That's probably the right thread to post this video in:
Maybe it's been posted otherwise in which case sorry.
Don't want to stir anything. I think the commentators are right by saying congrats to NZ etc. But it does make me a litle bit angry.
I already responded to this video in another thread. Here is what I said:
Ok, let's go through it.
1. (0:01-0:11) Palisson is tackled by McCaw, Thorn and Woodcock are the first to the breakdown and contest for the ball on their feet. Rougerie attempts to clearout Thorn - not very successfully. Palisson holds onto the ball while Woodcock remains on his feet (his weight is supported by the ruck but still on his feet) and the referee blows for holding on. You could argue that McCaw did not release the tackled player. The talk over this footage was "That's a penalty - there's no way Woodcock there has hold of that ball." They are talking about Woodcock, not McCaw. Woodcock was contesting for the ball and Palisson held on - if this is what makes their reel then you can already see that they are over reaching.
2. (0:11-0:18) Seriously? This is pathetic. McCaw is not playing the ball at all. He is disrupting French possession for sure but he is doing it by competing for the space over the ball against the players trying to clear him out. Absolutely standard breakdown play and I don't see much illegal there. This is how you slow down opposition ball legally.
3. (0:18-0:38) Comparing Read's offside and Parra's. Obviously this is about materiality. Read went offside but then retreated and had no effect on the play. Parra did the same but then was immediately involved in the play - materiality.
4. (0:38-0:43) High tackle from Woodcock. The tackle was high, Woodcock hit the shoulder and would have hit the head if Trinh-Duc had not ducked. I think a penalty was in order there but I have heard others say it was not technically a high tackle by the laws. Whatever - he ducked under it and carried on with possession - I don't see a big deal here.
5. (0:43-0:54) Thorn carries from the back of a ruck and is tackled. Dusautoir competes for the ball and McCaw first and then Franks try to clear him, unsuccessfully. I guess they are saying that Thorn held on too long and should have been penalised. Maybe. I wouldn't have a problem with Thorn being penalised here but these are the kind of marginal things you see going either way all the time in rugby.
6. (0:54-1:04) Again, pathetic that this makes their reel. "Look at Richie McCaw, and they're playing the ball off their feet." Nonsense. McCaw is not playing the ball at all. The ball is tied up and France gets the scrum. Standard.
7. (1:04-1.32) Kaino contests French possession at a ruck, knocks on, there's a scrap for possession and France get the scrum. This is the one they called "shameful". Kaino started on his feet - perfectly legal. There are several seconds where you can't see on the coverage what is happening but certainly the French are not happy with what is going on. The reverse angle only shows the end of it where Kaino is on his feet and gets the ball in his hands. If there was anything illegal up to this point then you can't see it on the coverage. Kaino then knocks the ball on. I don't think Joubert saw this knock-on. If he did then he should have blown for the knock-on or for Hore going for the subsequent loose ball from offside. Assuming that Joubert did not see the knock-on then he rules the subsequent events correctly - the ball gets tied up in a mess of players and France receives the scrum. Yes, Joubert missed the knock-on (therefore he doesn't recognise Hore as being offside) - mistake certainly, but that is all. They used the word "shameful" 3 times here.
8. (1:32-1:46) New Zealand penalty. Harinordoquy may have come from an offside position here but I don't think that was what the penalty was for. Joubert was on the other side of the ruck from the camera, was crouched down looking at the play, decided there was something illegal and awards the penalty to NZ. We can't see what is happening and Joubert is in perfect position to see what is going on. What is the complaint here exactly?
So that's the best they could find? Seriously? 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 shouldn't even be there - they are all fine. 4 could have been penalised (others say it is fine) even though France continued with good quality possession. 5 was marginal. 7 was certainly a missed knock-on.
Wow - big friggin deal. I am sure I could make a much more persuasive case the other way, starting with Rougerie's offside in the ruck that lead to Weepu's kicking the ball into French hands and the subsequent try, and ending with Rougerie's headbutt and eye rake on McCaw.
By all means feel free to argue any of the above 8 incidents. The "discussion" over the top of this video is beyond biased. If this is the worst they can find from a highly competitive test match then that actually reflects very well on Joubert if you ask me.
