Force vs Brumbies, Round 20

[Shiggins]

If we are talking about the try attempt, the video ref said it was inconclusive becuase the assistant blocked his view ie he could not tell whether it was grounded or knocked on. Under those terms the decision is a five metre scrum with the feed to the attacking team. I like the League option better where the ref has to say what he thinks and if the TMO cannot decide, it is Refs call.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Where is that rule?. It's only a scum to the attacking team when there is inconclusive evidence because you can't see the ball grounded and you expect that it has been held up. This was clear. It's either a knock on or a try. If the TMO can't decide the ref needs to decide which is probably give benefit of the doubt.

 

[Gnostic]

I have to say I am dumbfounded that Australian Players do not tap the ball properly. The ball must be kicked from the hands people. That is it has to leave your hands FFS. Tapping it on the boot ala League is not acceptable and a referee who had been paying attention would have disallowed two Force tries. I had a similar blow up about this toward Wil Genia last year during the test season. Attention to detail boys.

Another point of frustration for me was the scrum. I cannot wait for the new scrum laws to take effect, the Force scrum was clearly under immense pressure and they took it down time and time again without penalty. Amazing that whenever the Brumbies fed the ball the scrum stayed up and was square and steady, no matter how the Force pushed.

All in all the Brumbies deserved to lose because of the woeful execution of basic skills and shocking error rate. Yes some of it was forced on them, but in general I thought the Brumbies left a hell of a lot out there and the complexion of the game would have been entirely different if the Ref had been on the ball and declined to award the two non-tries.

 

[Pusser]

I completely agree. It looked like a knock on. You needed a side on view to see if he had a finger on the ball though. It should of been awarded a try once he said the grounding was inconclusive. Right or wrong

Actually the rules say he has to have hold of the Ball. The nonsense Martin goes on about downward pressure only applies if the ball is on the ground. If he is carrying the ball over the line and loses control, putting a finger on it does not count - it is a knock on in goal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[RoffsChoice]

Was it just me or were the Aussie teams complete pants this week?

Rebels were great for 40 minutes. Otherwise, we all sucked.

 

[Pusser]

Where is that rule?. It's only a scum to the attacking team when there is inconclusive evidence because you can't see the ball grounded and you expect that it has been held up. This was clear. It's either a knock on or a try. If the TMO can't decide the ref needs to decide which is probably give benefit of the doubt.

I think it comes under 22.15 doubt about grounding. I don't think the precise circumstances are catered for under the rules but 22.15 says 5 metre scrum attacking team to feed where there is doubt as to who grounded the ball. This law does not necessarily relate to being held up (law 22.10) also don't think there is a" benefit of the doubt" option in the laws other than the law of common sense of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Shiggins]

Actually the rules say he has to have hold of the Ball. The nonsense Martin goes on about downward pressure only applies if the ball is on the ground. If he is carrying the ball over the line and loses control, putting a finger on it does not count - it is a knock on in goal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yeh right. Then why are try's awarded with downward Pressure from a finger? They Must get it wrong a bit?

 

[I like to watch]

Actually the rules say he has to have hold of the Ball. The nonsense Martin goes on about downward pressure only applies if the ball is on the ground. If he is carrying the ball over the line and loses control, putting a finger on it does not count - it is a knock on in goal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Actually, it's not nonsense.
In fact it is a correct ruling.....
in another code!
He would fit in on the Footy show as well.

 

[Shiggins]

I think it comes under 22.15 doubt about grounding. I don't think the precise circumstances are catered for under the rules but 22.15 says 5 metre scrum attacking team to feed where there is doubt as to who grounded the ball. This law does not necessarily relate to being held up (law 22.10) also don't think there is a" benefit of the doubt" option in the laws other than the law of common sense of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

So he got it right? I thought it was a crazy decision on the night.

 

[Pusser]

Yeh right. Then why are try's awarded with downward Pressure from a finger? They Must get it wrong a bit?

You can download the Laws of Rugby from the IRB web site you know. There are lots of mind blowing things there including how a player standing in touch in goal can score a try by puting downward pressure on the ball providing he is not carrying the ball (law 22.4.g)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[boyo]

I have to say I am dumbfounded that Australian Players do not tap the ball properly. The ball must be kicked from the hands people. That is it has to leave your hands FFS. Tapping it on the boot ala League is not acceptable and a referee who had been paying attention would have disallowed two Force tries. I had a similar blow up about this toward Wil Genia last year during the test season. Attention to detail boys.

You could apply that thinking to all so-called basic skills.

 

[Zander]

Worse than just blown that top 2 spot, it was a potentially disastrous outcome for the Brums as if the Brums advance over the Cheetahs (and that's far from a foregone conclusion after last night's showing), as the highest ranked qualifier, they'll have to travel to RSA to play a rested Bulls.

I did mention that, but it gives them a home final.

 

[Bairdy]

Another point of frustration for me was the scrum. I cannot wait for the new scrum laws to take effect, the Force scrum was clearly under immense pressure and they took it down time and time again without penalty. Amazing that whenever the Brumbies fed the ball the scrum stayed up and was square and steady, no matter how the Force pushed.

Hold on, you singled me out on the Wallabies - a changing of the guard thread for saying Cowan was not a dominant scrummager, but clearly you think he, and the rest of the Force front row were weaker than the Brumbies'.

Has Foley, the best forwards coach in Oz, undone all his work with the Force scrum? It looked like both scrums had parity though I've yet to watch a replay of the game.

 

[Slim 293]

Gnostic is right........ I think the Brumbies had the slight edge there (their scrum never being under pressure), but aside for penalties regarding the early engagement I don't think it had any real impact on the match.......

The one notable thing from the match for me was that the Force's kick/chase game was much much better than the Brumbies........

 

[Gnostic]

Hold on, you singled me out on the Wallabies - a changing of the guard thread for saying Cowan was not a dominant scrummager, but clearly you think he, and the rest of the Force front row were weaker than the Brumbies'.

Has Foley, the best forwards coach in Oz, undone all his work with the Force scrum? It looked like both scrums had parity though I've yet to watch a replay of the game.

I have not changed my view on Cowan. He has improved greatly, just as I haven't changed my view on Alexander, who has not improved IMO. I was making a call based on the individual scrums in this game. If you disagree fine. Tell me why then on the Force feed the Brumbies advanced or started to wheel the Force however the Brumbies wanted and the scrum immediately went down, yet on the Brumbies feed the scrum was rock steady and didn't collapse? Without going back and sitting through the dropped balls and poor passes again I can't start to pick apart the individual offences, but to my eye the Brumbies were clearly dominant.