Official Rugby World Cup 2015 Thread

[OzzieCapie]

He didn't admit that he went to play the ball, he stated,

Phipps admitted: ‘I think everyone was trying to win the ball. We were all going for it.’

The media and level 4 couch potatoes twisted the above statement that Phipps admittedly stated that his intention was to play the ball.

...so what are you at level 3 implying?

That because 'everybody' went for ball, 'anybody' could touch the ball, but 'nobody' intended to touch the ball? Sounds like an old joke

 

[OrbitalDawn]

OrbitalDawn, I used your post where you quoted me and added the actual laws as the base for comments on other sites. I hope you don't mind. Thanks for that.

Like here: http://www.planetrugby.com/news/whos-hot-and-whos-not-193/

No worries.

My conclusion is this, based on those laws:

The Scottish player never retreated behind the applicable offside line (lineout) before engaging in play, and as per law 11.9 he can't benefit from being put onside by the opponents (i.e. Phipps in this case) as he was technically loitering. As per 11.8 he can only be put onside by retreating behind the applicable offside line.

Very technical point, but correct as per the laws.

Look at number 15 from scotland... not cool

Looks to me like he was using the 'TMO' signal. Haven't you noticed how everyone points 'upstairs' when they want the ref to go to the TMO?

 

[OzzieCapie]

As was Joubert.

Yes, but see my earlier post....if open to 'interpretation' then giving a penalty that will decide game is poor refereeing. There are players there that will never get that chance again.

The 'arguments' on (or by) Rugbyrefs are ridiculous i.e. "they missed a conversion/penalties, and if they had converted those, then the ref would not be blamed....so 'they' lost the game, not the ref's actions"...that is an admission of dubious interpretation, you cannot say "we can make mistakes...you just have to play better then you will still win'

If that is the mentality of logic they use, then there is your problem right there.

 

[faniebraai]

Looks to me like he was using the 'TMO' signal. Haven't you noticed how everyone points 'upstairs' when they want the ref to go to the TMO?

why would he be pointing to the TMO as the final whistle went?

 

[faniebraai]

Yes, but see my earlier post....if open to 'interpretation' then giving a penalty that will decide game is poor refereeing. There are players there that will never get that chance again.

not giving a penalty, which shows later to be a blatant mistake can, and probably will, also be interpreted as poor refereeing.

 

[Arthur]

Whatever the views on the yellow or the last penalty, the biggest injustice is being done to Joubert. It's of course too much to ask the WR Refs Committee to issue a vindication.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

why would he be pointing to the TMO as the final whistle went?

To ask him why he didn't go to TMO for the earlier calls? Players often ask the refs stuff after the match, especially in a tight one like this.

Otherwise he was just pointing into the middle of nowhere?

 

[Pavan]

Did you hear about the play-off for 5th place? It's called the Six Nations...

 

[faniebraai]

To ask him why he didn't go to TMO for the earlier calls? Players often ask the refs stuff after the match, especially in a tight one like this.

Otherwise he was just pointing into the middle of nowhere?

Nowhere?, he was pointing in the general direction of "Get the fukk out now"

 

[faniebraai]

Whatever the views on the yellow or the last penalty, the biggest injustice is being done to Joubert. It's of course too much to ask the WR Refs Committee to issue a vindication.

I agree. Yes he should've stayed, but how these well known commentators and ex-players are climbing into him is a disgrace...

 

[Ho3n3r]

Also, remember that Joubert could NOT refer it to the TMO. He made the call as he saw it, and what he saw seems fair and reasonable. Even frame-by-frame analysis isn't absolutely clear.

Which is exactly why it should have been ruled accidental offside, and a scrum. If even by slow motion you cannot determine it a 100%, how the hell was the player supposed to know, at full speed, in the heat of the moment, who it last touched? At full speed, you can fully see why the Scot thought it came off an Aussie.

How Craig Joubert made the call with 100% certainty only he will know.

 

[faniebraai]

Which is exactly why it should have been ruled accidental offside, and a scrum. If even by slow motion you cannot determine it a 100%, how the hell was the player supposed to know, at full speed, in the heat of the moment, who it last touched? At full speed, you can fully see why the Scot thought it came off an Aussie.

How Craig Joubert made the call with 100% certainty only he will know.

Just like the Scot who was off side caught the ball with 100% certainty

 

[Ho3n3r]

Just like the Scot who was off side caught the ball with 100% certainty

Heh. That doesn't even make sense in terms of what I'm referring to.

 

[Arthur]

Which is exactly why it should have been ruled accidental offside, and a scrum. If even by slow motion you cannot determine it a 100%, how the hell was the player supposed to know, at full speed, in the heat of the moment, who it last touched? At full speed, you can fully see why the Scot thought it came off an Aussie.

How Craig Joubert made the call with 100% certainty only he will know.

As I recall, his arm was already up for the (apparent) knock-on. In sequence, blue played it from an offside position.

 

[Cray]

Yes, but see my earlier post....if open to 'interpretation' then giving a penalty that will decide game is poor refereeing. There are players there that will never get that chance again.

Disagree, the time on the clock should not alter the decision being made. If you have an issue with "Interpretation" in awarding penalties in rugby then scrum penalties are far more problematic than something like this.

 

[cr@zydude]

Did you hear about the play-off for 5th place? It's called the Six Nations...

It's a really poor showing by NH teams. Maybe they'll improve with the easy 3 year residency rule.

 

[faniebraai]

Heh. That doesn't even make sense in terms of what I'm referring to.

Of course it does. The scot caught the ball as he saw it as himself not being off side, so he can play the ball. Heat of the moment decision.
Joubert's hand went up for a knockon advantage before the guy was caught off side already.

So at full speed it could be seen as going either way. The scot thought it came of an aussie, and joubert thought it came off a scot.

 

[Ho3n3r]

As I recall, his arm was already up for the (apparent) knock-on. In sequence, blue played it from an offside position.

Knocked on, into an Aussie, then to the Scot who caught it = no offside.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Of course it does. The scot caught the ball as he saw it as himself not being off side, so he can play the ball. Heat of the moment decision.
Joubert's hand went up for a knockon advantage before the guy was caught off side already.

So at full speed it could be seen as going either way. The scot thought it came of an aussie, and joubert thought it came off a scot.

But it wasn't clear at all. So benefit of the doubt should have gone to the Scots.

 

[OzzieCapie]

not giving a penalty, which shows later to be a blatant mistake can, and probably will, also be interpreted as poor refereeing.

... but it is the better of the two options in any case.

Which is exactly why it should have been ruled accidental offside, and a scrum. If even by slow motion you cannot determine it a 100%, how the hell was the player supposed to know, at full speed, in the heat of the moment, who it last touched? At full speed, you can fully see why the Scot thought it came off an Aussie.

How Craig Joubert made the call with 100% certainty only he will know.

Looking at the incident again back and forth in slow motion, Joubert puts his hand into 'advantage' signal the very moment #18 goes for the ball, and then immediately blows whistle and points to penalty a split second later when he clutches ball. he does not look at any time who is playing the ball, nor has he looked at where #18 has come from.
#18 participates in lineout, lifts the intending catcher, then retreats as fast as possible at least 3m in direction of play...if ball then comes back off opposing player, he is clearly 'not loitering' you can in no way interpret that without looking at the player, his intentions, nor the ball coming off opposing player.

...back to my first comment on IRU draw...they were trying to avoid a dud final ever since England was knocked out....it is one of reasons I do not watch any of this live in middle of night, and tape it to watch the next day.