Looks like the refs boss has thrown him under the bus.in a way that joubert never was (yes I’m still bitter.

sadmadalan – i read that article – note it does not say what mistakes he is admitting to and certainly does not say the ref thinks the two tries wrongly awarded.

Rees who wrote the article is a one eyed England fan

i am certain if the ref had said the two tries where wrongly awarded the article would say so.

the “mistakes” he is admitting could be communication failure or not carding Itoje for example

so when WR or the ref state those two tries were wrongly awarded I’ll accept that but they have not

To me it looked more like some of the English players thought it was going to be a kick for goal while others were more switched on and were already in position when the ref called time on.

Maybe the ref simply thought, ‘I’ve given him enough time to say, “If we give away any more penalties we’re going to get carded” and for his team to get into position. If the players decide to spend the time they should have been using to get into position having a drink and receiving instructions from the waterboys instead that is their problem.’ (it’s more plausible if you say it in a French accent).

The ref didn’t do them any favours but if England had been more switched on and realised that a kick for goal hadn’t yet been indicated they would have all been in position.

The second one I don’t understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don’t see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?

Ill take my above post back – the article has been rewritten and expanded since I first read it.

It still stops short of saying both decisions were wrong

The second one I don’t understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don’t see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?

Its whether he had control or not. However the quote does not say outright that it was wrong

Bruce – ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn’t it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn’t hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on? I’m not sure, I think most people within the game felt it was a knock on. Irrelevant now, may have made a difference we will never know.

I hope the game is another nail in the coffin of Jones, his time and style of (not) coaching is done (probably 20 years ago!).
He has made some very good players become very average.

I really hope France are allowed to stay in the tournament and we see a sensible conclusion to what is proving to be a good tournament so far and that we have a worthy winner at the end.

Well, that’s 2 out of 2 games with a ball juggling controversy.

Can any one explain to me why…
In Scotland-Wales the Scot goes in perhaps a little gung ho but at a reasonable height and Wyn Jones straightens up and gets a a bang on the head for his trouble – result red card Scotland.

In England-Wales the English laddie goes in a bit high and in driving his shoulder through collects the Welsh head – result no intent, fair play.

Both went to video ref so both definitely seen.

In the first one was there a spearing / failure to try and use tha arms issue?

Otherwise they seem about equal – no one is suggesting Fagerson deliberately targeted Jones head, so no intent there either.

Surely they both walk or neither does – ok I accept two different weekends and two different officiating teams but a red and a fair play? Really?

In the wales game it was seen as a rugby collision – initial impact on chest and slipped up on a player running. In the fagerson case the player was bound in a maul and the initial impact was shoulder to head with no wrap of the arms.

completely different circumstances. fagersons was foul play even if he did not hit the guys head

Fagerson’s was also 100% intentional.

Also one was wrapped with arms the other the arm is tucked away meaning you are very much deliberately using shoulder. I think this is what they are trying to get rid of. It is a result of modern coaching, winning collision etc and straight from rugby league where a lot of defensive coaches have come from.
If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.

If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.

It was still a high tackle though, I cannot grasp why it matters if you wrap arms if you hit them in the head. The one in the England game had mitigation he started legal and it slipped high, for me a pen for certain, a yellow at worst. The ref shit out of it imo.

That Sinkler, he’s a lad eh!!

Surprised this hasn’t had more traction. Sinckler getting acquainted with Faletau. pic.twitter.com/jXpuAUaEvp

— Matt Simkins 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (@mattveg) March 1, 2021

Fagerson’s was also 100% intentional.

Definitely agree it was intentional to remove Jones from the ruck, and to do that your going to need a fair amount of momentum, but deliberate head contact? He knew in advance that Jones was going to straighten and that his head was now going to be in the firing line? Impressive.
Was it cavalier? Yes probably.

But equally the way it me in the England game the English tackler goes in too high and at an angle that he’s always going into the Welshman’s head after the initial contact. I would have thought a penalty minimum. (No I wouldn’t have said red, but I wouldn’t have said that the week before either)

But perhaps I’m just displaying that after 25 years of play in a different era I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.

I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.

Not meant as a criticism but this. Blood subs, HIA’s, player protection are all ‘new’ aspects, and I don’t think players have yet adjusted, after the last 20 years of coaching it isn’t overnight. But they will and I think the game has a chance to be better for it, both for the player safety but also with lower tackles, more chance to free arms and off load the ball.

I can only compare to football where the first 20 mins of every game was just ‘reducers’ and then the ref would call a halt and the game could start properly. When they changed laws about the tackle from behind, there was the same outcry but players adapted very quickly, and the game’s better as a result.

Even if the player fagerson hit did not move the tackle was still no arms and reckless. and was never below the head. Thats 3 ways it was more serious.

It was the phrasing and the obvioulsly leading questions, deliberately provocative.

I agree, I winced when watching that and felt pretty bad for Farrell. However I didn’t then go on Twitter and lay into her.

TJ – not saying it wasn’t worse (not saying it was either) but in levels of sanction (nothing, penalty, yellow, red) it didn’t seem three levels worse.

As for Farrell – of course those were the questions he was going to be asked, he knew it and had prepared his stone wall which he deployed admirably. Pushing a bit harder might have got a more interesting response, but might have been a little unfair. In particular he could have been asked why weren’t you concentrating at that penalty (choice of two as I recall), switched off a bit didn’t you? But that would have been pushy. Farrell wasn’t on Graham Norton to flog his latest book – questions pitched absolutely fine.

Bruce – ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn’t it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn’t hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on?

I just looked at it again here is what I noticed:

The ball didn’t leave his hand before it hit his thigh.

If you look at it his hand is in contact with the ball at all times. At no point is the ball in free air and the final direction it ends up going is backwards. Exactly as if it was dropped but went backwards.

That was definitely not a knock on.

As far as i can make out there is a fog around the need for control before kicking or indeed no need, otherwise how could a ball on the ground be kicked, although a kick is well defined. And to be a knock on it has to hit the ground or someone else (in front of you) otherwise a “knock up” interception would be a knock on.

Problem was everyone thought knock on but applying the actual laws rules it not actually a knock on.

I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg that is clearly a knock on (I’ve never seen a knock on that comes off the leg where it wasn’t obvious it was a loss of control).

I think in this case it’s not even a grey area because the ball doesn’t lose contact with his body before it goes backwards.

If the ball had left his hand and hit his thigh and gone backwards then that would be a grey area.

This is pretty black and white, imo.

I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg

So Sinkler knocked on in that video above?

IGM

I think the questions were really unfair – not the subject but the tone was really baiting

The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.

And then you’ve got drop kicks where the ball is dropped forwards and must touch the ground before being kicked…

I think the questions were really unfair – not the subject but the tone was really baiting

The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.

Agreed, as I’ve already said. Post match interviews are so unbelievably pointless these days – nobody with any sense says anything meaningful. Perhaps you can look at it another way – the BBC are deliberately trying to make the players say something controversial or make themselves look a bit stupid, because this will get the viewing figures up on the website, etc.

Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match? All I saw on FB on Sunday were pictures comparing him to a muppet, and similar – will the BBC take responsibility for their part in online bullying, or just cry foul because one of their employees feels hard done by?

@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That’s a kick.

Drop kick you are in control. If you knock the ball forwards and then try to make it look like a deliberate kick its always given as knock on

Secondly was it a knock on? In did it actually go forward in relation to the player? It looks like it comes off the side of his lower leg then goes behind him, to be knocked back by a white shirt.
I suppose this is where all the forward passes(in relation to the ground) are not forward.
It looks an obvious knock on but I wonder if strict application of the laws in this case mean no knock on, try.

@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That’s a kick.

Are you sure? I’m almost certain that if you don’t manage to control a catch but manage to get your foot to it and it goes forward then it’s a knock on.

I would have called that a knock on when whistling, if I remember( and it has been a while) there is something in the rule…sorry LAW..about having control. He has been taken off touch judge duties for Englands last game and given Scotland v Italy. Thanks;thanks a bunch.

Judge’s words

The ball was not under the control of the Welsh wing and went forward on to his thigh,” Jutge said. “In the laws such as they’re written, there isn’t this notion of loss of control, that’s why this situation lends itself to confusion.

“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain… it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO, that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”

To summarise what he said
“There’s no notion of loss of control in laws”

“in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control,”

Clear as mud then.

It’s been a bit overshadowed by the amount of English whining, but the ref in the Italy Ireland game didn’t have his best day either.
And then the ITV interviewer went after sexton and Farrell snr to get them to criticise too. Didn’t come to much.

Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match?

I saw the questions, I haven’t seen anything ridiculing Farrell on social media, but then I haven’t looked for it specifically. If I googled Farrell muppet I might find it I suppose.

The questions were in line with what I would assume everyone was thinking and he answered them reasonably well.

If anything makes one look like a muppet (other than a green felt-like complexion 😉), it’s getting caught by a quick Welsh penalty not once but twice. All rugby players have had days like that – I just made sure I wasn’t in the nation jersey being broadcast far and wide when I made that sort of mistake (tactical choice you understand, not just that I was rubbish).

The thing that would improve Farrell’s image would be for him to come out and say they were tough, blunt questions and I didn’t enjoy answering them, but everyone was thinking it, they had to be asked.

The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.

Also double posts. They make one look like a muppet.

Sorry for that.

AA if even no one else acknowledged it, good joke. I had a chuckle.

I had a chuckle.

Glad someone acknowledged it.
What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??

Clear as mud then.

If the player maintains contact with the ball throughout and the first time he loses contact with the ball it goes backwards, how can it be a knock on?

It’s not clear from Jutge’s comments whether he realises RZ still had hand contact with the ball when it hit his thigh.

No wonder so many lawyers like rugby.

The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.

Like I said, the interview is an exercise in not answering the questions and is a pointless space filler for TV.

The only incisive reply ever was given by Garin Jenkins about 25 years ago – “We ‘ad them blowing out their arses!”

What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??

Maybe Gav isn’t hunky enough for them?