2014 Super Rugby: Lions V Blues (Round 5)

[TRF Mr Fish]

Just watched the highlights... I thought the contentious Lions try was legitimate. It's been smacked out of his hands by a Blues player, which typically has been refereed in the past the same way as it was in this game.

 

[austingtir]

On the face of it I completely agree with both those two points. I only got to see highlights of this last game so really keen to hear from some of our other knowledgeable pundits how Benji went? Obviously he scored a good try and also (I think) kicked aimlessly to the Lions and then missed a soft tackle which sparked one of the Lions tries, BUT how did he go in general? How was his D? his positional play? Does he look to be getting the hang of the game? Overall out of 10?? Will he start next week? Should he start next week based on that performance?

Full game is up on yt..... honestly the Lions arent a bad outfit now. To beat them in SA is going to take a good performance from any of our teams. Im sure they've seen the weakpoint is clearly the forward pack in the blues and they did a good job of beating them down.

Benji is fine he just needs game time and to me this blues team has nothing to loose by training him on the job. They are not ***le contenders.

Noakes at first five is a total and utter waste of time they are still better off giving a clueless Benji a shot.

 

[Muzzy]

On the face of it I completely agree with both those two points. I only got to see highlights of this last game so really keen to hear from some of our other knowledgeable pundits how Benji went? Obviously he scored a good try and also (I think) kicked aimlessly to the Lions and then missed a soft tackle which sparked one of the Lions tries, BUT how did he go in general? How was his D? his positional play? Does he look to be getting the hang of the game? Overall out of 10?? Will he start next week? Should he start next week based on that performance?

I only saw the second half and yeah Benji made some poor kicks, one of the charged down just like the last time he played. When he scored that try I think he was playing a different position, either first five or second five. Hickey has been good for the blues so I think Benji would be better at 12

Btw was this the same TMO from the Blues vs Bulls game?

 

[Sam Owen]

I don't think our team should worry about Benji at all. We should be worried about ourselves. The Lions you could see over the last 2 years were going to be a good team and they're here now but we didn't play too well.

Inconsistency is still our problem. Luckily everyone's focus seems to be on Benji.

 

[austingtir]

I don't think our team should worry about Benji at all. We should be worried about ourselves. The Lions you could see over the last 2 years were going to be a good team and they're here now but we didn't play too well.

Inconsistency is still our problem. Luckily everyone's focus seems to be on Benji.

Benji is going to blow teams open every week if the forwards and whoevers inside him gives him front foot ball or slightly breaks down the defence before he gets it. The Forwards in this match simply got smashed by a more determined unit.

At the end of the day they have played the HL, Saders, Bulls and now the Lions so if they started with a beating in the first game then got smashed in the second this wasnt hard to predict.

Just looking at the Blues draw... if they dont beat the Cheetas next week they are going to be in all sorts of strife as honestly the Hurricanes, Reds and maybe the Force are the only ones i can see as gimme's. The Highlanders will well rate themselves to take these guys in Auckland.

 

[FlukeArtist]

I don't think our team should worry about Benji at all. We should be worried about ourselves. The Lions you could see over the last 2 years were going to be a good team and they're here now but we didn't play too well.

Inconsistency is still our problem. Luckily everyone's focus seems to be on Benji.

I don't think inconsistency is the issue at the heart of the problem.
The main issue I see is the distinct lack of game plan.
It is just helter skelter, very man for himself type of attack.
Very, very average.

I'm glad I didn't wake up to watch this one.

I'll always support my team, but these guys are turning into the Warriors of Super Rugby... just painful to watch.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I guess this is what happens when your head coach is a winger...

 

[donmcdazzle]

Just watched the highlights... I thought the contentious Lions try was legitimate. It's been smacked out of his hands by a Blues player, which typically has been refereed in the past the same way as it was in this game.

I have never see that reffed that way before. If he passes it and the defender knocks it backwards (like in the chiefs game) then yeah that's fine, but you can't get away with a knock on just because the defender hit the ball. How far do you take that? If someone runs into a head on tackle and it gets dislodged forward, that isn't a knock on? Come on.

 

[steblin]

There is a distinct feel of 'back yard rugby' about their play and game plan, it's like, for the most part, we're relying on individual brilliance to move things along.

But the biggest worry for me is basically all set pieces and the forwards. There are a few stand outs who have looked good in the loose, Faumuina and Tuipolotu in particular and Braid has had his moments, but everyone else has been average at best. Scrum and Lineout are 'hold your breath' moments EVERY single time ... just very poor.

In terms of Benji, his kicking was poor, positional play wasn't the best, tackling not the greatest and the more he steers clear of the break down the better ... HOWEVER, as an attacking threat, something to spark the backline and offer support, I thought he was our most dangerous player. I think so long as everyone at the club understands his weaknesses and puts him in a place to use his strengths, whether it be a bench impact 15 for a while, he will do well and pickup the rest over time.

My biggest concern about the backline at the minute is 9, 10. We looked like a different team with Hall giving quick ball and darting around the fringes, we all know how important 10 is and the issues we have there. Can't wait till we get our first choice midfield combo back as well ...

 

[steblin]

I have never see that reffed that way before. If he passes it and the defender knocks it backwards (like in the chiefs game) then yeah that's fine, but you can't get away with a knock on just because the defender hit the ball. How far do you take that? If someone runs into a head on tackle and it gets dislodged forward, that isn't a knock on? Come on.

I have to agree, Piutau hit the ball, but it still left the hands of the ball carrier. Its a murky one, certainly the commentators were not convinced at all.

 

[Patchey]

Just watched highlights. No idea why Noakes started. Hickie was great and in no way deserved to be benched. My only thoughts it that Kirwan doesn't want to put too much pressure on him too quickly?

Also, does anyone else thing Hadleigh Parkes would have been a good bet? He looked pretty solid for the Hurricanes the other week and I remember him being good for Auckland in the ITM. Was there a reason the 'Canes got him and not the Blues.

Completely agree re Marshall being the main attacking threat.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I have never see that reffed that way before. If he passes it and the defender knocks it backwards (like in the chiefs game) then yeah that's fine, but you can't get away with a knock on just because the defender hit the ball. How far do you take that? If someone runs into a head on tackle and it gets dislodged forward, that isn't a knock on? Come on.

I can't think of any games off the top of my head, but as a bit of a thought exercise:

If the defending player steals the ball off the attacking player, is that a knock on if both players have their backs to their goal lines? The ball has gone forward from the attacking player, out of his hands, after all.

If not, then that should be reasonably consistent with when the defending player pulls the ball out of the hands of the attacking player, and the ball is propelled towards the defending player's goal line, with everything else remaining the same as scenario A.

The same would then have to be said if the ball is punched out of the attacking player's hands, towards the defending player's goal line, which is what happened in this situation.

If the defending player knocks the ball out of the attacking player's hands, then it's usually treated as if the defending player touched the ball last. It's not the same if the attacking player loses the ball in the contact, unless the defending player contacts the ball itself.

That's how I see it, anyway.

EDIT: Here's one example of it being refereed this way, though it might not have much weighting due to the fact that the TMO was completely inept in this game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K2m3qGL2pMU#t=140

 

[smartcooky]

I have to agree, Piutau hit the ball, but it still left the hands of the ball carrier. Its a murky one, certainly the commentators were not convinced at all.

Its not even murky

[TEXTAREA]LAW 12 DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or[/TEXTAREA]

The Law does not say anything about HOW the player loses possession, only that he has lost possession. The Red player lost possession, so its a knock-on, and there is nothing else to consider. The fact that the white player knocked it back is irrelevant because it didn't go forward from him, therefore Law 12 does not apply to him.

The situation where one player has possession of the ball and it is dislodged in a tackle should be judged as follows;

In all cases, the Gold player is carrying the ball and is tackled by a Blue player....

1. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

2. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Gold player's dead-ball line = knock on Blue

3. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

4. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Gold player's dead-ball line = play on

While the new TMO protocols have helped immensely in the getting of correct decisions, no amount protocol can make up for referees that don't know the Law. In this case the referee and TMO made complete arses of themselves, and basically talked themselves into making a decision that was not only wrong in Law, but which was critical as it led directly to the scoring of a try that should not have been awarded, and even worse, it ended up being the difference between the two teams.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Its not even murky

[TEXTAREA]LAW 12 DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or[/TEXTAREA]

The Law does not say anything about HOW the player loses possession, only that he has lost possession. The Red player lost possession, so its a knock-on, and there is nothing else to consider. The fact that the white player knocked it back is irrelevant because it didn't go forward from him, therefore Law 12 does not apply to him.

The situation where one player has possession of the ball and it is dislodged in a tackle should be judged as follows;

In all cases, the Gold player is carrying the ball and is tackled by a Blue player....

1. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

2. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Gold player's dead-ball line = knock on Blue

3. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

4. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Gold player's dead-ball line = play on

While the new TMO protocols have helped immensely in the getting of correct decisions, no amount protocol can make up for referees that don't know the Law. In this case the referee and TMO made complete arses of themselves, and basically talked themselves into making a decision that was not only wrong in Law, but which was critical as it led directly to the scoring of a try that should not have been awarded, and even worse, it ended up being the difference between the two teams.

Thanks for clarifying cooky! So, basically, both players are considered to have propelled the ball in this case, so at the same time it's 'knocked back' and 'knocked on' - knocked back means play on, but the knocked forward means it should be a scrum to the Blues.

What should happen in my scenario A above? According to the rules, if the ball is stolen from the attacking player, it should still be a knock on by said player, correct?

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks for clarifying cooky! So, basically, both players are considered to have propelled the ball in this case, so at the same time it's 'knocked back' and 'knocked on' - knocked back means play on, but the knocked forward means it should be a scrum to the Blues.

That's quite a good way to look at it. Both players have knocked the ball, but the knock forward is an infringement.

What should happen in my scenario A above? According to the rules, if the ball is stolen from the attacking player, it should still be a knock on by said player, correct?

No. In the case where a player steals the ball out of an opponents grasp, he has taken possession of the ball, so its play on. The Law definition for a knock on when a player has possession requires three criteria to be satisfied (I have highlighted them for clarity);

[TEXTAREA]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.[/TEXTAREA]

So if we leave out the other stuff that applies only to a loose ball, we can rewrite it as

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward and touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

1. The player loses possession of the ball

2. The ball goes forward, toward the opponent's goal line

3. The ball touches the ground or another player.

#2 and #3 imply that the ball is "loose", i.e. not in the possession of any player

In the case of a player stealing the ball, the stealer is in contact, and maintains contact with the ball before the ball carrier loses possession, there for the 2nd and 3rd elements never take place.

I am poing to post a video in the referees forum and see if I can get other viewpoints on all of these scenarios, but if I'm wrong, then something fundamental has changed and I haven't heard about it.

 

[Chikwa]

Sour grapes from Kirwan . Bottom line is the lions deserved to win. The blues may have breathtaking talent but as of now their coach does not know how to use it consistently and effectively.He should leave blaming things on the ref to the springboks! Lol!

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think this match just once again showed that Johan Ackermann has found a better fly half than Elton Jantjies. Marnitz had another great game. It's actually great to see the Bulls, Lions and Sharks have fly halves on form, and running with the ball.

 

[smartcooky]

I have a retraction to make

The Law on this changed in 2011 with a Law Clarification

[TEXTAREA]Clarification 4 2011

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling 4-2011

Union ARU

Law Reference 12

Date 14 November 2011

Request Request for clarification from the ARU the correspondence is reproduced below.

"Law 12, Definitions state: "A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

The Law does not explicitly cover scenarios where the ball is ripped out of the possession of a ball-carrier by an opponent. In these situations it is almost impossible for the referee to determine exactly who last touched or had physical contact with the ball.

For the sake of improving consistency of ruling from referees worldwide, in the following scenarios, has a knock-on occurred? If so, who has knocked the ball on?

1. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team's dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from in front and rips the ball out of A's hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team's goal line. (We often see this ruled a knock-on by A).
2. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team's dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A's hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the red team's goal line. (We often see this either ruled play or a knock-on by B )."

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
In each of the scenarios outlined the ball carrier is not responsible for losing possession.

In scenario 1 the ball has been ripped from the ball carrier by a player ripping the ball from the ball carrier's hands and it goes towards that player's goal line. There is no infringement in Law and play should continue.

In scenario 2 the player ripping the ball out of the ball carrier's hands is effectively throwing the ball towards the opposition team's goal line and this is an infringement which requires the referee to award a scrum with the non-offending team throwing in subject to advantage.[/TEXTAREA]

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

So... The TMO was correct then? It doesn't explicitly mention the ball being punched out etc. in that clarification, but it can be fairly assumed that it would follow the same sort of process? The ball carrier is not responsible for losing possession if the defending player has directly caused the loss of possession?

 

[smartcooky]

So... The TMO was correct then? It doesn't explicitly mention the ball being punched out etc. in that clarification, but it can be fairly assumed that it would follow the same sort of process? The ball carrier is not responsible for losing possession if the defending player has directly caused the loss of possession?

Yes. Its scenario 2