Qualifying Final 2: Brumbies v Chiefs. Sat. 19/07

[Pfitzy]

Appears it doesn't fucking matter because the fucking try was given, the fucking Brumbies won, and their fans are still fucking whining about it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Appears it doesn't fucking matter because the fucking try was given, the fucking Brumbies won, and their fans are still fucking whining about it.

Fucking good argument there Pfitzy. Would have thought that the fact the Brumbies won might have indicated a more intelligent discussion is needed about what happened at that ruck than a simple fucking rant against the Brumbies and their fans.

 

[Pfitzy]

The ref has a split second to make up his mind. Picking over the bones afterwards of refereeing decisions is something I've pursued with vigour in the past. But generally - like a lot of things in life - its a waste of time.

The consistency of refs is pretty much all you can ask for, and I'm sure Joubers went through his video review and found several things he could have done differently. But overall I think he had a good game.

 

[Braveheart81]

I definitely agree with the sentiment that Joubert should have gone to the TMO. There was enough there to suggest doubt.

I think the end result being a try was correct however.

 

[Slim 293]

Appears it doesn't fucking matter because the fucking try was given, the fucking Brumbies won, and their fans are still fucking whining about it.

You're a Brumbies fan now?

 

[Pfitzy]

That makes no sense. I'm rolling my eyes at the whiners.

I was hoping Joubers would get the opportunity to award a few more controversial tries to the visitors just so tinfoil hat sales in Canboring would go off the scale.

 

[Slim 293]

You're booing the booers?

 

[Grant NZ]

BH I've now seen the replay and can attest to the fact that Power's feet (both of them) were behind the tryline when he joined the ruck (as apparently accepted by Joubert). As the ruck progressed, one foot came forward of the tryline but his right foot remained behind it the whole time. He was not offside. IMO then, Messam joined the ruck from the side (indeed from the Brumbies' side) and penalty against the Chiefs would have been the correct call.

Appears my viewing in live time is better than most who have the benefit of plenty of replays.

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just piping up to say, I'm struggling to see how you could come to some of those conclusions having watched a replay. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to troll you but I am baffled as to how you could see it that way. Pictorial evidence to follow.

1 - He doesn't join the ruck correctly. He comes from the side. Just because he comes from the in-goal area originally doesn't mean he can come in on an angle.
\

Here he is about to engage.

Here he is with a foot over the line still not bound (based on the his body position and the guys on the ground, he can't have a shoulder on a player in the ruck there) with a hand on TKB shoving him off the ball.

2 - Joubert doesn't accept his entry is legal.

Here is Joubert signaling advantage to the Chiefs.

3 - Messam enters the ruck from the Chiefs side.

Here is Messam (middle of the screen, red & white boots) bound to the ruck and driving him back. Note even at this point Messam's feet are behind the hindmost Chiefs foot, so I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude he came in from the Brumbies side.

The only vaguely controversial thing that Messam did was continue the clearout into the in-goal. As the ruck technically ends at the goal line perhaps you could say he should stop driving once Powers is behind the line. But that's a pretty minor point I'd say. As it happens Powers ends up falling over the pile of bodies so it's not like Messam drove him miles back or anything.

 

[Braveheart81]

Excellent post Grant NZ and welcome!

Hope you post more.

I think this image is the crucial one. I don't know how you can argue that Power isn't part of the breakdown at that point.

 

[Grant NZ]

Excellent post Grant NZ and welcome!

Hope you post more.

Cheers for the welcome.

I can completely understand why people thought it looked dodgy in real time - I thought so too (it reminded me of a disallowed try by the AB's in Rustenberg 06) but after I saw the replay it became pretty clear that he was either bound or loitering offside and either way deserving of being shoved out of there.

The Joubert interference is an interesting one. By the the letter of the law it's only when the ball carrier or ball hits the ref that play should be stopped but you'd have to say that White would have stood a chance of preventing that try. On the other hand, you could argue that the Chiefs shouldn't be deprived of a try scoring opportunity through no fault of their own. I'm on the fence on that one.

 

[Braveheart81]

Joubert getting in the way of White is an unfortunate by-product of the referee needing to stand somewhere. He needs to be close to the action and can't disappear.

There's some sense of irony in the referee getting in the way of a halfback given that every good halfback tries to use the referee as a blocker when they run the ball.

 

[Pfitzy]

You're booing the booers?

They desperately fucking deserve it. Firstly for being wankers, and secondly, for not booing correctly.

 

[Hawko]

They desperately fucking deserve it. Firstly for being wankers, and secondly, for not booing correctly.

Ease up old son, we need you to conserve your effort for game day. We've got a semi-final to win and we supporters need to be at the top of our game to make home ground advantage count. Save the aggro up for Peyper!

 

[Pfitzy]

Don't you worry Hawko me ol' china plate, I can burn with incandescent rage as bright as the best of them. I'm not peaking yet.

 

[Sluggy]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Just piping up to say, I'm struggling to see how you could come to some of those conclusions having watched a replay. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to troll you but I am baffled as to how you could see it that way. Pictorial evidence to follow.

1 - He doesn't join the ruck correctly. He comes from the side. Just because he comes from the in-goal area originally doesn't mean he can come in on an angle.
\

Here he is about to engage.

Here he is with a foot over the line still not bound (based on the his body position and the guys on the ground, he can't have a shoulder on a player in the ruck there) with a hand on TKB shoving him off the ball.

2 - Joubert doesn't accept his entry is legal.

Here is Joubert signaling advantage to the Chiefs.

3 - Messam enters the ruck from the Chiefs side.

Here is Messam (middle of the screen, red & white boots) bound to the ruck and driving him back. Note even at this point Messam's feet are behind the hindmost Chiefs foot, so I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude he came in from the Brumbies side.

The only vaguely controversial thing that Messam did was continue the clearout into the in-goal. As the ruck technically ends at the goal line perhaps you could say he should stop driving once Powers is behind the line. But that's a pretty minor point I'd say. As it happens Powers ends up falling over the pile of bodies so it's not like Messam drove him miles back or anything.

Good post mate. Its nice to see some objective commentary here, instead of the "complacent, agreeable" orthodoxy that is often served up.

Nick White? Lets see how he goes tomorrow, but ATM, esto no vale la pena discutir before he actually performs.

 

[Tomikin]

Good post mate. Its nice to see some objective commentary here, instead of the "complacent, agreeable" orthodoxy that is often served up.

Nick White? Lets see how he goes tomorrow, but ATM, esto no vale la pena discutir before he actually performs.

Well the Ref was 'En el lugar equivocado' but you better hope the Tah's do worry about him because if you don't you will 'Acabado Último'