Jumping_jack
Ward Prentice (10)
Yep ref blows the whistle before the try. It cannot be a try in that context.
CAS Rugby 2023
- Thread starter rod skellet
- Start date
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
No. Cranbrook never joined the maul BUT ball was never passed back. Therefore, an obstruction never occurred. Play on.
Hopefully the Cranbrook boys learnt something from all this.
james richards
Stan Wickham (3)
Obstruction has nothing to do with not joining the mall completely different situation. EITHER way I reiterate my statement that the whistle was blown before the try.
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
The next argument people will make is "ref blows whistle before ball is grounded."
However...
Common sense prevails. No Cranbrook boy had a chance to stopping the try as the ball was in the process of being grounded when whistle blew. Sometimes common sense is the most important law in the rule book (IMO anyways).
Additionally, if your opinion is that Cranbrook should have won because both their pack and the ref don't understand the laws of the game... I reckon that's a pretty poor argument.
However...
Common sense prevails. No Cranbrook boy had a chance to stopping the try as the ball was in the process of being grounded when whistle blew. Sometimes common sense is the most important law in the rule book (IMO anyways).
Additionally, if your opinion is that Cranbrook should have won because both their pack and the ref don't understand the laws of the game... I reckon that's a pretty poor argument.
Last edited:
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
If you could stop a maul AND earn a penalty by merely not joining it... Guess what... Come line-out time no team would ever join a maul, and the rolling maul would be a dead tactic. If the ball never moves backwards in the maul and remains in the jumpers hand, the ball can progress up the field.
Try.
Law Discussion: Maul tactics
The maul from a line-out was a great South African weapon. They developed it first and used it most profitably. Until November, that is.
rugby365.com
Last edited:
james richards
Stan Wickham (3)
Something we can both agree on is that this topic needs an unbias opinion from someone like Snort currently it is a barker v cranbrook back and forth and we need an unbias opinion as a final answer we have both put out our arguments lets leave it for an unbias party to chip in.If you could stop a maul AND earn a penalty by merely not joining it... Guess what... Come line-out time no team would ever join a maul, and the rolling maul would be a neat tactic. If the ball never moves backwards in the maul and remains in the jumpers hand, the ball can progress up the field.
Try.
Law Discussion: Maul tactics
The maul from a line-out was a great South African weapon. They developed it first and used it most profitably. Until November, that is.
Halfbackenthusiast
Ted Fahey (11)
Appears as though the whistle is blow whilst Thomas is in the process of grounding the ball (he’s already over the line and diving). This isn’t a infringement some people would remember Trinity scored a try in identical fashion against barker last year, barker have attempted to do a similar play in games but have passed the ball backwards and correctly been penalised. This however does not constitute a penalty as the player who caught the ball scored
FoleyBealeFolau
Ward Prentice (10)
As you can see the barker number 2 at 0:18 going over to his father and asking him to change the call. comedic how that is allowed at the 1st XV Level.
Famed_Star
Allen Oxlade (6)
No.
the ref can Cleary be seen several seconds before the try is scored with his arm in the air.
The fact a try was allowed to be scored under those circumstances is a farce.
Looking at the call, it is not a penalty at all. Ball didn’t move from front Barkers hands. But it should have been a scrum reset because the ref had already called time off before a try was scored.
Same old Barker - imagine not being humble enough to admit how bad a call it is that we have Barker people on here justifying a ludicrous call.
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
Whether or not it was a penalty or not isn't really up for debate. The law says the penalty call was incorrect, and should have been a try.
What could be argued is that the whistle was blown before grounding and hence even though it should have been a try, it can't be a try anyway. However, as I have stated, from an objective rugby fan standpoint common sense should prevail. No Cranbrook boy had a chance to stopping the try as the ball was in the process of being grounded when whistle blew.
What is most important though IMO is no cheating occurred. Hopefully the whinging will cease.
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
No. Touchie was talking to the ref from the sideline. Hence why there are FOUR Barker boys pointing at the touchy (touchie has 4 kids in the 1st XV? Wow talented bunch). Also Number 2 doesn't get within 10 metres of his 'father' (which is probably a BS claim, no one has confirmed it lol).
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
So let me get this right.... Your argument is "despite the fact whistle is blown when Barker is in process of diving for a try... And no Cranbrook player has any chance of stopping the try... I think it shouldn't be a try because both the ref and the Cranbrook team are clueless, and Barker should be punished for being the only people on the field (apart from the touchy) who understand the laws of the game."
That's your argument? Really?
Thank god for common sense. Try.
Additionally... If you believe it should have been a scrum reset from 5 metres out... You're probably looking at a try anyway. The better team won. Move on.
Halfbackenthusiast
Ted Fahey (11)
it wasn’t several seconds that video has been slowed down as often happens with highlights
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
I don't think it is slowed down. But the ball is grounded literally within 1 second of the whistle being blown with the closest Cranbrook player nowhere near the ball. It's common sense really.
Halfbackenthusiast
Ted Fahey (11)
You can see it begin to slow down just before Thomas leaves the mall
attempted change of topic well & truly charged down....... but does play continue or is this attempted phase of play dead? ;-)
Famed_Star
Allen Oxlade (6)
Same old Barker.
Which happened first? Would the player standing next to him have heard the whistle so stopped playing?
Last edited:
Backintheolddays
Bill Watson (15)
As an accredited junior and senior ref Barkers line out try was fair. That is with no visibility of the ref or being able to hear what was said before the try was scored.
Defensive line out teams that seek an obstruction penalty by stand off defence are usually well coached in the rule interpretation and also have a caller for the team (and ref) to indicate if the ball has been fed to the back of the maul (penalty) or if remains at the front and active defence is required.
Always looks bad when the defending team earns a penalty which is then overturned and a try is awarded instead. Shit happens.
Defensive line out teams that seek an obstruction penalty by stand off defence are usually well coached in the rule interpretation and also have a caller for the team (and ref) to indicate if the ball has been fed to the back of the maul (penalty) or if remains at the front and active defence is required.
Always looks bad when the defending team earns a penalty which is then overturned and a try is awarded instead. Shit happens.
RedOrDead
Charlie Fox (21)
Sorry mate. You were drowned out the rubbish.
I really like the idea. Would love to hear if anyone has any criticisms.
it was a (genuine thoughts tho) cynical attempt to change the flow of the forum - maybe I'll get told to sit on the pine for 10
