Reds vs Waratahs, 2011R10

[JimboJoe1006]

1999 wc?

The final, against France in November 1999, was the 7th win. The Wallabies went on to win their first three games of 2000 (Argentina twice and the Boks), bringing to their total to 10 consecutive. The 'Greatest Game Ever Played' against NZ in Sydney 2000 broke the streak.

 

[Scotty]

There has been one or two comments about the Reds having to go to uncontested (although we didn't have a scrum), but I also wonder if Kepu picked up an injury? I'm pretty sure he was substituted for Robinson later in the match, which surely is only legal if he was injured?

 

[qwerty51]

Yeah I agree with this.... They should allow the clock to run during one reset; and then stop it for each reset after that..... But, that's certainly something that the IRB needs to modify. So many people across a range of social media, are rubbishing Ian Smith ..... I just think he's being attacked unfairly.

Of course. He did nothing wrong (apart from that dodgy Carter try call...) - he was just applying the laws of the game. Blame the IRB.

 

[Sully]

There was no way he was awarding that try! I looked at every replay and never saw the ball once. Looking at Carters face when it was turned down makes me believe he probable did get it over the line.

 

[qwerty51]

There was no way he was awarding that try! I looked at every replay and never saw the ball once. Looking at Carters face when it was turned down makes me believe he probable did get it over the line.

I didn't mean it should've been awarded. It should've been a Tahs scrum.

FWIW, I definitely think Carter scored, he had the ball and then clearly goes to ground, but there's absolutely no proof so it cannot be given. I'm fine with that. I don't think the video ref can make the assumption it wasn't over the line. The benefit must go to the attacking side that it was held up.

 

[Sully]

Smith asked him if he thought it was over the line. He must of said no. What was it then a unplayable maul?

 

[qwerty51]

Smith asked him if he thought it was over the line. He must of said no. What was it then a unplayable maul?

The video ref said it wasn't over the line which I find odd. There's no proof of that but there's no proof it isn't. So yes the end result is an unplayable maul which is unfair since the Tahs were in the act of scoring - of course it's unplayable! The ball should go back to the attacking team.

 

[Sully]

But the Law is, I think,is unplayable maul defending teams ball.

 

[qwerty51]

But the Law is, I think,is unplayable maul defending teams ball.

Yes but if it's over the line it's not. That's held up. I'm arguing that it was unfair to assume the ball wasn't over the line. Why does the benefit go to the defending team just because you can't the see ball? Carter ended up over the line.

 

[Hawko]

Of course. He did nothing wrong (apart from that dodgy Carter try call...) - he was just applying the laws of the game. Blame the IRB.

Its been dealt with on a number of the previous pages. The only team going backwards was the reds and they were going down to prevent a pushover try. That's illegal. The only thing a scrum can do is go backwards and stay on its feet if they cannot take the pressure. They didn't. They collapsed most of the match and were completely owned by the Tah pack. Watch it again if you can't remember. Any good referee would have warned the Reds scrum about collapsing when they were going down/up/backwards when they were further out. Then when they did it again 5 metres out it would have been proper to immediately award the penalty try. Every NH ref would have done it, the SH refs are reluctant because there has been so much criticism of scrums and scrum resets that they are petrified to take any action at all.

As a result the Reds are 13 points in front on the Aussie table and virtually guaranteed of a top 3 finish. Bad things happen when good people (what referees are supposed to be) do nothing.

 

[cyclopath]

But the Law is, I think,is unplayable maul defending teams ball.

Unless it's over the line, when it is "held up", 5m scrum to attacking team. That is the nub of this. It seemed odd to be deemed not over the line when most of the NSW maul was, in fact, over the line. Probability favoured the ball also being there, and I would think benefit of doubt to attacking team. The TMO said he could not see any evidence the ball was over the line, so by inference he could neither see any it wasn't. I'm not even sure why he said that, as the issue he was asked about was whether it was grounded.

Sorry, repetitive - I missed qwerty's post as I type too slow!

 

[Sully]

Are you talking about the Carter call or something else?

 

[cyclopath]

If you're asking me, yes, I am talking about the Carter call.

 

[Sully]

no not you mate Qwerty

 

[Gagger]

OK, this thread has been going round in circles for a few dozen posts, so it's getting shelved.

Biggsy didn't heed his warning. He's earned himself two weeks off and the shortest of leashes should he return after then.

Let's move on and lift our game fellas