British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Bada-Bing!]

So you're saying if another camera angle confirms that Cane struck Davies in the head with the elbow then it is not a regulation clear out.

Just quoting SmartCookey below:

The offences in World Rugby law 10.4 do not require mens rea ... they create offences of strict liability ... An offence is committed if the prohibited act occurs. The definition of recklessness is derived from World Rugby Regulation 17 ... it serves to penalise players whose conduct is other than purely accidental and is designed to prevent the risk of injury to other players"

"A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway."

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Someone get on the blower to Gatland: apparently you're allowed to elbow people in the face if you think they're considering getting up to mischief at the ruck, we need to implement this tactic tomorrow.

Someone also ring Auckland Hospital and tell them to expect a few new brain trauma cases as well.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

NZ always expects brain trauma visitors, when the English arrive.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

Oh come on. Don't down vote that.

 

[The Jones Boy]

A little love tap and you're squealing like whingers.
SOB got away with a blatant swinging arm.
Cane wasn't considered worthwhile even citing.
Clearly he wasn't reckless, nor was SOB.
It's a rough tough game.
This is not tiddlywinks.
More of it please and less whining.
You don't hear me whining about SBW or Mako.
Whining is pointless.

I think SOB was lucky to escape punishment, bloody lucky in the modern game, Cane, not an issue at all but, if there were clearer and closer camera's it 'might' be an issue.
No guarantee.
It's about the quality of the evidence and the randomness of the citing officer.
In SOB's case the evidence was clear and the randomness of the citing officer was evident.
In Cane's case the evidence is far from clear and looks regulation.
He entered from the hindmost feet, his body position was low and he used both arms. He drove back the offending party. He didn't poleaxe him with an armless shoulder charge or poke him in the eye with a sharp stick.
Yet you're still whining over it.

Regardless of what team you are....
If you don't want to get belted back at the ruck then don't lay all over the ruck, on the wrong side, and look to try some something sneaky.
That is a sure fire way to get yourself cleaned out.
Some folk call it cheating.
Others call it gamesmanship.
It's a sly way of slowing the opposition ball down.
Normally it's done by the guy first to the ruck, like Neil Back, McCaw, Pocock, Broussow etc.
Davies knew exactly what he was doing, it was blatant and he was getting away with it until Cane policed his side of the ruck properly.

As the citing commissioner noted, ''Nothing to see here."

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Or the citing commissioner completely missed it and the Lions management didn't whinge about it; so it was not brought up. Still doesn't make it a "regulation" clear at the ruck going by the laws of the game.

 

[Reiser99]

I know people aren't using this thread, but anyone explain why at the start Warburton was penalised for a fantastic turnover and then there at 30mins his hand were on the ground and he's not...

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I know people aren't using this thread, but anyone explain why at the start Warburton was penalised for a fantastic turnover and then there at 30mins his hand were on the ground and he's not...

I answered in other thread.
First call was wrong.
Second one lions should have won ball but all blacks held on, so poite decided to let the players sort things out which is good reffing.

 

[Reiser99]

I answered in other thread.
First call was wrong.
Second one lions should have won ball but all blacks held on, so poite decided to let the players sort things out which is good reffing.

Fair enough I can understand that, guess that counts for the NZ one just then as well.

 

[Maverick1987]

Anyone see the kick at the ruck by Sam Whitelock ?

It's a the ruck following Sinklers carry where he looked like he jumped again

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Did they change the rule post-Joubert that you can refer an offside call to the TMO and that you can call it accidental and make it a scrum instead of a penalty?

 

[ncurd]

Did they change the rule post-Joubert that you can refer an offside call to the TMO and that you can call it accidental and make it a scrum instead of a penalty?

Probably common sense likely prevailed after that incident for.moment just like that.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Probably common sense likely prevailed after that incident for.moment just like that.

I'm all for it if if is an official change. But if should have been formally announced if so. It just looks like the authorities fed the Scottish Union a pile of poop at RWC 2015 by saying you cannot refer a decision like that to the TMO.

And that's a whinge you can take to the bank!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Did they change the rule post-Joubert that you can refer an offside call to the TMO and that you can call it accidental and make it a scrum instead of a penalty?

Yep that was weird. I thought that as well that the referee could only refer to the TMO for foul play or after a try is scored.

 

[smartcooky]

ABs have been shafted by two utterly appalling decisions.

First, you cannot refer a non foul play penalty to the TMO. That was a complete departure from TMO protocol.

Second. That was NOT accidental offside. The Lions player played at the ball. It is only accidental if the ball strikes the player.

This has been a sub-standard and frankly, disgraceful exhibition of refereeing from Poite

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

The thing that pleases me most about the conclusion of this series is that I no longer have to put up with these french refs. They make me not enjoy watching rugby.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

First, you cannot refer a non foul play penalty to the TMO. That was a complete departure from TMO protocol.

The TMO was for Read taking Williams out in the air.
Seen that given a million times, as well, he was very lucky not to get penalised. Made no attempt to get the ball, just jumped into Williams. Wasn't malicious or anything, he was just beaten to it, but I've still seen it given.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The TMO was for Read taking Williams out in the air.
Seen that given a million times, as well, he was very lucky not to get penalised. Made no attempt to get the ball, just jumped into Williams. Wasn't malicious or anything, he was just beaten to it, but I've still seen it given.

But he had awarded a penalty to NZ and then after the TMO somehow changed that decision. Any review of Reid's behaviour should not have resulted in an attacking scrum.

I think Poite, like Joubert, has perhaps shown he should be kept away from "winner takes all" fixtures.

I'm usually very supportive of refs and am fine with subjective calls going against my team. But you should not be making up rules on the hoof (Poite) or inventing offence that weren't committed based on a hunch (Joubert).

Those are cardinal sins for me in refereeing.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

But he had awarded a penalty to NZ and then after the TMO somehow changed that decision. Any review of Reid's behaviour should not have resulted in an attacking scrum.

That's a fair point.
If the TMO can't be called in for non-foul play, can they still use the replays to spot it? So say you thought there was a high tackle, so you brought in the TMO, but it shows no high tackle but there was a knock on, can you go back for that or are you not allowed?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Glad that for once, everyone seems to agree that the ref had a great game.