workingdasnipe
Peter Burge (5)
Round 4 predictions?
CAS Rugby 2023
- Thread starter rod skellet
- Start date
james richards
Stan Wickham (3)
Waverley 35+
Cranbrook 5+ (home ground + last home game ever for yr 12s *on home ground* make it a hard fight plus from the waverley v knox game last week we can see knox didn't fend aswell against waverley as cranbrook did)
Trinity 5+
RUCKS R US
Frank Nicholson (4)
Knox v Cranbrook - 28+ Knox
Waverly v Aloys - 40+ Waves
Trinity v barker - 21+ barker
WLF3
Darby Loudon (17)
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Lets stop calling it a Maul as it wasn't, it would require a player from either team.
1. A maul can take place only in the field of play.
2. It consists of a ball carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet. A player ripping the ball from the ball carrier must stay in contact with that player until they have transferred the ball.
Given the ref blew his whistle prior to the grounding means the play has stopped. In this instance he could have agreed he got it wrong and maybe awarded a scrum to barker.
The ref can confer with his Assistant Referees (yes thats what they are called now) however is still 'The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match. The referee must apply the laws of the game fairly in every match'
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
"Asks if the jumper retained ball when maul shape forms (not an actual maul as Cranbrook doesn't join)" - RedOrDead
I'm very aware, and covered that in my initial response to the video.
As was already stated. By the laws of the game. Yes. Should have been a scrum restart. But rugby is often criticised for a lack of common sense. Common sense prevails here. Try call was correct on that basis. Even if a scrum was awarded 5 metres out... You're probably seeing a Barker try anyways (I wish this was the case, because the whinging is ridiculous).
As I've previously stated, if you really think that Barker should be punished in this scenario because they understand the laws of the game and the Cranbrook pack / ref has no idea... I'd say that's illogical.
Last edited:
james richards
Stan Wickham (3)
"Yes. Should have been a scrum restart." common sense isnt a law unfortunately you juststates it should have been a scrum restart. if common sense was a law then sure but it isn't the law states it should've just been a scrum restart
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Common sense has a place in every sport.
Whistle was blown during the process of diving for a certain try.
Even if it's a scrum 5 out, Barker probably score.
Better team won (as evidenced by only one team understanding the laws). Move on its boring.
james richards
Stan Wickham (3)
common sense does not over-ride law.
the law is the law so it shouldn't have been a try.
we can move on no worries we know it's wrong even though you stated that it should have been a try.
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Whistle didn't blow until Barker player was starting to dive for line. Cranbrook player was chasing, and was never a chance.
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Even in the court of law equity exists...
Whistle was blown as player is diving. There is quite literally no way the Cranbrook player stops him, he isn't even close. Play on.
And as I've stated... What you are saying is the team who didn't understand the laws should benefit because the ref also doesn't know the laws.
Additionally, even if you believe there should have been a scrum 5 metres out (which I would have preferred, now we have to deal with this), chances are Cranbrook lose.
We are going in circles. So let's leave it here.
Last edited:
scrumhead99
Sydney Middleton (9)
Knox 17+
Barker 21+
Waverley 35+
Barker 21+
Waverley 35+
workingdasnipe
Peter Burge (5)
Fun Fact: Waverley have not beaten Aloys at QP1 since 2017.
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Really looking forward to a potential huge Waves underdog story this Saturday !
Running_rugby_1954
Dave Cowper (27)
Fun fact 2:
If Waverley win, it is their 4th premiership in 8 years.
Sadly, the best team Waverley has ever had missed their chance in 2021 due to Covid. So looking at 5 in the past 8 years. With Barker next at 3.
Ziggy
Allen Oxlade (6)
As a neutral and having watched the play, imo :
The Ref ( who is in charge of the game and should know the rules ) blows the penalty and lifts his arm to Cranbrook as the Barker player breaks from the lineout/maul before the Barker player crosses the try line or dives over and grounds the ball.
The problem is, according to the Ref, he has seen a penalty ( correctly or incorrectly ) and the Cranbrook players make no attempt to tackle the Barker player as the penalty should halt play when the ref blows his whistle.
The Barker players approach the ref, the ref seeks advise from the touchy and after consultation, reverses his decision and awards the try.
Regardless if the ref was right/wrong in calling the penalty ( which ref has never made an incorrect call ), he is the boss. Not the
touch judge. Yes he can take advice but reversing the call is huge and causes these debates.
I don't blame the players for protesting the call cause is a big one yet the original penalty should have stood and no try to Barker.
Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision. Add to the fact the controversy about the touch judges relationship with a player, and the whole world blows up.
Ref needed to stand his ground and back his original decision. He is the one to take the blame for reversing it. No Try
The Ref ( who is in charge of the game and should know the rules ) blows the penalty and lifts his arm to Cranbrook as the Barker player breaks from the lineout/maul before the Barker player crosses the try line or dives over and grounds the ball.
The problem is, according to the Ref, he has seen a penalty ( correctly or incorrectly ) and the Cranbrook players make no attempt to tackle the Barker player as the penalty should halt play when the ref blows his whistle.
The Barker players approach the ref, the ref seeks advise from the touchy and after consultation, reverses his decision and awards the try.
Regardless if the ref was right/wrong in calling the penalty ( which ref has never made an incorrect call ), he is the boss. Not the
touch judge. Yes he can take advice but reversing the call is huge and causes these debates.
I don't blame the players for protesting the call cause is a big one yet the original penalty should have stood and no try to Barker.
Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision. Add to the fact the controversy about the touch judges relationship with a player, and the whole world blows up.
Ref needed to stand his ground and back his original decision. He is the one to take the blame for reversing it. No Try
Hankspank
Larry Dwyer (12)
Could not agree more. Refs get a call wrong all the time but the thing is that was their decision at the time. It's not a case of common sense or the vibe, that was the decision and should have stood if it was right or wrong. The penalty being blown stops the play on the spot and the touchy doesn't come into it.
RedOrDead
Ted Thorn (20)
Firstly, let's not pretend the Cranbrook players weren't able to make the tackle because the whistle was blown. That's utter crap. The whistle is blown when the player is in the process of diving. EVERY SINGLE Cranbrook player (except Brook 10) is looking at the ref appealing for a penalty (BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE LAWS). Barker player has broken the line and is already in the motion of scoring when the whistle is blown. The whistle had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the players not chasing. They're too busy incorrectly appealing for a penalty. That is their fault and their own stupidity. Learn the laws. Teams should not be rewarded for blatant incompetence. This isn't a thugs game like rugby league, this is a thinking mans game, and the thinking man should be rewarded.
Secondly... A bunch of schoolboys make up that the touchy is the hookers father and we run with that? Really?
Thirdly... "Imagine if the penalty was awarded, there would be no argument or debate as the Ref had made his decision." There would absolutely be debate... From anyone who knows the laws of the game who knows that wasn't a penalty.