Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to me to make a number of really key decisions against England.
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls were shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last 2 minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland Grand Slam decider.
"Jon.R" <richards_family_tree@ntlworld.com> wrote in message newsVmUd.3844$dy3.1911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...> Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to > me to make a number of really key decisions against England.>
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls > were shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last > 2 minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.>
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland > Grand Slam decider.>
Bloody awful ref. He looked tired and confused after 5 minutes. Why the hell are we using these guys anyway? Yesterday's Welsh cheating bonanza at the end of the game was poorly reffed, who the hell hired these clowns?
Leighton Jones 27 February 2005 20:54:55 [ permanent link ]
"Jon.R" <richards_family_tree@ntlworld.com> wrote in message newsVmUd.3844$dy3.1911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...> Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to > me to make a number of really key decisions against England.>
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls > were shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last > 2 minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.>
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland > Grand Slam decider.
I actually think that Cueto's try should have stood. I also initially though Moody had grounded the ball, but you're right, oddly the ref saw no grounds to review it.
Bad calls are all part of the game though - I don't feel theres any powers that be gunning for any particular result (if anything they;d want England winning, as its the best financial outcome).
Mr.Will
"Jon.R" <richards_family_tree@ntlworld.com> wrote in message newsVmUd.3844$dy3.1911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...> Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to
to make a number of really key decisions against England.>
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls
were> shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last 2> minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.>
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland
I actually think that Cueto's try should have stood. I also initially
though> Moody had grounded the ball, but you're right, oddly the ref saw no grounds> to review it.>
Bad calls are all part of the game though - I don't feel theres any powers> that be gunning for any particular result (if anything they;d want England> winning, as its the best financial outcome).
Of course, like any ref in any sport, it's a case of best endeavour and they get it wrong many times. They are human after all. Funny though, every second post this weekend has been about the standard of refereeing. Well, every second post from the fans of the losing teams that is.
The Green Phantom 27 February 2005 21:04:14 [ permanent link ]
didgerman wrote:
[...]
Bloody awful ref. He looked tired and confused after 5 minutes.> Why the hell are we using these guys anyway? Yesterday's Welsh cheating> bonanza at the end of the game was poorly reffed, who the hell hired these> clowns?
Now Didge you know perfectly well that the sheating was coming from the French loose-head who was dragging the scrum down until Honiss moved to the far side.
You really must start paying attention to what is happening, not wht you think should happen.
regards
The Green Phantom -- You will not be elected to public office this year.
Leighton Jones 27 February 2005 21:12:27 [ permanent link ]
"Roddytoo" <cfba06985@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:38ecrlF5nsv47U1@individual.net...> Dire referee. Next time could we have a proper one, please.
Oh please, not that one, England had enough of the Ball in second half to have got a lot closer. Take it like a man! Pick your dummy up, get the toys back in the pram, and go and buy an Irish man a pint! Cheers LJ.
"The Green Phantom" <ask@the.right.time> wrote in message news:4221fcbb$0$69323$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...> didgerman wrote:>
[...]>
Bloody awful ref. He looked tired and confused after 5 minutes.>> Why the hell are we using these guys anyway? Yesterday's Welsh cheating>> bonanza at the end of the game was poorly reffed, who the hell hired >> these>> clowns?>
Now Didge you know perfectly well that the sheating was coming from the> French loose-head who was dragging the scrum down until Honiss moved to > the> far side.>
You really must start paying attention to what is happening, not wht you> think should happen.>
regards>
The Green Phantom> -- > You will not be elected to public office this year.>
What about the *two* Welsh players that went fishing in the scrum for the ball before it was out?
"Leighton Jones" <leighton.j@virgin.net> wrote in message news:%bnUd.2043$Qd1.481@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...>
"Roddytoo" <cfba06985@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:38ecrlF5nsv47U1@individual.net...>> Dire referee. Next time could we have a proper one, please.>
Oh please, not that one, England had enough of the Ball in second half to > have got a lot closer.
We did, plenty of times.
Take it like a man!
Men don't take it....
Pick your dummy up, get the toys back in the pram, and go and buy an Irish> man a pint!
I might kick one in the shins in the playground tommorow morning, if he's doing the school run....
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:02:33 +0200, "spizz" <spizz_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
I actually think that Cueto's try should have stood. I also initially>though>> Moody had grounded the ball, but you're right, oddly the ref saw no>grounds>> to review it.>>
Bad calls are all part of the game though - I don't feel theres any powers>> that be gunning for any particular result (if anything they;d want England>> winning, as its the best financial outcome).>
Of course, like any ref in any sport, it's a case of best endeavour and they>get it wrong many times. They are human after all. Funny though, every>second post this weekend has been about the standard of refereeing. Well,>every second post from the fans of the losing teams that is.
If I wasn't so lazy, a trawl through the archives to find responses when anyone dared mention the ref after an England win would be quite illuminating
You really must start paying attention to what is happening, not wht you> think should happen.>
Well said - there is too many armchair experts who don't know what really happens down at the gound between three to four officials and then simply blame the man with the whistle based on what they saw on the telly (and from another angle).
England's worse run in 18 years cannot be down to refereeing - the ref certainly did not perform the drop goals for O'Gara, the try for O'Driscoll nor did he perform key knock-ons for England when they looked like scoring. Likewise for France and Wales.
Robinson and his players need to take the flak - not the ref.
"Mariner" <marinelife@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G62dnRkXk4xigb_fRVn-qg@rogers.com...>> You really must start paying attention to what is happening, not wht you>> think should happen.>>
Well said - there is too many armchair experts who don't know what really > happens down at the gound between three to four officials> and then simply blame the man with the whistle based on what they saw on > the telly (and from another angle).>
England's worse run in 18 years cannot be down to refereeing - the ref > certainly did not perform the drop goals for O'Gara, the try for > O'Driscoll> nor did he perform key knock-ons for England when they looked like > scoring. Likewise for France and Wales.>
Robinson and his players need to take the flak - not the ref.>
So Lewsey's and Cueto's tries {and they were}wouldn't have mattered then?
With a decent ref it would've been a great game, two good sides. As it was, it wasn't worth watching, a complete waste of everyone's time.
The Green Phantom 28 February 2005 00:33:28 [ permanent link ]
didgerman wrote:
"Mariner" <marinelife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[...]
Robinson and his players need to take the flak - not the ref.>>
So Lewsey's and Cueto's tries {and they were}wouldn't have mattered then?>
With a decent ref it would've been a great game, two good sides. As it> was, it wasn't worth watching, a complete waste of everyone's time.
Or England's first try where a defender wasn't so much blocked as taken right out. If you're going to pick on one then pick on all of them and acknowledge England's own rub of the green.
regards
The Green Phantom -- If you have never been hated by your child, you have never been a parent. -- Bette Davis
"The Green Phantom" <ask@the.right.time> wrote in message news:42222dc5$0$73920$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...> didgerman wrote:>
"Mariner" <marinelife@yahoo.com> wrote in message>
[...]>
Robinson and his players need to take the flak - not the ref.>>>
So Lewsey's and Cueto's tries {and they were}wouldn't have mattered then?>>
With a decent ref it would've been a great game, two good sides. As it>> was, it wasn't worth watching, a complete waste of everyone's time.>
Or England's first try where a defender wasn't so much blocked as taken> right out. If you're going to pick on one then pick on all of them and> acknowledge England's own rub of the green.>
regards>
The Green Phantom> -- > If you have never been hated by your child, you have never been a parent.> -- Bette Davis>
Yeah, I knew you'd say that. I'm not sure if O'Gara was onside when Grewcock started to drive him back. He certainly made the most of it once he got him moving though. I didn't say the ref was biased, just stupid....
Andy Mulhearn 28 February 2005 01:11:32 [ permanent link ]
Jon.R wrote:> Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to me > to make a number of really key decisions against England.
I thought it went both ways.
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls were > shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last 2 > minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.>
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland Grand > Slam decider. >
The only thing I thought went wrong was that Byrne could have been pinged a lot more for not throwing straight in the lineout.
Apart from that he was equally dreadful to both sides.
"The Green Phantom" <ask@the.right.time> wrote in message news:42222dc5$0$73920$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...> didgerman wrote:>
"Mariner" <marinelife@yahoo.com> wrote in message>
[...]>
Robinson and his players need to take the flak - not the ref.> >>
So Lewsey's and Cueto's tries {and they were}wouldn't have mattered
then?> >
With a decent ref it would've been a great game, two good sides. As it> > was, it wasn't worth watching, a complete waste of everyone's time.>
Or England's first try where a defender wasn't so much blocked as taken> right out. If you're going to pick on one then pick on all of them and> acknowledge England's own rub of the green.>
Brian Moore called this wrong for mine - O Gara made an attempt to go into the Ruck, and got cleared out. Its his own bad decision making that left the gap, not some flagrant foul play.
"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ggpUd.5525$387.3285@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...>
"Leighton Jones" <leighton.j@virgin.net> wrote in message> news:kbpUd.2275$Qd1.162@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...> >
"Roddytoo" <cfba06985@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message> > news:38el2gF5mke5bU1@individual.net...> >> OK, rephrase: not only did the players ahve to play one another, they
to be more aware than necessary of the referee. The mark of a good ref
that you hardly notice him. He was noticeable ofr the mistakes - both> >> ways.> >> "Leighton Jones" <leighton.j@virgin.net> wrote in message> >> news:%bnUd.2043$Qd1.481@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...> >>>
"Roddytoo" <cfba06985@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message> >>> news:38ecrlF5nsv47U1@individual.net...> >>>> Dire referee. Next time could we have a proper one, please.> >>>
Oh please, not that one, England had enough of the Ball in second half> >>> to have got a lot closer.> >>> Take it like a man!> >>> Pick your dummy up, get the toys back in the pram, and go and buy an> >>> Irish> >>> man a pint!> >>> Cheers LJ.> >>>
OK, rephrase: not only did the players have to play one another, they
to be more aware than necessary of the referee. The mark of a good ref
that you hardly notice him. He was noticeable for the mistakes - both> >> ways.> >
Both sides had the same Ref!> > One side played him better than the other.> > Ireland beat England, in what I thought was quite an entertaining game.> > We could all pick out numerous thing ( off the ball blocking for one ),
back up our particular view of things.> > But, at the end of the day, the result stands!> > It's one of the things that I love about the game, refs are not and can> > never be perfect.> > Cheers LJ.> >
No, but they usually do a much better job than that jackass.
I don't know about that. Have to say, the last incarnation of the English side managed to beat Australia and that referee at the RWC final. Good teams win, thats all there is to it.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:02:33 +0200, "spizz" <spizz_uk@hotmail.com>> wrote:>
I actually think that Cueto's try should have stood. I also initially>>
though>>
Moody had grounded the ball, but you're right, oddly the ref saw no>>
grounds>>
to review it.>>>
Bad calls are all part of the game though - I don't feel theres any powers>>>that be gunning for any particular result (if anything they;d want England>>>winning, as its the best financial outcome).>>
Of course, like any ref in any sport, it's a case of best endeavour and they>>get it wrong many times. They are human after all. Funny though, every>>second post this weekend has been about the standard of refereeing. Well,>>every second post from the fans of the losing teams that is.>
If I wasn't so lazy, a trawl through the archives to find responses> when anyone dared mention the ref after an England win would be quite> illuminating
"Typically whining loser blaming the ref" was pretty much the standard comment as I recall -- the general inference being that non-England fans will stop at nothing to blame English wins on anything but the real reason, that being English superiority and English dominance.
"Typically whining loser blaming your goal kicker having a bad day" was another one, which was of course completely different to the French game when Hodgson's boots went on holiday.
Dire referee. Next time could we have a proper one, please.
"Jon.R" <richards_family_tree@ntlworld.com> wrote in message newsVmUd.3844$dy3.1911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...> Would be interested in a genuine impartial view on that. Kaplan seemed to > me to make a number of really key decisions against England.>
The Cueto try in the 1st half, a number of 'holding in the ruck' calls > were shown to be wrong on the replay, and the try/no try call in the last > 2 minutes all a crucial times, and all (wrongly) went to Ireland.>
Seems the powers that be are gunning for a big pay-day Wales v Ireland > Grand Slam decider.>
OK, rephrase: not only did the players ahve to play one another, they had to be more aware than necessary of the referee. The mark of a good ref is that you hardly notice him. He was noticeable ofr the mistakes - both ways. "Leighton Jones" <leighton.j@virgin.net> wrote in message news:%bnUd.2043$Qd1.481@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...>
"Roddytoo" <cfba06985@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > news:38ecrlF5nsv47U1@individual.net...>> Dire referee. Next time could we have a proper one, please.>
Oh please, not that one, England had enough of the Ball in second half to > have got a lot closer.> Take it like a man!> Pick your dummy up, get the toys back in the pram, and go and buy an Irish> man a pint!> Cheers LJ.>
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:27:16 +0800, Rick Boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
The English commentator whined on and on about the ref not going >upstairs when England mauled the ball close, then about it not being an >English put in following, but it seemed obvious to me that the ball >never went over the line in the first place and was certainly not grounded.>
It may not have gone over the line, but was gounded. Srum England. But as others have said rub of the green. Second crap ref of the day for me.
England are still improving and again can take some positives from this >game, but their continuing concern should be the total lack of >penetrative players and attacking structures. One player who impressed >me in the HC in this regard was Abbott, so perhaps they can plan >something around him when he comes back from injury.
Their concern should be their lack of mental toughness, spine, leadership and direction. Robinson to fall on his sword please
JH
Ireland, it has to be said, continue to give the impression of a team >playing on heart and boxing above their weight. They compete fiercely >throughout but despite the supposed brilliance of their midfield, don't >really impress as a dominant or threatening team. They work hard and get >there in the end, and that's about all.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:14:26 +0000, John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:27:16 +0800, Rick Boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au>>wrote:>
The English commentator whined on and on about the ref not going >>upstairs when England mauled the ball close, then about it not being an >>English put in following, but it seemed obvious to me that the ball >>never went over the line in the first place and was certainly not grounded.>>
It may not have gone over the line, but was gounded. Srum England. But>as others have said rub of the green. Second crap ref of the day for>me.
Thought it was a maul. Therefore if the maul collapses short of the line, scrum Ireland, regardless of whether or not it was grounded.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:27:16 +0800, Rick Boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au>> wrote:>
The English commentator whined on and on about the ref not going>>upstairs when England mauled the ball close, then about it not being>>an English put in following, but it seemed obvious to me that the ball>>never went over the line in the first place and was certainly not>>grounded.>>
It may not have gone over the line, but was gounded. Srum England.
We've been dicked down south, dicked up north. Uninspiring captain,> incredible players selections in Worsley and continued faith in Thompson,> bringing on a bright hopeful in Tait then fucking him off, and all in all> looking like an England that is devoid of any fire at all.>
I think Mitchell should have stayed but then I dislike all things Henry. To> early for Robinson to go, but if he doesn't start coming out with a plan> soon then off with his head.
<snip>
Here's my beef with Robinson. England fans accept we are 'rebuilding' (well, we don't get a lot of choice). So, he should be rebuilding. But, he is failing in three key areas:
- Selectorial conservatism: it should be patently obvious that Worsley and Thompson are off form. Hodgson struggles with his kicking, both from hand and place kicking, and he cannot impose himself enough tactically on an international game. Cueto is a fine runner, but won't come looking for ball. Robinson is a better wing that fullback.
- Tactical conservatism, tactical naivety: Robinson should be fundamentally worried that England have not had a single game under Lydon where England have managed to convert their possession into space and innovation behind the scrum. We are losing the kicking games and are too tactically conservative/unconfident to create space with the ball in hand. Additionally, England's games are full of tactical naivety, from silly penalties to patently wrong options from players that should know better.
- Poor execution: the basic skills are not translating from the training park to the pitch: passes going awry, players running into one another, aimless kicks, forwards clogging the backline. Unless Robinson dictates what style of play he wants to the team to use, they will continue.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:07:44 +1300, Rodger Donaldson <rodgerd@diaspora.gen.nz> wrote:
Their concern should be their lack of mental toughness, spine,>> leadership and direction. Robinson to fall on his sword please>
Jeeze, John, when we said that about Mitchell you were telling us we>were nuts to want to get rid of one of Clive's valuable assistants so>early in his tenure.>
Nothing to do with CWs assitants. All to do with his winning games. Something Robinson seems not to have done much of.
Mind you, Mitch might actually do a better job for England at the>moment. His inability to have a Plan B shines beside the England>incumbant's apparent lack of a Plan A.>
On 28 Feb 2005 07:51:04 -0800, "Brent" <the_1aser@hotmail.com> wrote:
No way, John. If it starts out as a maul, it can't become a ruck.>That's the way refs from all nations call it, consistently.>
Cheers>
Brent
Ah you can't turn a ruck into a maul, but as soon as the ball goes on the ground with one or more players around it the it is a ruck. That's the way the laws see it.
Either way the ball was grounded by an England playerso
If it was over the line try If it was not over the line scrum England If it was over the line and not grounded scrum Englnad (England going forward) If it was a maul then Ireland collapsed it Penalty try
"John Hill" <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote in message news:si88211r15ttth1qdemdsiqp8p9egt4a8a@4ax.com...
<snip>
Either way the ball was grounded by an England playerso>
If it was over the line try> If it was not over the line scrum England> If it was over the line and not grounded scrum Englnad (England going> forward)> If it was a maul then Ireland collapsed it Penalty try>
You are wrong, Hill. Take a look at law 17.6 clauses b) and c).
In summary, the maul became unplayable. The team that had possession going into the maul in this case loses the scrum feed, therefore the ruling for Ireland to feed the scrum was correct. The going forward argument only applies where the team that had posession cannot be determined.
As people keep informing you, that's not what the Laws say.
Clue : Grounding the ball is *not* sufficient to form a ruck. Even if it were, forming a ruck is *not* sufficient for the side in possesion to keep the ball. -- Gareth Owen What if there were no hypothetical questions?
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:53:39 +1300, "JohnO" <spam@me.com> wrote:
You are wrong, Hill. Take a look at law 17.6 clauses b) and c).>
In summary, the maul became unplayable. The team that had possession going >into the maul in this case loses the scrum feed, therefore the ruling for >Ireland to feed the scrum was correct. The going forward argument only >applies where the team that had posession cannot be determined.
On 01 Mar 2005 13:14:00 +0000, Gareth Owen <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> writes:>
But then the ball was grounded. Scrum England >
As people keep informing you, that's not what the Laws say.>
Law 17.6 (h) If a maul moves into the player's in-goal, where the ball is touched down or becomes unplayable, a 5 metre-metre scrum is formed. *The attacking team throws in the ball* "
JH
Clue : Grounding the ball is *not* sufficient to form a ruck.> Even if it were, forming a ruck is *not* sufficient for the side in> possesion to keep the ball.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:31:38 +0000, John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote:
BUT ball was not touched down or unplayable in the in goal. >>Unsuccessful maul, ball in the field of play when the ref blew his>>whistle.>>
That is your interpretation
And the refs. And a lot of other refs. Happens all the time here. if a maul ends and the ball doesn't come out, then the team that took it in loses it.
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:23:54 +0000, Sean Byrne <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:
That is your interpretation>
It was the refs interpretation. Something it appears even the RFU's>head of referees has little problem with.>
Later,>Sean
17.5 A maul ends succesfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul. A maul ends succesfully when the ball is on the ground or is on or over the goal line.
And there, gentlemen, I think we have the whole argument in a nutshell. It is impossible to prove with the video evidence available. JH would like to justify his position of outrage, and we in the SH don't give a toss.
Wasn't this the same website that jumped through convoluted hoops of>logic to defend Andre Watson's RWC2003 final shocker?>
My favourite bit of this article is: "When the commentator says: 'He>can't tell from there', he probably means that he, the commentator,>cannot call from there."
To be fair, we have no idea what Kaplan could or could not see from his perspective on top of the ball.
And neither does Brian Moore. So (on this isolated occasion) planet-rugby is probably right.
In a more general sense, Kaplan is South African ref, and p-r is a South African website. One should not be surprised at their defence, and they are definitely not unbiased.
Wasn't this the same website that jumped through convoluted hoops of>>logic to defend Andre Watson's RWC2003 final shocker?>>
My favourite bit of this article is: "When the commentator says: 'He>>can't tell from there', he probably means that he, the commentator,>>cannot call from there.">
To be fair, we have no idea what Kaplan could or could not see from his>perspective on top of the ball.>
And neither does Brian Moore. So (on this isolated occasion) planet-rugby>is probably right.>
Maybe. But they're not doing themselves any favours with that ridiculous explanation.
In a more general sense, Kaplan is South African ref, and p-r is a South>African website. One should not be surprised at their defence, and they>are definitely not unbiased.>
Andre Watson also. But maybe we're jumping to conclusions if we suspect a SAn conspiracy.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:40:36 +0800, Rick Boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
John Hill wrote:>
That is your interpretation>
And there, gentlemen, I think we have the whole argument in a nutshell. >It is impossible to prove with the video evidence available. JH would >like to justify his position of outrage, and we in the SH don't give a toss.
Some up here aren't too worked up about it, either.
Andre Watson also. But maybe we're jumping to conclusions if we> suspect a SAn conspiracy.
There is no South African conspiracy. The rest of the world is hoplessly biased about South Africa and united in their unceasing attempts to damage South Africa in any way possible. Especially Australian and New Zealand referees.
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:56:47 +1300, TomV <tomv@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote:
BUT ball was not touched down or unplayable in the in goal. >>>Unsuccessful maul, ball in the field of play when the ref blew his>>>whistle.>>>
That is your interpretation>
And the refs. >And a lot of other refs. >Happens all the time here. if a maul ends and the ball doesn't come>out, then the team that took it in loses it.>
Try Law 17.5
The ball crossed the line according to Kaplan. Succesful maul, it was grounded by Lewsey anyway succesful maul
17.5 A maul ends succesfully when the ball or a player with the ball> leaves the maul. A maul ends succesfully when the ball is on the> ground or is on or over the goal line.
But that is trumped by 17.6, which clearly states the decision for an unplayable ball in a collapsed maul.
-- Gareth Owen Early to rise, and early to bed / Makes a man healthy but socially dead
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:23:54 +0000, Sean Byrne> <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:>
That is your interpretation>>
It was the refs interpretation. Something it appears even the RFU's>>head of referees has little problem with.>>
Later,>>Sean>
17.5 A maul ends succesfully when the ball or a player with the ball> leaves the maul. A maul ends succesfully when the ball is on the> ground or is on or over the goal line.>
The ball was on the ground.
Not only the ball, but the player with the ball.
Law 17.5 deals with the ball *only* being on the ground. Law 17.6 (g) deals with the ball carrier going to ground.
It was driven over the in goal and back according to Kaplan
That's what I've been saying all along.
-- Gareth Owen "I am an educated man, but when someone tries to explain cricket to me, I just want to hit them with a teapot." -- President Jed Bartlet
On 02 Mar 2005 09:31:48 +0000, Gareth Owen <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
17.5 A maul ends succesfully when the ball or a player with the ball>> leaves the maul. A maul ends succesfully when the ball is on the>> ground or is on or over the goal line.>
But that is trumped by 17.6, which clearly states the decision for an>unplayable ball in a collapsed maul.>
-- >Gareth Owen>Early to rise, and early to bed / Makes a man healthy but socially dead
Kaplan states that the ball went over the line from the "scrum maul" and returned to the field of play
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:20:27 +0000, Tim Fitzmaurice <tjf11@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
So there are people calling it as per JH routinely, his interpretation is >so far as I see it consistent with the rules, though Ive not seen any >mention to 22 yet (I may have missed it, its a big thread) and also how >its been called on pitches Ive been playing on.>
Tim
Ah well there's a lot of law to trawl through. Thanks for clarifying that Tim
However, once the ball (and ball carrier) are driven back into the field of> >play, a new maul is constituted [ball carrier + 1 player of each team]. >
Where do the laws say that ?
Law 17: Definition. A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carriers team-mates bind on the ball-carrier.... A maul can only take place in the field of play.
Lewsey was a) in play, and on his feet b) carrying the ball c) was held by an opponent d) had a team mate bound to him
Therefore, it was a maul. -- Gareth Owen I can see Deirdre know, Lorraine has gone
Note a maul like object is described, mauls and their rules simply are not> applicable in the in-goal area -
Right. That's an interesting point. Kaplan let the play go on as long as he could, and when the ball became unplayable, it was in play, and so gave the decision that's right for a ball in play. I think that's right, but I might be wrong.
Maybe the RFU should request a Law clarification for what happens when a player is prevented from grounding in-goal, and then driven back into play.
If the ball is not grounded in goal by the carrier he is defined as held up> by 22.10 and its effect kicks in - its irrelevant that he ended up going> back into play as he has already gone ingoal where the in-goal consequences> and regulations apply.
While I agree, this is consistent with I don't think this is the sanest interpretation of the Laws.
Why? Because this interpretation could lead to some ridiculous decisions.
E.g. Suppose Red 11 runs over the the Blue try line to score, but before he grounds the ball, Blue 15 rips the ball from him and runs back through the entire Red team score at the other end.
Under the JH interpretation, the ref should give a scrum 5 on my line, as Red 11 entered in-goal and been prevented from grounding. I don't like that decision.
In short, I believe, (but can offer no justification within the Laws) that "held up over the goal line, scrum attacking" should apply *only* if the ball has become unplayable over the goal line.
If the ball is playable (e.g. it's secured by one team within an object that would be a maul anywhere else), there's simply no reason not to keep playing. If that maul-like object becomes static, call "held up".
Until then keep playing. -- Gareth Owen I can see Deirdre know, Lorraine has gone
On 02 Mar 2005 15:32:09 +0000, Gareth Owen <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
However, once the ball (and ball carrier) are driven back into the field of>> >play, a new maul is constituted [ball carrier + 1 player of each team]. >>
Where do the laws say that ?>
Law 17: >Definition.>A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more>opponents, and one or more of the ball-carriers team-mates bind on the>ball-carrier.... A maul can only take place in the field of play.>
Lewsey was >a) in play, and on his feet>b) carrying the ball>c) was held by an opponent>d) had a team mate bound to him>
Therefore, it was a maul.>--
Now check out law 22 abou the ball being dead
It cannot have been a new maul as the ball was dead
Note a maul like object is described, mauls and their rules simply are> not applicable in the in-goal area - the laws explcitly state the same> for scrums and rucks too.
Given that mauls/scrums and rucks are the only times when obstruction is allowed... doesn't this leave us with the situation where the lead players could be penalised for obstruction the moment they cross the line?
"John Hill" <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote in message news:rv0b21dam8r7sgmhphhgthdit2llcd09n3@4ax.com...> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:08:56 +1300, "JohnO" <spam@me.com> wrote:>
Says nothing about me. Anyway we tend to hide our true views about> people, it's only polite.>
Oh of course, you have demonstrated this yourself countless times!
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:25:06 +0000, guttapercha@gmail.com (gutts) wrote:
John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:>
Some up here aren't too worked up about it, either.>
in fact, some of us are pleased!
Pleased about the fact RSRU seems to be posting 98% on refereeing controversy and 2% on the game? Not me. You are, of course, welcome to be pleased about the result!
On 02 Mar 2005 16:00:02 +0000, Gareth Owen <usenet@gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
maul has been formed>
There's never a maul in-goal. >If you're appealing to Law 22, you've got to forget about mauls.>
But the maul was taken from the field of play into the in goal
JH
No. But a player carrying the ball has been prevented from grounding it.>As you seemingly interpret 22.10, that automatically makes the ball dead.>
This is not my interpretation at all>
So, if not Law 22.10, how do you suppose the ball went>
Unless the laws state specifically what they do>
22.10 When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the> player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead.>
1) Even if the defending player steals it?>2) Even if the attacking player has other options?>3) Even if the defending team drive the attacker back into play?>
Why apply 22.10 to the third case, but not the first two?>-- >Gareth Owen>Marathon : (n) A woman from Norway, a guy from Kenya, and 20,000 losers.
Tim Fitzmaurice 4 March 2005 02:29:39 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Gareth Owen wrote:
John Hill <john@recruitcrm.co.uk> writes:>
Now check out law 22 abou the ball being dead>
OK. I have it in front of me now.>
22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL> When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player> cannot ground the ball,the ball is dead.>
Interesting that. I don't believe the ball goes automatically dead because> the carrier is held up -- only if the passage of play has come to a halt.
Experience on my part would suggest otherwise. THe rule says holding the ball up is enough to make the ball dead, and many refs do call for a grounding on crossign the line in contact. THe opposition are at that point trying to hold up. THe motion they bocome interested in at that point is not the bodies, but the ball going down.
(i) If the ball carrier could pass it to a team mate,> he'd expect the ref to play on.
You are given reasonable time to attempt anything in rugby. Even the 'immediate action' requirements can be variable in length. If you are clear enough to be passing, then the ball isnt being held up, its still mobile...I think the issue is the focus shifts from man/maul motion to ball up and down.
(ii) If the ball carrier had it wrestled from him by an opponent, the opponent> would expect the ref to play on.
The chances of a clean wrestle at any stage when a player is trying to ground a ball are vanishigly small, in amaul where its stolen the ref can assume doubt as to when in relatino to the line it got stolen - thereby assuming defenders have the ball, if its taken out of hand in one swift movement then you could argue a) no attempt to ground was made therefore nothing to hold up and b) no attacker holding the ball and therefore no Law 22.10. What is most likely to happen is a grab and tussle for the ball preventing release, or players going to ground quickly. In am mass of bodies its going to be slow, just two people its going to be quick and visible.....either someone gets the ball to ground or the players fall over or a mass forms....either way its going to happen slower than the timespan Ive seen most refs wait for whistling.
Heck, if you have one guy on his own over the line and a defnder running at him, he drops. If its a mass you have arguments over when possession was lost by the attacker which give wiggle room....
And we are getting away from the issue of the situation in question where there clearly was an attempt to ground which was prevented and the player retained possession so fitting the bill neatly.
As I just wrote in another place, I believe this only applies when other> options are exhausted. I can't justify it, except that reffing (i) and (ii)> under your interpretation would result in decisions that were unjust,> and (by not rewarding attacking play and/or fair contest for possession)
As I say, the practicalities either allow options to the ref for considering doubt are are extrmely artificial constructions which simply won;thappen in the timespans allotted.
Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice 4 March 2005 02:35:13 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Sean Byrne wrote:
This reminds me of a sevens game a few years ago where as the player> (Carling??) went to touch the ball down, his opponent picked him off> the ground, and carried him, legs kicking, over the dead ball line.>
22 dropout was ruled.
Thatd be 22.11 b I think....dead ball areas again are a clear demarked area....grab the man you arent holding the ball up.
Its in the same section of In goal. Reasonable time to act for either player but dead has happened in that time. He was remarkably close to the dead ball so it was more lift and chuck....Carling could have upended.
The 22 laws are all kind linked together in the way the ruck set are....but all are special cases that override the ifield ones...at least that the way its got played here.
Tim -- When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart ICQ: 5178568
