Warm Up Match 4: Highlanders v British & Irish Lions (Dunedin)

[valley commando]

Further to this, the different hemispheres may often see referees have different areas where their focus is less or more and this can have an effect on how they officiate.
It's up to the teams to get on with it and play rugby.

NH refs seem to take more responsibility at scrum time a lot of SH refs don't know or choose to ignore wheeling, boring etc, sharing penalties on a one for you next one for them basis.

 

[ncurd]

I never said they were offside.....SC was using it to claim the Highlanders were good boys for staying onside when they were the attacking team. Obviously they would be....

 

[ncurd]

I have added the Highlanders offside line (blue) to this. Perhaps you can point out the Highlanders players who are offside....

Because why would any Highlanders players be offside in this situation as the attacking team? They get zero advantage from being so if it were the reverse no Lions player would be.

 

[Jakedood]

Last foot you say! If they started calling offside as the last foot in a ruck, then they'd basically be penalizing players till the cows come home. If you are going to call offside at the ruck, like that one above, then do it for both sides please. Refs almost certainly do not use the back foot of the ruck as a guide, that is clear. Those Lions in the picture look as onside as any Highlanders defensive line did on the night. Perhaps Gardner read all the recent NZ press and sort to even things out a bit. Thought Garner was cr@p in fairness, but don't blame the Lions defeat on his performance. Lions did all they needed to themselves to to lose. Ref was still pants. My apologies for confusing him for a New Zealander, all the same Where is Craig Joubert?

The issue came for this post i think
Smartcooky believed Nubiwan was referring to that particular clip/photo, whereas he was referring to the defensive line of the Highlanders in the rest of the game

 

[smartcooky]

I never said they were offside.....SC was using it to claim the Highlanders were good boys for staying onside when they were the attacking team. Obviously they would be....

I made no such claim!

 

[The Jones Boy]

NH refs seem to take more responsibility at scrum time a lot of SH refs don't know or choose to ignore wheeling, boring etc, sharing penalties on a one for you next one for them basis.

That hasn't been my experience.
Apart from Nigel Owens I have limited faith in northern hemisphere referees.

However, apart from a couple of SH refs I have an equally limited faith in the ones below the equator as well.
Most of the time I'm ok with refereeing and TMO blunders as long as they even out quickly.
Andre Watson used to take it too far though. He was like a pedantic parent of twins deliberately altering the game to make sure both teams received a fair amount of penalties etc.
I gave up watching games he officiated in, it was too difficult to watch.

 

[valley commando]

Further to this, the different hemispheres may often see referees have different areas where their focus is less or more and this can have an effect on how they officiate.
It's up to the teams to get on with it and play rugby.

NH refs seem to take more responsibility at scrum time a lot of SH refs don't know or choose to ignore wheeling, boring etc, sharing penalties on a one for you next one for them basis.
Of co

That hasn't been my experience.
Apart from Nigel Owens I have limited faith in northern hemisphere referees.

However, apart from a couple of SH refs I have an equally limited faith in the ones below the equator as well.
Most of the time I'm ok with refereeing and TMO blunders as long as they even out quickly.
Andre Watson used to take it too far though. He was like a pedantic parent of twins deliberately altering the game to make sure both teams received a fair amount of penalties etc.
I gave up watching games he officiated in, it was too difficult to watch.

Of course you have know faith in NH refs, because you are used to seeing shite refs week in week out, it seems most down your way would rather watch a basketball style game without any structure than a full on contest.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Of course you have know faith in NH refs, because you are used to seeing shite refs week in week out.

Maybe I am, but I watch British rugby Valley, I live in London. So maybe the referees you band with excrement are just as likley to be from here as they are from down south.
Which brings me back to my original point which is there are very few refs in either hemiosphere I'm impressed by and that is partly because it's such a difficult job to referee a rugby match effectively for 80 minutes.
My bigger concern is how certain home unions seem to get significant largesse from referees at their favoured home grounds and I would point at the AB's at Eden Park where NZ can cram the most fans in, and Twickenham for England as being the two biggest offenders.
Loftus Versfeld is another prime example and Millenium stadium can be problematic.
Is it because referees are not used to reffing live in front of massive home crowds compared to football referees?

 

[Nubiwan]

Complete and utter crap. You have absolutely no clue at all about the Laws of the Game, do you?

LAW 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
(a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team.
Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the
hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the
defending team is the goal line.

You just go out to your local club rugby ground and you ask ANY referee where the ruck offside line is.



You do undertstand that the players in the ruck are not offside, they are part of the ruck?

I have added the Highlanders offside line (blue) to this. Perhaps you can point out the Highlanders players who are offside....

You need to quench the rage pal.... Feel the love some more.

YES, I KNOW THE LAST FOOT OF THE RUCK IS THE OFFSIDE LINE FOR F#CK SAKE. Yes, I know all that. That was not my point. Do I need to write it in BIG RED LETTERS for you as well? Quite often, defenders are well in front of the last foot in a ruck. Particularly if a player is prone or lying on the ground at the back of it. Players fringing are rarely behind the last foot. I am not saying the Lions are all onside. I am saying that their position is typical of many defensive lines in rugby these days, that seek to get any advantage when they can. It rarely is called unless on player is blatantly pushing the boundary.

Throwing the ball into a scrum not straight is supposed to be a pen too (free kick?), but very rarely does a scrum half feeding the ball get called. Players not fully bound on rucks and scrums rarely, if ever get penalized Point is, the laws are bent to suit the play, by refs and players alike, and teams will get away with what they can. If you watch this game again, then the highlanders were just as guilty of encroaching the offside line in order to keep a high line speed. Its part of the game to squeeze as much out of the offside as you can. That is why I responded. Not because I thought the Lions all onside.

The fact I still blamed the Lions for their defeat (and not the ref) should have been enough to suggest it was rather an impartial opinion on the decision, but oh no, you come out in a big red attack and start calling people dickheads. Well, that's just where you lost the plot. No need.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40310086

Well said.

 

[General Melchett]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40310086

Well said.

While I didn't agree with his four captains idea, I agree with him on this.

 

[Bluemoon]

We all know the sort of players that should/coul be called up based on form.

Isn't it a bit of a swipe suggesting that just because Wales are in NZ then the team more likely to pick players from Wales? If Gatland was going to favour Welsh players at this point, he'd do it wherever they were.

 

[Nubiwan]

We all know the sort of players that should/coul be called up based on form.

Isn't it a bit of a swipe suggesting that just because Wales are in NZ then the team more likely to pick players from Wales? If Gatland was going to favour Welsh players at this point, he'd do it wherever they were.

SOme might suggest we are well past that point.

 

[Nubiwan]

I decided to analyze the whinging Pom's video, dismantle his arguments piece by piece, and show that the referee, Angus Gardner and his TMO and ARs, were correct in every call that this whinging Pom is griping about



Whinge No 2 at 0:44 (Obstruction)
He complained that AWJ was obstructed by Ainley resulting in a try. While he is right, there was obstruction, was pretty obvious that AWJ was nowhere near getting close enough to tackle the player,. This is an issue of materiality. Angus Gardner went to the TMO, and the TMO, after looking at the play from several angles decided that the obstruction was immaterial, and the try would have been scored anyway.
Angus Gardner 2 - Liam Dickhead 0

AWJ wasn't obstructed for the try, by the way, it was the Lions 12. The Highlanders player clearly goes out of his way to obstruct the player. The NZ commentators (your mates) even suggested the play should have been reviewed, as it looked clearly obvious. The Highlander player had no right to obstruct the defender and clearly did. There was a good chance the defender would have had some contact with the try scorer.

DH 1 - Angus the Ozzie 0

 

[smartcooky]

AWJ wasn't obstructed for the try, by the way, it was the Lions 12. The Highlanders player clearly goes out of his way to obstruct the player. The NZ commentators (your mates) even suggested the play should have been reviewed, as it looked clearly obvious. The Highlander player had no right to obstruct the defender and clearly did. There was a good chance the defender would have had some contact with the try scorer.

DH 1 - Angus the Ozzie 0

1. The play was reviewed. The TMO ruled the obstruction wasn't material.

Listen to the conversation between the referee and the TMO...

https://youtube/gMXUWoLbj3o?t=2384

After that conversation, the referee tells the Lions' captain "we've checked it and we're happy".
If the match officials missed it and didn't reveiw it, you'd have a point, but they saw it and reviewed it, so you don't.

2. Do you think the try would have been scored anyway (a yes or no answer please)

 

[Nubiwan]

1. The play was reviewed. The TMO ruled the obstruction wasn't material.

Listen to the conversation between the referee and the TMO...

https://youtube/gMXUWoLbj3o?t=2384

After that conversation, the referee tells the Lions' captain "we've checked it and we're happy".
If the match officials missed it and didn't reveiw it, you'd have a point, but they saw it and reviewed it, so you don't.

2. Do you think the try would have been scored anyway (a yes or no answer please)

Again, no one has denied the ref had a 3 second chat to the TMO who's response was miraculously swift. What we are debating here is whether it was right or wrong. They got it clearly wrong, and it warranted more than a cursory chat with the the TMO.

Again, a case of Gardiner being the sort of ref with "bigger balls than thou" when anyone questioned a decision. He got it wrong. Highlander intentionally goes backwards or sideways at best to impeded the defender.

Think I'll go review the try and the content of Gardiners conversation to see if he even asked about the obstruction or just said "are we OK with that?"

 

[Nubiwan]

Yes, the Highlander number 4 does nothing to impede the Lion defender. Thought he was going to as Teo for a f3cking dance. Friggin shocker.....

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Yes, the Highlander number 4 does nothing to impede the Lion defender. Thought he was going to as Teo for a f3cking dance. Friggin shocker.....

That's the first time I've seen that back and OMG. It's the most F****** obvious thing I've ever seen. There's literally no excuse for a referee saying he's happy not to have a proper look at that.

Smartcooky again proves how one-eyed he is with his comments above. How can you lament the decision making in other games and pass no critical comment on stuff like this...astounding

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, the Highlander number 4 does nothing to impede the Lion defender. Thought he was going to as Teo for a f3cking dance. Friggin shocker.....

Three second conversation!? Bollocks. You weren't listening were you?

FYI, TMOs start to review every scoring play before they are asked so that they are ready for the ref if there are any questions, and in case they see something the referee hasn't (the "check, check" protocol). This was put in place because some media plonkers kept whinging about how long TMO decisions were taking. Now you are complaining that they didn't take long enough. Go figure!!

Now I'll tell you what really happened, and how long it took

YT 39:51 - Angus Gardner (to TMO): "Marius, check up on that please" then to Marty Banks who was setting up for the conversion, "Wait, No. No"
YT 40:32 - Marius Jonker: "Yeah. pretty happy that he would never have got there"
YT 40:38 - Angus Gardner (to Lions captain): "We've checked it, we're happy......we've checked it, we're happy".

By my count, that took 47 seconds, not three!!! Also, your rude comment about the size of Angus Gardner's gonads is misdirected. He wasn't the official who made the decision.

Now, while I agree with your statement that Ainley impeded Henshaw, I also agree with the Marius Jonker that Henshaw would not have had any chance to get to Naholo, i.e. it would not have made any difference whether he was impeded or not... this is known as "materiality" a concept you seem to have difficulty in grasping.

 

[Nubiwan]

Three second conversation!? Bollocks. You weren't listening were you?

FYI, TMOs start to review every scoring play before they are asked so that they are ready for the ref if there are any questions, and in case they see something the referee hasn't (the "check, check" protocol). This was put in place because some media plonkers kept whinging about how long TMO decisions were taking. Now you are complaining that they didn't take long enough. Go figure!!

Now I'll tell you what really happened, and how long it took

YT 39:51 - Angus Gardner (to TMO): "Marius, check up on that please" then to Marty Banks who was setting up for the conversion, "Wait, No. No"
YT 40:32 - Marius Jonker: "Yeah. pretty happy that he would never have got there"
YT 40:38 - Angus Gardner (to Lions captain): "We've checked it, we're happy......we've checked it, we're happy".

By my count, that took 47 seconds, not three!!! Also, your rude comment about the size of Angus Gardner's gonads is misdirected. He wasn't the official who made the decision.

Now, while I agree with your statement that Ainley impeded Henshaw, I also agree with the Marius Jonker that Henshaw would not have had any chance to get to Naholo, i.e. it would not have made any difference whether he was impeded or not... this is known as "materiality" a concept you seem to have difficulty in grasping.

You take offence to me suggesting a referee might have a holier then thou attitude, yet take liberties calling fellow poster a d1ckhead. That's pretty friggin rich. He blocked him and both ref and TMO got it wrong.

Its history as far as reasonable debate goes, but you, will always wake up being you.

Have you been counting all them offsides in front of the hindfeet in a ruck the refs are missing, or is that just conveniently forgotten? Like common sense and common courtesy pal/gal.