British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Nubiwan]

Somehow, he wasn't.

http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

The only thing strikes me in that article, which is suggested almost immediately after the incident was "was it even a knock on". Think I was ignored earlier, but it clearly is not cut and dried. In which case, would possession at a scrum gone to the team that was wrongly penalized?

I laughed a lot when Poite gave an attacking scrum. In fact, part of my belly still aches were that knot was for 4 days after the event. That amusing meself reading threads such as this.....

 

[Nubiwan]

Somehow, he wasn't.

http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

The only thing strikes me in that article, which is suggested almost immediately after the incident was "was it even a knock on". Think I was ignored earlier, but it clearly is not cut and dried. In which case, would possession at a scrum gone to the team that was wrongly penalized?

I laughed a lot when Poite gave an attacking scrum. In fact, part of my belly still aches were that knot was for 4 days after the event. That amusing meself reading threads such as this.....

I didn't think one way or the other unless a penalty is obviously wrong like the Warburton one at the start I try not to get overly critical of a referee making a decision. It's irrelevant to this discussion though it doesn't matter whether anyone thought it was right or wrong (and I know I'm probably less right on something than international referee in fact I'd dare to suggest everyone is less right than an international referee) the 'play' was reviewed in accordance to laws and procedures set out. The referee and AR decided their original decision was incorrect and changed it in accordance to the laws and procedures.

One word answer. Yes or no, will do.

My point is, the rest is all smoke and mirrors. 99% of the viewing rugby immediately public thought, " yup, offside from a knock on, pen". How about you. Try and ignore the illusion for a second.

My opinion on the rest is clearly in contradiction to what others want to blieve. That what transpired afterwards is nowt short of a joke. A laugh, and we got to benefit from it. Whether I agree with his final decision to award the scrum is rather immaterial.

 

[ncurd]

I didn't have an opinion at the time one way or the other. So I can't answer yes or no....

Your creating an arbitrary black and white question to something which was not one.

 

[Nubiwan]

I didn't have an opinion at the time one way or the other. So I can't answer yes or no....

Your creating an arbitrary black and white question to something which was not one.

Huh? With two minutes left in the 3rd and final deciding test, with the score tied, the ref awards a pen against the Lions for being offside from a knock on. A pen which would ultimately mean a match and series defeat for the Lions, and you tell us had no opinion on it? Pull the other one .....

One of the most important passages of rugby since Joubert cocked up in the World cup, and you had no reaction to him giving offside from a knock on?

If you had no reaction during the match, then what do you care to argue the point now? No need to answer that....

 

[smartcooky]

I'm beginning to become very annoyed with that happened now that I have some information gleaned from other referees higher up the chain than me

Firstly, an Australian referee acquaintance of mine had a guest speaker at their referee meeting in Sydney this week. The speaker is a current Super Rugby referee and test AR, and he said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong; advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

Secondly, the transcript of what the officials said to each other tells me that not only did they make a complete pig's breakfast, of the decision, it was actually Jerome Garces who convinced Poite to change his mind.

After Poite went to the TMO...

TMO: "Romain, they are all the angles."

Poite "Are you happy for the knock-on? Is the challenge in the air fair? And a penalty kick against 16 red for being in front?"

TMO: "Yes I am."

...at this stage, Poite is going to award a penalty to NZ for offside, but Poite gets a call from Jerome Garces.

Poite: "Oui, Jerome."

...and they converse in French (more about this later) after which Poite walks back to Read and Warburton.

Poite: "We have a deal, we have a deal for the offside from 16. He didn't play deliberately at the ball, okay? It was an accidental offside."

So, what did Garces say to Poite? We know that Poite changed his mind after speaking to Garces, and not everything they said was heard, but one thing was, and it is damning..

"Vous savez ce qui est arrivé à Craig. Ne faites pas cela à votre sujet." (You know what happened to Craig. Don't make it about you)

If that translation is correct, then that is very unprofessional of Garces. He has brought in something from another game, totally unrelated to this game, in order to convince another official to change his decision. Both these referees need to be called to account for that.

 

[Which Tyler]

So, what did Garces say to Poite? We know that Poite changed his mind after speaking to Garces, and not everything they said was heard, but one thing was, and it is damning..

"Vous savez ce qui est arrivé à Craig. Ne faites pas cela à votre sujet." (You know what happened to Craig. Don't make it about you)

If that translation is correct, then that is very unprofessional of Garces. He has brought in something from another game, totally unrelated to this game, in order to convince another official to change his decision. Both these referees need to be called to account for that.

The rest is nothing new, and has already been posted, but that is very damning (if true).
I stand by my previous comments (should have played advantage, but once the whistle went, anything from a penalty against Black to a penalty against Red is a valid decision and down to opinion/interpretation). However, whatever the decision, it should have been made for rugby reasons, not cowardice / PR

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Im

I'm beginning to become very annoyed with that happened now that I have some information gleaned from other referees higher up the chain than me

Firstly, an Australian referee acquaintance of mine had a guest speaker at their referee meeting in Sydney this week. The speaker is a current Super Rugby referee and test AR, and he said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong; advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

Secondly, the transcript of what the officials said to each other tells me that not only did they make a complete pig's breakfast, of the decision, it was actually Jerome Garces who convinced Poite to change his mind.

After Poite went to the TMO...

TMO: "Romain, they are all the angles."

Poite "Are you happy for the knock-on? Is the challenge in the air fair? And a penalty kick against 16 red for being in front?"

TMO: "Yes I am."

...at this stage, Poite is going to award a penalty to NZ for offside, but Poite gets a call from Jerome Garces.

Poite: "Oui, Jerome."

...and they converse in French (more about this later) after which Poite walks back to Read and Warburton.

Poite: "We have a deal, we have a deal for the offside from 16. He didn't play deliberately at the ball, okay? It was an accidental offside."

So, what did Garces say to Poite? We know that Poite changed his mind after speaking to Garces, and not everything they said was heard, but one thing was, and it is damning..

"Vous savez ce qui est arrivé à Craig. Ne faites pas cela à votre sujet." (You know what happened to Craig. Don't make it about you)

If that translation is correct, then that is very unprofessional of Garces. He has brought in something from another game, totally unrelated to this game, in order to convince another official to change his decision. Both these referees need to be called to account for that.

curious where u heard that... I cant find anything about it... link?

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Can I just say that Olyy made an excellent decision in starting up this thread!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I haven't read through all 20 pages so not sure if this has been mentioned but Read was offside at the restart that led to the knock on. I've noticed this numerous times and is it going the way of the scrum feed rules and basically being ignored? that and FH's taking an extra few yards when taking a place kick

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't read through all 20 pages so not sure if this has been mentioned but Read was offside at the restart that led to the knock on. I've noticed this numerous times and is it going the way of the scrum feed rules and basically being ignored? that and FH's taking an extra few yards when taking a place kick

Frankly, I haven't seen a match in the last couple of years where there wasn't at least one player ahead of the kicker at every restart kick. Waratahs and Wallabies are best at getting away with it it, because they have this tactic of running from deeper before the kick, and its harder to judge where they all are at the precise moment of the kick.

Read was just fractionally ahead in the 76th minute of a game would be an absolute "gotcha"

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Frankly, I haven't seen a match in the last couple of years where there wasn't at least one player ahead of the kicker at every restart kick. Waratahs and Wallabies are best at getting away with it it, because they have this tactic of running from deeper before the kick, and its harder to judge where they all are at the precise moment of the kick.

Read was just fractionally ahead in the 76th minute of a game would be an absolute "gotcha"

Yet if people want to get their knickers in a twist about the result the fact remains that Read was competing because he was originally offside. Had he not been offside, knock on less likely, offside probably wouldn't have happened. He was a good meter ahead of the kicker if not more at the kick off. If NZ want to say it was their penalty because Owens was offside then give me one reason why the Lions can't say actually it wasn't because Read was offside. You can't decide to get wound up about the rules in one incident if technically you had infringed first and got away with it.

 

[smartcooky]

Yet if people want to get their knickers in a twist about the result the fact remains that Read was competing because he was originally offside. Had he not been offside, knock on less likely, offside probably wouldn't have happened. He was a good meter ahead of the kicker if not more at the kick off. If NZ want to say it was their penalty because Owens was offside then give me one reason why the Lions can't say actually it wasn't because Read was offside. You can't decide to get wound up about the rules in one incident if technically you had infringed first and got away with it.

Oh please! If you can go back and find something then I can go back and find something. How about this, where Poite missed three clear and obvious offences in less than five seconds, all of which should have resulted in a scrum, a free kick or a penalty kick to the All Blacks....

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/c...UfMycLp7Gv5PCH8bc96zgukxI7qx0UGxzRpffHG2/file
(You will have to click on the link to open it in a new tab. For some reason, the forum won't display this gif? (works fine on other forums)

Also, if you quote the post, you will be able to see... go figure that one out!!!

1. Lions players on and across the line of touch

Law 19.8 Forming a lineout
(m) Opposing players forming a lineout must keep a clear space between their inside shoulders. This space is determined when players are in an upright stance.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(n) Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

2. Lions players jumping before the throw-in

19.10 Options Available at the Line-out
(f) Jumping , supporting or lifting before the ball is thrown. A player must not jump or be lifted or supported before the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

3. Lions players offside at the line-out

19.13 Offside Lines at the Line Out.
(b) Participating players. One offside line applies to the players taking part in the lineout (usually some or all of the forwards, plus the scrum half and the player throwing in). Until the ball is thrown in, and has touched a player or the ground , this offside line is the line of touch. After that, the offside line is a line through the ball.

19.14 Offside When Taking Part in the Line-Out
(a) Before the ball has touched a player or the ground. A player must not overstep the line of touch. A player is offside if , before the ball has touched a player or the ground , that player oversteps the line of touch, unless doing so while jumping for the ball. The player must jump from that player's side of the line of touch.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

...especially the Red player in the middle (behind Itoje) who runs across the the Lot and barges Black 6 out of the way before the ball is thrown.

On top of all this, the ball wasn't thrown in straight anyway.

Instead, Mr Poite showed his complete lack of competence and played on. A few seconds, later the Lions got the penalty kick that tied up the game.

I'm sure you would be able to go back even further and find something that the All Blacks should have been penalised for...we are limited only by the kick off at the start of the game

 

[smartcooky]

The only thing strikes me in that article, which is suggested almost immediately after the incident was "was it even a knock on". Think I was ignored earlier, but it clearly is not cut and dried. In which case, would possession at a scrum gone to the team that was wrongly penalized?

20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law , the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward , the attacking team throws in the ball.

 

[duncanb]

The incident here here was basically at the end of the day caused by a totally unnecessary whistle.
IE. Was it an illegal challenge in air ?
Was it a red knock on.
Was it a black knock on.
Was it off side.
Was it accidental off side.
For me in real time nothing clear and obvious so play on,
As RP has blown whistle then a decision must be made.
This is where the second bollock is dropped,the comms between the team was not clearly not great maybe due to language or not.
As JG input was concerned he should have advised not clear and obvious on anything restart scrum black moving forward this would have been in remit of AR rather than the CJ remarks.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I think forensic examination serves no purpose other than to further cloud the waters.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Oh please! If you can go back and find something then I can go back and find something. How about this, where Poite missed three clear and obvious offences in less than five seconds, all of which should have resulted in a scrum, a free kick or a penalty kick to the All Blacks....

I'm sure you would be able to go back even further and find something that the All Blacks should have been penalised for...we are limited only by the kick off at the start of the game

Please quote where I denied the Lions got away with things? I'm just saying a fair few Kiwis were going on about the wrong decision made there yet a large part of the reason why the knockon happened and Read even was in a position to cause it was due to him being offside originally.

 

[Nubiwan]

I haven't read through all 20 pages so not sure if this has been mentioned but Read was offside at the restart that led to the knock on. I've noticed this numerous times and is it going the way of the scrum feed rules and basically being ignored? that and FH's taking an extra few yards when taking a place kick

I read this elsewhere, but my review of the video showed his foot firmly inside his own half when ball is kicked. I assume that means onside, or does it go by his chest, which was probably over the halfway line, and offside.

 

[Nubiwan]

The incident here here was basically at the end of the day caused by a totally unnecessary whistle.
IE. Was it an illegal challenge in air ?
Was it a red knock on.
Was it a black knock on.
Was it off side.
Was it accidental off side.
For me in real time nothing clear and obvious so play on,
As RP has blown whistle then a decision must be made.
This is where the second bollock is dropped,the comms between the team was not clearly not great maybe due to language or not.
As JG input was concerned he should have advised not clear and obvious on anything restart scrum black moving forward this would have been in remit of AR rather than the CJ remarks.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I think forensic examination serves no purpose other than to further cloud the waters.

My initial reaction was the same as the refs, and I think about 90% of people felt the same way. Some having no reaction at all, apparently paralyzed by the prospect of defeat The ensuing TMO farce is now the stuff of legend.

 

[Five Meters Out]

My initial reaction was the same as the refs, and I think about 90% of people felt the same way. Some having no reaction at all, apparently paralyzed by the prospect of defeat The ensuing TMO farce is now the stuff of legend.

99.9% of people felt the same way. Including the prop who caught the ball, the Ref, the TMO, Mrs Jones who takes a passing interest in rugby, etc. Everyone who watches rugby at any level sees that scenario whistled as a penalty against the unfortunate fellow (it's nearly always a prop) who touches the ball - every time.
I asked in an earlier post for anyone to provide a YouTube link where it has been ruled as a scrum. I'm confident this will not be found.
Has there been any comment from those who review Poite's performance (Ref's Boss - the role Paddy O'Brien use to play)?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Please quote where I denied the Lions got away with things? I'm just saying a fair few Kiwis were going on about the wrong decision made there yet a large part of the reason why the knockon happened and Read even was in a position to cause it was due to him being offside originally.

1. It's impossible to be offside on a kick off/restart, being in front of the kicker is an illegal kick off/scrum and the result is a scrum/ rekick option. If you are going to tell international refs how they should do their job you should at least have a vague understanding of the laws.

2. Read wasn't clearly and obviously in front of the kicker, so stop it.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

99.9% of people felt the same way. Including the prop who caught the ball, the Ref, the TMO, Mrs Jones who takes a passing interest in rugby, etc. Everyone who watches rugby at any level sees that scenario whistled as a penalty against the unfortunate fellow (it's nearly always a prop) who touches the ball - every time.
I asked in an earlier post for anyone to provide a YouTube link where it has been ruled as a scrum. I'm confident this will not be found.
Has there been any comment from those who review Poite's performance (Ref's Boss - the role Paddy O'Brien use to play)?