RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t worry, Liz. Jerry Guscott is saying Lawes was half a metre offside.

Just read that. He really is useless isn’t. He is always so late to these trends and then so desperate to oversimplify them. Pocock is good at the breakdown. Winning turnovers is good. Cool. How much do they pay him for this stuff?

Also what equation has he done here? “Without flanker Tom Curry's ankle injury, I think he [Underhill] would have started against Japan this autumn and got some minutes as a replacement in the other three matches.”

So he missed SA and NZ because Curry is selected, starts against Japan and then somehow totals 3 appearances off the bench? Either he can’t count or I can’t. We’ve only got one game left after Japan right?

Guscott thought Lawes offside on Saturday

Err. Yes. He did.

Digby wrote:Guscott thought Lawes offside on Saturday

By how much?

Rugbyinsideline will reveal how much at 8pm tonight.

I’ll wait for Diggers to break the news at 11pm.

I can see that. I would love a big crackdown on offsides (only partly because I think it would help Scotland) but it does feel a bit random for the TMO to look at a single ruck in a game. It is the issue with TMO's generally though. You can point to lots of games where the major contentious refereeing point is not a try or foul play but a borderline penalty/non penalty or just the ref interpreting the rules differently but only the tries (or certain aspects of it) get looked at.

I dont have a neat solution though apart from cyborg refs

I've said it before but the answer is taser boots, any player straying offside gets zapped and is then automatically out of play whilst they regain control of their limbs

Best thing would be to change the law so the defending team is disadvantaged by not contesting the ruck. The more defenders in the ruck, the more gaps in the backs, which will make for better rugby. Otherwise we'll get many more games like Wales Australia.

Bring back proper rucking, I say.

Or allow 9s to be fair game if you come through the ruck legally. That way, attacking sides have a motivation to put players into a ruck, as do defending players, 9s have a motivation to get the ball out quickly and more space is created for everyone.

Puja

Some interesting thoughts about the problems of using TMOs here:
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/what-rug ... -proved-it

More good stuff here. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... so-twisted

Is this a genuine solution? - "There is a possible antidote, mentioned before in these pages. Each side is given one video appeal per game, for use in cases of obvious refereeing howlers.
It would cut out a good deal of unnecessary appealing, limit the time spent standing around waiting for TMO decisions, restore the referee’s authority and put the game back on a more even keel. The TMO would only otherwise be consulted for “yes or no” try decisions or acts of serious foul play and the self-defeating instances of matches being decided by margins virtually undetectable to the human eye would hopefully be reduced"

It might have some merit. Ultimately i think we have to accept that the game as its currently played under its myriad of complicated laws is never going to be officiated with anything close to 100% accuracy. Errors are going to happen, things will be missed and close calls will inevitably sometimes go against our team.

The big snag with reducing TMO involvement is TV replays. I'd suggest that all TV companies be banned from showing any replays until after the game other than those where the TMO is adjudicating. On Saturday, with Sky's horrendous coverage, we actually missed play while they were showing replays. I'd much prefer no replays at all during the match or HT. In fact, if the TV companies did that and prepared a 20 minute highlights session to be shown immediately the game is finished, it could be very saleable.

That way, the ref's authority could be jacked back up with the TMO just dealing with tries on a much reduced basis. I'd deal with foul play missed by the ref after the game.

That is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Rugby needs to make it's laws completely consistently enforced through out the world so every one knows exactly where they stand. What is happening currently complete undermines the sports legitimacy.

twitchy wrote:That is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Rugby needs to make it's laws completely consistently enforced through out the world so every one knows exactly where they stand. What is happening currently complete undermines the sports legitimacy.

This. Not just this but the existing regs need to actually be enforced. And if they're not going to be enforced, get rid of them.

Rugby is not hard to understand because of the ruck or because of a double movement or whatever. Rugby is hard to understand because of things like the Lawes offside. Or Farrell's tackle. Or countless other examples throughout every game.

Pick a set of rules and regs and stick to them.

lol, Lawes was offside because Garces enforced the offside law to the letter. A law that was changed because Eddie Jones had a hissy fit after that Italian game.

cashead wrote:lol, Lawes was offside because Garces enforced the offside law to the letter. A law that was changed because Eddie Jones had a hissy fit after that Italian game.

Well, quite, and a good change it was.

And, to the letter of the law, it was not a try.

But also, to the letter of the law, there are many things every single match that do not make sense. Things it would be great to stop.

So I do think change is needed. Not because of this decision but because of what this decision highlights: no-one knows what the fuck is going on!

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:lol, Lawes was offside because Garces enforced the offside law to the letter. A law that was changed because Eddie Jones had a hissy fit after that Italian game.

Well, quite, and a good change it was.

And, to the letter of the law, it was not a try.

But also, to the letter of the law, there are many things every single match that do not make sense. Things it would be great to stop.

So I do think change is needed. Not because of this decision but because of what this decision highlights: no-one knows what the fuck is going on!

But it's exactly what Eddie Jones wanted. Me, I'm just going to appreciate the irony of the fact that the All Blacks set an offside trap built around abusing the law as Eddie wanted it, and England got caught up in it.

That’s quite a take, I’ll give you that.

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s quite a take, I’ll give you that.

The laws currently state "hindmost foot," with no specific reference to which side, so even if one side doesn't contest, it's irrelevant. The All Blacks place a forward or two on the side of the ruck, still bound, with one foot stuck out forward far enough to set the offside line on the opposition side as well, so that they can dictate where the offside line is. Lawes was always offside.

Now, why do you think the laws surrounding offside at the ruck were changed?

Oh, no I agree with that bit (much as I think there are massive issues around the ruck and he clearly had possession of the ball at the back) and EJ being a whiny bitch, it’s just funny phrasing it like it was a masterful bit of trickery from NZ. I don’t think it would be a penalty anyone would notice were it less significant though.

another point of view about using the TMO. I'm beginning to warm to the idea of one challenge per team during a game and reducing the input from the TMO

http://keepupthedoodling.com/tipping-po ... k-the-tmo/

"Players are constantly badgering referees to ‘go upstairs’ in a desperate bid to reverse an outcome. A cricket style review system would alleviate this. Three officials should run the game to the best of their judgement and be empower to be decisive. Currently, we have confiscated their freedom to run a flowing game. TMO interventions would occur in the event of a review used by a team if they think a call is incorrect. Or, for try-related ambiguity such as a grounding. Acts of foul play can be swept up by the citing system post match"

Acts of foul play can also be swept up by the citing commissioner

Digby wrote:Acts of foul play can also be swept up by the citing commissioner

Or swept under the carpet if that's politically expedient. (If you're both black, and captain of South Africa, then headbutting an opponent in the face can be justified if your opponent is being annoying)