Greenwhiteandred wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:26 pm
My god - watch the replay - draw a line from the end of the ruck (BFG -following Italy’s interpretation of the ruck vs England a couple of seasons ago I think World Rugby would call it a ruck) Lawes was offside and then the ruck moved forward a foot or two and Lawes was even more in front of the end of the end of the ruck when Perrara picked the ball up. Anyone agreeing with Barnes idiotic claims it was not offside frankly says it all for me. We were massively lucky last week with the Farrell tackle - this week we were “unlucky” but it was 100% correct. Not sure why the ref needed the TMO to make the call when he watched it on the big screen- offside is kind of black and white when someone is not behind or close to being behind the back feet of a ruck.
I would totally agree with this interpretation. The ruck is formed by a player from each side on their feet but does not stop when they go off there feet, so the ruck was still formed. An all black player is bound on and steps forward with his foot now making a new offside line. The England defensive line needed to retreat to behind that line to the legal. I think Lawes starts just onside but once the player steps forward he does not step back and is then offside.
I totally agree that at all levels of the game the furthest most part of the ruck is usually ignored and some refs and defensive lines seem to be using the middle of the ruck as the line. It is only when there is a review like this that things get picked up properly. Attacks would have more time and space to develop if this was refereed properly all the time (I am a qualified but only occasional ref).
Perhaps, but a couple of points.
If it's a ruck, then the offside line is not formed by the foremost foot of the opposition player. It's formed by the hindmost part of a teammate. So that step forward doesn't move the offside line.
If it did, though taking that to its extreme, just how far in front of the ball would players be permitted to go, pushing the offside line further back with each step?
And even then, if you go frame-by-frame, that final step forwards occurs at exactly the same moment that the ball comes out of the back of the ruck/tackle area and is lifted by the SH. So Lawes was not offside until the moment that the ball was in open play, making him... not offside.
May be changing my mind - the reference I made to feet is incorrect - any part of the body of your own player seems to be correct which would make Ford's body our offside line and that is much more difficult to call and I suspect most refs go with the back of the ruck regardless of who it is. I still don't like the directive re SH lifting is the guiding point of when a ruck is over unless otherwise called by the ref - if he touches with his hands the ruck must be over as you are not allowed to play the ball with the hand in a ruck.
The grid might be misleading, but I don't think Lawes was in an offside position until the final frame, at which point the ball is already off the ground in the SH's hands.
It might be said that his front foot was marginally in front of the offside line in the penultimate frame, but at that stage (though you can't tell from the frames) his foot was still in the air. So he would have been penalised for having a foot in the air over a possible offside line a fraction of a second before the ball was out.
Anyone who thinks that it was a clear call one way or another is simply wrong. Certainly, it's a very marginal decision for the TMO to have overruled the on-field decision of the referee.
No I'm afraid I simply don't view that as a ruck.
Anyway if it was indeed a ruck then black 23 potentially had his head below his hips in a sealing off position, another marginal call but if the marginal Lawes call matters then the call should be a free kick to England.
The grid might be misleading, but I don't think Lawes was in an offside position until the final frame, at which point the ball is already off the ground in the SH's hands.
It might be said that his front foot was marginally in front of the offside line in the penultimate frame, but at that stage (though you can't tell from the frames) his foot was still in the air. So he would have been penalised for having a foot in the air over a possible offside line a fraction of a second before the ball was out.
Anyone who thinks that it was a clear call one way or another is simply wrong. Certainly, it's a very marginal decision for the TMO to have overruled the on-field decision of the referee.
[My bold]
This is where I still struggle! Who's actually in charge? Where does the buck stop? If it was marginal, shouldn't the referee's on-field initial decision stand? In both rugby and cricket, the TMO seems to now be the final arbiter. Are referees, players and supporters happy with this?
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
The grid might be misleading, but I don't think Lawes was in an offside position until the final frame, at which point the ball is already off the ground in the SH's hands.
It might be said that his front foot was marginally in front of the offside line in the penultimate frame, but at that stage (though you can't tell from the frames) his foot was still in the air. So he would have been penalised for having a foot in the air over a possible offside line a fraction of a second before the ball was out.
Anyone who thinks that it was a clear call one way or another is simply wrong. Certainly, it's a very marginal decision for the TMO to have overruled the on-field decision of the referee.
[My bold]
This is where I still struggle! Who's actually in charge? Where does the buck stop? If it was marginal, shouldn't the referee's on-field initial decision stand? In both rugby and cricket, the TMO seems to now be the final arbiter. Are referees, players and supporters happy with this?
You can be certain that a forward pass that marginal would have seen the try awarded because it wouldn't be 'clear and obvious'.
I would love the chance to go through frame by frame and ask the TMO at which point he felt Lawes had gone offside. It would be interesting to hear his reasoning.
I was watching on telly. Why did Garces abrogate the responsibility for the offside decision to Junker (TMO)? I presume there was a video replay available in the stadium but Garces seemed not to be interested in it. At one point he said to Junker 'What is your decision?' making it clear that he would accept his version. On many occasions refs say 'this is what I am seeing, do you agree' but Garces didn't even offer an opinion.
I'd like to suggest a modification. The TMO should only interject on issues of dangerous foul play.
Each side is given two appeals per match, they can use these to appeal to the TMO to review decisions. If their appeal is overruled they lose one of their appeals. They can then decide when they want to use them.
Was the New Zealand player on the near side (to the camera) who effectively nudged the ruck back himself offside? Having initially formed as a guard to the kicker did he not then bind to the ruck? Thus not entering from behind the ruck.
Or do the same laws not apply tp the side in possession?
BFG wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:04 pm
No I'm afraid I simply don't view that as a ruck.
Anyway if it was indeed a ruck then black 23 potentially had his head below his hips in a sealing off position, another marginal call but if the marginal Lawes call matters then the call should be a free kick to England.
Rugby will continue to leave a bitter taste in the mouth until these instances are clarified...the fact we can have such two high profile matches decided by decisions which almost everyone is 50/50 on just isn't good for the game.
In the instance like we saw against Nz I would like to see the rule being that it goes with the attacking team unless there is clear and obvious evidence against it...as for the SA decision I don't have an answer
JackFlashJonny wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:26 am
Rugby will continue to leave a bitter taste in the mouth until these instances are clarified...the fact we can have such two high profile matches decided by decisions which almost everyone is 50/50 on just isn't good for the game.
In the instance like we saw against Nz I would like to see the rule being that it goes with the attacking team unless there is clear and obvious evidence against it...as for the SA decision I don't have an answer
Apart from the odd exception is anybody really bitter about these two decisions?
They are clearly both very tight decisions. It doesn't matter which combo of the officiating team comes up with the answer. I don't think rugby is a game where you can eliminate such tight decisions because there are so many very technical infringements. And the fact is without the TMO there would be a lot more bad calls made.
