[Closed] 2015-16 rugby, world cup year

I have a question about side entry to rucks.

Anything goes this RWC seems to be how the breakdown is refereed. Sealing the ball off is also acceptable amongst other things. I can only guess it is in the interest of free flowing games with as few penalties as possible. The SH seem to have adapted quite well whereas Wales in particular were naive against SA and Aus

Without the penalty it still isn't a forgone conclusions but a scrum would pretty much leave it a gotta play everything for aus. Given that the previous one took three minutes, give or take.

As for throwing to the back, was it not because the Australians loaded the front of the lineout meaning we can't throw to front due to challenge or middle as Fraser is a flat thrower. Good choice for aus as a long throw becomes difficult in those conditions. Good thinking rugby.

Actually seeing that vid, that last lineout was even nearer the Scottish line than I thought, only just outside the 22. Australia wouldn't have had to make any ground at all from the scrum to line up the drop goal - I'm even more convinced the penalty decision made no difference to the outcome.

What kind of idiot decides to throw a long high wet ball to Dave Denton (not the world's greatest ball handler ;)) at such a crucial point in the tournament?

Agreed @tmh on Laidlaw

Anything goes this RWC seems to be how the breakdown is refereed. Sealing the ball off is also acceptable amongst other things. I can only guess it is in the interest of free flowing games with as few penalties as possible. The SH seem to have adapted quite well whereas Wales in particular were naive against SA and Aus

Exactly. DD laughed at me blaming the ref in the Welsh game but it was partly my frustration at them not being able to cope with the ref.

However, it really does frustrate me that the way the game is being reffed during this RWC is so markedly different from the rest of the season.

As for throwing to the back, was it not because the Australians loaded the front of the lineout meaning we can't throw to front due to challenge or middle as Fraser is a flat thrower. Good choice for aus as a long throw becomes difficult in those conditions. Good thinking rugby.

That makes no sense at all. If he was a flat thrower the risk of the ball being intercepted is still the same wherever he throws it and is especially hazardous to the back. Short throw-ins are always safer. Always. It was poor rugby.

*You're

aracer - Australia would have had to win the scrum and based on the rest of the match that wasn't a forgone conclusion.

Neither is kicking a drop-goal from an angle on a wet and windy day...

Idlejohn by covering the easy throws they effectively force the difficult one, knowing that to lose at the front or middle will make scotlands defence difficult, given the issues with drives.

But leaving the tail option open makes it look easier and worth the risk.

What kind of idiot decides to throw a long high wet ball to Dave Denton (not the world's greatest ball handler ;)) at such a crucial point in the tournament?

I think it was the same kind of idiot who decided to throw short for England against Wales.......

I think it was the same kind of idiot who decided to throw short for England against Wales.......

As far as I could tell (we where pretty close watching from behind the in goal area on that side), the Scottish lineout was a pre-called move involving the dummy run forward then back and then the ball overthrown/bad jumper timing

Idlejohn by covering the easy throws they effectively force the difficult one, knowing that to lose at the front or middle will make scotlands defence difficult, given the issues with drives.

But leaving the tail option open makes it look easier and worth the risk.

Find me a team who change their line-out calldepending on where the defence loads the line-out..... it doesn't happen.You're over-thinking it.

Anyone know why the TMO was allowed to intervene for Maitland's knock on?

It seems strange that he is allowed to throw his oar in whenever he wants but the ref isn't allowed to check with him whenever he wants.

The more I look at it the more I think that the TMO was not supposed to intervene for the knock on. He can only intervene if he thinks that foul play prevented a try from being scored.

If it was judged that the knock on prevented a try then the only judgment could have been penalty try.

This, to me, is way more serious an issue than the final penalty call. I have sympathy for CJ on that one. It was a snap decision that he had to make and couldn't legally check.

If the TMO intervened when he wasn't allowed to then that points to a lack of understanding of the laws rather than a lapse of judgment.

I believe weve had many incidents where the tmo has intervened (withiut a request from the tef) for incidents at rucks esp on the oppostie side to the ref. A certain NZ 7 has been pinged more than once

A deliberate knock on is foul play,so TMO. For the record,the Scottish team and management have kept quiet about this. The Mee-ja doesn't seem to want to let it go,the Times has a bit in it's ongoing reporting stating that Scotland will be unable to sue a la Irish FA. Really?

Even so, the wording of the laws says they can't do that. If TMOs have taken it on themselves to intervene when they're not supposed to then there's no reason for refs not to refer decisions they're not supposed to.

Just looked at the knock on again and I can't believe how wrong they got the decision. Just ignore Maitland's attempted catch/deliberate knock on for a minute.

CJ says there was an overlap but Maitland had Mitchell, who was about a metre from the touchline, lined up to put him straight into touch if he'd gotten his hand on the ball. As it was Foley telegraphed the pass to such an extent that Maitland actually moved back in from the touchline to attempt the intercept.

Not only that, Mitchell had over run the pass so there's a good chance it would have gone straight into touch anyway.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Actually, I see what you mean. In which case it seems clear that he could have referred the decision for the penalty.

[i]The match officials may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review if they observe an act of foul play (prior to the next restart in play) where:

-They may have only partially observed an act or acts of foul play

-They are unsure of the exact circumstances[/i]

Seems to me that either one of those would have allowed CJ to check with the TMO for the final penalty.

I give up. Rugby is too complicated for my tiny brain to follow. I'm off to see if there's any football on.

A deliberate knock on is foul play,and a yellow was part of the focus 2012-13,the last year I reffed seniors, as everybody was at it. Offside in the last min where the top two inches aren't working is offside.

As I recall,

Japan - Scots interception try
SA - Scots interception try
Samoa - Scots interception try

And even later on in the Australia game - Scots interception try

With that track record and a telegraphed pass, deliberate knock-on for a marginally catchable, potential Scots interception try seems harsh. But ultimately it's a judgement call and the match officials get to exercise that judgement.

7 pages disputing a yellow card and a penalty. FFS! 🙄

The aussies aren't happy either.....
[img] [/img]
This got the scots a penalty.......

The still looks damning but you can't see when it was blown or whether the still is the result of the Aussie loose head going to ground (which he does appear to have done in that photo).

And as for the ! flanker, well played sir, if that the quality of reffing then that's what you do.

Everyone looks to be on their feet (hips level) to me.

wrecker - Member

Everyone looks to be on their feet (hips level) to me.

You should be a ref if you can tell that from above!

Aussie number one has gone down, hence the Scots shoulder against the Aussie hooker's arm. Even driving in, you can't do that unless the loose head drops.

Penalty Scotland. Ref is correct on that part anyway. As is Laidlaw who is pointing it out (naughty boy, leave it to the ref) - I doubt he'd be pointing at it if Scotland had infringed.

The flanker is more difficult to explain, but it may just be the result of everyone's binding starting to slip as the Aussies collapse the scrum. Or maybe he's just testing the offside law (flankers are meant to test the offside, right?)

Just looking at the height of the shorts relative to the second rows' shoulders, it all looks level. None of them are obviously on the deck.
The scots tighthead is boring in, it's no different to the Marler stuff everyone was criticizing. No chance in the world is that a scots pen.

No wrecker, the Aussie loose head has dropped, which means the Scots tight head is suddenly held on one shoulder only (his left) and he pivots round it.

Or he's driving in.

You can't tell from a still.

Edit : actually on the shorts thing you point out, more shorts showing on the Aussie loose head also suggests that his hips are higher than his shoulders - which tallies with his shoulders dropping, which tallies with the Scots tight head suddenly having no support for his right shoulder because the Aussie loose head has gone to ground.

But you still cannot tell from a single shot from above.

And look at Laidlaw. A scrum half with the ball at his number 8's feet does not point at a possible reason for the ref to give the opposition a penalty. Good sportsmanship should be applauded but that would be a step too far.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/scrum-analysis-wallabies-vs-scotland
Here you go. Nobody was on the deck. Gray had slipped off Nels hips and cowan had come around to help nel out. Should never have been a pen scotland, or a the three points resultant.

I've looked at that site now. Presumably it's an independent site and not a load of whinging Aussies (whinging even when they win).
Some of the analysis is laughable. Arrows drawn diagonally across people's backs to show the direction that in an imaginary world they still wouldn't be able to drive in - but if they did it might put pressure on the Aussie front row.

An Aussie front row that buckled all day because they weren't very good (relative to the Scots - or SAs 😉 ) at scrummaging.

Once you buckle as often as they did, the ref assumes any marginal calls are you're fault.

Aussie front rowers - toughen up princesses (and you're right I wouldn't say that if they were in the room).

I haven't heard Cheika complaining about the unfair Scots scrummaging and he's commented on almost everything else, so I am putting that site down as whingers, wrecker

No doubt there is some whinging from the aussies, but they are hardly the only ones are they? 😉
I thought they got a rough time from Joubert a the scrum, and I'm not an aussie. I also thought the scots yellow was very harsh. Swings and roundabouts.

I may be being unfair. The overall thrust site is actually that Aussie front rowers ain't smart enough or powerful enough.

But I think their analysis should be more on the not powerful enough side than it actually is.

I am a Scot, but I'm happy to admit that Joubert will have gotten things wrong both ways. I probably find it easier to spot when it went against the Scots though.

Scrum penalties are always s lottery though, and refs tend to give them against the side they perceive to have more to gain from stopping play - the weaker scrum, the side close to its own line, etc

I am a Scot

I think everyone had figured that. 😉

Just being clear and all.

I also played all 15 positions over 25 years, giving up when the cortisone injections were becoming too frequent. I wasn't any good.

I used to know the rules too, but they all seem to have changed (has anyone seen a straight put in at a RWC scrum?).

But I have been part of the front row shenanigans and I pity the refs in that area.

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Double bluff.

Crafty us Scots aren't we?

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Wot Wrecker said!

wanmankylung - Member

Why would Laidlaw be screaming for a penalty if it was so clearly dodgy?

Seriously?

Ultimately I don't think that scrum was dodgy on the Scots side, at least no more so than 99% of international scrums on both sides.

The green and gold analysis of that scrum relied on some artistic licence with the arrows showing direction of shove.

Doesn't mean other scrums weren't dodgy, but with that one the Aussie front row (so good against E&W) was simply outclassed.

WP Nel is a bit of a keeper isn't he? Even if he looks like a slightly more exotic Chunky! 5"11" and just under 19 stone and deadly from a yard out.

Seriously?

What do you think? 😀

wanmankylung - Member

Seriously?

What do you think?

My sarcasm alert is obviously not working today. 😆

Last week so game was cracking! Watched it in a pub in Johannesburg. Atmosphere was amazing.
Bit nervous for Saturday's game now though. The AB's are strong 🙁