[2017 Rugby Championship] Round 1: Australia v New Zealand (19/08/2017)

[Larksea]

As I said, in the end, after veiwing all the angles the TMO said it wasnt "clear and obvious" that Folau was offside. You seem to have a different opinion, but sorry, I am going to go with the opinions of the professional referees. BTW my immediate reaction was that he probably was offside, but once it was slowed down and replayed, I wasnt sure if it was or not.

Without obsessing about it too much, its pretty hard to argue that it WAS "clear and obvious", so at worst its an error of degree in the analysis and if that is the worst mistake a ref makes in a game I think we would all be pretty pleased. Its probably a fair testament to the quality of the reffing in the game, that this marginal decsion on a potential off-side is the only real point of discussion!

I think your missing the point, which was he stopped the TMO from watching replays and made the decision to allow the Folau try commenting that if it needs frame by frame to decide then its probably ok. Then with Barretts try he let the TMO go frame by frame from multiple angles multiple times... That is textbook inconsistency...

 

[RoosTah]

Woke up this morning to see we mounted a bit of a come back, so I watched the last 30. Some opportunistic tries from us, but good to see them not just give up completely all the same. Also though Folau should have scored with that massive run at the end - he just made one to many steps and jags... if he goes corner after turning smith around the second time, he definitely scores.

Either way though, as positive as their attack was at the dying stages, next week will still likely prove similarly embarrassing for them, as they have one of the most shambolic defensive structures I've seen in a test team and you aren't going to fix that in a week

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

The ABs weren't trying in the second half. Next week will be 70-3.

 

[galumay]

I think your missing the point, which was he stopped the TMO from watching replays and made the decision to allow the Folau try commenting that if it needs frame by frame to decide then its probably ok. Then with Barretts try he let the TMO go frame by frame from multiple angles multiple times... That is textbook inconsistency...

No I think you are missing the point, after speaking with his AR, Barnes asks the TMO to check the pass and how the ball ended up with Folau,TMO ruled it was not "Clear and obvious offside", it was freeze framed, Barnes actually says "its not obvious if we are freeze framing it like this" - as the TMO rocks the frame back and forwards. Then Barnes checks again with the TMO, "Its not clearly offside is it? - while the frame is frozen, the TMO confirms its "not clear and obvious." (perhaps you need to watch it again, because you seem genuinley mistaken about what happened?)

Then with Barrett's non-try, again he doesnt award the try, goes straight to the TMO, asks "Try or no Try, who got there first." After watching all the available angles and just as they did with Folau's try, rocking the critical frames, Barnes says, "Kitty (Rowan Kitt) might have to rule on this, its just too tight for us, isnt it." and in the end the TMO rules simultaneous contact. In this case its different because there is nothing clear and obvious either way in any of the angles (not forgetting that in the in goal area there are more camera angles available, so of course they checked them all.) - given that its not clear and obvious that either player grounded the ball first, the only possible ruling was simultaneous contact.

To somehow construe that these two decisions somehow represented inconsistency on Barne's part defies logic frankly. For a start Barne's had no direct influence in replaying the plays, thats the TMO's job obviously, secondly in both cases the available vision was freeze framed and rocked so even taking Barne's out of it there was no inconsistency in the overall analysis of both plays.

Sorry Larksea, I think you are flogging a dead horse here, or you watched different coverage to the broadcast in Australia.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I thought Folau was offside at the time, and I still think it now.
However, I have the advantage of watching from the tv, the ref has very little chance of seeing that down at ground level.
Also, I might be wrong.
Players like Folau are exceptionally quick and they accelerate rapidly from being onside to 'looking offside' amd it can catch me out and I'm enjoying a helicopter ride view.
The angle of the line can be exaggerated on tv.
My concern is that Folau was definitely in front of his team mate. You don't need to look at the line to see that, it was obvious.
But hey, swings and roundabouts.

On the Barrett grounding, again swings and roundabouts.
I was impressed by Barretts pace again, for a 10 he is lightning fast.

I didn't have a problem with Barnes other than this is the first time I have felt he was looking old. He was breathing heavily and looked a little slow but then again the AB's were playing at a frightening pace for 50 minutes and then Aussie came to life and started to spread the ball wide.
Maybe it was just the pace of the game. However when there is 88 points in the game and loads of tries you can't point the finger at the ref and say he didn't let the game flow.
If you hadn't seen the game and saw the scoreline you would be fair to think this was a reasonably close game.
34 points is a fair old haul at the top level.

 

[galumay]

You don't need to look at the line to see that, it was obvious.

I really dont get why you guys continue to say it was obvious, seriously! I am not picking a fight, just totally bemused. How is it that professional referees watching the same footage as us, conclude, in unison, that there was no "clear and obvious" offside?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

We're allowed to disagree with the ref, it's not like we're disagreeing about an interpretation of the rules, we're talking about something we can see our selves

I thought it was obvious enough I got up to grab a beer, didn't cross my mind for a second it wouldn't be called off side

 

[The Jones Boy]

I know you're not picking a fight, there's no 'heat' in this discussion.
I also understand that you don't see it.
I also understand that the ref didn't see it and the footage wasn't on long enough to change his mind.

It looks obvious to me because I can clearly see that Folau is in front of his team mate.
However, I'm prepared to accept that I might be wrong because of the angle.
I understand that it doesn't matter what I think in the sense that it's a try now and forever and I'm ok with that.
I was surprised it wasn't pulled at the time because it looked offside.

Mate, this kind of controversy, the storm in a tea cup variety, is what makes rugby an interesting game. It makes for a good bit of banter down the track and the next time Folau gets sprung for offside I'll be straight on your case roaring,
"Look Galumay, he's been doing it all season..."

 

[galumay]

It makes for a good bit of banter down the track and the next time Folau gets sprung for offside I'll be straight on your case roaring,
"Look Galumay, he's been doing it all season..."

...and I will take it in the spirit intended!

I am just wary of being perceived as just being contrarian for the sake of it, given how easy it is to mis-read intent online.

We're allowed to disagree with the ref...

Absolutely! I am sure we all have at some point. But, if you are going to say it was obviously offside, I think I am entitled to ask how is it that a GROUP of professional refs all saw it as "not clear and obvious"? I guess one answer is simply that they were all incorrect, or.......!

 

[Larksea]

watching the replay the one person who got that call right was Nigel Owens. When barnes makes his decision hes looking at the point in time it hits Ben Smiths leg. Owens was the one person who put the two angles together to see what actually happened.

 

[RoosTah]

I thought folau was offside, but who cares? Mistakes happen in every game and the All Blacks still won by 20 points so it was hardly decisive

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Don't think anyone saying it influenced the game, just a point of discussion

...and I will take it in the spirit intended!

I am just wary of being perceived as just being contrarian for the sake of it, given how easy it is to mis-read intent online.



Absolutely! I am sure we all have at some point. But, if you are going to say it was obviously offside, I think I am entitled to ask how is it that a GROUP of professional refs all saw it as "not clear and obvious"? I guess one answer is simply that they were all incorrect, or.......!

They're the only ones who can explain what they saw, I can't explain how that don't see it how I do

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I was happy with Barnes' call on the offside but as per my post at the time I think Owens definitely thought it was offside, but being a professional he didn't force the issue and deferred to the senior official.

As I always say the rule in rugby (breakdown, scrum, offsides) arguably make it the hardest of sports to officiate.

 

[McTallshort]

If in doubt blame Wayne Barnes!

 

[Ground We Won]

It was a forward pass and there was an offside on one of the stupidest tries I've seen awarded. I was actually hysterically laughing how bad Barnes was when the replay was happening and he was saying "The pass is good", when clearly a mile forward and he's getting multiple replays on the TV.

You can't excuse this mans incompetence, what an embarrassing twat.

Barnes is one of the worst refs the game has seen and is a complete uppity prick but we have all known that for years, so nothing new was discovered

 

[Ground We Won]

Anyhow, we were crap in the last 30 minutes. I can only put that down to being well and truly out off sight 50 minutes into the game, it's only natural to fall off tackles and lose urgency.

There's still problems to our game that we have carried over from the Lions series. Our receiving ball of the kick-offs has been poor. The amount of possession we are losing from the kick-off is quite concerning. Teams are kicking it short because they know they have a good chance of winning the ball, meanwhile we're just banging it down their throats when we get the kick-off.

 

[Ground We Won]

Great attack though. Squire was a stand out for me, I think Kaino might have to take a backseat, definitely would love Kaino to make the next RWC but, not sure he will have the legs?

McKenzie was pretty good in the first half, made a few inexperienced errors but, to have him and J.Barrett competing for that spot is pretty extraordinary two world class talents.

Squire my MotM.

 

[Ospervat]

A polished performance from AB's. Not sure whether AB's were that good or Oz were that bad in first half. I'd be more convinced either way if they hadn't gone down 14-28 in 2nd half.
Thought Squire and Mackenzie had standout performances as relative juniors to the setup.
Looking at SA / Arg game don't think AB' s are going to be tested in this years competition.

 

[smartcooky]

I really dont get why you guys continue to say it was obvious, seriously! I am not picking a fight, just totally bemused. How is it that professional referees watching the same footage as us, conclude, in unison, that there was no "clear and obvious" offside?

There was one angle that showed Folau was clearly and obviously offside. It was from the sideline camera in front and to the right of the players, and the only one that showed the impact of the ball against Kuridrani's left thigh, and it showed Folau front. We saw this angle once, and Barnes stopped the replays before we could see it again.

Its this one starting at 1:31:21 of the YT video

 

[mania]

Thought Squire and Mackenzie had standout performances as relative juniors to the setup.

agree.
but. squire needs to work o his defense. dMac needs to cut out his errors.
awesome performance tho from these 2. major show of potential and the a glimpse of the future they offer as ABs is exciting.
dMac reminds me of when dagg first started. made some big awesome plays but would make lots of errors too. still a very exciting prospect.