt over it to award it, and it really was a poor decision to give it.
     
  15. lynam1104

    lynam1104 First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,231
    Location:
    Singapore
    Country Flag:

    Ireland

    Club or Nation:

    Leinster

    I agree it shouldn't have been given but we're just coming to the same conclusion from different angles.
     
  16. Guilty

    Guilty Academy Player

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Country Flag:

    Australia

    Club or Nation:

    Waratahs

    I don't think it was a try either but I knew they were going to award it watching it live. Looking back, I don't even think the TMO was looking at his feet - all the focus was on whether he grounded it. This isn't league so he didn't need to have control to ground the ball which is why I think the try was awarded but his foot was clearly out. Either way, the Waratahs ended up winning and we had the best Super XV Final I can remember so it worked out for the best. No harm done.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page

-->