[Closed] 2015-16 rugby, world cup year

I'm not defending his performance and I was absolutely gutted that Scotland lost in such circumstances but apparently Joubert ran down the tunnel because he had bottles thrown at him. If true that's a disgrace and there's no room for it in this sport.

Incidentally, did anyone notice the crawl by the Aussie centre for his try?

Hmmm, realtime I wouldn't have said so..... but in slowmo it looks different. The arm just stretched out but he had a little wriggle first.

From a few pages back.

Saw it again on highlights and in real time no; he just seemed to bounce as he hit the ground and then stretched. Slow mo it looks like a little crawl on his elbow. But then again, the deliberate knock on was instinct in real time and then looks far worse in slowmo. Consistency?

The first replay certainly looked as though he had a wee wriggle.
Joubert got a lot of things wrong on both sides and was possibly too dependent on the tmo for most of the match.

I could take a loss but we didn't deserve the last few minutes.

After the Hogg challenge the Aussie kick is directed to the hole left by him not being there

As Flatman pointed out in the commentary, as long as your torso doesn't move forward again you're ok to stretch out your arm and place the ball.

The real problem was Scotland messing up their lineouts in the closing minutes, having been pretty good all game long.

I thought that Aussie try looked fine. An arm stretch, nothing more.

As for the bottles throwing, that wasnt picked up by any commentators?

They mentioned on the radio about a bottle being thrown after he had left the pitch but he didn't spend long on it once he'd blown the whistle.

onehundredthidiot - Member - Block User
Penalty kick was for illegal play. Penalty decision to TMO if accidental off side its a free kick or scrum if deliberate penalty. He went to tmo for lots of things but not in the last two minutes.

World Rugby Laws state:
‘The TMO can only be used in the following circumstances:
Determining the grounding of the ball in-goal for a try or touchdown and/or whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding.
Determining whether a kick at goal has been successful.
Confirm if an infringement has occurred in the build-up to a try or prevention of a try (infringement must be within two phases of the try or touchdown).
Considering acts of possible foul play.’

Lets take a step back and consider the facts. Only TJ would have thought scotland could win prior to kick off!!

Surely if Laidlaw had said, "ref I think we might have knocked that on deliberately, do you want to check?", Joubert could have gone to the TMO.

We need to think faster.

AA - agreed. About the first time I've agreed with you. In fact if you'd offered me a heroic performance to come within one point after watching the other 3 QFs I'd have taken it.

As one of the few people on this thread whose team are still in it, can I just say, thank you Scotland, thank you very very much. And bad luck ! You really didn't deserve such a shitty exit. But well done for softening up the Aussies.

Hels - I think we showed the world that if you target Foley he gets nervous - both in defence and kicking. Not quite nervous enough of course, but if he'd kicked decently the game would have been very different.

I don't think it was all on Foley, the way Scotland played forced almost the whole team in to mistakes. Pretty much all the Scotland points were soft from an Aus point of view. That's not saying Aus had a poor day but I think Scotland did very well to knock them out of their stride and pressure them in to mistakes

Given the last few performances of the top 3, I'd say the AB's are odds on to keep thier title at this stage.

France - what can I say - I was at a party with 3 French people on the room, felt pretty sorry for them by the end. I did learn a new French word though: "corbillard" as in "corbillard pour l'equipe Francaise" so every day is a school day.

Just shown the Maitland sinnbinning - v harsh.

That's a yellow every day of the week. And if he hadn't blocked the pass then Mitchell would have taken the pass with no defence in front of him. I've seen refs check for penalty tries in exactly that situation.

Interesting that I've got a quite different view of the game from a lot on here - but I wasn't listening to the commentary so wasn't influenced by biassed presenters.

Lifer that's the thing penalty for for play, if accidental then free kick or scrum. We did ourselves no favours but it was gauling to say the least. Last from me on it. Refs arm went out for advantage before the offside player touched the ball, surely no advantage scrum if deliberate foul play tmo.

surely it would only be gauling if they were playing France

🙂

[quote=IdleJon ]That's a yellow every day of the week. And if he hadn't blocked the pass then Mitchell would have taken the pass with no defence in front of him.

But he's allowed to block the pass. If it hadn't gone forwards it would have been fine. If it went forwards accidentally, then that's also fine (well they'd get a scrum, but no yellow). The ref judged that he knocked it forwards deliberately in order to block the pass - which implies that there was no way to block the pass without knocking it forwards [b]and[/b] that he knew that. I'm not a Scotland supporter (I don't have much antipathy towards Australia either, so fairly neutral), have no idea what the commentators were saying at the time, and it looked a very harsh decision to me. In real time I was expecting a scrum for the knock on, but it looked like he was trying to intercept the ball legally.

I have to admit I do see your point though, and I'm torn on it, because I can see the argument that the try was prevented by the knock on, and it's something I'd been thinking about, but it wasn't how it seemed as I watched it live.

If you go for the ball with one hand as the last man then it'll always be called deliberate

25 years ago I thought the deliberate knock on law was stupid, and I still do. Should just be a scrum for a normal knock on. If there's a risk of an interception then it's a risky pass which the passing player should consider. I think it's daft to penalise a player for attempting an interception, but if he tries and fails and knocks on then a scrum as normal is a fair outcome.

Just caught up on the thread. What an epic day at Twickenham yesterday, right up there with the weekend in Marseilles for 2007 QF's. Argentina Ireland on the big screen and then a classic to stand alongside France's defeat of NZ in 1999

I thought Argentina had a chance but never thought for a moment they'd come out as they did. How many times have we seen a terrific fast start from Ireland put teams under pressure, the tables where turned completely. I'd have to think the hard school that the RC is has moved them onto another level, always strong upfront they now threaten with the backs. Formidable and they have another semi-final to add to 2007 and who is to say they can't go one better. Any team would miss POC and we can wonder whether he might had steadied the ship a little sooner. Smart and unexpected (?) tactics from Argentina to move the ball wide so early, very bold.

Scotland, the Northern Hemisphere team of the tournament by some margin for that performance. I couldn't have cheered louder or longer for Scotland than I did, I think the first and last time that will ever happen at Twickenham. The sin bin was extremely harsh, I only saw it on the screen once but it didn't at all look worthy of a yellow card (@idle he had a very long run in, not a definite try at all). The Aussie try looked fair enough, in front of us and a simple reach forward. Then we have the fateful line out. A long throw was madness, whatever happened afterwards throwing to the back with the reserve Hooker in such a situation is a very high risk manouver. The TMO issue, we have tmo checks for offside on trys (they checked the Argie score) how can you not check a penalty with 2 mins to go in a QF. Joubert is a disgrace, I've no doubt we'll get some YouTube montages in the same was as we have for the 2011 final where the refused to give France numerous penalties in the last few minutes. The guy has a track record and it's not a good one. I very much hope we don't see him again. @steven there are no glass bottles in the Stadium, only a few plastic ones. I'm not sure anything would have been thrown at him

The Northern hemisphere teams need to look at themselves very honestly. They where far off the pace and at a home tournament in their backyard. In the last few years (or longer in some cases) wins against the SH sides have been rare and when we come to a real tournament instead of a "friendly" we've been far off the pace.

To take the deliberate knock on thing to its logical conclusion - any forward pass would be a deliberte knock on and should result in a yellow card. That would be stupid though - just like the law as it is.

I think it's daft to penalise a player for attempting an interception, but if he tries and fails and knocks on then a scrum as normal is a fair outcome.

or reduce the sanction to a free kick (i.e. free restart to the attacking side)

I'm not sure even a penalty would seem unreasonable in the way the yellow card did (given the intent, outcome etc. wasn't very different to things which penalties are awarded for)

25 years ago I thought the deliberate knock on law was stupid, and I still do. Should just be a scrum for a normal knock on.

But when the attacker is through for a clear try, it's not fair to allow defenders to gain an advantage (ie re-organise for a scrum) by deliberately spoiling it. Or is it? Is the fact that the defender was able to get a finger to it a legitimate act of defence? It works at lineouts after all, you're allowed to try and spoil.

The problem for me with the deliberate knock on rule is the same as the use of the word 'wilful' in cricket. It requires an assumption on the part of the officials as to the intent of the player. Mind reading mid game?

Maitland was never going to catch it therefore it'll always be called as a professional foul (harsh wording but effectively what it is I guess), even though it'd be everyone's instinct to go for the ball in that situation

The intentional knock on rule is a great bit of double jeopardy. It ensures that defenders can't butcher scoring chances on a whim (you better be [i]sure[/i] you can catch it)

If we look back at Campese in the 1994 final that was a deliberate knock on. I though the one yesterday was not even close to a yellow card IMO. We have professionals to make these decisions. What sealed the game was the no TMO decision at the lineout, that's crazy. I've no doubt the laws will be changed on TMO calls after the RWC. It's been somewhat of an experiment this time and it's been found wanting. The conversations with the TMO should not be broadcast, it only adds to the pressure.

@wrecker the knock on rule as applied is a bit daft, you can catch a pass if you are behind the attacker (ie "offside") but if you try and catch it from an onside position and fail it's the difference between knocking it up or forwards is the difference between brilliance and a yellow card.

difference between brilliance and a yellow card.

I sort of agree with CFH, but it's too complex to set out with hard and fast rules, it has to be interpretation.

eg: You can't say going for it with one hand is a defining factor - we've seen some fabulous one handed handling this WC.

Judging intent is bloody nigh impossible; knocking it up and hoping to get to it before it lands? The intent is to knock it up, but there's a % chance that you won't do the second bit. At what point is there an intent plus likelihood factor - I intended to catch it afterwards even though it was a 1 in 100 chance of it coming off, it was never my intent to simply knock on and not catch it.

MAYBE..... there needs to be sanctions based on the outcome rather than the intent. A wilful rather than accidental knock on - wilful meaning one that has a reasonable chance of failing - penalty. If that was leading to an immediate 'potential' try scoring opportunity. Penalty plus yellow. If that was leading to an immediate 'definite' try scoring opportunity - penalty try plus yellow.

MAYBE..... there needs to be sanctions based on the outcome rather than the intent.

Aye, but it seems harsh that a knock on which is construed as deliberate when it is really one that has a chance of succeeding, albeit a low one, is punished the same whatever the outcome.

eg: the Scottish interception try. If that had been the same situation as Maitland? A one handed grab for the ball because it might stick, or I might grab the rebound? I assume if he'd knocked it on 15 yards from the Aus line he'd get a yellow card for that? Doesn't seem right.

It puts the onus on players to make split second decisions about not only whether they can do what they are trying to do, but also what the outcome will be if they don't - but isn't that what it's all about in the end, making the right decision at that moment under extreme duress?

The point is a one handed fingertip interception is always at the riskier end of the scale which is why they are almost always treated the same as Maitland's. In the context of the game it was very harsh so maybe it could have been dealt with more sympathetically but if it was one of those big 'orrible cheating All Blacks then we probably wouldn't feel they were hard done by in the same way

What sealed the game was the no TMO decision at the lineout, that's crazy. I've no doubt the laws will be changed on TMO calls after the RWC.

For the neutral, the game would have been held up by two minutes and the resulting scrum/penalty would still have been criticised by the supporters. On replay it looked to me like the ball came off Strauss's shoulder - correct penalty decision. Every Scottish fan will say that's wrong. Even with TMO involvement someone would still be unhappy.

But played by an Aussie last Idlejon - and there is one very clear view of the Aussie number 9 grabbing at the ball and juggling it.

Yes, pretty sure the ball brushes off Strauss's shoulder last after Gold 21 touched it - have no idea if this effects the decision, mind.

The Northern hemisphere teams need to look at themselves very honestly. They where far off the pace and at a home tournament in their backyard.

No England, France, Ireland and Italy were. Scotland and Wales gave it a good crack and only came up a little short

But played by an Aussie last Idlejon - and there is one very clear view of the Aussie number 9 grabbing at the ball and juggling it.

Have a look at the criticism of TMO after England/Fijii. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

jambalaya

The TMO issue, we have tmo checks for offside on trys (they checked the Argie score) how can you not check a penalty with 2 mins to go in a QF.

The rules (as posted above) allow for checking of infringements on the build up to trys. It doesn't matter the time left or the match, he couldn't use TMO.

The best use of TMO I saw was a high tackle in the Wales/bok game, he let it run while it was checked then brought it back once foul play was confirmed. It's a balancing act.

@aa Wales are no where near the SH, if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear.
Wales have about the poorest record against SH team, glorious defeat after glorious defeat with a few thrashings thrown in

@lifer no criticism of the two from me after Fiji. Yes my point was you the rules say you can check the build up to a try but not a game winning penalty with 2 mins to go.

@aa Wales are no where near the SH

Sa 23 Wales 19..seems quite close to me. Beat them in the autumn too. Hardly miles away.

if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear

And if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle

Apologies Idlejon by number 9 I mean scrum half.

@aa Wales are no where near the SH, if RSA had had kicked their goals they would have been comfortably clear.

Seeing as we've had something like 5 pages of complaining about Joubert, I think I'm safe in criticising the ref in the Welsh game...

Wales weren't allowed to play in the second half. SA illegally sealed the ball off at every opportunity, and as I mentioned a few pages ago were given a scrum that should have been a Welsh penalty in the lead up to the SA try. Call it Wales not managing the ref properly if you want, rather than blaming the ref, but Wales could have won that game with a different ref, just as Scotland could have won their game. But, as someone on here said, what a stupid game it is when you need to analyse a ref's performance before the game.

The reffing has been abysmal this weekend. If anything comes out of this RWC I hope it will be a total shake-up of officiating.