Cheetahs v Reds R14

[Bruwheresmycar]

I disagree. If Saia isn't intentionally trying to obstruct then he is doing a terrible job of looking innocent. He has one arm held up which seemingly looks like he is either directing Morahan where to run or holding his arm up to help block the defender. He then moves into the path of the defender (who probably wasn't going to get there anyway but it isn't his fault that his chance to make a tackle has been denied).

I don't even think it's that complicated. Two offside players failing to retreat properly get in the way of onside defenders within range of the ball carrier. Clear material effect, it's a penalty. But this is an internet forum and you are going to find at least 1/20 Reds fans viewing are utterly convinced there was no penalty to give there. If the Cheetahs players had been the ones in front denying the Reds support players you can guarantee the opposite would be said.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I actually thought first call was dead right, I never thought Davies forced it, and to be honest after watching the obstruction, I know it had no affect on the try, did noone think the Finger brothers should get a bollocking as they both, especially Saia moved off their line to block players ..dumb,dumb dumb!!!!!

Even if the obstruction had no impact the fingers needed to be penalized for very unprofessional fouls.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rassie]

For the forward pass from Quade. He runs across field so the throw over your head thingy do not work with him most of the time. And a torpedo pass is designed to drift forward.

 

[Scoey]

Definitely a tactic IMO. I can picture Naka Drotske sitting down for his pre-game chat, telling his players to focus on tackling or running into support players rather than the ball carrier in the hope of possibly picking up a few cheap penalties.

Obviously I should've put the [/sarcasm] thing at the end of my post. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of BH's idea that Saia was trying to obstruct a player with an outstretched arm. But then again I'm a QLDer an therefore and idiot incapable of discussing something like this without any sort of completely blind bias or hyperbole. An affliction that affects QLDers exclusively if you ask Bruwhwheresmycar.
Oh sorry /sarcasm. ;-)

 

[Troy]

There was nothing wrong with that first try. Even Bobby 'One Eye" Skinstad thought it was fine, and he has a bit more experience than most on here.

I still think the comms problems/delay they had was them patching Craig Joubert's mic directly through to the Cheetah's coaching box!

 

[Ash]

There was no way that Coennie was ever going to get close to Morahan. A LH prop barely jogging across field a few metres away from a flying fullback? Not going to come close. It was a good effort from Coennie though to make him look as impeded as possible.

That being said.....Saia didn't need to step into him. To me he definitely took a step towards Coennie at the end. Silly play which didn't need to happen.

I think it should have been let go as Coennie was never going to get to Morahan, but on the other hand it was dumb play by S. Finger that was always at risk of being called up.

 

[Braveheart81]

There was no way that Coennie was ever going to get close to Morahan. A LH prop barely jogging across field a few metres away from a flying fullback? Not going to come close. It was a good effort from Coennie though to make him look as impeded as possible.

That being said...Saia didn't need to step into him. To me he definitely took a step towards Coennie at the end. Silly play which didn't need to happen.

I think it should have been let go as Coennie was never going to get to Morahan, but on the other hand it was dumb play by S. Finger that was always at risk of being called up.

Coenie ran into Ant Fainga'a.

I think the issue is not really whether players are actually going to get there to make it a tackle. It is denying them the opportunity which is the problem. Both defenders were close enough to the action that a referee is likely to side with them.

Generally I think these sort of decisions will favour the defending team whenever offside players are in motion and not clearly moving to put themselves back onside.

If Ant and Saia didn't want to get pinged for obstruction they either needed to stay completely still or immediately start putting themselves onside. Standing still for a little while and then moving when Morahan starts getting closer (and conveniently both bumping into defenders coming across) is going to make you look guilty every time.

 

[Ash]

Coenie ran into Ant Fainga'a.

I think the issue is not really whether players are actually going to get there to make it a tackle. It is denying them the opportunity which is the problem. Both defenders were close enough to the action that a referee is likely to side with them.

Generally I think these sort of decisions will favour the defending team whenever offside players are in motion and not clearly moving to put themselves back onside.

If Ant and Saia didn't want to get pinged for obstruction they either needed to stay completely still or immediately start putting themselves onside. Standing still for a little while and then moving when Morahan starts getting closer (and conveniently both bumping into defenders coming across) is going to make you look guilty every time.

edit: added quote.

I tend to disagree. I think it is all about whether the person could have affected the play, which is why I tend to disagree with the TMO's decision.

If your team scores a try from a clean break out wide and it's called back because a prop 20m was obstructed, that is ridiculous and I can't see it happening (as an example of reducto ad absurdum).

Again, I think that S. Finger could have made more of an effort to get out of the way. I think he saw Coennie coming at some stage and positioned himself in the way.

This happens all the time on a counter - the field is cluttered with players and the attacking team players frequently position themselves in the road of defenders coming across in cover. Sometimes it's called back, but 99 times out of 100 a ref will not call back a prop being impeded that far from a fullback running past.

I think what did S. Finger in in this case is that he was being so lazy in jogging back from an offside position, and to me it does look like he knew Coennie was coming and got in his road. I still think that most refs would let it go if they decide Coennie would not have come close to making the tackle - Joubert did in real time.

 

[convenient wisdom]

I don't know if the obstruction was deliberate, and I don't believe the Cheetahs were tactically running into reds, maybe there is a bit of truth both ways, but when you have 30 large humans all running about, collisions are going to happen. Remember though that if the ball rolled into touch 5 metres out, there was no obstruction...the world's best ref and two assistants were ok with everything. The chance of an offence being found seems to increase exponentially when the TMO is involved, because they are all likely to rule "defensively"..................but isn't the law supposed to support the attacking team ??.or is that mungo ball ? What if the reds scored from the ensuing lineout - how is that different?

In any case I have been saying for years that the retreating Crusaders and All Blacks are absolute genuis at inconveniently (not saying deliberately ??) positioning themselves for Dagg and co. ( and the award for the best counter attack in test rugby goes to..........).

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The problem is that most of the people complaining about the TMO being pedantic will call for someone's head if a pedantic decision isn't made in favor of their team at the end of a tight test match or big super rugby game. Or if it isn't refereed to the TMO at all.

You can gaurantee if that was a club game the try would be awarded. But people take rugby too seriously at that level so we need to analyse all these tries with multiple camera angles to ensure they haven't broken any of rugby's 1000's of laws. It's good in a way that we raise the standard of the games, but pedantic yes.

 

[Scoey]

The problem is that most of the people complaining about the TMO being pedantic will call for someone's head if a pedantic decision isn't made in favor of their team at the end of a tight test match or big super rugby game. Or if it isn't refereed to the TMO at all.

You can gaurantee if that was a club game the try would be awarded. But people take rugby too seriously at that level so we need to analyse all these tries with multiple camera angles to ensure they haven't broken any of rugby's 1000's of laws. It's good in a way that we raise the standard of the games, but pedantic yes.

The problem for me in this instance was the consistency (or lack thereof) in the TMO's pedanticness (<- I doubt that's a word). He took one look at that reply and that was enough for him to rule that it was "definite" knock on and obstruction. Yet later in the game he looked at angle after angle after angle until he found an angle that made it look like Quade's pass to Moz was forward. Not that anyone is likely to believe me and there's no way to prove it but I would be ok with Davies try being allowed had the same been scored by the Cheetahs. Moz's non-try was more 50/50. This type of disallowing of tries I doubt was ever the intention of increasing the TMO's powers and making subjective calls like he did on the Davies try puts us on the same path as League.

At real time Joubert obviously didn't think there was enough in the obstruction to pull it up so unless the TMO spots something blatant that had a material impact on the play, they should go with the on field ref's decision. As for the definite knock on, you couldn't make that call from the angle that was viewed. Period.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Davies grounding was a clear knock on to anyone who has read law 22 that's why it only took one look. It would take Glenn Jackson in the TMO box to be sympathetic enough to award that grounding.

I agree these new TMO protocols are annoying by taking us back to things that happened way back to rule on things like obstruction. I just hope everyone is still saying this if Red's win the super15 off a TMO decision that takes us 2 phases back to rule on something similar Hell, you just have to read some Wallabies threads to see people whinging for dozens of pages about petty obstruction by NZ players, probably with less effect than the Fainga'a's on the weekend.

Remember they are still trial protocols though. We might see some sense prevail. Personally I think we should let the coaches decide.

 

[Scoey]

I have to disagree. Show me video footage of the knock on from the footage that the TMO referred to. You won't be able to.

Your reference to the Laws of the Game comes across as a bit of a dig at me, but I will entertain them anyway. Law 22 states (for those who haven't read it):

A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

Can you see Rod's hand on the ball from the one angle that the TMO referred to? No you can't. This is my problem with it. He looked at one angle that did not should whether it was or wasn't a knock on or try and made the call that it was a "definite" knock on. That's gross incompetence.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree completely that the TMO made a poor call on saying that was a definite knock-on from the single replay he looked at.

In relation to the obstruction, I think the commentator Meyer Bosman summed it up pretty well.

I think the obstruction is valid because there was a definite attempt to prevent Coenie Oosthuizen. He might not have had the pace to get to the man but there was a definite attempt to impede his movements.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

lol my bad, it wasn't meant to be a dig. Just trying to say that if you have almost memorized law 22 like sad people such as myself, you would know it takes a weird interpretation to call that a try.

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

The ball was not on the ground, not close enough to apply (b) anyway so lets' focus on (a). Davies needs to ground the ball by holding it and touching the ground with it.

Now he clearly isn't holding the ball, but lets' interpret the word holding to mean "controlling". So now Davies simply need to be in control of the ball as it touches the ground.

I don't think he has any control of the ball by any meaningful standard either. He's at full speed and off balance so that is understandable.

Anyway, I would probably award that try if I was a linesman without a replay. But if you are a professional TMO you need to treat every decision like you would if it was a world cup final. You can just relax some interpretation because it's a super rugby game. Because if Davies does that in the 79th minute of a world cup semi final the TMO is going to have to rule to the letter of the law.

 

[Pfitzy]

The fact is, from the one camera angle they had, you could not see his hand in relation to the ball. The non-existence of other camera angles beggars belief. Either the OB director didn't give the angles or the ref didn't ask for them. Either way it smacks of cheating or incompetence.

The obstruction call I can understand, which makes the knock-on call irrelevant, but we're nit-picking here.

I believe that TMO reffed a few on-field games a few years ago and was bloody awful.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the TMO decision would have been much better if he'd just said that there was an obstruction previously so further review of the grounding was ceased and no decision in that regard was made or required.

 

[Scoey]

No worries Bruwheresmycar All good. Part (b) of Law 22 is what would be adjudicated on as you said and from the one replay, it looks as though Rod's hand comes in contact with the ball while it is in the air and it appears to follow the ball down to the ground. You can't see if his hand is on the ball at the point where the ball hits the ground so you can't make a call as to what has happened. This is my point. He did make a call based on that.

We are most certainly nit picking and BH is quite right in saying that if the TMO had simply stated obstruction had occurred and left it at that it would be different but the way the TMO looked (or didn't) at the events and made such clear cut statements stinks and I think should be questioned.

I'm not saying the Reds were robbed. I'm not saying we should've won or we would've won. I'm saying that the TMO had a really suspect night and someone should be asking some questions.

 

[Sidbarret]

edit: added quote.

I tend to disagree. I think it is all about whether the person could have affected the play, which is why I tend to disagree with the TMO's decision.

If your team scores a try from a clean break out wide and it's called back because a prop 20m was obstructed, that is ridiculous and I can't see it happening (as an example of reducto ad absurdum).

Again, I think that S. Finger could have made more of an effort to get out of the way. I think he saw Coennie coming at some stage and positioned himself in the way.

This happens all the time on a counter - the field is cluttered with players and the attacking team players frequently position themselves in the road of defenders coming across in cover. Sometimes it's called back, but 99 times out of 100 a ref will not call back a prop being impeded that far from a fullback running past.

I think what did S. Finger in in this case is that he was being so lazy in jogging back from an offside position, and to me it does look like he knew Coennie was coming and got in his road. I still think that most refs would let it go if they decide Coennie would not have come close to making the tackle - Joubert did in real time.

I disagree with this, especially if the infringement was intentional. Penalties are (or should be) awarded for the actions of the offender and not "won" by the non-offending team. (That is also why I hate the way the scrum is refereed where it has suddenly become an offence to be pushed backwards)

Making it all about the offending player's action keeps the outcome of the game in the hands of players on the pitch. If you don't want to be called up for obstruction, then don't block the player, simple as. If your blocking isn't going to have an influence on the game, don't do it because there is no benefit to taking the risk.

 

[Scoey]

I disagree with this, especially if the infringement was intentional. Penalties are (or should be) awarded for the actions of the offender and not "won" by the non-offending team. (That is also why I hate the way the scrum is refereed where it has suddenly become an offence to be pushed backwards)

Making it all about the offending player's action keeps the outcome of the game in the hands of players on the pitch. If you don't want to be called up for obstruction, then don't block the player, simple as. If your blocking isn't going to have an influence on the game, don't do it because there is no benefit to taking the risk.

Isn't that the whole idea behind obstruction but? That an attacking player has obstructed a defending player from making a tackle?

Law 10.1 (c); states:

Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

Based on this I think that it's entirely relevant whether or not the opponent would've been able to tackle the ball carrier. Otherwise what are they 'obstructing'?