Had the guts to say what others are afraid to: Cheika nailed it in his steps required

[Burgs]

Off topic but can't be arsed going anywhere else.

If anyone is looking for a perfect example of how ridiculous the deliberate knock down has become just take a look at the Willie Le Roux YC last night. If that is not a genuine intercept opportunity, I'm the Shah of Iran. And he's 6 feet under.

Do you agree that the Law was policed as written though?
Given the current wording it seemed pretty obvious to me.
My understanding, if you go for it you have to catch it, no interpretation.

[chibi]

They wanted to leave. They'd threatened it since at least 2010, had already moved the Cheetahs there in 2017, and were in the middle of negotiating the expansion.

Bearing in mind the Bulls won just won Super Rugby in 2009 and 2010; in your opinion then, what would have been the reason that they wanted to leave, despite being home to the recent premiers?

[shasta]

Do you agree that the Law was policed as written though?
Given the current wording it seemed pretty obvious to me.
My understanding, if you go for it you have to catch it, no interpretation.

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."

[Burgs]

I don't think there was a reasonable expectation though, it was a snap move of the hand (ie "hard" not "soft" hands)

[shasta]

I don't think there was a reasonable expectation though, it was a snap move of the hand (ie "hard" not "soft" hands)

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.

[GIGS20]

Do you agree that the Law was policed as written though?
Given the current wording it seemed pretty obvious to me.
My understanding, if you go for it you have to catch it, no interpretation.

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.

[AndyS]

Bearing in mind the Bulls won just won Super Rugby in 2009 and 2010; in your opinion then, what would have been the reason that they wanted to leave, despite being home to the recent premiers?

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...

[GIGS20]

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.

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.

[shasta]

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.

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!!

[Burgs]

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!!

Poke....

[shasta]

Poke....

Guess so.

It's one of my (many) pet hates among the things that interrupt the game - and put casual watchers off. GIGGS has taken me to task on it before today.

[Burgs]

Guess so.

It's one of my (many) pet hates among the things that interrupt the game - and put casual watchers off. GIGGS has taken me to task on it before today.

For clarity, was referring to the final post, not my original questions

[GIGS20]

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!!

Whoa bro,

I was only referring to your comment about yellow card about being reserved for the most blatant of deliberate slap downs.

But cool beans.

If you like, I'll avoid commenting on your posts.

[shasta]

Whoa bro,

I was only referring to your comment about yellow card about being reserved for the most blatant of deliberate slap downs.

But cool beans.

If you like, I'll avoid commenting on your posts.

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.

[GIGS20]

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 have no recollection of previous incidents. That doesn't surprise me thoug, I talk a lot of shit and don't really keep track. Nothing personal in it, I just have fairly strong opinions that I like to share. You're welcome to have opposing opinions and I'm not put off by repeated arguments because posting on here isn't really saving the world, we're really just talking shit aren't we? At least that's the way I approach it.

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.

I'd call it a penalty but no card...... THat's because that's how I believe World Rugby have written the law. I'd have to have another look to see whether I reckon it's a "realistic chance" but that's pretty immaterial anyway, because the law clearly gives the power of that interpretation to the ref. I tend to work on "was he consistent in this game" as opposed to "do I agree with his interpretation" unless it's a glaringly stupid judgement (i.e. the player gets two hands on the ball, juggles it three times and loses it after contact but still is penalised because it "wasn't a reasonable attempt") I don't beleive it's as simplistic as 2 hands to the ball, because I can envision situations where that can be generated without producing a "realistic chance"

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.

I'm not against that, most of our timewasting is taken up by TMOs calling back play to some inconsequential microscope-driven potential penalty that had minimal impact on the play. I wish more refs would go the "there's nothing to see there" route on the little bullshit ones and just keep moving on. I'm not upset with TMOs reviewing the really dangerous stuff during play and stopping the game for that (collisions in the air being one example) and the last bit in the leadup to a try (the former because we want to stamp those actions out of our game and the time is a necessary cost, the latter because play has stopped already and sometimes it's worthwhile)