2014 Super Rugby: Highlanders v Crusaders (Round 15)

[lynam1104]

I agree. Parker is one of the few NZ 10's that can actually kick drop goals too!

Alternatively Parker shouldn't have thrown a skip pass, leaving Dagg with 2 men to tackle, which would have resulted in an easy try....

Aye the skip pass was the wrong option too, simple hands would have been an easy try by either of the men

 

[smartcooky]

I know that BUT technically even from the front close up angle that ball was inside before it hit the sideline if you look at the shape of the ball and where it hits the ground and not the grass to me its in but id never expect a video ref to rule in my favour of this.

With my "admittedly" red & black eyepatch on, I thought the tip of the ball touched the post before it touched any lines..

So even if it then slid down and touched the goal-line, it is already grounded against the post

And even then, there is another Law that has it covered...

[TEXTAREA]22.3 BALL GROUNDED BY AN ATTACKING PLAYER
(b) When an attacking player who has possession of the ball grounds the ball in in-goal and
simultaneously contacts the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball-line (or anywhere beyond), a
22m drop-out is awarded to the defending team.[/TEXTAREA]

 

[Kiwiwomble]

My chest hurts...

I don't want to talk about it

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Someone please lock this thread, I honestly don't think there's anything else to be said about the game and some of us have to go yo work in chch on Monday...

 

[Jaguares]

With Wilkinson at 10 Landers could have won

 

[smartcooky]

I guess it's a pretty parsimonious law. If the post wasn't there it would simply have been placed on the out line in goal, in which case it's out.

True, but there is a very good reason why it is worded the way it is.

The provision to have the corner post not in touch came in as part of the ELVs in 2008. It was stated that the corner posts would be placed at the junction of the touchline and the goal line, and a ball touching the post is not automatically in touch. Normally, this would not be a problem but some grounds at the elite end of the game have wider padding to accommodate the sponsor's signage. The result of this was that on many of those grounds, the padding was wider than the touchline, and the inside of the padding would cover the end of the goal-line.

Corner post covering the end of the goal line.


In the event of the ball being grounded into the bottom of the corner post, it would be very difficult for the referee, AR or TMO to judge if the padding had been squashed sufficiently for the ball to have touched the touchline or not,l under the padding. So it was decided that because part of the goal-line was obscured, that a ball grounded on the goal-line and against the corner flag would be a unique situation that would be deemed to have touched the touchline.

If you look at the photo I linked in post #42, you can see that the base of the padding is squashed slightly. That's why I said that Law 22.12 would have Vinny covered anyway, even if he couldn't see the ball touch the touchline, because grounding against the post puts the ball in touch anyway.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Very interesting.

What's the reason for having the posts at all, do you know? Is it to remove any confusion with regards to having three sectors of the field meeting in one place (in-goal, out, field of play)?

 

[smartcooky]

Very interesting.

What's the reason for having the posts at all, do you know? Is it to remove any confusion with regards to having three sectors of the field meeting in one place (in-goal, out, field of play)?

Yes, the corner posts are to give an obvious visual reference point for the referee where "touch" becomes "touch-in-goal". Without them, it might be impossible for a referee to judge from more than a few metres away whether a ball kicked into the corner went into touch or touch-in-goal.

The 22m and half way posts are set back from the touchline purely so that they don't get in the way of the AR/TJ and line-out throwers

The only posts I believe could be completely done away with are the ones in the corner of touch in-goal and the dead-ball line. Since a ball or player going beyond either of these is treated in exactly the same way, they serve no useful purpose.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Nice to see none of the coaches having a fit because of the decision taken.
Was a great game of rugby

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I was expecting parker to take 3 points and the match. He's got a few already this season right? Damn that NZ conference is so close!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i'm pretty frustrated...but i don't know who at, three options as i see it.

1) keep hammering the line....and the odds of dropping it or a turn over keep going up

2) drop goal.....and maybe shank it

3) fling it wide and go for the corner....and dagg finally make a tackle

no option was perfect and when laid out like that i think they took the right one, i don't think may would have put money on Dagg being able to take osbourne like that, the only thing i would have liked was maybe osbourne to step in rather than go for the corner...dagg might have flown straight past him and even if he had made the tackle smith would have been the next on the scene and he might have been able to go over

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Jabby, I know how you feel. as a rebels fan, we've been on the wrong end of close games this year, against the Highlanders, Chiefs, Sharks and Crusaders. Maybe not as close as this game, the Rebels seem to have so much more potential but just not good enough to close those games out.

a win is a win and parker should have slotted into the pocket and backed himself (at the end of the day, you win some you lose some, carter missed one against us a few years ago when we drew that 3rd Bledisloe, it happens to the best), the crusaders are possibly the best defenders when hard against their line, rumbling it over was always going to be a tough option and besides they already tried that to no avail, and as mentioned earlier the cut out was the wrong option. The player inside Osbourne would have either drawn Dagg in and then thrown the pass to Osbourne who would have scored, or dummied to obsourne which would have created a gap for him to score as Dagg would have had to cover Osbourne. hindsight is a wonderful thing though.

 

[smartcooky]

i'm pretty frustrated...but i don't know who at, three options as i see it.

1) keep hammering the line....and the odds of dropping it or a turn over keep going up

2) drop goal.....and maybe shank it

3) fling it wide and go for the corner....and dagg finally make a tackle

no option was perfect and when laid out like that i think they took the right one, i don't think may would have put money on Dagg being able to take osbourne like that, the only thing i would have liked was maybe osbourne to step in rather than go for the corner...dagg might have flown straight past him and even if he had made the tackle smith would have been the next on the scene and he might have been able to go over

...and be honest, what a tackle it was; well on a par with the famous 1994 George Gregan / Geoff Wilson tackle (simply known as "The Tackle"). Osborne looked for all money that he was going to score about 1½ metres in from the left had touch.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

one thing that does annoy me after this game...all the calls (tv, paper) for dagg to be first choice for the AB's again, he had a very good game i'll grand but not blockbusting, his great set up getting stopped in his tracks and just managing to shovel it over the top. i'll actually be pretty annoyed if that's all he needed to do to get the 15 AB's jersey

 

[Darwin]

one thing that does annoy me after this game...all the calls (tv, paper) for dagg to be first choice for the AB's again, he had a very good game i'll grand but not blockbusting, his great set up getting stopped in his tracks and just managing to shovel it over the top. i'll actually be pretty annoyed if that's all he needed to do to get the 15 AB's jersey

Especially considering Ben Smith completely outplayed him yet again.....