Our 'non-try'

[Tre]

I don't find challenges in hockey frustrating at all - neither live nor on tv. And yes I'd say keep them if you're right. Think of all the things it could clear up. All that off the ball nonsense - shirt tugs and holding players down after the ball is long gone - could be a thing of the past because the opposition could appeal it all.

...and how long do you think the game would last? Frankly at the moment you could appeal almost any phase and have it held up. I guess you are saying the appeal would be the 'threat' that leads to the extinction of cheating.....possibly, but it would definitely be painful getting there, even if you did.

I find the hockey thing irritating as an aside- ruined the Olympic game I went to.

Think we went to 3 Olympic hockey matches and didn't find it obtrusive in any.

I can't imagine behaviour would stay the same if there was a realistic chace that tries would be repeatedly wiped out for illegal off the ball play.

I guess we would just have to put up with a season or so of 5 hour matches

[Banquo]

I don't find challenges in hockey frustrating at all - neither live nor on tv. And yes I'd say keep them if you're right. Think of all the things it could clear up. All that off the ball nonsense - shirt tugs and holding players down after the ball is long gone - could be a thing of the past because the opposition could appeal it all.

...and how long do you think the game would last? Frankly at the moment you could appeal almost any phase and have it held up. I guess you are saying the appeal would be the 'threat' that leads to the extinction of cheating.....possibly, but it would definitely be painful getting there, even if you did.

I find the hockey thing irritating as an aside- ruined the Olympic game I went to.

Think we went to 3 Olympic hockey matches and didn't find it obtrusive in any.

I can't imagine behaviour would stay the same if there was a realistic chace that tries would be repeatedly wiped out for illegal off the ball play.

I went to two, and did. I just hate the flow of the game being disrupted in that way.

...and maybe it would change eventually, but it'd be painful getting there....as Tre said, multiple hour games on the journey. You'd also create even more of a two tier game, because it really would be a radical change in behaviour at the top level where there is TMO compared to levels where ther aren't. I guess be careful what you wish for is where I'm at.

[Sourdust]

I think I'm shaky on the laws here.

Firstly, Davies is clearly offside when the ball is kicked.

BUT Roberts, not Davies, plays the ball. He plays it backwards with hands, onto the shoulders of the Scottish jumper, from whom it rebounds backwards (relative to Scotland) - thus no knock-on has taken place, but a Scottish player touched the ball last. At this point both jumpers have moved to a position in-line with Davies. As it's come off an opponent, in open play, how is Davies offside there (which is what all studio pundits seem to claim)? And as Davies didn't originally "interfere" from his offside position, wasn't he put onside by the advancing Roberts? Or is merely being in front of the kicker sufficient for a penalty, even though he was passive?

This is from law 11.1:
A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law

It seems a bit harsh, and it's often not enforced, but he's ahead of the kicker and moves forward, so that's it: he can be penalised.

Thanks, I see. Watching again, Davies clearly advances towards the ball after Biggar kicks it. So that's a penalty to Scotland.

As I said, though, that's not what most of the studio talk seemed to be about; rather that he was offside from the tap-down, which he clearly was not. Weird. Scotland have the right to moan, but most of them appear to be moaning about the wrong thing.

Bottom line (and what everyone would be telling us if we were complaining) is that from a defensive kick like that, there should be defenders in positions that don't allow a scrum-half a 50m unopposed run to the line. But I can't blame them for moaning. I would.

[canta_brian]

Davies was miles offside but you play to the whistle and he scored.

I've heard/read a lot of comments about poor defence for North's try but that was some line he ran. It was perhaps a little sloppy that no-one got their hands on him but he sliced through the lot of 'em.

For all our bellyaching about what was wrong with Wales- and a lot was wrong - those were three classy finishes. I can't remember when Wales last scored 2 "planned move" tries in the same game. Scotland were bamboozled by North when perhaps they shouldn't have been, but I don't think the Roberts line was defendable in the absence of an ACTUAL brick wall.

I notice both of those came from players running a line against the drifting defence. Good spot from the coaching team maybe?

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think I'm shaky on the laws here.

Firstly, Davies is clearly offside when the ball is kicked.

BUT Roberts, not Davies, plays the ball. He plays it backwards with hands, onto the shoulders of the Scottish jumper, from whom it rebounds backwards (relative to Scotland) - thus no knock-on has taken place, but a Scottish player touched the ball last. At this point both jumpers have moved to a position in-line with Davies. As it's come off an opponent, in open play, how is Davies offside there (which is what all studio pundits seem to claim)? And as Davies didn't originally "interfere" from his offside position, wasn't he put onside by the advancing Roberts? Or is merely being in front of the kicker sufficient for a penalty, even though he was passive?

This is from law 11.1:
A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law

It seems a bit harsh, and it's often not enforced, but he's ahead of the kicker and moves forward, so that's it: he can be penalised.

Thanks, I see. Watching again, Davies clearly advances towards the ball after Biggar kicks it. So that's a penalty to Scotland.

As I said, though, that's not what most of the studio talk seemed to be about; rather that he was offside from the tap-down, which he clearly was not. Weird. Scotland have the right to moan, but most of them appear to be moaning about the wrong thing.

Bottom line (and what everyone would be telling us if we were complaining) is that from a defensive kick like that, there should be defenders in positions that don't allow a scrum-half a 50m unopposed run to the line. But I can't blame them for moaning. I would.

I get the impression that most people think* a player needs to interfere with play in some way in order to get penalised for this. It may even be the referees' rule of thumb, after all Garces only blew up for Francis when he caught the ball.

*I was certainly unclear on this until recently

[Zhivago]

Found video of the try that plays in all countries

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I guess we would just have to put up with a season or so of 5 hour matches

I don't think it would be anything like that and if there is that amount of off the ball illegality going on, is that not a problem you'd like to see dealt with?

[Banquo]

I guess we would just have to put up with a season or so of 5 hour matches

I don't think it would be anything like that and if there is that amount of off the ball illegality going on, is that not a problem you'd like to see dealt with?

leading the witness....

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I guess we would just have to put up with a season or so of 5 hour matches

I don't think it would be anything like that and if there is that amount of off the ball illegality going on, is that not a problem you'd like to see dealt with?

leading the witness....

As is usual in cross examination.

[Banquo]

I don't think it would be anything like that and if there is that amount of off the ball illegality going on, is that not a problem you'd like to see dealt with?

leading the witness....

As is usual in cross examination.

with Strawman, admirable

[Lizard]

In every game these days there are "dummy runners" who get themselves off side and continue to move forward but are never penalised. It's yet another law being ignored almost entirely by the referees. The focus is generally on whether such players are causing an obstruction but in fact they are almost invariably penalisably offside whether or not they interfere with the defence.

[Sandydragon]

There are probably over a hundred offences in every game that could be penalised if noticed, but I think most refs would rather let the game flow. If a offside player isn't affecting play then play on, repeated whistle blows would become tiresome.

In this instance, davies was more than just offside minding his own business and we got away with a bad decision. I'm not complaining too much, sometimes the luck is with you, sometimes it's against.

[gthedog]

I do like Andy Nicol at half time and at full time in the Six Nations.

[Mikeyv]

I do like Andy Nicol at half time and at full time in the Six Nations.

He was pretty good on scrumv last night, to be fair.

Garin Jenkins, not so much.

[Son of Mathonwy]

In every game these days there are "dummy runners" who get themselves off side and continue to move forward but are never penalised. It's yet another law being ignored almost entirely by the referees. The focus is generally on whether such players are causing an obstruction but in fact they are almost invariably penalisably offside whether or not they interfere with the defence.

There are probably over a hundred offences in every game that could be penalised if noticed, but I think most refs would rather let the game flow. If a offside player isn't affecting play then play on, repeated whistle blows would become tiresome.

This is the biggest problem with our game - the optionality of the application of the Laws. It's entirely at the whim of the ref whether any of these less blatent offences are penalised. Last week Garces chose to penalise Francis for a marginal offside and Ireland were able to equalise. This week, Clancy ignored a much more blatent offside by Davies and a try was allowed. Quite simply this allows a ref to affect the outcome of a match - whether consciously or unconsciously. I've no doubt this is often what allows the perceived "better" team or the home team to edge close matches.

The laws need to be enforced dispassionately and consistently. Get the game to "flow" by penalising and carding offenders, not by ignoring their offences. If an offence is always punished, you can be certain players will do it a lot less.

[Sourdust]

This is the biggest problem with our game - the optionality of the application of the Laws. It's entirely at the whim of the ref whether any of these less blatent offences are penalised. Last week Garces chose to penalise Francis for a marginal offside and Ireland were able to equalise. This week, Clancy ignored a much more blatent offside by Davies and a try was allowed. Quite simply this allows a ref to affect the outcome of a match - whether consciously or unconsciously. I've no doubt this is often what allows the perceived "better" team or the home team to edge close matches.

Indeed, it is maddening. Even when there is consistency within a match, players have to spend the first 20 minutes of the match finding out which laws apply today. I generally like Garces, but his decision to suddenly allow holding on in the tackle - when this has been ruthlessly penalized all season - entirely shaped the Ireland v Wales match. I don't think it favoured either side particularly, but it was glaring and confusing.

I'm also sure you're right about home advantage. Had there been a few more Scots booing the try, might Clancy have taken a second look? Had Ireland not desperately needed 3 points, would Garces still have pinged Francis for standing where he'd probably been standing all game?

[Owain Glyndwr]

Found video of the try that plays in all countries

none of the commentators got the fact that he was offside because he didn't retreat from the ball when Biggar kicked, they focused on the tap down. The offence happened before the tap down.

[Mikey Brown]

I think I'm shaky on the laws here.

Firstly, Davies is clearly offside when the ball is kicked.

BUT Roberts, not Davies, plays the ball. He plays it backwards with hands, onto the shoulders of the Scottish jumper, from whom it rebounds backwards (relative to Scotland) - thus no knock-on has taken place, but a Scottish player touched the ball last. At this point both jumpers have moved to a position in-line with Davies. As it's come off an opponent, in open play, how is Davies offside there (which is what all studio pundits seem to claim)? And as Davies didn't originally "interfere" from his offside position, wasn't he put onside by the advancing Roberts? Or is merely being in front of the kicker sufficient for a penalty, even though he was passive?

I don't follow this logic. Roberts wasn't the kicker was he? Why would Roberts' involvement put Davies, who never really retreated, onside? Equally, why does Duncan Taylor touching the ball put Davies onside either? That would be an awfully strange hole in the laws. If you're offside from a kick and clatter the defender when they catch it, you're still offside. Maybe i've misunderstood you.

Saying all this. It was even about 5 minutes later. We cannot put the result down to this, we found myriad other ways to not win the game. You guys just had more fight. And George North.

It's just particularly annoying as there seem to be a ridiculous incident like this v Wales every single year.

[Lizard]

In every game these days there are "dummy runners" who get themselves off side and continue to move forward but are never penalised. It's yet another law being ignored almost entirely by the referees. The focus is generally on whether such players are causing an obstruction but in fact they are almost invariably penalisably offside whether or not they interfere with the defence.

There are probably over a hundred offences in every game that could be penalised if noticed, but I think most refs would rather let the game flow. If a offside player isn't affecting play then play on, repeated whistle blows would become tiresome.

This is the biggest problem with our game - the optionality of the application of the Laws. It's entirely at the whim of the ref whether any of these less blatent offences are penalised. Last week Garces chose to penalise Francis for a marginal offside and Ireland were able to equalise. This week, Clancy ignored a much more blatent offside by Davies and a try was allowed. Quite simply this allows a ref to affect the outcome of a match - whether consciously or unconsciously. I've no doubt this is often what allows the perceived "better" team or the home team to edge close matches.

The laws need to be enforced dispassionately and consistently. Get the game to "flow" by penalising and carding offenders, not by ignoring their offences. If an offence is always punished, you can be certain players will do it a lot less.

If there are laws that must be ignored to allow "flow" then those laws should be struck from the book.

[Sandydragon]

In every game these days there are "dummy runners" who get themselves off side and continue to move forward but are never penalised. It's yet another law being ignored almost entirely by the referees. The focus is generally on whether such players are causing an obstruction but in fact they are almost invariably penalisably offside whether or not they interfere with the defence.

There are probably over a hundred offences in every game that could be penalised if noticed, but I think most refs would rather let the game flow. If a offside player isn't affecting play then play on, repeated whistle blows would become tiresome.

This is the biggest problem with our game - the optionality of the application of the Laws. It's entirely at the whim of the ref whether any of these less blatent offences are penalised. Last week Garces chose to penalise Francis for a marginal offside and Ireland were able to equalise. This week, Clancy ignored a much more blatent offside by Davies and a try was allowed. Quite simply this allows a ref to affect the outcome of a match - whether consciously or unconsciously. I've no doubt this is often what allows the perceived "better" team or the home team to edge close matches.

The laws need to be enforced dispassionately and consistently. Get the game to "flow" by penalising and carding offenders, not by ignoring their offences. If an offence is always punished, you can be certain players will do it a lot less.

If there are laws that must be ignored to allow "flow" then those laws should be struck from the book.

Agreed.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Absolutely.

[kk67]

I don't follow this logic. Roberts wasn't the kicker was he? Why would Roberts' involvement put Davies, who never really retreated, onside?

Roberts was onside at the kick so he becomes an onside chaser and would play Davies onside. He doesn't because Davies is still in front of the line of the ball when Roberts touches it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is the biggest problem with our game - the optionality of the application of the Laws. It's entirely at the whim of the ref whether any of these less blatent offences are penalised. Last week Garces chose to penalise Francis for a marginal offside and Ireland were able to equalise. This week, Clancy ignored a much more blatent offside by Davies and a try was allowed. Quite simply this allows a ref to affect the outcome of a match - whether consciously or unconsciously. I've no doubt this is often what allows the perceived "better" team or the home team to edge close matches.

The laws need to be enforced dispassionately and consistently. Get the game to "flow" by penalising and carding offenders, not by ignoring their offences. If an offence is always punished, you can be certain players will do it a lot less.

If there are laws that must be ignored to allow "flow" then those laws should be struck from the book.

Agreed.

Absolutely.

That's settled then. We just need to convince the IRB.

[kk67]

It seems there might be a confusion between 'materiality' and 'an optional and whimsical application of the law'

[Son of Mathonwy]

It seems there might be a confusion between 'materiality' and 'an optional and whimsical application of the law'

The problem is that materiality is at the whim of the ref.

Francis's actions had no impact, yet he was penalised. Davies's caused 7 points to be scored, but he was not penalised. What bizarre kind of materiality are we talking about here?

And where in the laws does it say that some concept of materiality is to be applied?