IRB offside ruling should be changed!

phoneJunky said:
Did you read the article that was posted on the first page. But I do agree that the Stormers try was controversial as well.
Click to expand...

Yes I did, it starts out extremely one-sided.

Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.
Click to expand...
I suspect that that is were the confusion comes in. Chilliperson was not taking part in the game until Hougaard caught up to him (which might have been a marginal call I confess) but the ball had also by then touched the Stomers which would also have put him back on-side. It would have been interesting had the ball not touched the Stormers' players. The TMO would then have had to look in more detail to whether Hougaard had caught up to Chilliperson or not.
 
I find it quite bizarre that all of this fuss is being made over the one try when the other try was just as controversial if not more. In both cases the TMO was asked to make a decision and in both cases he did. If there is anyone to blame here it is the TMO for his lack of intimate knowledge of the rules, or otherwise IRB for the ridiculous system where the TMO's powers are limited to the specifics of the question asked by the on-field ref.
 
Wyzak said:
I find it quite bizarre that all of this fuss is being made over the one try when the other try was just as controversial if not more. In both cases the TMO was asked to make a decision and in both cases he did. If there is anyone to blame here it is the TMO for his lack of intimate knowledge of the rules, or otherwise IRB for the ridiculous system where the TMO's powers are limited to the specifics of the question asked by the on-field ref.
Click to expand...

Because this one is debatable, the other call was just wrong.
 
Wyzak said:
I find it quite bizarre that all of this fuss is being made over the one try when the other try was just as controversial if not more. In both cases the TMO was asked to make a decision and in both cases he did. If there is anyone to blame here it is the TMO for his lack of intimate knowledge of the rules, or otherwise IRB for the ridiculous system where the TMO's powers are limited to the specifics of the question asked by the on-field ref.
Click to expand...

Hehe it's because it's something that doesn't happen very often. It's just an interesting aspect of the laws. Tons of times it happens that people knock balls on before a tryline. It doesn't happen all that often what happened to Chilliperson. :)
 
Solitude said:
Hehe it's because it's something that doesn't happen very often. It's just an interesting aspect of the laws. Tons of times it happens that people knock balls on before a tryline. It doesn't happen all that often what happened to Chilliperson. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah it really delves very deeply into the rulebook and I would be able to forgive the TMO for having to make a call on such a unique aspect in so little time. Another thing which definitely needs to be taken into account here as well is the question that was asked to the TMO, as I mentioned before that this really hamstrings what the TMO may or may not say.
 
I see a lot of your comments but in all honesty my point is not entirely based on the try of Chilliboy but the fact that this rule needs to be changed by the IRB! The try of Chilliboy should not be a ligitimate try and should be changed! There is not one supporter out there who would agree with a try like that if it is scored against their team!
 
JohanMel said:
I see a lot of your comments but in all honesty my point is not entirely based on the try of Chilliboy but the fact that this rule needs to be changed by the IRB! The try of Chilliboy should not be a ligitimate try and should be changed! There is not one supporter out there who would agree with a try like that if it is scored against their team!
Click to expand...

It was against my team and I am fine with it, I am just arguing the finer details.
 
Solitude said:
From the article:
"Law 11.4 (f) The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.

Malherbe's toe could not have put Ralepelle onside. It certainly was not charging the kick down!"

He was still offside when he played the ball. Someone here said that the kicker passed him before he went for the ball but that's not how I remember it. Will have to go watch it again.
Click to expand...

phoneJunky said:
I am happy to concede the try. We didn't deserve to get that close in any case. But the law says intentionally kick or charge down, neither of which happened and in the article they also explain why the England try was different.
Click to expand...

I concede I did not know about "10m" offside rule. According to that the try could only have been given IF Hougaard passed chilliboy.
 
Devill said:
I concede I did not know about "10m" offside rule. According to that the try could only have been given IF Hougaard passed chilliboy.
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct, and Wyzak says he think Hougaard did pass him.
 
phoneJunky said:
Yes that is correct, and Wyzak says he think Hougaard did pass him.
Click to expand...

Yeah they were very close together, and it's hard to argue within a meter based on the angle of the broadcast. It would have been interesting to see it again in slow motion with a line across the screen. Unfortunately we weren't offered this opportunity.
 
phoneJunky said:
Yes that is correct, and Wyzak says he think Hougaard did pass him.
Click to expand...

Wyzak said:
Yeah they were very close together, and it's hard to argue within a meter based on the angle of the broadcast. It would have been interesting to see it again in slow motion with a line across the screen. Unfortunately we weren't offered this opportunity.
Click to expand...

Point being the ref made the wrong call because he asked the wrong question.

I am a bulls supporter.
 
JohanMel said:
I see a lot of your comments but in all honesty my point is not entirely based on the try of Chilliboy but the fact that this rule needs to be changed by the IRB! The try of Chilliboy should not be a ligitimate try and should be changed! There is not one supporter out there who would agree with a try like that if it is scored against their team!
Click to expand...

I would have accepted the Chilliperson try easier than the JDV one.
 
Devill said:
Point being the ref made the wrong call because he asked the wrong question
Click to expand...

Yep, if there is one thing they should drop it's that crazy rule where the TMO may only answer exactly what he is asked and nothing more.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
"Bray has confirmed that the decision was indeed incorrect and that a penalty should have been awarded to the Stormers, instead of a try to the Bulls"

---

This makes no sense, The Bulls had advantage.
Click to expand...

Looks like the Stormers told him what to say :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X