0
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
No.Law variations and clarifications were issued in 2022. I don't think they have been reversed. Reading the following it wasn't even a penalty.
" Clarity on deliberate knock-ons:
What is and what isn’t a deliberate knock-on often causes debate. All participants are reminded of the following existing laws:
11.3 A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with a hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty;
11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgement when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession, and then in determining a sanction."
I don't think there was a reasonable expectation though, it was a snap move of the hand (ie "hard" not "soft" hands)
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
Well there you have it. Subjective decision. I thought it was a real intercept chance. Which, IMO anyway, should rule out a YC in all but the most blatant slap downs.
I think the onus should be on the attacking team to unpick the defence without resorting to a pass that could be intercepted. If they throw it there's a 50/50 chance it will be knocked on and they'll get the scrum anyway.
It seems fairly clear to me that that is the intent of the clarification.
P.S. I just had another look, slowed & freeze framed it. Barrett practically passed it to Le Rou. Hit his forearm about sternum height. If that's not catchable I don't know what would be. I just can't accept that such a risky pass should be rewarded with a YC.
Last edited by shasta; Yesterday at 11:59.
I've seen one not caught that wasn't pinged. THink it was Gus Gardner and he literally said "he's almost caught that" so there is a level of interpretation about "reasonable attempt"
However the ownership of that interpretation lies with the Ref, so as long as he's clearly consistent then move on.
C'mon the
No idea, but I'd bet on money. It was a frequent threat even prior to that...2010 was just the year that popped into my head. Rumours were out and about earlier than that...https://twf.com.au/showthread.php?t=4727.
Given some pretty solid credence given they had actually intended to leave in 2005, but it fell over. Took a long time, but they eventually got exactly that up. (https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...5aff622fc4f707).
So yeah, sure, totally committed to SR...
Sorry Shas, whether it gets a Yellow Card is dependent upon the cost of the action, not the egregiousness of the offence. Referees will check the surrounding players looking for other defenders who would have likely tackled the intended receiver before a try was scored, if there's the possibility that a try was going to be scored they seem to go YC.
C'mon the
Did you bother to have a look before writing that? Looks like not. I saw it as a knock on immediately and wrote the OP without review. As I said I did look back after Burgs' post. The referee indicated knock on immediately and was in the process of setting a scrum. He said to the TMO "knock on genuine attempt to catch the ball with two hands on field". There were 3 possible cover-defenders - subjective whether they would have made it - but not enough latitude for a YC. How the fuck does this TMO interference keep happening in view of the WR clarification? Get them TF out of the game except for foul play and for in-goal. Then we can cop referees are human and move on. Rant over!!
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
No need. It's just a discussion. Though it's not the first time you've "explained" that to me and I feel the WR clarification is directed that way. In light of that I asked if you had reviewed it before commenting, I'd still be interested in your view on the particular incident, including the 3 possible cover-defenders and the pass being 45 meters short of the goal line.
The thing that really gets my goat in these situations is the TMO basically overruling the referee when it is not clear & obvious that he/she should. Looks like a pissing contest, with YC's thrown about like confetti.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David