Rugby World Cup 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Halliday

Established Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Posts
3,423
A huge congratulations to @nigelrefowens who will referee the Rugby World Cup final. The wit and wisdom of RWC 2015 final referee Nigel Owens

I know it's about the players, the game and the contest... but don't underestimate the importance of a referee who has empathy, a marvellous sense of humour and the judgement of when NOT to blow the whistle.

Nigel has had a marvellous career and this is a fabulous honour for someone who has given so much to our great game.

Nige, I know you credit Rugby with getting you through your very darkest hours and personal challenges. This is Rugby's way of saying thanks for everything you've done for others who have also stared down that darkness. You've helped so many without even realising it.

Go well mate and have a bloody good time!
 

infinity

Established Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Posts
1,122
Arrived London last night excited to mix it up for a bit with fellow supports (all teams) ahead of the games tomorrow and Saturday
PS does anyone know if the Wallabies r on QF 2 departing Monday or Tuesday?
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
20,288
Brother in law posted on Facebook to me: "Are we flying to london for the final"

My reply: "Have you got tickets"

2 minutes later: "Actually, I'm working on Saturday."

Sod it all.
 

Cossie

Established Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Posts
2,333
Irishman in a bar in Salou last Sunday said to me that in this world cup there will be a playoff for 5th place, it's called "the 6 Nations". :)
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
12,063
Just as well Japan are in the Super Rugby

Still waiting to see how decent a squad the Sunwolves come up with - rumours persist that the bigger Japanese corporate clubs won't release their stars
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
20,288
Just watched the Scotland v Australia game - soft yellow card.
Did Cooper get off the bench at all?

The more critical error in my view was the Yellow Card given to the Scotland outside centre. The Wallabies scored two tries while they had an extra man (IIRC).

The wallabies might have crossed the line twice, but they only scored points from 1 try. The second one went back to a knock forward by Genia.

I do agree that the penalty was likely correct. Yet in the 57th minute the same infringement was given as "accidental" and was only a scrum to Australia. I think Scotland have a very minor case for some consistency.

And the Yellow Card was just wrong.

One difference is the 57th minute was just the accidental off side by the attacking team. The later penalty the off side player grabbed at the ball slowing down Australia on attack close to the line. Scotland had no on side players within 10 m of the side line, Australia had 3 including the winger plus Fardy who was denied access to the ball. Very different outcome if Fardy had of got the ball, instead of the off side player, out to the wing - potential try.

ONLY correct if Phipps did not touch the ball intentionally - the ref ruled so (Personally I think the ref got it wrong) and that's that.

.

Not sure there. The ball went forward on to Phipps, there's the knock forward by Scotland, anyone in front of the Scots player is off side. the ball then went back from Phipps, by whatever means, and an off side player played at the ball preventing Australia from attacking from a position close to the line.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
20,288
Since I posted that it came out (from the cup organisers) the correct call should have been a scrum - with feed to the Wallabies.

Still the infringement killed a very good attacking opportunity. The off side scots player had no reason to grab at the ball and must have known he could not be onside. The referee made his call, it was no more harsh than the yellow card. I have no idea why the cup organisers would undermine the man holding the whistle.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Award Flight Assist takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Award Flight Assist team at Frequent Flyer Solutions will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

TomVexille

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Posts
11,206
The wallabies might have crossed the line twice, but they only scored points from 1 try. The second one went back to a knock forward by Genia.



One difference is the 57th minute was just the accidental off side by the attacking team. The later penalty the off side player grabbed at the ball slowing down Australia on attack close to the line. Scotland had no on side players within 10 m of the side line, Australia had 3 including the winger plus Fardy who was denied access to the ball. Very different outcome if Fardy had of got the ball, instead of the off side player, out to the wing - potential try.



Not sure there. The ball went forward on to Phipps, there's the knock forward by Scotland, anyone in front of the Scots player is off side. the ball then went back from Phipps, by whatever means, and an off side player played at the ball preventing Australia from attacking from a position close to the line.

Actually, Phipps puts the Scottish players onside by touching the ball.

Therefore it goes back to the knock on by Scotland. Scrum Australia.

We'll never know if Australia would have scored from the subsequent scrum.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
20,288
My view of the game is that the Scots offside player was within 10 m of both phipps and Fardy (who was waiting to play the ball) law 11.4. As such I do not agree that Phipps put him on side as per law 11.3, which does not apply to players who are offside as per the 10m rule.
The Scots player was not accidental offside as he could've avoided playing the ball. Law 11.6
Law 11.8 about offside in the ruck, maul or line out says that he was off side, and only Australia kicking or run 5 m with the ball will put him on side. Neither of those happened. Especially as he prevented Australia getting the ball.

But the real killer is law 11.7. The off side Scot played the ball and prevented Australia an advantage.

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage. Sanction: Penalty kick

Laws
IRB Laws of Rugby link on that page.
 

Captain Halliday

Established Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Posts
3,423
My view of the game is that the Scots offside player was within 10 m of both phipps and Fardy (who was waiting to play the ball) law 11.4. As such I do not agree that Phipps put him on side as per law 11.3, which does not apply to players who are offside as per the 10m rule.
The Scots player was not accidental offside as he could've avoided playing the ball. Law 11.6
Law 11.8 about offside in the ruck, maul or line out says that he was off side, and only Australia kicking or run 5 m with the ball will put him on side. Neither of those happened. Especially as he prevented Australia getting the ball.

But the real killer is law 11.7. The off side Scot played the ball and prevented Australia an advantage.



Laws
IRB Laws of Rugby link on that page.

I've earlier said in this thread that I though it should be a scrum - and hereby change my view. I agree with medhead's summary and highly specifically Law 11.3 (c)
10.3 In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

I don't think there's any doubt the Scotland player was offside. The only variable was whether Phipps intentionally played the ball. Certainly the ball touched Phipps. But from all available camera angles I don't think it's clear and obvious that Phipps intentionally touched the ball.

Having said all that, the referee got one look at it. In real time. From one angle.

The scrutiny has been excessive and the decision by World Rugby to publically shame the referee after the match is disgraceful. The officials who run the game now have no credibility when they fine or suspend players and coaches who publically criticise referees.

In community rugby, it'll make it much harder to attract and retain referees for club rugby on the weekend and our great game will be worse off as a result.
 

TomVexille

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Posts
11,206
There was no kick. 10m Law doesn't apply. 11.7 does not apply since the player is put onside under 11.3.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Posts
20,288
There was no kick. 10m Law doesn't apply. 11.7 does not apply since the player is put onside under 11.3.

[-]The Scots play is not put onside by 11.3. He was offside as per the 10m rule. 11.3 specifically states that someone offside under the 10m cannot be put on side under 11.3. He is required to retreat not play the ball.[/-] Forget that cough. My bad.

11.8 is the rule that puts him off side and that rule does not put him onside by Australia touching the ball.

Law 11.8
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul,scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s team mates can put the offside player onside.

11.8 continues to say that they can only be put onside by Australia running 5m with the ball or kicking. Neither happened. The guy is offside. Law 11.7 applies.

In any case, it is hard to see intention in phipps' "chesting" the ball towards Fardy.

I was on the fence on this, but now I've read the rules it is clear that the scots player was offside and remained offside without even considering phipps' intentions. Not only that 11.7 requires the team that knocked on to give the opposition an advantage. Australia did not get that advantage. The sanction in the laws is a penalty kick.

i have to completely agree that World Rugby has killed the on field authority of the referee, regardless of how we interpret the laws. that is a disgraceful outcome.
 
Last edited:

TomVexille

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Posts
11,206
[-]The Scots play is not put onside by 11.3. He was offside as per the 10m rule. 11.3 specifically states that someone offside under the 10m cannot be put on side under 11.3. He is required to retreat not play the ball.[/-] Forget that cough. My bad.

11.8 is the rule that puts him off side and that rule does not put him onside by Australia touching the ball.



11.8 continues to say that they can only be put onside by Australia running 5m with the ball or kicking. Neither happened. The guy is offside. Law 11.7 applies.

In any case, it is hard to see intention in phipps' "chesting" the ball towards Fardy.

I was on the fence on this, but now I've read the rules it is clear that the scots player was offside and remained offside without even considering phipps' intentions. Not only that 11.7 requires the team that knocked on to give the opposition an advantage. Australia did not get that advantage. The sanction in the laws is a penalty kick.

i have to completely agree that World Rugby has killed the on field authority of the referee, regardless of how we interpret the laws. that is a disgraceful outcome.

But there was no ruck, maul, scrum or lineout as the lineout had ended. And Phipps puts him onside by intentionally batting the ball backwards.

As it was, if you read my original post again, I do think that at full speed and at first glance, the call was correct. Multiple slow mo angles shows that it wasn't, but the referee only gets one go at it.
 

Captain Halliday

Established Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Posts
3,423
I do think that at full speed and at first glance, the call was correct. Multiple slow mo angles shows that it wasn't, but the referee only gets one go at it.
All the more reason why World Rugby's public condemnation of the referee is poor/outrageous/shameful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Currently Active Users

Top