(2022 Rugby Championship - Round 5) - Australia V New Zealand (15/9/2022) [Bledisloe 1]

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I saw a tweet that summed it up nicely for me....if this is the first shot in a war against time wasting...then great, all for it...if this is a random one off implementation of the rules...then its harsh...correct but harsh

39 sec is a bloody long time to pretty much stand there looking at the sideline, how often have we seen a team kick for touch....walk as slow as they can to the line out and then just hold in the maul until they can kick it out. The crowd and his team mates were all yelling at him to play it...he seemed to be the only one who didn;t get it

@smartcooky jesus...where have you been?

great stadium, great view, great crowd (even after the result)...and getting a few "All Blacks" chants going for an away game was pretty awesome


View attachment 15027

visibility looked a bit wack for the first couple minutes but that is a beautiful sight line.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

visibility looked a bit wack for the first couple minutes but that is a beautiful sight line.

yeah...they could have cracked the roof a bit, it all settled up high so apparently was clear for the players

 

[Derpus]

but it wasn;t time off for the 39 sec....that was 31 sec of the clock counting down before the ref called time off

Either way mate we now have a dead rubber and another debate about a ref.

Tell me rugby doesnt have a problem. Do the hundreds of thousands of AFL fans go home arguing about the ref? No. They have a negligible influence on the result. Hell even the NRL just get worked up over a couple of sinbins dished out by the vastly superior and more efficient bunker.

Its just ******.

 

[smartcooky]

How long between awarding the penalty and calling time off? Did the wallabies have time to decide what they wanted ti do with the penalty?

Also, from the times you listed it looks like raynal said a lot and below two whistles all in the space of one second. Did you mistype?

Nope, that's not a mistype. Just think about it for a moment.

78:57 - Whistle - "Time off" (clock stopped) "Quick play"
78:57 - "When I make(?) time back on, you play now"
78:57 - Whistle - "Time on"

Those times are the off the TV clock (on Sky). In NZ, the SkyTV Game Clock gets its feed from the official timekeeper, so it stops when the referee calls "time-off. AIUI its the same setup in Australia

In this case, the referee called "time-off" at 78:57 at which point the clock stops on that time.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Either way mate we now have a dead rubber and another debate about a ref.

Tell me rugby doesnt have a problem. Do the hundreds of thousands of AFL fans go home arguing about the ref? No. They have a negligible influence on the result. Hell even the NRL just get worked up over a couple of sinbins dished out by the vastly superior and more efficient bunker.

Its just ******.

in general i agree about refs having less influence....but they do plenty that is actually "wrong"...we cant really rip into him too much when he did actually follow the rules and also communicated pretty clearly what was happening...google "foley wallabies" and this is the first article



His team mates knew what was happening....the crowd knew what was happening....first and foremost the one to blame is foley for taking the ****

 

[Derpus]

in general i agree about refs having less influence....but they do plenty that is actually "wrong"...we cant really rip into him too much when he did actually follow the rules and also communicated pretty clearly what was happening...google "foley wallabies" and this is the first article

View attachment 15028

His team mates knew what was happening....the crowd knew what was happening....first and foremost the one to blame is foley for taking the ****

Alright bro. Enjoy the Auckland dead rubber and another year with the cup.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I was super confused on broadcast cause it was showing a replay and announcers were talking over. Sounded like raynal just blew the whistle but once I focused on the audio things became a lot clearer.

The stands must have been going crazy.

 

[smartcooky]

Either way mate we now have a dead rubber and another debate about a ref.

Tell me rugby doesnt have a problem. Do the hundreds of thousands of AFL fans go home arguing about the ref? No. They have a negligible influence on the result. Hell even the NRL just get worked up over a couple of sinbins dished out by the vastly superior and more efficient bunker.

Its just ******.

Its only a "debate about the ref" because this happened when it did. If it happened at, say, 23:51 in he first half, or 51:18 in the second half, this would not even be a discussion - and its important to keep in mind the laws remain the same no matter what the game clock says. Also (and I was unaware of this until a couple hours ago) but apparently, Foley was warned about his time-wasting antics twice in the first half, and once early on in the second half as well. If that is the case, then Foley and his Wallabies can have no complaints. If a referee keeps warning you to stop what you are doing for the whole game, and then takes action against you when you are still doing it near the end of the game, then that makes you the engineer of your own misfortune.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Alright bro. Enjoy the Auckland dead rubber and another year with the cup.

once again i agree...a dead rubber is ****...but its foleys fault...so cheers

I was super confused on broadcast cause it was showing a replay and announcers were talking over. Sounded like raynal just blew the whistle but once I focused on the audio things became a lot clearer.

The stands must have been going crazy.

the only one people were mad at around us was Foley, the aussies we're yelling for him to get on with it

 

[Derpus]

Its only a "debate about the ref" because this happened when it did. If it happened at, say, 23:51 in he first half, or 51:18 in the second half, this would not even be a discussion - and its important to keep in mind the laws remain the same no matter what the game clock says. Also (and I was unaware of this until a couple hours ago) but apparently, Foley was warned about his time-wasting antics twice in the first half, and once early on in the second half as well. If that is the case, then Foley and his Wallabies can have no complaints. If a referee keeps warning you to stop what you are doing for the whole game, and then takes action against you when you are still doing it near the end of the game, then that makes you the engineer of your own misfortune.

If Foley was wasting time then why wasn't he pinged before the last ******* second of the game to hand the win to the All Blacks on a platter?

Its been shown elsewhere that there were other penalties taken in the same amount of time over the match. Is it against the rules or is it not? If it is it should've been pinged at the start. You can cut it however you want, this was a stupid call.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If Foley was wasting time then why wasn't he pinged before the last ******* second of the game to hand the win to the All Blacks on a platter?

Its been shown elsewhere that there were other penalties taken in the same amount of time over the match. Is it against the rules or is it not? If it is it should've been pinged at the start. You can cut it however you want, this was a stupid call.

you cold just as easily look at your example and say he was lucky to not have been penalised a few times before and cost his team points, he decided to keep doing it at a crucial moment of the game in a vulnerable position

 

[smartcooky]

If Foley was wasting time then why wasn't he pinged before the last ******* second of the game to hand the win to the All Blacks on a platter?

Its been shown elsewhere that there were other penalties taken in the same amount of time over the match. Is it against the rules or is it not? If it is it should've been pinged at the start. You can cut it however you want, this was a stupid call.

For the same reason that players get warned for other things without being pinged immediately.

You can gripe about it all you like, but one, and only one person is responsible for what happened and that is Foley himself. He had the ball in his hands, and was told by the referee to play it the moment time on was whistled (after having been warned earlier in the game several times to not keep on wasting time). He chose to spend even more time stuffing around, even ignoring his own players screaming at him to kick the bloody thing out. Foley was stupid, and his team paid the price for it.

 

[Derpus]

you cold just as easily look at your example and say he was lucky to not have been penalised a few times before and cost his team points, he decided to keep doing it at a crucial moment of the game in a vulnerable position

For the same reason that players get warned for other things without being pinged immediately.

You can gripe about it all you like, but one, and only one person is responsible for what happened and that is Foley himself. He had the ball in his hands, and was told by the referee to play it the moment time on was whistled (after having been warned earlier in the game several times to not to keep wasting time). He chose to spend even more time stuffing around, even ignoring his own players screaming at him to kick the bloody thing out. Foley was stupid, and his team may have paid the price for it.

This selective enforcement of the rules is absolutely, positively amateur.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

One thing I don't get is "I've never seen this call made at this level before"

Well I've never seen a player get told to kick the ball then fool around a bit. Then the referee blows time off to tell him he has to kick the ball ball when time gets put back in. Then even after time is put back in he looks around like a lost puppy and ignores the referees instructions for a third time.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Sounds like Foley was an idiot for not listening.

However, I do have an issue in that we could well never see a call like that again in similar situations. I understand Raynal told him to kick it, but all teams waste time and some refs allow them to. Inconsistency in officiating is one of the biggest issue and this doesn't help.

Yeah, the other refs not being consistent with raynal is a problem, I agree.

Course you fucken would. Applaud it.

Funny it's the first time it's been called, what, this century?

Rugby is nothing if not consistent ay

why of course? I said I'd rather it didn't happen in this game and that we instead lost. Read much? But I agree with you that the incident ruined the game and, given it's not something we often see, a valid argument can be made that inconsistency if refereeing decisions played a part in that ruining of this game. I'm glad someone is finally cracking down on time wasting though

Happy to start another thread to talk about the non referee decisions aspects of the game though, because certainly any talk about those other aspects will get lost in this thread

 

[Reiser99]

I also remember this quote "don't give the ref the opportunity to penalise you" yes you may not agree, but you also gave him the chance. Just play fairly.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

In context the call is not as bad as what i thought reading headlines but I still feel the sport could do with either more streamlined rules and greater consistency ITO its application. Granted the first won't help if the second isn't the case BUT hopefully the first might make the second more feasible. That said, exactly what and how I don't have the answer for. More refs? That might actually hamper progress. We've seen getting the TMO's to review everything leads to bigger controversy more often than not. All I'm saying is my boy doesn't care to watch rugby along with his dad and when he does its more for my sake than for the sport and I don't blame him.

 

[rN_X]

The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.

This is the only rule I find on how long a player have to take a penalty kick and I would assume that this would then also be the rule used for penalty line kicks.

He did not take 60 seconds or more to take the kick. I don't care of the ref warned him 10 times. He has 60 seconds.

From this I feel the Aussies were robbed unless someone can show a rule where it states otherwise.

Edit : Have since been shown the light. I was incorrect with my statement.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. Sanction: Kick is disallowed and a scrum is awarded.

This is the only rule I find on how long a player have to take a penalty kick and I would assume that this would then also be the rule used for penalty line kicks.

He did not take 60 seconds or more to take the kick. I don't care of the ref warned him 10 times. He has 60 seconds.

From this I feel the Aussies were robbed unless someone can show a rule where it states otherwise.

I believe you'll find that's for a kick at goal

I've seen people quoting this from the rules laws. "Without delay" doesn't exactly make the time clear….but if you've been told to kick it as soon as time on is blown…and you don't …

 

[rN_X]

I believe you'll find that's for a kick at goal

I've seen people quoting this from the rules laws. "Without delay" doesn't exactly make the time clear….but if you've been told to kick it as soon as time on is blown…and you don't …

View attachment 15030

Ah thank you I could only find the one I used but it seem I was in the wrong. Thanks