MoC's rant at 4th Official

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

sam16111986
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7025
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Shepshed

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by sam16111986 »

RagingBull wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:26 pm
Mark62 wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:05 pm I suppose the answer to the question was it was about getting a forward back onto the pitch rather than the 2 scrum halfs and Malouf at flanker.

I think the game clock does stop at 80 because it's actual playing time unlike football.
However as we all know the game can go well past that if the ball is being kept in play, and another complication this season is that a team can kick a penalty and restart with the resulting line out even if the 80 minutes are up
Don't think it does.
There was a game I think last season involving Quins and someone else where a player was yellow carded with 70+ minutes on the clock and because the game went on for ten minutes after the clock went red he actually came back on to the field.
voice of the crumbie
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: coalville

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by voice of the crumbie »

What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.

Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all

Can anyone clarify please?
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
Bristol Tiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:00 am
Location: Bristol

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Bristol Tiger »

Regarding the use of the clock:
  • match clock (that starts/stops with play) is used for yellow cards;
  • match clock can go over 80 minutes and continues to "tick forward" - the game ends when there is a break in play (line out, scrum, etc.) though not a penalty - and this year you can now kick a penalty to touch and still have the line out. Example - France's 100th minute try against Wales in last season's 6N;
  • real-time clock used for HIA and blood - for HIA, player must take at least 10 minutes; for blood, the player needs to be ready to come back on within 10 minutes.
In terms of why MOC was so annoyed, it appears Harry had served the 10 minutes of "real time" and was ready to come on at the end of the match, but in time for that final scrum. However, due to some issue with doctors/officials, Harry wasn't allowed on. Nearest explanation I can find for the issue was in the Telegraph report
O’Connor was left frustrated that as there was only one doctor able to review the two HIAs, Wells was unable to return to the pitch for the final scrum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... e-updates/

Given Exeter won a penalty and a losing bonus point, MOC probably had good reason to rant..!
ellis9
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4187
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by ellis9 »

voice of the crumbie wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.

Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all

Can anyone clarify please?
I don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.
Bristol Tiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:00 am
Location: Bristol

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Bristol Tiger »

ellis9 wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pm
voice of the crumbie wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.

Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all

Can anyone clarify please?
I don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.
Mike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.
Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7241
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Tigerbeat »

There was only one doctor available to carry out the HIAs for the two players so this may have delayed the return. The question was raised the other week about if two players came off at the same time for HIAs as to how they would be dealt with. The response given was that the team would need to have two doctors or decide which one was going to be replaced. No extension on the time allowed for the HIAs could be given.

A doctor cannot conduct two HIA assessments at the same time as each one needs the undivided attention.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
voice of the crumbie
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: coalville

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by voice of the crumbie »

Bristol Tiger wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:41 pm
ellis9 wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pm
voice of the crumbie wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:16 pm What I can't understand and questioned with my terrace mates at the time (though nobody could provide an answer) is if Wells was not allowed back on why didn't we send on Mike Williams as a like for like replacement? If we had I don't believe we would have conceded the scrum penalty that allowed Chiefs a losing bonus point.

Possible reasons might be:
Williams had taken a knock
Williams had "warmed down" whilst Youngs was still " warmed up"
The laws regarding substitutions do not allow this - I'm not sure on this one at all

Can anyone clarify please?
I don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.
Mike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.
Thanks for the clarification Bristol Tiger. That explains things.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
Roly
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2351
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Roly »

voice of the crumbie wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:56 pm
Bristol Tiger wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:41 pm
ellis9 wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:30 pm

I don't know if I'm correct but it may because if Wells passed the HIA test and we didn't have him ready to come on, then it means we have substituted him but also not brought a replacement on, which in theory we should have done.
Mike Williams was also off for an HIA. Harry was ready to come back on (had passed his HIA and served a full 10 minutes - real time) but the doctor/officials weren't available/weren't able to verify and let him go on.
Thanks for the clarification Bristol Tiger. That explains things.
One can understand MoC's frustration, but in his position, he ought to keep his council or he may spend some time as a spectator.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Mark62 »

Hope I’m not wrong but I believe the fourth official was Karl Dickson ex Hairy Queens scrum half
Tiger_in_Birmingham
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Tiger_in_Birmingham »

sam16111986 wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:06 pm There was a game I think last season involving Quins and someone else where a player was yellow carded with 70+ minutes on the clock and because the game went on for ten minutes after the clock went red he actually came back on to the field.
Wales vs France in the 6N too. IIRC the Welsh prop went off after about 82 and came back on at 92
Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7241
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by Tigerbeat »

Mark62 wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:36 am Hope I’m not wrong but I believe the fourth official was Karl Dickson ex Hairy Queens scrum half
You are correct!
:smt023
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk
MrG
Tiger Cub
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:42 am

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by MrG »

Who was the replacement TH if the Rugby Paper is to be believed he never came off the bench. Surely he would have been a better scrummaging option than Malouf
sam16111986
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7025
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Shepshed

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by sam16111986 »

MrG wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:59 pm Who was the replacement TH if the Rugby Paper is to be believed he never came off the bench. Surely he would have been a better scrummaging option than Malouf
Baumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).
voice of the crumbie
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm
Location: coalville

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by voice of the crumbie »

sam16111986 wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:16 pm
MrG wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:59 pm Who was the replacement TH if the Rugby Paper is to be believed he never came off the bench. Surely he would have been a better scrummaging option than Malouf
Baumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).
By the time this happened Matt Smith had already run himself into the ground. Being the Tiger that he is I'm sure he would have tried his hardest if he had been sent back on but it was probably a more sensible long term decision to send on someone else.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
sam16111986
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7025
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Shepshed

Re: MoC's rant at 4th Official

Post by sam16111986 »

voice of the crumbie wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:31 pm
sam16111986 wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:16 pm
MrG wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:59 pm Who was the replacement TH if the Rugby Paper is to be believed he never came off the bench. Surely he would have been a better scrummaging option than Malouf
Baumann the USA prop we acquired in the summer. Maybe MOC wanted more mobility than what's offered with three props on the pitch. I'd have thought that rather than sending Ben back on for the HIA period Smith might have been a better choice he is after all bigger and a tackling machine but I guess he wasn't fit enough (he seems to finish most games strapped with ice).
By the time this happened Matt Smith had already run himself into the ground. Being the Tiger that he is I'm sure he would have tried his hardest if he had been sent back on but it was probably a more sensible long term decision to send on someone else.
Agreed. I think Smith is managing some long term niggles but his passion for the club is such that he still puts his body on the line every game.
Post Reply