PDA

View Full Version : According to Stuart Barnes ...



OB..
07-01-07, 12:01
... the pass from Tindall to Balshaw just before the Simpson-Daniel try in the Sale - Gloucester game, was forward.

Since Tindall was still in front of Balshaw when he caught the pass, Barnes (Stuart) must have been using the classic interpretation of the law, whereas Barnes (Wayne), the referee, was surely using the momentum version.

The sooner the IRB sorts this one out the better.

PeterTC
07-01-07, 12:01
From what I remember, when I looked at the replay, it looked as though Barnes (Wayne) was caught up in some pretty heavy midfield traffic and probably wouldn't have had a great view of the pass.

OB..
07-01-07, 14:01
It is hard to tell if Wayne Barnes was unsighted or not. However the TJ must have had a very clear view, and at that level they are expected to let the referee know.

Stuart Barnes adds the further comment that a lot of forward passes are not being picked up these days. Perhaps that is because he is using a different yardstick.

Simon Griffiths
07-01-07, 22:01
The general rule of thumb is: Sturat Barnes says, Stuart Barnes wrong. Stuart Barnes doesn't say, still isn't right...

Dixie
07-01-07, 22:01
Agreed. They railed against the location of a penalty kick after Balshaw, the kicker, had been tackled late. SB felt it should have been where the grubber kick first hit the ground, whereas the kick was awarded (correctly in my view) 15 metres infield from where it rolled into touch 30m further on.

FlipFlop
08-01-07, 01:01
Stuart Barnes doesn't even know there is a law book.

I've seen Wayne Barnes reading one.

I'll go with Wayne "Mine's a Stella" Barnes over Stuart "I'm the most annoying git" Barnes everytime.

Bryan
08-01-07, 01:01
I'll go with Wayne "Mine's a Stella" Barnes over Stuart "I'm the most annoying git" Barnes everytime.
I've heard Wayne has been known to have a few pints the night before a match. By "have a few pints", I mean "get sh!tfaced". The Paris Hilton equivalent of the refereeing world, minus not wearing any underwear in public and showing off your junk, though that rumour is still unconfirmed.

All power to him if he can do it and still do a decent job out there. I normally have to wait until the match is over until I start drinking recklessly.

OB..
08-01-07, 02:01
As a qualified barrister, Wayne Barnes has spent a lot of time at the bar.

And at our dinner last year (metaphorically, since the top table had waiters on tap).

Davet
08-01-07, 11:01
As it happens Barnes was correct.

The ball laned infield - but with 15m of touch, it then rolled much further and went into touch without being played. The options for the place of the penalty kick were therefore kick at the pace of infringement, or kick 15m in from touch level with where the ball landed not where it went into touch.

Law 10.4.M

Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally
charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
Penalty: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty
kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or
where it was next played.
Place of infringement. If the infringement takes place in the
kickerís in-goal, the penalty kick is taken 5 metres from the goal
line in line with the place of infringement but at least 15 metres
from the touchline.
The non-offending team may also choose to take the penalty kick
where the ball lands or is next played and at least 15 metres from
the touchline.
Where the ball lands. If the ball lands in touch, the mark for
the optional penalty kick is on the 15-metre line, in line with
where it went into touch. If the ball lands within 15 metres of the
touchline, the mark is on the 15-metre line opposite where it
landed.

Dixie
08-01-07, 11:01
But this depends on the interpretation of the word "lands", which is ambiguous. If it means "first touched the ground", then SB is correct. If it means "ends up", he is incorrect. In looking at this interpretive requirement, I see no reason why the grubber kick that doesn't hit touch, and so has to be played, should be treated so remarkably differently than the one that goes into touch. Because this inexplicable difference arises only with the SB interpretation, I take that interpretation to be incorrect. Equity is achieved only by the alternative interpretation - and the old mantra puts equity ahead of law.

Dixie
08-01-07, 11:01
Incidently, as with so many Laws this one is badly written. There is clear intent that the PK should be taken at least 15m infield, but the Law fails to achieve that outcome for one scenario alone - when the victim's side elects to take the PK at the place of infringement, and that infringement happened in the field of play rather than in-goal. Would the refs on this forum correct the poor wording of the law to achieve the clear intent, or go with the wording? This is a tougher call in my view than the question of interpretation above - you have to make a conscious decision to apply the spirit rather than the word of the Law.

Davet
08-01-07, 12:01
But this depends on the interpretation of the word "lands", which is ambiguous.


That's all getting a bit post-modernist for me.

I cannot see how lands means anything other than where it alights.

PeterTC
08-01-07, 12:01
Dixie, have to go with DaveT on this one, lands is where the ball first bounces in my mind. The picture in the law book seems to confirm this.

As for the place of infringement one, the Law is clear, it is at the place of infringement if they want to take it where the late tackle occurred. This can be within 15m of the touchline as there is nothing in the law to say otherwise (and indeed the picture shows this to be the case). It is only if the infringement took place in goal that this has an overriding provision that the penalty must be at least 15m in from touch, which is also reasonably standardised for a number of in-goal penalty offences.

Dixie
08-01-07, 14:01
These are, of course, extremely valid options. However, they leave open the question why there is such a disparity between the grubber kick that goes into touch, and the one that doesn't. Consider an identically-executed grubber kick from an identical point on the defenders' 10m line taking place at different times in the game. In both cases, the kicker is charged late and the ball first bounces 2m from the kicker.

The first occurs when the ground is damp. The ball first bounces 2m from the kicker, and then rolls towards the touchline, where it stops 1cm short of the touchline on the 22m line. Full back kicks it into touch under pressure from the chasing winger. The PK option is awarded on the 22m line, 15m infield.

The second occurs 20 minutes later, once the ground has dried fractionally. This time, the roll is such that the end of the ball just touches the line, before rolling back to alight in exactly the same position as the preceding kick. The PK option is now awarded 30m back.

Unless someone can provide a vaguely plausible reason for this difference, I prefer an interpretation that does not give rise to it.

SimonSmith
08-01-07, 14:01
It's a new Zen question: If Stuart Barnes speaks, and there is no-one to hear him, is he still wrong?

beckett50
08-01-07, 15:01
It's a new Zen question: If Stuart Barnes speaks, and there is no-one to hear him, is he still wrong?

Do bears defecate in a wood rich environment?:D

Davet
08-01-07, 15:01
Dixie - the fact that you (and indeed I) do not feel that this is a good law is neither here nor there - sadly, it's not really our brief to invent random interpretations which we think makes the game fairer.

The book and accompanying pictures make it clear.

Davet
08-01-07, 15:01
Let me rephrase the question - if a bear defecates on Stuart Barnes how would the bear be best rewarded?

tim White
08-01-07, 16:01
MBE? Far more deserving than cricketers.

PeterTC
09-01-07, 02:01
These are, of course, extremely valid options. However, they leave open the question why there is such a disparity between the grubber kick that goes into touch, and the one that doesn't. Consider an identically-executed grubber kick from an identical point on the defenders' 10m line taking place at different times in the game. In both cases, the kicker is charged late and the ball first bounces 2m from the kicker.

The first occurs when the ground is damp. The ball first bounces 2m from the kicker, and then rolls towards the touchline, where it stops 1cm short of the touchline on the 22m line. Full back kicks it into touch under pressure from the chasing winger. The PK option is awarded on the 22m line, 15m infield.

The second occurs 20 minutes later, once the ground has dried fractionally. This time, the roll is such that the end of the ball just touches the line, before rolling back to alight in exactly the same position as the preceding kick. The PK option is now awarded 30m back.

Unless someone can provide a vaguely plausible reason for this difference, I prefer an interpretation that does not give rise to it.

Dixie, am now confused as to the situation. As I understand it, the option is where the ball bounces at first. If this is in touch, the place of the mark is 15m in from where it crosses the line. The path of the ball after it first bounces is irrelevant, if it was to bounce into touch, the mark would still be where the ball first bounced, at least 15m in.

Does this answer it?