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

[General Tah]

Im amused that the Scots and the Aussie haters are blaming a decision that cost them 3 points and not the 5 tries that were scored. Not forgetting the one that was disallowed.
Or also look at the penalty county in oppositions half. Benefits scotland as well.

But a decision that was correcrly made with a minite to go? Yep thays to blame [emoji57]

 

[ABs2011]

A tough call but it does seem the wrong call was made!!

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.

Nah mate, I dont think it was. Phipps puts him onside.

Until I saw a couple different camera angles I thought it was the right call, but for me Phipps definately played at and touches the ball, so at worst (for Scotaland) it should have been a scrum to OZ. Whether or not Phipps played at the ball is what the whole call rests on (nothing to do with him going to groud with the ball).

There is also an argument that there was actually not even a Scot knock-on - which is possible but hard to tell!

Anyway the overall point really is that in real time it was a bloody tough call to get right - The Scotish can rightfuly feel aggrieved, but Joubert should not be hung out to dry on this one. It was a damn tough call to get right, and unfortunately he got it wrong.

@General Tah @TRF_nickdnz @sanzar

Look at about the 46 sec mark and see what you think - does Phipps take a swipe at it?

 

[ianw16]

Wasn't offside. End of. Australia got very lucky. Play like that against Argentina, never mind the ABs, and they will lose horribly.

 

[nzlizard]

Yup, looks like he played for it from the two angles shown.

Scotland should consider themselves hard done by.

Joubert should at least be reviewed for this, he ran off real quick.

 

[General Tah]

Nah mate, I dont think it was. Phipps puts him onside.

Until I saw a couple different camera angles I thought it was the right call, but for me Phipps definately played at and touches the ball, so at worst (for Scotaland) it should have been a scrum to OZ. Whether or not Phipps played at the ball is what the whole call rests on (nothing to do with him going to groud with the ball).

There is also an argument that there was actually not even a Scot knock-on - which is possible but hard to tell!

Anyway the overall point really is that in real time it was a bloody tough call to get right - The Scotish can rightfuly feel aggrieved, but Joubert should not be hung out to dry on this one. It was a damn tough call to get right, and unfortunately he got it wrong.

@General Tah @TRF_nickdnz @sanzar

Look at about the 46 sec mark and see what you think - does Phipps take a swipe at it?

So it does. [emoji106]

I shall now go through the entire game with a fine tooth comb looking for a penalty he missed for us. Bet you i find a few [emoji6]

It didnt cost you the game. Letting 5 (6) tries lost you the game.

 

[smartcooky]

...But a decision that was correctly made with a minite to go? Yep thays to blame [emoji57]

The decision was NOT correctly made and I'm afraid Craig Joubert has dropped a major bollock with the last, match winning, penalty for Australia. That was not offside because when the Scots player knocked the ball forward at the lineout, it came back in Australia's direction off Phipps' shoulder before the next Scotland player touched it. IMO Phipps played at the ball, but intentional or not intentional, the ball touched Phipps and that should have been a scrum to Australia for a knock-on.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA]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[/TEXTAREA]

The problem for Joubert is that it wasn't a team-mate who next played the ball, it was an opponent. The really important kicker is the definition of "played"

[textarea]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/textarea]

This is not RL we are playing here. In RL, if you don't play at the ball, and instead, it strikes you, then the contact with the ball does not disadvantage you in subsequent play or restart of play, i.e. "not played at" means the tackle count is not restarted, or if an opponent kicks the ball at you and it bounces into touch without you attempting to play it, you will get the feed to the scrum

Rugby Union does NOT make any such distinction between the ball touching the player and the player touching the ball. Its all the same.

IMO, Craig Joubert has made an egregious and critical error that has very likely cost Scotland the game and a semi-final berth in the RWC.

For a referee, it cannot get much worse than that!

 

[General Tah]

The decision was NOT correctly made and I'm afraid Craig Joubert has dropped a major bollock with the last, match winning, penalty for Australia. That was not offside because when the Scots player knocked the ball forward at the lineout, it came back in Australia's direction off Phipps' shoulder before the next Scotland player touched it. IMO Phipps played at the ball, but intentional or not intentional, the ball touched Phipps and that should have been a scrum to Australia for a knock-on.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA]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[/TEXTAREA]

The problem for Joubert is that it wasn't a team-mate who next played the ball, it was an opponent. The really important kicker is the definition of "played"

[textarea]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/textarea]

This is not RL we are playing here. In RL, if you don't play at the ball, and instead, it strikes you, then the contact with the ball does not disadvantage you in subsequent play or restart of play, i.e. "not played at" means the tackle count is not restarted, or if an opponent kicks the ball at you and it bounces into touch without you attempting to play it, you will get the feed to the scrum

Rugby Union does NOT make any such distinction between the ball touching the player and the player touching the ball. Its all the same.

IMO, Craig Joubert has made an egregious and critical error that has very likely cost Scotland the game and a semi-final berth in the RWC.

For a referee, it cannot get much worse than that!

5 tries cost you the game.

 

[smartcooky]

So it does. [emoji106]

I shall now go through the entire game with a fine tooth comb looking for a penalty he missed for us. Bet you i find a few [emoji6]

It doesn't work like that and I think you are missing the point. If it was the other way around, you would be screaming blue murder.

The closer to the end of a game that a very bad error like this is made, the more difficult it is for the disadvantaged team to recover from.

It didnt cost you the game. Letting 5 (6) tries lost you the game.

Rubbish! The number of tries scored counts for nothing. They were able to keep up with your score by kicking penalties because YOUR TEAM INFRINGED! Maybe if your team had not infringed as much, they might have score another two tries. We'll never know that!

And it didn't cost me anything. I'm not a Scot!!

 

[General Tah]

It doesn't work like that and I think you are missing the point. If it was the other way around, you would be screaming blue murder.

The closer to the end of a game that a very bad error like this is made, the more difficult it is for the disadvantaged team to recover from.



Rubbish! The number of tries scored counts for nothing. They were able to keep up with your score by kicking penalties because YOUR TEAM INFRINGED! Maybe if your team had not infringed as much, they might have score another two tries. We'll never know that!

And it didn't cost me anything. I'm not a Scot!!

Ahhh sooo mistakes that were made are ok as long as they dont come in the last minute? Riiiight. [emoji15]

It has happened to us before. We just shrug and go oh well what goes around comes around.

 

[RoosTah]

It doesn't work like that and I think you are missing the point. If it was the other way around, you would be screaming blue murder.

The closer to the end of a game that a very bad error like this is made, the more difficult it is for the disadvantaged team to recover from.

Rubbish! The number of tries scored counts for nothing.

Funny, I always thought they were worth 5 points each.

Look, the point being made is that people love to pounce on decisions near the end of games when they don't go their way, but then forget the previous 79 minutes as if they were only a minor part.

Frankly I still think the side hardest done by is Japan. They won all their games bar the one the had to play a couple days after their battering by the Springboks and that happened to be against Scotland. Other than that though Japan completely controlled their games agains the US and Samoa, while Scotland were bloody lucky to beat Samoa and got run over by the Boks.

Just saying, luck goes both ways and the Scots had their fair share to even make the qtrs.

 

[smartcooky]

Ahhh sooo mistakes that were made are ok as long as they dont come in the last minute? Riiiight. [emoji15]

It has happened to us before. We just shrug and go oh well what goes around comes around.

A strawman argument

That is not what I am saying and you know it. You're just being troll now!

 

[General Tah]

A strawman argument

That is not what I am saying and you know it. You're just being troll now!

I know what your saying. You wrote it.

I completely disagree with what you are saying, so not trolling

 

[ABs2011]

@smartcooky,


I didnt know that regarding the "played at" definition. Are you absloutely sure? Cause on radiosport today, the so called expert was saying whether he intentionaly played at it made all the difference!

It's a moot point anyway I guess given that he does look to have intentionally played at it, but just out of interest it is good to know!

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

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

No, but that doesn't change the fact Laidlaw choked a bit there.

Also NZ wouldn't throw a lineout like that at 80mins...

 

[Larksea]

players play the scoreboard, mistakes during most of the game dont matter as much if the teams have a change to play and make up for it.

But when the game ends on a bad decision its particularly harsh because the game gets taken out of the players hands. I think in test and similar games matches the referee should be allowed to get TMO assistance for any important calls in the last 5 min? Something like that?

winning the WC is not about being the best team, there is a lot of luck involved. unfortunately things didn't go Scotland way in this game. Part of rugby is the "bounce of the ball" close games are often decided by referee calls that could go either way. It sucks when your team gets the stiff end of the call. It gets harder and harder to deal with the better the tech & coverage gets. Replays show that definitely wasn't a penalty. 20 or so years ago it would have been hard to tell.

 

[ABs2011]

players play the scoreboard, mistakes during most of the game dont matter as much if the teams have a change to play and make up for it.

But when the game ends on a bad decision its particularly harsh because the game gets taken out of the players hands. I think in test and similar games matches the referee should be allowed to get TMO assistance for any important calls in the last 5 min? Something like that?

winning the WC is not about being the best team, there is a lot of luck involved. unfortunately things didn't go Scotland way in this game. Part of rugby is the "bounce of the ball" close games are often decided by referee calls that could go either way. It sucks when your team gets the stiff end of the call. It gets harder and harder to deal with the better the tech & coverage gets. Replays show that definitely wasn't a penalty. 20 or so years ago it would have been hard to tell.

Yeah, I think they may well go down the track of something like that. I think any major play in that last 5 minutes, and/or anything the ref is unsure about should be allowed to be reviewed.

The down side is it will drag the match out and likely the flow of the game will get disrupted. I suspect there will be a lot of room to game the system as well to purposely disrupt the game advantaging the team that wants to try and slow things down.

Anway, I think you will find this call will be the catalyst for a trialing something new, or at least having the conversation.

 

[Fard]

5 tries cost you the game.

If that is so "The played at definition" then the ball that was kicked by AAC that hit a Scot then was taken by the Scot in front should have been a penalty as well instead of the scrum.
I am not too sure exactly when this happened but didn't Scotland get a try just after this?

 

[ABs2011]

If that is so "The played at definition" then the ball that was kicked by AAC that hit a Scot then was taken by the Scot in front should have been a penalty as well instead of the scrum.
I am not too sure exactly when this happened but didn't Scotland get a try just after this?

It's not just the definition of "played" that matters there though, it's also whether the offside was "accidental" or not.

11.6 Accidental Offside
[FONT=fs_blakeregular](a)

When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player's team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player's team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.12

[/FONT]I cant recall the details of that play to be honest, so not sure if it was "accidental" or not?

 

[austingtir]

End of the day out of all the calls they've messed about reviewing this is the one that was the most important and they didnt review it. Its dissapointing especially from my perspective as dickwacker Barnes stocks have now most likely gone up to reff the last two games. He's the sort of guy you'd expect to make this mistake not Joubert.


I havent been following much today but did the Scotland captain point anything out to Jourbert?

 

[ABs2011]

End of the day out of all the calls they've messed about reviewing this is the one that was the most important and they didnt review it. Its dissapointing especially from my perspective as dickwacker Barnes stocks have now most likely gone up to reff the last two games. He's the sort of guy you'd expect to make this mistake not Joubert.


I havent been following much today but did the Scotland captain point anything out to Jourbert?

Technically this call could not be reviewed.