RugbyRebels

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:

Cameo wrote:Can't see how that is not a penalty. Just looked like he massively bottled it. I dont think he is allowed to go to the TMO but saw it as his only way out even though it confirmed what he had seen previously.

I'd be all up for changing that rule so if it is just instinct it is just a free kick but that is not how it has been reffed ever

I think it's covered within 11.6. Given how close he was he could not have avoided the ball. A reflex reaction to catch it doesn't change that for me. The player could not have avoided that ball.

I would be fine with it being interpreted that way if it ever was. That is given as a penalty every time though. It's not like it fire into his midrift and just stuck. I dont like talking about refs so will probs stop now but I think that call (and especially the way that it was made) was pretty outrageous. On the Joubert one in the WC I felt for him as it came down to whether Phipps had played at the ball in a split second. This one is just a penalty and nothing changed on second viewing except the importance of it got to him.

Incidentally, they really need to clear up when you can go to the TMO. If then, why not for the Lions penalty just before to see whether he really wasnt rolling away or whether he was being held. Choose some protocols and stick to them.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

Big D wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Ha! Aye, right there is he issue with it. It's another one of our laws that relies heavily on interpretation, and worse still, it also asks refs to judge intent.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Reminds me of a classic meme. A special prize for special fans & players.

OptimisticJock wrote:It being the back of 8 on a Saturday night back home I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you be had a couple of Smirnoff ices and are steaming otherwise that chaff is some of the worst you've come up with.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Reminds me of a classic meme. A special prize for special fans & players.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:It's a ropey as fuck law, it needs to be in the game to prevent cynical play, but it's extremely harsh to penalise a player for an instinctive grab of the ball made in a split second from a marginally offside position.

I think it was the correct call, although, I would.

It really does make me wonder if our exit from the World Cup may have had an influence on that call.

I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Ha! Aye, right there is he issue with it. It's another one of our laws that relies heavily on interpretation, and worse still, it also asks refs to judge intent.

Stones of granite wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote: I asked a couple ref pals on Pussbook and 3 others chimed in. 60/40 split, which is telling even of only a 5 person sample. It should be made clearer in law.

One ref saying he only uses accidental offside around rucks and mauls for running into your own player.

One saying that it's hard to know what is a legitimate reflex and what is deliberate so errs on a penalty most of the time.

So the 2 above are refereeing as per 11.7 .

3 saying that was impossible for Owens to get out the way and given proximity to the knock on him catching it could only have been reflex. To them it's clearly accidental offside as he could not have avoided the ball so comes under 11.6.

Ha! Aye, right there is he issue with it. It's another one of our laws that relies heavily on interpretation, and worse still, it also asks refs to judge intent.

Reading all this stuff earlier without having seen the game, I was intrigued. Now that I have seen it, all I can conclude is that some of you are delusional. That was a penalty without any doubt. He caught the ball in an offside position from a knock on, and trying to mitigate it with cry's of it being an instinctive reflex are both laughable and irrelevant. For whatever's reason, the ref bottled that. No wonder the kiwis are whinging, that is an inexplicable decision.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Lions fans acting as if a 66-54 series loss on points is something to be proud of. Hilarious.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:It being the back of 8 on a Saturday night back home I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you be had a couple of Smirnoff ices and are steaming otherwise that chaff is some of the worst you've come up with.

How many smirnoff ices did it take for you to spread your buttocks for the English, Welsh & Irish Lions? Not many apparently...

whatisthejava wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40589770

This really boils my piss, what lions tours boil down to and why Gatland will always pick his favorites


Because he has a blind hope that after 30+ attempts Wales may get a win against a SH team

He only has the worst SA and he hasnt even beaten a poor Australia

And yt they call him a class coach

Chunks Baws wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40589770

This really boils my piss, what lions tours boil down to and why Gatland will always pick his favorites


Because he has a blind hope that after 30+ attempts Wales may get a win against a SH team

He only has the worst SA and he hasnt even beaten a poor Australia

And yt they call him a class coach

His name is being mentioned for the 2021 gig too. He's a fucking arse.

Mikey Brown wrote:I'd love to see what Eddie Jones would do with a Lions team in 2021.

Chunks Baws wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40589770

This really boils my piss, what lions tours boil down to and why Gatland will always pick his favorites


Because he has a blind hope that after 30+ attempts Wales may get a win against a SH team

He only has the worst SA and he hasnt even beaten a poor Australia

And yt they call him a class coach

His name is being mentioned for the 2021 gig too. He's a fucking arse.