Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
The AA foul play overrides the ruck infringments. The Mapimpi foul play was after the try (as you detailed) - how O'Keefe handled this is as per the Law Book.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
That's right, and he would have been the player carded if it had been reviewed and action deemed necessary. At the time, I thought that would be the outcome.
Oh ok. Thanks. No chat about a penalty try?
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
I don't think it was reviewed by the TMO - I think they made the call live after the try. In their minds, a penalty try was probably moot after an actual try was scored but it may have been a very rare example of the penalty try case of where a try would probably have been scored in a better position.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
Just mucking around. Trying to make sense of Okeefe’s decisions
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
I feel like they trialled this in the NPC a few years back. I think maybe it might be something that should still be at the ref's discretion rather than being written into the laws, I wonder if some teams might figure out some sort of advantage to be had if they know the other team is unlikely to contest (eg when defending a 5m lineout).
KOB1987
Rod McCall (65)
Agree completely - the throw on a quick line out can be as far backwards as you want, if the opposing team doesn’t jump it should be deemed a non contest.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
They are 2 quite different scenarios.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
I agree up to a point, but you will find a lot of jumpers don't actually jump when a ball is so far to one side they have no chance to get it, so not sure what answer is.
That was a clear mistake.
I think O'Keefe's ruling initially was that there couldn't be a quick throw because he thought it was going to be a Wallabies lineout because of the Springboks player dropping it (and he thought the ball hadn't crossed the plane of touch).
So the quick throw should have been allowed which was then kicked out on the full and would have been a Wallabies lineout in a similar spot however because he blew it up, they had to go back to the initial lineout.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Caterpillar ruck "blocker" : last feet is last feet. Player can stand where they want provided they're behind last feet. They often aren't.
Are caterpillar rucks a blight on the game? Fuck yes.
What is even worse: refs give the "use it" command and don't blow the whistle when the 5 seconds has elapsed. Happened in ABs v Pumas. At one point, Smith took 7 seconds from the time "use it" was called to get the ball out, and that should be a short arm to the Pumas inside the AB 22.
And supplementary to this: ref calls "use it" and another caterpillar participant shows up. I think that that point they should call ball out and let the halfback get mullered for crimes against rugby.
Are caterpillar rucks a blight on the game? Fuck yes.
What is even worse: refs give the "use it" command and don't blow the whistle when the 5 seconds has elapsed. Happened in ABs v Pumas. At one point, Smith took 7 seconds from the time "use it" was called to get the ball out, and that should be a short arm to the Pumas inside the AB 22.
And supplementary to this: ref calls "use it" and another caterpillar participant shows up. I think that that point they should call ball out and let the halfback get mullered for crimes against rugby.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
From memory there was comms with the AR to that effect. I think they both contributed.
zer0
Jim Lenehan (48)
That was a particularly egregious case. Two 'use it' calls, the second well over five seconds after the latter. Should've just let the Puma forwards have a free swing at Sex Pest Smith.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
I was thinking they shouldn’t police the blockers on midfield bombs/box kicks so vigilantly. It’s a negative tactic that every team has adopted as a go to because there’s a chance of retrieving the kick, forcing a knock on to get a scrum or a penalty for retreating players changing their line. If it’s not so viable an attacking tool maybe teams would shelve it? I know rugby is a game of contests for the ball and I’m sure I’ve missed something, but as you say, it’s a blight on the game.
stillmissit
Chilla Wilson (44)
Ah! There are many here, including me, who would love to be known as a sex pest. Too old is my defence......
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
Yeah, but think of all the money you save on legal fees, a sawn afterdavid isn't cheap.
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
It's somewhat reassuring to know that every sport finds video refereeing frustrating:
www.smh.com.au
‘Massive control issues’: How much longer will the NRL tolerate the Bunker?
If the NRL needed evidence that rugby league requires a serious examination of how it is officiated, the farcical scenes at Allianz Stadium on Sunday spelt it out in red pen.