BFG [/i wrote:post_id=711087 time=1551563966 user_id=11462]
If that was a good ref then Italy will win the six nations!
Don't get me wrong I couldn't really give a monkeys and Olowafela's try that was not springs to mind, but that was a try at the end all day long and having played the game and seen the different angles on the highlights I know that it couldn't physically not be!
I was very close to the action right at the end and can’t see how it could be given as a try. If the referee can’t see the grounding he has to rely on the TMO coming up with an angle that gives him something to work with...and from my admittedly dodgy view of the screens there wasn’t one. Even the Wasps fans around me (who’d been cursing JP for the previous 83 minutes) took that call on the chin.
Mind you, we did get the honey-coated end of the stick with the ‘forward pass’ earlier in the 2nd half. I also thought Young’s yellow card was harsh (at the time thought he’d been given it for dissent, not the stripping).
He has the ball in his arm and under his shoulder, from one angle the ball is clearly down and from another angle his shoulder is well over the line, it was a try.
I've seen Cup Finals lost at lower level with comical officiating errors but you don't expect it so much at this level.
We didn't deserve to lose against Bath and Wasps didn't really deserve to lose yesterday.
Swings and roundabouts or so they say but it has been a bad season for officiating.
The commentary would likely do better as TMO's and that the question asked by the ref should matter is a farce in my opinion.
Cricket introduced technology to remove umpiring 'howlers' but has now progressed to the point where on-field umpires are almost superfluous and only stay relevant when a team has used up its reviews. The level of technology is such that decision-making is a science and amazingly accurate. Tennis is the same.
Rugby hasn't got as far from a technical perspective and usually relies simply on slow-mo replays which can be pretty unreliable.
Maybe the only question a ref should be allowed to ask the TMO is "This is my decision - you've got 15 seconds to tell me if I'm about to make a complete prat of myself!"
Happy days clearing straw from the pitch before the Baa-Baas games! KBO
Wear a Mask>Protect The NHS>Save Lives
Mark62 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:15 pm
There should certainly only be one question something along the lines of this is my on field decision any reason I should change it
He called it no try yesterday so this would have made no difference in this case.
No, not that one!
Remember, whatever you do to the smallest of the backs you do to his prop, and you can't avoid the rucks and mauls forever...
I know you don't like it when I boo him but how else will he know he's wrong?
He didn't call it no try, he didn't make a decision at all. I think it was a try, and in the old days it would probably be given. Who remembers the days of the ref waiting for the pile of bodies to move before awarding the try?
Nowadays, with the TMO, the situation is different. There was no clear grounding to be seen, therefore the try could not be awarded. Harsh on wasps, bit I'll brake it
northerntiger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:04 pm
He didn't call it no try, he didn't make a decision at all. I think it was a try, and in the old days it would probably be given. Who remembers the days of the ref waiting for the pile of bodies to move before awarding the try?
Nowadays, with the TMO, the situation is different. There was no clear grounding to be seen, therefore the try could not be awarded. Harsh on wasps, bit I'll brake it
For me even on the one angle the ball could be seen it was short of the line
Being at the game yesterday, and as I said previously, viewed from the end of the last drive by Wasps there certainly was no clear evidence that their prop got the ball over the line let alone down on it. Tigers defence was brilliant as they stayed on side and two players, Holmes was one, slid under the prop with their legs on the try line.
Wasps were rightly annoyed because we had Evans in the backs so they should have spun the ball around more.
Last week v Worcester we had two tries righlty ( well the White one was iffy) disallowed yet Hougaard was given a try when the grounding wasn’t obvious.
Gutsy win by us which is becoming even more important the way Newcastle are beating Worcester. Watch Deano mastermind a Falcons escape from relegation!
strawclearer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:30 pm
The ball actually wasn't loose when Simpson began his fly hack - it was in Shazzam's hands. I hate this 'slow-mo' analysis but, to me, it shows reckless play.
Fair enough but I think you’re in a small minority on this one
It was reckless and merited sanction in the same way that a late tackle would.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
strawclearer wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:30 pm
The ball actually wasn't loose when Simpson began his fly hack - it was in Shazzam's hands. I hate this 'slow-mo' analysis but, to me, it shows reckless play.
Fair enough but I think you’re in a small minority on this one
It was reckless and merited sanction in the same way that a late tackle would.
I agree. Reckless behaviour. Just as bad as a miss timed high tackle to the head. I just don't see the difference. If (and I don't.......always) you believe a reckless tackle to the head is an automatic red the this should have been. (A la Spencer.)
Consistency in refereeing would be appreciated.
Exile Wigstonite living in Wales.
Poet laureate of the "One Eyed Turk".
Bar stool philosopher in the "Wilted Daffodil"
Fair enough but I think you’re in a small minority on this one
It was reckless and merited sanction in the same way that a late tackle would.
I agree. Reckless behaviour. Just as bad as a miss timed high tackle to the head. I just don't see the difference. If (and I don't.......always) you believe a reckless tackle to the head is an automatic red the this should have been. (A la Spencer.)
Consistency in refereeing would be appreciated.
I remember our fly half once in kicking the ball an opponent dived to block the kick and was accidentally kicked in the head on the follow through and knocked out, it looked really bad but there was nothing reckless about it, it was just a rugby incident.
If it merritted sanction, a red card would have been given. If it was seen to be red card offence the citing officer will make the citing and an independent panel will decide.
I saw it as a rugby accident rather than foul play.....
So from what people are saying they feel that a player should not be allowed to fly hack a ball if it’s bouncing around in case the opposition fall on it.
As I said the officiating team looked at it and felt nothing was amiss as did none of the tigers players.
Just try running towards a bouncing rugby ball go to kick it and stop that kick on the way towards the ball
Mark62 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:13 pm
So from what people are saying they feel that a player should not be allowed to fly hack a ball if it’s bouncing around in case the opposition fall on it.
No. I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It’s generally reasonable to fly hack a ball, BUT sometimes if a player is diving on it, its reckless. This is nothing new.
FWIW I don’t think Simpson is a dirty player, but I don’t think most of the red cards for rugby related incidents are down to dirty players, which is what makes nasty pieces of work like Callum Clarke all the more appalling
Mark62 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:13 pm
So from what people are saying they feel that a player should not be allowed to fly hack a ball if it’s bouncing around in case the opposition fall on it.
No. I don’t believe anyone is saying that. It’s generally reasonable to fly hack a ball, BUT sometimes if a player is diving on it, its reckless. This is nothing new.
FWIW I don’t think Simpson is a dirty player, but I don’t think most of the red cards for rugby related incidents are down to dirty players, which is what makes nasty pieces of work like Callum Clarke all the more appalling
Fair enough and we shall see if there is a citing but personally I would be very surprised
