Autumn Internationals

[Big Dai]

Lawes offside? I'll live with it. BUT the ABs were offside in midfield during that last ill-fated attack. Nothing was given.

It would appear the officials will go back and review when there is a significant event in the game but allow the line to creep when in open play.

It's the same for squint put ins at scrums and not straight at the line out. Never mind hooker's feet on the pitch.

Pedantic? Perhaps, but an inability of officials to properly referee the basics of the game make these marginal decisions, mulled over by the TMO ad nausiam, even harder to bear.

[Offside]

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).

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

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.

In total agreement about the ruck not stopping because England withdrew - doesn't mean the ruck ceases to exist.

For what it is worth I thought that Lawes was offside - but certainly no more so than any other ruck for the rest of the game. This needs addressing more consistently as although he TMO got it right to the laws when they go unpunished for 74 minutes to then get one called at such a crucial time is galling.

Another area that needs clarifying IMO is whether the ball out or not. Scrum halves are given too much protection; a clear example of this for me was in Scotland vs Fiji really early on (and directly led to the Scotland 1st try) when the referee called Fiji 14 for offside when IMO he was onside until Laidlaw had the ball in 2 hands and was starting to stand up - the fact that the stand and pass was so slow that Fiji 14 had taken 2 steps 'offside' before the pass was actually thrown doesn't matter as the ball should have been called out! I had a very well timed pause that showed Fiji clearly behind the back feet with the ball in Laidlaw's hands and a foot off the floor.

An all black player is bound on and steps forward with his foot now making a new offside line.

On an semi-unrelated note is it right that the AB can step forward and move the line? What is to stop a chain of 4 or 5 players marching the offside line back 10m to give their backs even more time and space.

See rucks on the edge of the 22 - instead of a player binding to a player binding to a player to allow the scrum half 3m more space, they'll now move the opposition back instead by forwarding the rearmost foot.

[trendylfj]

Have to agree sadly Lawes was offside when the AB player stepped forward and the SH had not lifted the ball. That made him off side under the current interpretation but I have to also say this interpretation of when a ball is in or out is ridiculous. For me as an ex SH when you put your hands on the ball it is out and therefore the offside line disappears from the ruck as it is over. The ref has also a part to play by calling ball out. I may be wrong but didn't I read somewhere that immediately the SH touches it with his hands the ruck is over and that he has to move the ball back with his feet if he wants to position it??

[voice of the crumbie]

Have to agree sadly Lawes was offside when the AB player stepped forward and the SH had not lifted the ball. That made him off side under the current interpretation but I have to also say this interpretation of when a ball is in or out is ridiculous. For me as an ex SH when you put your hands on the ball it is out and therefore the offside line disappears from the ruck as it is over. The ref has also a part to play by calling ball out. I may be wrong but didn't I read somewhere that immediately the SH touches it with his hands the ruck is over and that he has to move the ball back with his feet if he wants to position it??

Trendy I believe you are correct but don't ask me for chapter and verse on this.

[Soggypitch]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -overturn/

I really don't think that so many of you can come on here and categorically say that Lawes was off side. Read the article above from an international ref.

The press seem split on it, which really is my point, there are loads of similar "off sides" at the ruck throughout every game that are not pinged and refs are supposed to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team.

England can feel aggrieved, I certainly do. The ABs always seem to get the rub of the green on these marginal decisions, it's about time that changed!!

[Bristol Tiger]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -overturn/

I really don't think that so many of you can come on here and categorically say that Lawes was off side. Read the article above from an international ref.

The press seem split on it, which really is my point, there are loads of similar "off sides" at the ruck throughout every game that are not pinged and refs are supposed to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team.

England can feel aggrieved, I certainly do. The ABs always seem to get the rub of the green on these marginal decisions, it's about time that changed!!

My previous point and totally agree - by the letter of the law (no pun intended) Lawes was offside. However, by the letter of the law, the All Blacks (and England) were offside at at least 50% of the previous rucks. If a ref (and TMO) don't pick those up, you can't reasonably do that in a key moment of the game. I still think the AB were the better team overall, but they were lucky for the win. Not sure what the law says on a player moving forward in a ruck to create a new offside line - maybe if it is genuine drive but by putting your foot forward? Come on!

I actually feel luck balances out - I've seen plenty of tackles like last week's get a yellow card and at least a penalty - interesting the referee overruled the TMO last week, this week seems that the (SA) TNO was overruling the ref! Overall though, we should have won one, lost one - so fair so far.

[HantsTiger]

Does anyone know who the official MOTM was? I'm sure I read it was Faz, which is shocking if true.

At HT it would have been Lenny by a mile but he was really quiet second half and it turned into the Underhill masterclass

[fentiger]

Does anyone know who the official MOTM was? I'm sure I read it was Faz, which is shocking if true.

At HT it would have been Lenny by a mile but he was really quiet second half and it turned into the Underhill masterclass

Retallick, I think, but Underhill should feel very hard done by!

[LE18]

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).

You are probably a better ref than Kaplan ever was!

[trendylfj]

Does anyone know who the official MOTM was? I'm sure I read it was Faz, which is shocking if true.

At HT it would have been Lenny by a mile but he was really quiet second half and it turned into the Underhill masterclass

Rettalick I believe was MOM

Re the disallowed try found this from world rugby

World Rugby said offender Courtney Laws was offside at the moment All Blacks halfback TJ Perenara lifted the ball at the ruck before his kick was charged down by Laws.

"Precisely this sort of incident was a key focus of last week's meeting between referees and coaches with a re-emphasis on the definition of when the ball is out – namely a lifting action rather than placing hands on it," This meeting/directive means Kaplin's opinion is wrong as he is arguing that placing the hand on the ball means it is out - he says
"However, the crux of the matter is whether the ball is out or not. If you watch the footage again you will see scrumhalf TJ Perenara had his hands on the ball for some time before lifting it. That is crucial. To my mind, if the ball is no longer in the ruck and is not covered at all by other players – something I assessed by asking myself whether a bird could s**t on it from above – then it is out and available for all to play." I would love the game to be played according to Kaplin's view but the directive seems to go the otherway and making the lift of the ball the deciding factor

You are right Soggy - throughout the game and I suspect, throughout every game players infringe the off side line either by not being behind the back foot or having a hand on the ground in front of the defensive try line and don't get pinged - I thought that England's defensive press had players off side most of the game particularly Ashton, the difference is that the refs don't worry too much about it unless a score results

[teds]

Does anyone know who the official MOTM was? I'm sure I read it was Faz, which is shocking if true.

At HT it would have been Lenny by a mile but he was really quiet second half and it turned into the Underhill masterclass

ESPN stats has Farrell missing 11 tackles for this match.

[ellis9]

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).

The way you describe it sounds like an All Blacks players foot came over to England's side of the ruck. If I have understood that correctly, surely Englands offside line is an England player, not a New Zealand player?

[northerntiger]

That is a point. The back feet of a ruck is your own teammate, not he opposition? If there are non of your teammates in the ruck, where is the offside line?

[trendylfj]

That is a point. The back feet of a ruck is your own teammate, not he opposition? If there are non of your teammates in the ruck, where is the offside line?

back feet of the ruck - I believe that world rugby clarified this after the no competition rucks of Italy caused so many problems about the off side line - once the ref calls ruck it is the back foot of any player. You can have an opponent on the ground on your side and his foot would be the off side line. Ford was on the ground facing his own team with his feet well into the ruck - would his feet be the off side line?? Of course not. As I said earlier, this off side line is rarely enforced unless there is a score or a very clear breach of the line. Lawes was very unlucky indeed. Again I stand to be corrected.