[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 4: Australia vs. Scotland (18/10/2015)

[ABs2011]

Am I missing something?

I'm a little confused as to what people are so worked up about. I get that it's tough when you lose a close game, particulalry one as big as this. But in terms of the last call, the penalty, it was entirely correct based on my understanding of the rules. Here is what I saw happen:

1) Scotland player played at the ball and knocked it forward.
2) The ball then touched an OZ player, but this player did not play at the ball.
3) The ball was then intentionally played at by another Scotish player, infront of the player that knocked it on.

=> Penalty is awarded to OZ.

Is this not correct? Both in terms of what happened, and the subsequent correct ruling?

This comes under rule 11.7 Offside after a knock-on

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Therefore if the correct call was made, this whole TMO thing is a moot point!

Maybe I am missing something?

 

[RoosTah]

Definitely worth looking at that last penalty again. Think the TMO should have made a ruling. It was after all the difference between Scotland through or not!

Not saying Joubert got it wrong but why not be absolutely sure at that point in the game with so much at stake.

He couldn't have:

Under World Rugby rules, the TMO can only be called into play for:

Determining the grounding of the ball in goal for a try, and/or whether players were out of the field of play before the grounding;
Determining whether a kick at goal has been successful;
Confirming an infringement has occurred in the build up to a try or prevention of a try within two phases of the try, and;
Considering acts of possible foul play.

The offside ruling does not fall into any category and therefore Joubert's decision on the field stands.

 

[nzlizard]

BL Scotland, gave it an awesome crack and nice to see the result so close.

I haven't seen the game so can't comment on any performances, but it sounds like you guys did what was required and the bounce of the ball went the other way.

Nice work Aus on scoring tries, 5 I believe? always good to score 5 tries in a quarter final.

 

[RoosTah]

I'm a little confused as to what people are so worked up about. I get that it's tough when you lose a close game, particulalry one as big as this. But in terms of the last call, the penalty, it was entirely correct based on my understanding of the rules. Here is what I saw happen:

1) Scotland player played at the ball and knocked it forward.
2) The ball then touched an OZ player, but this player did not play at the ball.
3) The ball was then intentionally played at by another Scotish player, infront of the player that knocked it on.

=> Penalty is awarded to OZ.

Is this not correct? Both in terms of what happened, and the subsequent correct ruling?

This comes under rule 11.7 Offside after a knock-on

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Therefore if the correct call was made, this whole TMO thing is a moot point!

Maybe I am missing something?

No, but you can understand the anguish of Scottish fans all the same. Tough to go down on a very technical penalty like that.

That said, I thought Laidlaw came across like a really sore loser with his comments and irrational demands that the video ref be referred to for that (because the rules state Joubert couldn't have even if he wanted to) and frankly he just further incited an already aggressive crowd.

 

[RoosTah]

If this doesn't prompt the IRB to extend the use of the TMO then nothing will. We have officials to ensure that the game's laws are adhered to which should in turn help ensure the right result. All the officiating that went on during the previous 88 minutes went out of the window because of one bad call. Surely lessons have to learned and that the TMO can be called upon in decisions that could influence the result.

Do we really need more TMO in the game though? I'm a big NRL fan, and we're at the point of trying to scale it back or at least manage it better because if you're checking everything a hundred times it turns into a game of NFL and has no flow. I reckon what they ought to do is introduce a captain's challenge - you get 2 and if you're wrong both times the on field decision stands.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

I don't think you can put this down to anything other than failing under pressure.

And if Laidlaw wants someone to blame... Perhaps he best look at his own poor conversion attempt about ten mins earlier.

 

[nzlizard]

I don't think you can put this down to anything other than failing under pressure.

If this happened to NZ we wouldn't be saying that, lets be honest.

 

[ABs2011]

BL Scotland, gave it an awesome crack and nice to see the result so close.

I haven't seen the game so can't comment on any performances, but it sounds like you guys did what was required and the bounce of the ball went the other way.

Nice work Aus on scoring tries, 5 I believe? always good to score 5 tries in a quarter final.

So I got up at 4am to watch this game, largely as an unbiassed yet interested observer.

I thought it was a great game, officiated by and large very well.

I did think though that while Scotland did almost win, OZ were definately the better side. 5 tries to 3, but 2 of Scotlands tries should never really have occured and were complete gifts from OZ. The ridiculous intercept try, and tjhe very laboured charge down try. Even the other try to Scotland was a bit of a gift despite the leadup being from a very sustained and accurate Scotland attack.

The other area Scotland dominated was the scrum. I think at least 4 penalties to zero in their favour with at least one free kick too. I actually think OZ may have been a touch unlucky, particulalry Sio who I'm pretty sure got pinged at least 3 times. Anyway that was definately an area of dominance for Scotland, but like I said, overall a pretty dominant OZ team with 3 or 4 really poor mistakes. Oh, and some average goal kicking in the first half by Foley who missed at least 6 points while Laidlaw was perfect from the other end.

Not watnting to take anything away from Scotland, just my take that the better team definately won, and that the score line perhaps doesnt reflect the difference between the two teams.

Great match to watch though if you were on the sidelines.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we really need more TMO in the game though? I'm a big NRL fan, and we're at the point of trying to scale it back or at least manage it better because if you're checking everything a hundred times it turns into a game of NFL and has no flow. I reckon what they ought to do is introduce a captain's challenge - you get 2 and if you're wrong both times the on field decision stands.

No we don't. There is bloody well near an infinite amount of things that are debateable in a game of rugby. I think they have pretty much got the TMO useage spot on. I watch a lot of NRL too, and NFL, and there is a reason why they have things in place to minimise TMO useage. It disrupts the game and spoils the spectacle. Not to mention the fact that in this case the right call was made, so still not sure what the fuss is about. I may have things wrong, but yet to be corrected.

 

[gamine]

mistaken

No, but you can understand the anguish of Scottish fans all the same. Tough to go down on a very technical penalty like that.

That said, I thought Laidlaw came across like a really sore loser with his comments and irrational demands that the video ref be referred to for that (because the rules state Joubert couldn't have even if he wanted to) and frankly he just further incited an already aggressive crowd.

Joubert was mistaken. The ball did not go forward off a Scotland player, it was knocked forward by the arm of an Australian player. This can be seen quite clearly on video replays, so not sure where Joubert was standing when he made his ruling, he was obviously not sighted clearly enough to see what happened.

The fact that he blew the whistle and ran off immediately at the end of the game suggests that he knew he had blundered and was unable to face the players whom he had deprived of a victory.

Feel sorry for the poor man who will have to live with this for the rest of his life!

 

[ABs2011]

Joubert was mistaken. The ball did not go forward off a Scotland player, it was knocked forward by the arm of an Australian player. This can be seen quite clearly on video replays, so not sure where Joubert was standing when he made his ruling, he was obviously not sighted clearly enough to see what happened.

The fact that he blew the whistle and ran off immediately at the end of the game suggests that he knew he had blundered and was unable to face the players whom he had deprived of a victory.

Feel sorry for the poor man who will have to live with this for the rest of his life!

I've actually changed my opinion on this (to a point) and do infact think Joubert got the call wrong, not because there was no Scotland knock-on (I think Hardie knocks it on), but because Phipps did intentionally play at it, meaning there was no offside.

That being said, all of this is still being blown WAY out of proportion. Even if he got the on field call wrong, it was a bang bang play that even with multiple replays people still differ in opinion about it. It does look like a tough call for Scotland, BUT we can hardly crucify Joubert for this. It was just a tough call that he got wrong and unfortunaltey one which looks to have changed the result of the game. I say "looks to" because we can simply not know what would have happened if OZ were awarded a scrum.

 

[RoosTah]

Joubert was mistaken. The ball did not go forward off a Scotland player, it was knocked forward by the arm of an Australian player. This can be seen quite clearly on video replays, so not sure where Joubert was standing when he made his ruling, he was obviously not sighted clearly enough to see what happened.

The fact that he blew the whistle and ran off immediately at the end of the game suggests that he knew he had blundered and was unable to face the players whom he had deprived of a victory.

Feel sorry for the poor man who will have to live with this for the rest of his life!

Disagree. Firstly, it was a penalty - it wasn't played at and so for the Scotish player to pick it up is an automatic offside. Therefore, it's a penalty.

Second, Joubert ran off because feral Scottish fans were throwing bottles at him, seemingly under the impression it was him that let Australia score 5 tries (which frankly should have been 6 - there was no knock on in that ruck).

 

[celticc]

Sorry, but Joubert was high tailing long before anything got anywhere near him so that is rubbish, see below.

https://twitter.com/duncanbell3/status/655870384508682240

Secondly, anyone still clinging to the opinion that was a penalty is deluded. I haven't heard any expert or former player say it was a penalty and that includes more than a few Aussies.

 

[RoosTah]

Sorry, but Joubert was high tailing long before anything got anywhere near him so that is rubbish, see below.

https://twitter.com/duncanbell3/status/655870384508682240

Secondly, anyone still clinging to the opinion that was a penalty is deluded. I haven't heard any expert or former player say it was a penalty and that includes more than a few Aussies.

Meh, I haven't spoken to anyone other than Scots that think there was a knock on at the base of that ruck in the lead up to AAC's try, but that didn't happen in the final minute so we're not talking about it.

At the end of the day, Scotland conceded 5 tries and THAT is why they lost. Sure, they could have won in spite of that, but it's hard to say they deserved to. That said, I didn't really think either side "deserved" to win...

 

[celticc]

Meh, I haven't spoken to anyone other than Scots that think there was a knock on at the base of that ruck in the lead up to AAC's try, but that didn't happen in the final minute so we're not talking about it.

At the end of the day, Scotland conceded 5 tries and THAT is why they lost. Sure, they could have won in spite of that, but it's hard to say they deserved to. That said, I didn't really think either side "deserved" to win...

Was a clear knock on, I'll post a link if I can find one. You do know that it is possible to concede 5 tries and win, there aren't any laws against it as far as I am aware.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Disagree. Firstly, it was a penalty - it wasn't played at and so for the Scotish player to pick it up is an automatic offside. Therefore, it's a penalty.

Second, Joubert ran off because feral Scottish fans were throwing bottles at him, seemingly under the impression it was him that let Australia score 5 tries (which frankly should have been 6 - there was no knock on in that ruck).

I agree with the rest of your post but there was definitely a knock on in that ruck.
I don't know if the SH and the NH got different camera angles(/directors?) but it definitely showed it on the ITV coverage. At first I thought they meant Hooper had knocked it on when trying to place it, and was adamant that he hadn't, but then it showed that Genia nudged it only an inch or so, when trying to grasp the ball, then quickly grabbed it and passed it out.
I did mention, at the time, how I was impressed that the ref/touch judges/TMO managed to spot it as it was a split second, but it was 100% a knock on.

 

[nickdnz]

Sorry, but Joubert was high tailing long before anything got anywhere near him so that is rubbish, see below.

https://twitter.com/duncanbell3/status/655870384508682240

Secondly, anyone still clinging to the opinion that was a penalty is deluded. I haven't heard any expert or former player say it was a penalty and that includes more than a few Aussies.

Of course that offside was a penalty. He played at the ball. What was more telling about the penalty that rules it out simply as an accidental offside (ie if the ball hit a retreating player without him play it) is that he then went to ground with the ball. It may have been simply reactionary, but it is still a penalty.

 

[RoosTah]

Was a clear knock on, I'll post a link if I can find one. You do know that it is possible to concede 5 tries and win, there aren't any laws against it as far as I am aware.

Didn't say there was. I'm just pointing out that Wallabies players crossing your try line 5 times probably had a little more of a say in Scotland losing than a penalty in the final minute. It's easy to blame the ref, but in 80 minutes of rugby more than one decision decides the outcome...

 

[Kiwi_]

Absolutely shattered for the Scots.. don't think I have the stomach to watch the replay for this one.

 

[Larksea]

from the main camera angle it was a tricky one to judge but the reverse angle made it very clear without a doubt.

scott knocked it forward, then it hit and Aussie who tried to catch it (phipps? it was just a flash) then a scottish player played at it.

For mine thats a Scrum to Australia. I think the touch from Phipps should have put that last Scott onside and the first knock on should be what was called.

It sucks to lose a game from a final call like that, even worse for such an important one. But I dont think the ref is dodgy it was just an unfortunate bad call and it wasn't a situation he could get help from the TMO on.

The Crusaders lost the super rugby final to a bad final call of the match a couple of years ago. I think it was Joubert as well....

 

[PacDuran]

Sorry, but Joubert was high tailing long before anything got anywhere near him so that is rubbish, see below.

https://twitter.com/duncanbell3/status/655870384508682240

Secondly, anyone still clinging to the opinion that was a penalty is deluded. I haven't heard any expert or former player say it was a penalty and that includes more than a few Aussies.

HAHAHAHA Joubert running for his life. Joubert does himself no favours with his ridiculously shifty demeanor.