Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78

Thread: Wallabies v All Blacks - Bledisloe 3 2016

  1. #61
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    It is an interesting precedent then. Let's hope they are consistent, and every single line break and intercept is now reviewed from all angles from now on. Doesn't matter if the guy is gone, if anyone on the field is prevented from chasing him...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #62
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    So I can be 30m away at fullback and all I need to do to have the try disallowed is find somebody to run into?????

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #63
    Immortal Contributor shasta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Mandurah
    Posts
    15,726
    vCash
    5470000
    This argument is getting a little technical - for mine DHP definitely ran Savea off the ball - and didn't need to. Savea was never going to get Speight.
    Having said that, I'm not happy with the TMO overruling the on-field referee on matters of general play when not asked. Too much room for inconsistency.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David


  4. #64
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    He would have to change a line or impede, but if you can draw an instinctive behaviour that seems the pretty clear conclusion from "That Speight was "gone" was not relevant. They remain infringements that happened before the "try" was scored". A line break from within your own half, it could pretty much mean anyone on the field. Otherwise, whether Savea could have effected a tackle that would prevent a try is entirely pertinent to the decision.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #65
    Immortal Contributor The InnFORCEr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    West Leederville
    Posts
    16,871
    vCash
    3102000
    Foley should have rushed the kick and it would have been too late anyway!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?

    Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!

    Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!

  6. #66
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    travelling_gerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    18,483
    vCash
    5062000
    Quote Originally Posted by The InnFORCEr View Post
    Foley should have rushed the kick and it would have been too late anyway!
    George to Nigel! Check check check, they are attempting a quick conversion, stop so I can go back see what I missed!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  7. #67
    Champion GAFFA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Gosnells
    Posts
    2,180
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by The InnFORCEr View Post
    Foley should have rushed the kick and it would have been too late anyway!
    Just like Cruden when he knew he tripped Sio he took a quick drop kick.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    “Everyone knows whether it’s rugby, politics or whatever, front-rowers should rule the world, so to have a hooker at the helm makes sense,” Nathan Charles Western Force & Wallabies Hooker.

  8. #68
    Player Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SoR
    Posts
    368
    vCash
    5000000
    The difference in speed of conversions was a little down to the placement, Cruden's being in front of the posts so much more feasible to drop it over.
    I have to admit, it's unlike Owens not to see that Savea was the first infringer ... impeding DHP so it should have been a "you're both as bad as each other" style reprimand from no nonsense Owens.

    What has concluded is the NZ ability to manipulate the referees. DHP might think that flinging himself into touch next time Savea goes near him would be the go ... but being the better rugby player, he got on with it & continued to support. Savea knew all was lost so made the best he could of the situation ...

    World Rugby should look at the conversion clause ... it should be disregarded if foul play is raised & the 2 points goes along with the 5. Stops the crap ...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #69
    Champion Tonkar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west Kulin / East Wickepin
    Posts
    1,370
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
    An analysis from rugby365:

    Incident 1

    This happens early in the second half with New Zealand leading 15-10.

    Bernard Foley of Australia dummies and breaks inside Kieran Read of New Zealand. He races ahead and when confronted by Ben Smith (15) of New Zealand passes to Henry Speight (11) on his right, about 38 metres from the goal-line. Speight races to the goal line and dives to score the try.

    The referee awards the try but before the conversion is taken the TMO suggests that he checks something.

    The referee then tells the TMO to "show me and tell me what I'm looking at".

    The incident is then replayed from different angles. It shows that Dane Haylett-Petty (14) of Australia moved to his right and made contact with Julian Savea (11) of New Zealand when Speight was about 26 metres from the goal-line.

    When he has a look from a few angles, the referee says to the TMO that he had seen Haylett-Petty alter "his line to put him [Savea] off his stride". The TMO agrees with the referee. The referee then penalises Haylett-Petty.

    No try.

    When first the incident was replayed, immediately there was comment from the commentators, who clearly did not agree with the eventual decision.

    The first comment, before there was really much evidence, was that "it was nothing" and that "Haylett-Petty was allowed to run that line". The commentators agree and make the point that "Speight was gone", suggesting that Savea would not have caught him.

    When the decision was made the commentator announced: "We reiterate that this was not Nigel Owens's call. It was called down from upstairs. It was called by Veldsman - Shaun Veldsman." (Veldsman was the TMO.)

    What the commentator said certainly sounded like an exoneration of the referee and a blaming of the TMO, even though it was the referee who proclaimed Haylett-Petty's act as illegal and the referee who penalised him.

    This is one of those "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations. New Zealanders would agree with the decision; Australians vociferously disagree with it, following their coach's lead.

    Here are two quotations from Law 10, which deals with foul play.

    Law 10.1 (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    Law 10.4 (e) Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
    Sanction: Penalty kick.

    Haylett-Petty got into Savea's way. That means he blocked Savea from having any chance of getting to Speight. That is a penalisable offence under the law dealing with foul play.

    In doing what he did Haylett-Petty played Savea who did not have the ball. That, too, is a penalisable offence under the law dealing with foul play.

    That Speight was "gone" was not relevant. They remain infringements that happened before the "try" was scored.

    It would seem that the referee was right to penalise Haylett-Petty.

    Be careful about following what commentators say. That it is said by "we who have played the game" does not make what they say right. After all people who play the game also get on the wrong side of the Laws of the Game. In this match players were penalised 21 times and one was cited and suspended after the match.
    Hi Icky I am asking a question here and want your advice on the rulings of being infront of a ball carrier..We see this many times at the rucks and at the receiving of kick offs were players stand in front of the ball catcher and it makes a player run around to get access to the catcher..Does this come under clause 10.1 C ... We also see a wall next to a ruck protecting the halve.. In my days of playing many players got pinged for being offside if playing in front of the ball.. I know it is done by many teams but how do you police this a I see it preventing a player from getting to the ball carrier.. This Is a ??? not a criticism .. I would like some advice

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #70
    Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,952
    vCash
    5004000
    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post

    Savea goes near him would be the go ... but being the better rugby player, he got on with it & continued to support. Savea knew all was lost so made the best he could of the situation ...
    .
    I thought the try should have been awarded no question and I look forward to your posts Kev because you strike me as a very knowledgeable purist but that above comment gave me a really good laugh. That was meant to be a joke wasn't it

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Wests Scarborough 1st Grade juggernaut has played finals rugby each and every year since its inception and continues this remarkable feat yet again this season and unbelievably it's still rolling on and as an added little circle jerk for the masses Wests actually hold the record for the current longest unbroken finals record.

  11. #71
    Veteran Ecky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,891
    vCash
    5004000
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonkar View Post
    Hi Icky I am asking a question here and want your advice on the rulings of being infront of a ball carrier..We see this many times at the rucks and at the receiving of kick offs were players stand in front of the ball catcher and it makes a player run around to get access to the catcher..Does this come under clause 10.1 C ... We also see a wall next to a ruck protecting the halve.. In my days of playing many players got pinged for being offside if playing in front of the ball.. I know it is done by many teams but how do you police this a I see it preventing a player from getting to the ball carrier.. This Is a ??? not a criticism .. I would like some advice
    Hi Tonka
    Yes - 10.1 is the Obstruction Law, so you'd pick (c) if they're preventing the tackle or (d) if they're preventing playing the ball. Sir will just say "obstruction" though, without defining to the nth degree.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  12. #72
    Player yungfen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Duncraig
    Posts
    495
    vCash
    5000000
    Another question Ecky, what is the definition of blocking? As for me the contact between the 2 players can hardly be translated as block! But then under 10.4 playing the player without the ball is probably the bit that makes the try to be disallowed.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  13. #73
    Legend Contributor blueandblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    6,087
    vCash
    8894664
    Quote Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
    ...
    The incident is then replayed from different angles. It shows that Dane Haylett-Petty (14) of Australia moved to his right and made contact with Julian Savea (11) of New Zealand when Speight was about 26 metres from the goal-line.
    ...
    Not disputing your post but just before that, Savea and Read were trying to hold DHP back at the same time. This is okay?

    Name:  dhp held back.JPG
Views: 332
Size:  11.2 KB

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    "12 Years a Supporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue

  14. #74
    Veteran Ecky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,891
    vCash
    5004000
    Quote Originally Posted by yungfen View Post
    Another question Ecky, what is the definition of blocking? As for me the contact between the 2 players can hardly be translated as block! But then under 10.4 playing the player without the ball is probably the bit that makes the try to be disallowed.
    No definition in law of blocking. The law is:

    10.1 Obstruction
    (a)Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    (b)Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    (c)Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    (d)Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
    Sanction: Penalty kick
    (e)Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.
    Sanction: Penalty kick


    So one looks at whether the player prevents the oppo from being able to tackle the player or play the ball.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  15. #75
    Champion Tonkar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    west Kulin / East Wickepin
    Posts
    1,370
    vCash
    5000000
    Thanks Ecky

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ticket for Wallabies v All Blacks Bledisloe in Sydney
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-06-16, 10:43
  2. Wallabies v All Blacks - Bledisloe 1 - 2015
    By The InnFORCEr in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 12-08-15, 16:26
  3. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 24-08-09, 19:07
  4. Bledisloe Wallabies Versus All Blacks
    By Thequeerone in forum New Zealand
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-08-08, 15:04
  5. Bledisloe Cup Preview Wallabies vs All Blacks
    By force addict in forum Wallabies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-07-08, 00:54

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •