[2018 November Tests] England vs New Zealand 10/11/18

[smartcooky]

Yeah one example. One. Against hundredsl.

Sounds like the words of a bitter and twisted Aussie crying in his Fosters/Castlemain XXXX (delete as applicable)

 

[smartcooky]

Social media gave the inept minority a voice these days.

"Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
- Jay "Utah" Windley

 

[Nubiwan]

i like the first point

bits edited out

and for the second one i just get endlessly annoyed that every team forms 'rucks' by gong straight to their knees, preventing a counter-ruck. or they bind to the tackled player on the ground (see 1), thus not supporting their body weight, but still preventing the opposition from counter rucking effectively. This is reffed reasonably consistently at least, but it does get called occasionally, and once you get into the territory of having a subjective degree of OKness for a law, you open the refs up hugely to influence from unconscious bias. the crowd, the players in their ears, the reputation of the team or certain players, etc all make a difference. And even without bias, it becomes a roll of the dice. I don't want to see games decided by a roll of the dice.

while I'm at it, offside in front of the kicker is hardly ever ruled these days. In particular, from box kicks, the chasing winger is often offside. Ashton certainly was at times in this game. In super rugby it's terrible, especially from NZ teams. it's an easy thing to see for the touch judge too.

While we are crucifying laws not addressed, and in line with your paragraph above, one is the ruck or maul clean out were players are supposed to "not leave their feet". They simply dive in and clean out someone else perhaps flopped illigally over the ball to start with. At times, dangerously so in my opinion, as it generally involves using their shoulder first to "join" the ruck. Never ever gets called. That, and players just joining from the side was overlooked several times in the AB England match up. Well, I counted once, but I bet it happened more ... "a lot more".

 

[kesh]

I've put the tackle offside line in for you...

[

The ball is still touching the ground, Lawes is clearly offside

No try. WR agrees the decision was correct.....end..of...story!



Ah, so someone told someone else who told you = you've got no evidence.

But even if this is true, Garces could simply have been wrong.



OK, I'll quote it for you again, with highlights

You said that the TMO could only refer foul play to the referee. THIS...IS... WRONG! What you are talking about is in general play.

Here is the relevant part of the protocol as regards to the scoring of tries.

Television Match Official (TMO) Global Trial Protocol

2 Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1 If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck), any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3) before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.​

This is not rocket science, its grade school English Language Comprehension

"If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck)" = when a try is scored

"any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3)" = if the TMO sees a relevant infringement

"before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down," = before the try was scored

"they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review." = he can have the referree check

So, to put it all together for you... "When a try is scored, if the TMO sees a relevant infringement, he can ask the referee to check"

Clear now?

Clear, expanding ruck etc and TMO can do what he likes when a try is scored. Shame the decision wasn't as clear as you seem to think. Here's TJ lifting the ball before the NZ leg appears. Just rewind the video.

 

[kesh]

"Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
- Jay "Utah" Windley

Wooptido he knows rugby rules because he's a ref. Outstanding. You must be so clever, meanwhile my mathematics knowledge proves it was a try.

 

[ncurd]

I mean sure if the scrum half had lifted the ball in that picture you'd be right....but he hasn't.

 

[kesh]

I mean sure if the scrum half had lifted the ball in that picture you'd be right....but he hasn't.

if i could zoom in.. there might be a blade of grass or two on the ball as Lawes' boot touches the grass blades, i dont think it so though, it was a try. I have a differing opinion from what appears to be the consensus here and i'm not being browbeat to change it.

 

[smartcooky]

Wooptido he knows rugby rules because he's a ref. Outstanding. You must be so clever, meanwhile my mathematics knowledge proves it was a try.

Meh. Salty Brit poster is salty

Refer the last part of my reply to TommiG8 in post #792 (and I suggest you take the advice I give in my signature).

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Wooptido he knows rugby rules because he's a ref. Outstanding. You must be so clever, meanwhile my mathematics knowledge proves it was a try.

sorry...what math exactly have you done?...are you saying using the pause and rewind functions of the youtube video is math? i have about 8 degrees sitting around me currently (from math, to physics, engineering, surveying and even GIS), we could do a bit of a peer review for you.

 

[kesh]

Meh. Salty Brit poster is salty

Refer the last part of my reply to TommiG8 in post #792 (and I suggest you take the advice I give in my signature).

I am salty, the tears will sort that out. And i suggest you **** off with your high horseness because nothing about that decision was either concrete or pro-rugby. Unlike you i come from a town where we still play the origin of the sport and there are no rules. Zero (murder was imposd because of the authoritries). You'd hate it.

edit** also the limit on the imagine on this site makes it look like TJ hasn't lifted it off the ground, get a HD imagine, again clear as day try.

 

[All Black]

I am salty, the tears will sort that out. And i suggest you **** off with your high horseness because nothing about that decision was either concrete or pro-rugby. Unlike you i come from a town where we still play the origin of the sport and there are no rules. Zero (murder was imposd because of the authoritries). You'd hate it.

Straight off the bat you got caught lying in saying 'we know that Garces told Lawes he was onside'. In future, don't lead with a lie and don't try to bend the narrative to suit your argument. Just tell the truth because you might actually have a point.

 

[kesh]

Straight off the bat you got caught lying in saying 'we know that Garces told Lawes he was onside'. In future, don't lead with a lie and don't try to bend the narrative to suit your argument. Just tell the truth because you might actually have a point.

My source on that was purely going off what the eggchasers podcast said. Thanks for the advice, though it's not settled and it was a try. You haven't provided me with anythig that says it wasn't a try. D

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think it's hard for the rest of of because you keep posting picture that at BEST are ambiguous as to where the bill was off the ground or not and claim that they are clear as day, you show no sign of accepting any other option...the definition of bias

 

[kesh]

I think it's hard for the rest of of because you keep posting picture that at BEST are ambiguous as to where the bill was off the ground or not and claim that they are clear as day, you show no sign of accepting any other option...the definition of bias

M8 it's a picture in motion i did the best i could do. Thanks for making me not read your signature.

 

[All Black]

My source on that was purely going off what the eggchasers podcast said. Thanks for the advice, though it's not settled and it was a try. You haven't provided me with anythig that says it wasn't a try. D

Like I said before - I'm with the refs on that one.

For what its worth (and to me look like Im objective, which I am lol), I agreed with Angus Gardner on his judgement not to penalise Farrell for his game winning hit on Esterhuizen against the Boks the week before.

On both tough occasions, the refs have ruled within the laws of the game.

 

[mania]

I am salty, the tears will sort that out. And i suggest you **** off with your high horseness ...

no need to get nasty . pull your head in and show some respect. this is discussing intelligent rugby. if u have to make it personal , you lose credibility

 

[mania]

M8 it's a picture in motion i did the best i could do. Thanks for making me not read your signature.

i dont understand the big deal of whether the balls off the ground or not. lawes was offside and never retreated back onside and nor did any of his team mates put him onside.

 

[kesh]

Like I said before - I'm with the refs on that one.

For what its worth (and to me look like Im objective, which I am lol), I agreed with Angus Gardner on his judgement not to penalise Farrell for his game winning hit on Esterhuizen against the Boks the week before.

On both tough occasions, the refs have ruled within the laws of the game.

Hmmmm pretty much, very safe opinion m8 I know i'm boring you but it was a try and a very biased thing did just occur. But let's just ignore it.

 

[kesh]

i dont understand the big deal of whether the balls off the ground or not. lawes was offside and never retreated back onside and nor did any of his team mates put him onside.

>lawes was offside

No he wasn't. Go back a few pages. If this site had larger mb images i would conclusively prove it.

 

[mania]

>lawes was offside

No he wasn't. Go back a few pages. If this site had larger mb images i would conclusively prove it.

nah it wouldnt. he went offside and never got back onside...simple