RugbyRebels

What were they on about regarding Davies' try? I unfortunately can't watch a replay.

Can someone explain it to me? Was Davies in front of the kicker when he chased?

Zhivago wrote:What were they on about regarding Davies' try? I unfortunately can't watch a replay.

Can someone explain it to me? Was Davies in front of the kicker when he chased?

Yes.

Zhivago wrote:What were they on about regarding Davies' try? I unfortunately can't watch a replay.

Can someone explain it to me? Was Davies in front of the kicker when he chased?

Sure, Davies was well in front of Biggar when Dan kicked the ball, and then Davies moved forwards, towards the ball. Hence offside and liable to sanction.

It's what Francis was pinged for at the end of the Ireland match, except that Francis's offence was much more marginal, arguably not even offside.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What were they on about regarding Davies' try? I unfortunately can't watch a replay.

Can someone explain it to me? Was Davies in front of the kicker when he chased?

Sure, Davies was well in front of Biggar when Dan kicked the ball, and then Davies moved forwards, towards the ball. Hence offside and liable to sanction.

It's what Francis was pinged for at the end of the Ireland match, except that Francis's offence was much more marginal, arguably not even offside.

Ok so Roberts didn't put Davies onside before Davies moved towards the ball then? That's how it looked at the time to me.

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What were they on about regarding Davies' try? I unfortunately can't watch a replay.

Can someone explain it to me? Was Davies in front of the kicker when he chased?

Sure, Davies was well in front of Biggar when Dan kicked the ball, and then Davies moved forwards, towards the ball. Hence offside and liable to sanction.

It's what Francis was pinged for at the end of the Ireland match, except that Francis's offence was much more marginal, arguably not even offside.

Ok so Roberts didn't put Davies onside before Davies moved towards the ball then? That's how it looked at the time to me.

No he didn't. Davies started moving towards the ball immediately and was never passed by Roberts.

Ok, so Clancy messed up. What about when Gethin was pinged for coming in the side of the ruck, wasn't he tackler and thus didn't need to enter the ruck from behind the back foot?

Zhivago wrote:Ok, so Clancy messed up. What about when Gethin was pinged for coming in the side of the ruck, wasn't he tackler and thus didn't need to enter the ruck from behind the back foot?

Quite possibly, but I don't remember the incident. Clancy made a number of errors, as will any referee, even if one were being objective.

Zhivago wrote:Ok, so Clancy messed up. What about when Gethin was pinged for coming in the side of the ruck, wasn't he tackler and thus didn't need to enter the ruck from behind the back foot?

That's how I remember it. Clancy also missed an obstruction that led to a Scottish penalty. On the whole, I thought he reffed the game pretty well, he made some mistakes but he was even handed.

Clancy was poor for the first twenty minutes, but got better as time went on. I missed the whole offside thing, but I'll review it tonight when I watch the match again.

It was surprising that even with the TMO they allowed Davies's try. But then I'm not sure what Clancy asked him to look at.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It was surprising that even with the TMO they allowed Davies's try. But then I'm not sure what Clancy asked him to look at.

knock on from the challenge in the air. Two welsh players were definitely offside, but he didnt ask. Thems the breaks. I'm not a fan of the tmo- if you give them a narrow brief this happens, if you give them carte blanche the game becomes unbearable; so its ultimately still down to a refs call, so you could argue, why make such a disruption of the game.

Look in the paper tomorrow morning. If it says T next to Wales' No 9 then it's not a non try

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It was surprising that even with the TMO they allowed Davies's try. But then I'm not sure what Clancy asked him to look at.

knock on from the challenge in the air. Two welsh players were definitely offside, but he didnt ask. Thems the breaks. I'm not a fan of the tmo- if you give them a narrow brief this happens, if you give them carte blanche the game becomes unbearable; so its ultimately still down to a refs call, so you could argue, why make such a disruption of the game.

He actually did ask and was told it was onside.

As for the TMO, I reiterate what I said on the last board. Th referee should make the decision. The captain of the team should get a couple of video challenges and that's it. get it wrong and you lose it. No clear evidence and it's referees call and you lose it. Video should be there only for correcting the most obvious most obvious and glaring error.

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?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:It was surprising that even with the TMO they allowed Davies's try. But then I'm not sure what Clancy asked him to look at.

knock on from the challenge in the air. Two welsh players were definitely offside, but he didnt ask. Thems the breaks. I'm not a fan of the tmo- if you give them a narrow brief this happens, if you give them carte blanche the game becomes unbearable; so its ultimately still down to a refs call, so you could argue, why make such a disruption of the game.

He actually did ask and was told it was onside.

As for the TMO, I reiterate what I said on the last board. Th referee should make the decision. The captain of the team should get a couple of video challenges and that's it. get it wrong and you lose it. No clear evidence and it's referees call and you lose it. Video should be there only for correcting the most obvious most obvious and glaring error.

Must have missed the ask- I assume it was only about Roberts then and that was marginal. Else the tmo didnt understand or is incompetent.

Reiterate away, thats a view.....I kind of agree with the last line, but in the absence of a satisfactory way of doing it ( I guess we could trial your couple (1,2,3 ?) and see how that works (do they roll over?)), I'd simply revert to not using them.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: knock on from the challenge in the air. Two welsh players were definitely offside, but he didnt ask. Thems the breaks. I'm not a fan of the tmo- if you give them a narrow brief this happens, if you give them carte blanche the game becomes unbearable; so its ultimately still down to a refs call, so you could argue, why make such a disruption of the game.

He actually did ask and was told it was onside.

As for the TMO, I reiterate what I said on the last board. Th referee should make the decision. The captain of the team should get a couple of video challenges and that's it. get it wrong and you lose it. No clear evidence and it's referees call and you lose it. Video should be there only for correcting the most obvious most obvious and glaring error.

Must have missed the ask- I assume it was only about Roberts then and that was marginal. Else the tmo didnt understand or is incompetent.

Reiterate away, thats a view.....I kind of agree with the last line, but in the absence of a satisfactory way of doing it ( I guess we could trial your couple (1,2,3 ?) and see how that works (do they roll over?)), I'd simply revert to not using them.

I'd happily do without them were it not for the general whining that would emanate from coaches and players and fans across the world every time a decision went against them. Having challenges has pretty much eliminated it in cricket.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: He actually did ask and was told it was onside.

As for the TMO, I reiterate what I said on the last board. Th referee should make the decision. The captain of the team should get a couple of video challenges and that's it. get it wrong and you lose it. No clear evidence and it's referees call and you lose it. Video should be there only for correcting the most obvious most obvious and glaring error.

Must have missed the ask- I assume it was only about Roberts then and that was marginal. Else the tmo didnt understand or is incompetent.

Reiterate away, thats a view.....I kind of agree with the last line, but in the absence of a satisfactory way of doing it ( I guess we could trial your couple (1,2,3 ?) and see how that works (do they roll over?)), I'd simply revert to not using them.

I'd happily do without them were it not for the general whining that would emanate from coaches and players and fans across the world every time a decision went against them. Having challenges has pretty much eliminated it in cricket.

Obviously its a different game; challenges in hockey have made it very frustrating. The number of 'incidents' in Rugby that you could challenge on are many many more than cricket; so if the challenge is upheld, do you keep it? Its the how, not the what, which is the crux.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: Must have missed the ask- I assume it was only about Roberts then and that was marginal. Else the tmo didnt understand or is incompetent.

Reiterate away, thats a view.....I kind of agree with the last line, but in the absence of a satisfactory way of doing it ( I guess we could trial your couple (1,2,3 ?) and see how that works (do they roll over?)), I'd simply revert to not using them.

I'd happily do without them were it not for the general whining that would emanate from coaches and players and fans across the world every time a decision went against them. Having challenges has pretty much eliminated it in cricket.

Obviously its a different game; challenges in hockey have made it very frustrating. The number of 'incidents' in Rugby that you could challenge on are many many more than cricket; so if the challenge is upheld, do you keep it? Its the how, not the what, which is the crux.

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I'd happily do without them were it not for the general whining that would emanate from coaches and players and fans across the world every time a decision went against them. Having challenges has pretty much eliminated it in cricket.

Obviously its a different game; challenges in hockey have made it very frustrating. The number of 'incidents' in Rugby that you could challenge on are many many more than cricket; so if the challenge is upheld, do you keep it? Its the how, not the what, which is the crux.

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.

Now you're talking, I'd pay for it myself, if it rid the game of all the blocking and taking players out in front of the ball that currently goes unpunished.

Just need to shoot any twat that runs fifty metres to pat a forwards arse for winning a scrum penalty, and I'd be a happy bunny.

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.

WaspInWales wrote: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.

Sourdust wrote: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.

Think he asked him about a possible knock on

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I'd happily do without them were it not for the general whining that would emanate from coaches and players and fans across the world every time a decision went against them. Having challenges has pretty much eliminated it in cricket.

Obviously its a different game; challenges in hockey have made it very frustrating. The number of 'incidents' in Rugby that you could challenge on are many many more than cricket; so if the challenge is upheld, do you keep it? Its the how, not the what, which is the crux.

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.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote: Obviously its a different game; challenges in hockey have made it very frustrating. The number of 'incidents' in Rugby that you could challenge on are many many more than cricket; so if the challenge is upheld, do you keep it? Its the how, not the what, which is the crux.

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.