PDA

View Full Version : Walsh and advantage



ex-lucy
11-02-07, 16:02
IMHO, it couldnt have happened to a better bloke ...

what a plonker ...

knock on blue, green winger collects ball and screams away ... no blue defender near him .. certain try .. called back because ref blew his whistle as soon as blue knocked on .. rather than wait for advantage ref blew straight away.

Will he finally get his come uppance at last... and be dropped?

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 16:02
now he has just called a turnover at a scrum after saying 'use it' 2x when the scrum was going forwards....
would he have given that dropped kick as a goal? i wonder?
was just after a FK .... he looked in position and ready to give it ...

benco132
11-02-07, 17:02
knock on blue, green winger collects ball and screams away

In his defence ex-l, knock on by blue, then picked up by another blue player who again spills (not immediately) then onto green player. As I see it, Steve Walsh deemed that there was no advantage coming when the 2nd blue player picked up and blew, and lets be honest.....how many times have we all done this.....at least once or twice, give the guy a break!!

Bryan
11-02-07, 17:02
now he has just called a turnover at a scrum after saying 'use it' 2x when the scrum was going forwards.
That's b\c the FRs were more than 90 degrees. It was a textbook turnover. How is this an issue? Really? What the heck was wrong with that call? It makes no difference whether the scrum is going forwards if the FRs are more than 90 degrees.

Now that the French have indeed won, there will be some contention about 2 calls- the one advantage call as Ex-Lucy jumped on, and the obstruction of Marcus Horan. Look at Walsh's face after the 1st incident- he obviously felt pretty peeved about blowing early, but I think that was just bad luck on his part. Benco has it spot on- Ireland are in their own 22m, with France knocking on and then recovering their own ball (only to have it knocked on again). Once that ball was picked up by the French player, I'd already have the whistle to my mouth about to blow it up.

I thought Walsh had a really good game overall. Low Penalty count, France deserved to win that game, and other than the Horan obstruction call (which wasn't as blatant as the one in the Wales game last week), there was nothing wrong.

I seriously thought France were going to hang themselves in the 2nd-half. Their own errors kept Ireland in the game. Ireland just managed to stick it out until 79 minutes.

Davet
11-02-07, 17:02
Scrum might have being going forward - but so what?

The FRs were round 90...and he had said use it x 2 - maybe players should listen.

The knock-on and the too quick blow was unfortunate, it was knocked-on by blue, fumbled by another blue, and then picked up, and passed by that Blue player... he blue and the Murphy intercepted. Until that point it didn't like much was going to come.

The more interesting decision was when there was a brief ruck, Bos waiting to pick up, then Chabal drove over the ball, and bound onto Bos. The ball on the floor between them. A far as I could see all Chabal had done was create another ruck. Walsh said he must leave the 9 alone...

craign
11-02-07, 17:02
I thought he had a good game apart from his policing of the offside line at rucks & mauls. The best/worst example is at the drop goal attempt, o'Gara is at least 1 yard offside when the ball is passed out and the rest of the line is well in front of the back foot.

At least he was consistent, he didn't manage that at all throughout the game ;)

OB..
11-02-07, 17:02
Unless the ball was out (it wasn't), Boss was simply a player not in the ruck. Chabal must leave him alone.

I had no problems with the calls mentioned.

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 17:02
if the FRs are 90 degs call it as a turover wheel straight away then ... dont call 'use it' .. you call 'use it' when the scrum is stationary.
20.11 a
'must stop play.....'

OB..
11-02-07, 17:02
I have just replayed the tape of the drop goal attempt. Using slomo, Mignoni is into his passing movement when O'Gara starts. No problem.

beckett50
11-02-07, 17:02
Thought he was the best of refs on show all weekend.

Jacko
11-02-07, 17:02
No, you also call use it when the scrum is about to go 90. You are looking to communicate effectively and prevent having to blow your whistle. I agreed entirely with him there. All of the above comments against SW I feel are one eyed as the Irish have lost. I thought he had a good game overall. I would have blown just as soon as him for the knock on. Leave him be for once!!

PS. He still looks like a big poser.

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 17:02
The knock-on and the too quick blow was unfortunate, it was knocked-on by blue, fumbled by another blue, and then picked up, and passed by that Blue player... he blue and the Murphy intercepted. Until that point it didn't like much was going to come.

i disagree, from his angle .. he could surely see the green player lurking and could have waited 2 or 3 minisecs, arm out, waiting ..... yes, it is very near 22, yes, on most occasions there is short adv in these situations but in an international with fast green winger lurking ... it would not have hurt just waiting 2/3 minisecs longer...
you would expect a level 6 ref to do that on Sat ...

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 17:02
Did Walsh make the seconday signal for wheel turnover ?
(jacko, i am English ... i dont support Ireland or France, in fact the scrum call was against France)

benco132
11-02-07, 17:02
Ex-l....anybody would think you've got something against Walsh. I agree with Jacko, and others, that he had a good game, I saw no problem with the way he handled things. As for the knock-on, I would have blown at the same time, and everyone makes mistakes....by the look on his face he knew he had....but people have just got to move on. Agree fully with pretty much all of his decisions!

And Yes....he did make the secondary signal

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 17:02
if he did make the secondary signal for wheeled scrum turnover then i retract that because i thought he had given a scrum turonver as per 20.4.f, which i thought was harsh.
There were other scrums that looked 90 degs he let go ...but i suppose it is up to his judgement.

ex-lucy
11-02-07, 17:02
As for the knock-on, I would have blown at the same time, and everyone makes mistakes....by the look on his face he knew he had....
umm, that's not my point ... yes, it was mistake, yes, i make mistakes. But i am NOT an international referee in THE top ranked international of the weekend. As i said, i wouldnt expect that kind of mistake of a level 6 ref on Sat.
I expect better from the so-called top ranked referee...

Robert Burns
11-02-07, 18:02
I don't think it was a mistake, it was just unfortunate, if you look at it the French player that the ball was going to he has already stopped because Walsh had blown before Ireland picked it up.

peperami
11-02-07, 18:02
I don't think it was a mistake, it was just unfortunate, if you look at it the French player that the ball was going to he has already stopped because Walsh had blown before Ireland picked it up.

He will have got called on it as a game changing decision from the assessor. Which i believe costs them 5 marks out of 100.

I'm not convinced his offside managment was at all good all game, I may be wrong but it looked like people where on or infront of the line rather than behind it.

I dont like his advantage at all, penalty advantage anywhere in the final third no score, it comes back. Else there is no advantage. Having said that had stringer played as they said on the tv he'd have droped it 3 times and ireland win by 3, having kicked the 9 points.

Ben

speedy
11-02-07, 19:02
I thought that SW had a good game on the whole... I didn't know that when you get to the level of internation referee that you stop making mistakes ;)
IMHO we can sit there and pick up mistakes in each and every game but I would contend that as long as there is not a continual trend to repeated mistakes then there is no problem. If there were continual trends then the TJs should have communicated this to the referee.

OB..
11-02-07, 20:02
I don't think that knock-on decision was a mistake.

It is always irritating if something happens just after you have blown the whistle, but that does not mean your decision was wrong.

Emmet Murphy
11-02-07, 22:02
When I saw it in real time my immediate impression was that France knocked the ball on and several of their players slowed down / stopped playing and then Walsh blew his whistle. I don't think it was the other way round. I think he blew as Murphy collected the ball but after several of the French players had slowed down. N.B. I did not see any real time replays after so that's all based on what I saw the first time it happened.

However, there can be no question that it was definitely a mistake because Ireland had a very strong attacking position with the way France were lined up and positioned. Walsh's failure to play any advantage cost Ireland seven points. Having said that, as someone on the BBC said, we were lucky with the refereeing last week and not so lucky this week so we can't complain too much!

Emmet Murphy
11-02-07, 23:02
http://www.rte.ie/sport/2007/0211/ireland1.html

O'Sullivan - I don't blame referee

Ireland coach Eddie O'Sullivan has refused to blame referee Steve Walsh for two poor decisions during Ireland's RBS Six Nations 20-17 loss to France at Croke Park on Sunday.

Walsh failed to play advantage when Geordan Murphy pounced on a French knock-on and ran the length of the pitch.

Later in the game Marcus Horan was pulled back by Imanol Harinordoquy as he attempted to hack the ball over the line.

Both incidents occurred in the second half when Ireland were searching for the breakthrough score but O'Sullivan refused to blame the Kiwi official.

He said: 'Steve admitted at the time when he blew the whistle on Geordan that he'd got it wrong. He apologised to the boys and these things happens.

'It's the luck of the draw and could happen to any referee. It could have gone either way with Horan and overall I thought Steve had a good game, he didn't affect the outcome of the match.'

France dominated the first half but only led 13-11 at the interval with Raphael Ibanez's try and David Skrela's kicking almost pegged back by Ronan O'Gara, who crossed in the 32nd minute.

O'Gara added two more penalties as Ireland pounded France into the Croke Park turf only for Clerc to deliver the killer blow as victory appeared imminent.

Captain Paul O'Connell admitted it was a shattering defeat but still felt Croke Park's first rugby international was an occasion to remember.

The Munster lock said: 'As soon as Ronan's penalty went over we went back and talked about securing their kick off.

'I didn't do that and the bounce of the ball went their way and that decided the match. It's disappointing but that's the way it is.

'It was fabulous day and the crowd were incredible. We did the day justice, we showed a lot of character and we were so positive in the second half.

'It was a great day other than the last two minutes. I don't think the occasion got to us.'

France captain Raphael Ibanez revealed his side had swatted up on the history at Croke Park but denied the significance of the occasion had made the victory sweeter.

And the Wasps hooker insisted he was always confident France could snatch victory - even when there was just one minute on the clock.

'We were conscious of the history behind the match. We read history books all week and had a meeting when everything was explained to us,' he said.

'We knew all about the history of Croke Park but the fact it was such a big event does make the win more satisfying. It's just a game of rugby and now we'll see if we can go all the way.

'Even when it looked like we had lost there was still hope in the French side. We still believed we could win the game.'

France coach Bernard Laporte showered his team with praise and was delighted to have secured victory over one of Les Bleus' group opponents at the World Cup.

He said: "Our spirit in forwards was brilliant. We stuck to our task well. We'll take some valuable experience from this performance.

'We beat Argentina in the autumn and Ireland today so now we've beaten two of our rivals in the World Cup group stages.'

craign
11-02-07, 23:02
I have just replayed the tape of the drop goal attempt. Using slomo, Mignoni is into his passing movement when O'Gara starts. No problem.

Fair enough, that one was a gut call based on prejudices built through the rest of his game in reffing the offside line. If you still have the recording of the game, pick many of the ruck/maul (especially the French ones) and you'll see the defending "backs" all a mere inch or three in front of the back foot. Might not seem much but this short distance can make the difference between good ball and rushed ball.

Gareth-Lee Smith
12-02-07, 00:02
benco - absolutely right on the first page. I was fully expecting somebody to say on this forum that Walsh was wrong to do that, but I think he was fully correct.

Not too sure about everything else people are talking about, I only paid full attention to that one decision

Jacko
12-02-07, 00:02
(jacko, i am English ...

Yeah, but noone likes the frogs.

Pablo
12-02-07, 09:02
would he have given that dropped kick as a goal? i wonder?
was just after a FK .... he looked in position and ready to give it ...

The attempt at goal was actually from the second or third phase - a French ball carrier had been tackled, so Law 21.6(b) was satisfied, and there was no longer any restriction on France scoring a goal.

Wert Twacky
12-02-07, 12:02
Emmet Murphy; "Having said that, as someone on the BBC said, we were lucky with the refereeing last week and not so lucky this week so we can't complain too much!"

And you believe/are swayed by their opinion? :(

I think Walsh contributed to a fantastic game on Saturday and agree with the majority on this thread.
Regarding the knock-on advantage - we've all done it. Knock-on, and same team player next plays the ball, so you call it back for the scrum. OK, maybe he could have played it a bit longer, but it was instinct and quite where ex-Lucy is coming from regarding dropping Walsh is astonishing.

OK, when he looks at the tape he will probably agree that the defence were an inch or two in front the back foot, but as long as grows from it for the next one - isn't that what it's all about.

I'll have money on Walsh being at the RWC so for fellow referees (albeit a v small minority) to say he's hopeless and should be dropped is laughable.
Obvioulsy those in the know at the top of our profession disagree - thank goodness.

ex-lucy
12-02-07, 12:02
well, i spose i am judging the man a bit harsh ... i mean, amonst otehr misdemeanours, pushing coaches (a RC on the pitch), calling a player 'C**T', a YC/RC on the pitch, stuff that players would be severely reprimanded for and probably left to rue in fallow pastures ... but forgive and forget .. then a very large mistake in the top match of the weekend.
If SW had been a player he wouldnt be considered for the next international.

Wert Twacky
12-02-07, 13:02
ex-Lucy - OK, so we're all now aware you're not a fan of SW, but how is pushing someone on the pitch a RC?
Regarding the alleged "c**t" to the Irish player - was Walsh not dropped from international appointments for a while and repremanded by Mr O'Brien? Indeed he was.

As much as I try, I still can't understand how you draw the conclusion he's crap. Sorry. :confused:

QE2wgc
12-02-07, 13:02
Gents
I can understand where ex-lucy's coming from.

It's not ONE incident (ok ex was harse re advantage, as others have stated we have ALL been there and done that)

It has been numerous incidents

RWC - incident with england
TJ - abuse of players
TJ - stating straight after a game to the loosing side that he would penalise the side that won if the did the same if he was reffing.

And other incidents that he has been involved in.

Mainly he keeps opening his gob before thinking, again and again and again ....

Davet
12-02-07, 13:02
Unless the ball was out (it wasn't), Boss was simply a player not in the ruck. Chabal must leave him alone.

OB - why?

Chabal came from his own side, he stepped over the players on the ground - the ball was between Chabal and Bos. No other players on their feet nearby - so no ruck existed at that moment - and he bound onto Bos, forming a new ruck.

How can that be wrong?

Emmet Murphy
12-02-07, 15:02
Emmet Murphy; "Having said that, as someone on the BBC said, we were lucky with the refereeing last week and not so lucky this week so we can't complain too much!"

And you believe/are swayed by their opinion? :(

I think Walsh contributed to a fantastic game on Saturday and agree with the majority on this thread

I agreed with that one opinion expressed by someone on the BBC (can't remember who!) ... Ireland were fortunate with some decisions last week and unfortunate with one specific decision this week. They do sometimes get their analysis right!! Also I do completely agree with you that Walsh contributed to an excellent game and that we've all been there. My point is that one error he made (ie no advantage from the knock on) was just that - an error. I don't think the guy should be dropped or even reprimanded - he knew straight away he had cocked up and will undoubtedly learn from and be a better ref for it.

Wert Twacky
12-02-07, 15:02
Emmet - couldn't have put it better myself. :)

OB..
12-02-07, 15:02
Davet - you claim the ruck was over. I claimed it wasn't. That is the difference.

I have not looked back for the incident on the tape. Do you remember roughly when in the match it was?

Jaycee
12-02-07, 17:02
Since we are having a Steve Walsh bashing session I’ll add my tuppence worth. Walsh is not suited to refereeing. He is arrogant and vain; he has the wrong personality to be a modern referee. What is required IMO is for a referee to be unnoticed in a game not the centre of attention. The statement to the press last week of his intention to penalise the Irish for interfering on the deck shows his nature. By making the statement he firstly made his colleague, Kelvin Deaker, look bad by basically saying he refereed the game wrong, not very professional and very arrogant, and he grabbed the media spotlight, very vain. He approaches games in an arrogant fashion as is shown by his previous reprimands for abusing players and officials. The man can referee however he carries too much baggage and personality disorders, if he was outstandingly good at the job I could perhaps understand tolerating him but he is average, being Paddy O’Brien’s favourite is the only thing saving him. All of course IMHO :0)

OB..
12-02-07, 19:02
The statement to the press last week of his intention to penalise the Irish for interfering on the deck shows his nature.
There we go again. The comments appearing in the press came from Nigel Davies, NOT from Steve Walsh.

It is quite normal for international coaches to chat to international referees both before and after a game. The referee is not allowed to make public comments, so the coaches sometimes take advantage to put their own spin on something.

Walsh has indeed made some (non-refereeing) mistakes in dealing with people, but this is not one of them.

SimonSmith
12-02-07, 20:02
I tend to agree with you, but would take issue with your last sentence. Ignoring the latest episode, I would make an argument that his issues in the past HAVE been refereeing mistakes.

As refs there is an obligation to be impartial, and where possible be seen to be impartial; there is an obligation to be honest and to be seen to be honest. I'm afraid that Mr Walsh has failed those tests in the past, and I DO hold those to be refereeing failures.

Jaycee
12-02-07, 20:02
There we go again. The comments appearing in the press came from Nigel Davies, NOT from Steve Walsh.

It is quite normal for international coaches to chat to international referees both before and after a game. The referee is not allowed to make public comments, so the coaches sometimes take advantage to put their own spin on something.

Walsh has indeed made some (non-refereeing) mistakes in dealing with people, but this is not one of them.

Ah I did not know that, however it only drops the vanity argument, or maybe not depending on how you look at it, from that example. As you said itís normal for the coaches to talk to referees after a game, Walsh was the TJ in this instance so to tell a losing coach the referee got it wrong at the breakdown and that he will do it different the following week is still arrogant and very unprofessional.

Emmet Murphy
12-02-07, 21:02
None of us were privy to the actual conversation Walsh had with the Welsh coach and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than little tweaking and tinkering to spice it up a bit by a few journalists! Eddie O'Sullivan spoke to Steve Walsh at length after those comments came out and made it very clear that he was happy with what he had actually said.

OB..
12-02-07, 22:02
SimonSmith - by "non-refereeing" I simply wanted to imply "not on the pitch".

Jaycee - I see no reason to accept the Welsh coach's view as gospel. He had a reason to publicise his comments: spin. For example, if he made a point and Steve Walsh responded "Uh-huh" in order not to get into an argument, Davies might well have chosen to take that as agreement.

Jacko
13-02-07, 00:02
OB I salute you. It strikes me you talk a lot of sense very frequently. I lose count of the times I scroll down a thread I have been away from for a day, think of a post I would like to make and you have phrased it far better.

jaycee1
13-02-07, 09:02
Jaycee - I see no reason to accept the Welsh coach's view as gospel. He had a reason to publicise his comments: spin. For example, if he made a point and Steve Walsh responded "Uh-huh" in order not to get into an argument, Davies might well have chosen to take that as agreement.

Did Walsh publicaly deny what was said at any point, or use a third party to do so? I cannot see anything that says so therefore we can only assume he agrees. He certainly blew Ireland of the ball on Sunday, correctly as it happens, but he did what he is alleged to have said he would do thereby confirming what was said.
For a man in his postion he is displaying a remarkable habit of saying and doing the wrong things, things that even at my level I know not to do.

Aplogies for using a different user name but my old one is having severe password problems, not for the first time.

Davet
13-02-07, 10:02
I think Walsh has shown he has a short fuse and may act on strongly held opinions without considering the further implications.

In this case I suspect taht he assumed he wqas speaking to an audience which was going to respect his words as private communication. Referees, politicians, archbishops and bank-robbers have all fallen foul of people who listen to words never intended to be broadcast, and then do just that.

I do think everybody needs to be able to say what they really think at times. And to be fair to Walsh what he said was spot on - against Wales the Irish pack slowed down ball after ball.

It only became an issue because the words were broadcast, by someone who must have had a private agenda.

As it happens - is this really a problem. We say that people must be more circumspect - but why?

If Walsh had acknowledgesd his comments and asked - "is there a problem here?" why should there have been one? It could be said that he was giving warning to the Irish, surely a good thing? Why should it be any different to saying the same thing in secret to them in a pre match brief?

Is it criticism of the ref who allowed the slowing down? Probably, but was it unfounded?

Too much coy secrecy is demanded by, ironically, the very media which gleefully reports lapses. Its the fall from a grace of their own making which the media reports as a story. If they hadn't set that standard then there would be no story.

Not daft these newspaper types.

jaycee1
13-02-07, 11:02
I think Walsh has shown he has a short fuse and may act on strongly held opinions without considering the further implications.

In this case I suspect taht he assumed he wqas speaking to an audience which was going to respect his words as private communication. Referees, politicians, archbishops and bank-robbers have all fallen foul of people who listen to words never intended to be broadcast, and then do just that.

I do think everybody needs to be able to say what they really think at times. And to be fair to Walsh what he said was spot on - against Wales the Irish pack slowed down ball after ball.

It only became an issue because the words were broadcast, by someone who must have had a private agenda.

As it happens - is this really a problem. We say that people must be more circumspect - but why?

If Walsh had acknowledgesd his comments and asked - "is there a problem here?" why should there have been one? It could be said that he was giving warning to the Irish, surely a good thing? Why should it be any different to saying the same thing in secret to them in a pre match brief?

Is it criticism of the ref who allowed the slowing down? Probably, but was it unfounded?

Too much coy secrecy is demanded by, ironically, the very media which gleefully reports lapses. Its the fall from a grace of their own making which the media reports as a story. If they hadn't set that standard then there would be no story.

Not daft these newspaper types.

I agree broadly with what you are saying telling teams to tidy up their act is a good thing. However the way to do it would be privately to the team. Broadcasting it over the media is not good as you have painted yourself into a corner, and would have to go out and do it. If you missed one incident the media could rightly point it out and make you look stupid, far better to brief the Irish coaches the week before the match privately, if they want to tell the media they are a bunch of cheats and the ref has decided to warn them before the match fine, unlikely they would do that though.
Telling a Welsh coach after a game that the ref got it wrong and you would/will do it better is very silly. I know after a game I watch every word I say to a coach in the bar as you have no idea what they are up to apart from the fact it could be used against you at a later date. Walsh talking to the coach puts Kelvin Deaker in a bad light. Walsh has now effectively has said he had a bad game, the press can tell him that without his own side knifing him in the back. To believe the Welsh coach would not tell anybody is naivety in the extreme by Walsh. Coaches are not to be trusted at any level a basic point he must surely know, they are only wanting the best for their team that is what they are paid for. International referees are usually circumspect in what they say to you about games they have done until you know them, Walsh appears to believe everybody is his friend or is out on a self promotion mission one or the other.
Sorry to sound so ferverent, nothing against you, I truly believe Walsh has the wrong mentality for refereeing at the top level and having him there is a bad example to other refs and in a worst case a disaster waiting to happen.

OB..
13-02-07, 12:02
Telling a Welsh coach after a game that the ref got it wrong and you would/will do it better is very silly.
I'll say it yet again: we do not know what Walsh actually said.

We do know that Nigel Davies had an axe to grind, so we must assume some level of spin. What was reported is entirely consistent with him criticising the Irish, and Walsh making non-committal noises.

OK, so I doubt if that was really what happened, but I object to using this example to attack him with. It is unfair - which is just what he is being accused of.

There have been other incidents that have put hm in a bad light, but I don't think any of us are close enough to the scene to judge him properly. I thought he had a good game Saturday, and that sort of judgement is what really counts.

jaycee1
13-02-07, 13:02
I'll say it yet again: we do not know what Walsh actually said.



And as I said where has he denied it?
His actions on the park suggest it was true and without denial it has to be assumed true.
This argument is descending into farce, as most of our discussions so far, I believe we are both entrenched in our own views and will remain so. It appears we are in broad agreememnt over the man's past mistakes and I believe they are going to continue, as per his error of judgment last week. Having a good game, though not spectacular, on Sunday is not the whole thing the wider picture of his behaviour is the real issue.
As with our discussions before time will tell.

Emmet Murphy
13-02-07, 15:02
Nigel Davies just might find that in future referees are a lot more guarded / non-commital in terms of what gets said to him and / or the Welsh as a whole.

OB..
13-02-07, 15:02
And as I said where has he denied it?
Have you noticed that referees do not comment after games? They are not supposed to. Therefore you cannot draw any conclusions from his silence.

Wert Twacky
13-02-07, 16:02
Jaycee, as you may have seen from my posts on this topic that I am in general of the opinion that Walsh is a decent international referee who maybe needs a little media training.
The fact he is a little spontaneous make refereeing life that little more interesting to the non-believers in rugby fan world who may think we're all boring law anoraks.
Having said that, it does not excuse him from calling players "an Irish c**t", nor the episode with England down under. He served his punishment on those topics.
Would you drop/declare Julian White/Danny Grewcock never to play for England again for their misdemeanours on the park?

The latest incident has bee completely taken out of context by all - Nigel Davies is probably no more a guilty party than Walsh. BELIEVE me, if a hack can twist something into a story - they will. You telling me you take what you read in the media as gospel?

What was reported in certain media on the incident was factualy wrong. Take it from me.

ex-lucy
13-02-07, 17:02
Would you drop/declare Julian White/Danny Grewcock never to play for England again for their misdemeanours on the park?

yes. If i was a selector.

Would I drop/declare Steve Walsh never to ref an international again for his misdemeanours on match days?

yes. If i was a selector.

jboulet4648
13-02-07, 18:02
I have never been a strong supporter of Steve Walsh, and have just finished watching the Ireland v France match and it was awesome. I felt that Walsh did an excellent job throughout the match of communicating what his expectations were, he was consistent in doing so, my only objections came from his interpretations in a few instances. There was a penalty off of a maul in teh closing minutes that gave Ireland a 4 point lead. France was guilty of collapsing the maul, hiowever I felt all the French defenders had left the maul, and it was no longer a maul, and actually obstruction by Ireland. The Chabal ruck was also questionable. The instance where teh Irish back off of the french knock got called back was a mistake, Walsh is human, to err is human, hence he is capable of making a mistake of too short an advantage.

As to his off field comments which were quoted by a third party, even if he was not bound to silence, which he is, what good would have come from a statement of denial? Then it is a he said, she said scenario, and basically Walsh would be calling teh Welsh coach a liar. No good from that scenario. And if he admitted it? Well we see the uproar this has caused already. I think the best thing for him was to remain quiet, which he is required to do. I think based on performance alone he has improved quite a bit in the past few years, and his performance on Sunday was commendable.

OB..
13-02-07, 18:02
Has Julian White picked up any yellow cards when playing for England (34 caps)? AFAIK Grewcock has 2 yellows in 50 caps.

Your standards appear to be very high.

Bryan
13-02-07, 18:02
WertTwacky, are you one of the members of the Fourth Estate that is the Media? Or simply a person who has also been dragged through the mud by one of their scribes? The Sun was it? That Page 3 Shoot still haunt you to this day? ;-)

Here's to Free Press. In South Africa referees go in front of the media after the match. Good move, if you ask me- helps clear things up with the idiotsticks looking for a headline.

Jaycee
13-02-07, 19:02
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee1
And as I said where has he denied it?

Quote:
Originally posted by OB
Have you noticed that referees do not comment after games? They are not supposed to. Therefore you cannot draw any conclusions from his silence.

OB you are starting to go round in circles now, I pointed that fact out:)
The point is the ever so innocent Walsh is accused of opening his gob hence the problem, if he doesn't make a statement the rumour spreads and gains credance, that's the way it works.


Jaycee, as you may have seen from my posts on this topic that I am in general of the opinion that Walsh is a decent international referee who maybe needs a little media training.
The fact he is a little spontaneous make refereeing life that little more interesting to the non-believers in rugby fan world who may think we're all boring law anoraks..

He is a decent a referee when he sticks to what he is supposed to do. I am old school though and believe we need referees to be held in awe and treated like sages. If we lose respect the players will start questioning our decisions and it all falls to pieces and we could end up like our footballing cousins. Steve brings the wrong kind of media attention to refereeing that's why I believe he must go. If he was a spectactular referee that everyone thought was brilliant then there maybe a small case for attempting to change his character, preferably by electric shock treatment :D ,but he's not that good to bother about. To be that good in my opinion you must be able to blend in and dissappear managing the game without being noticed. The game is about the players not the ref if we get noticed we have done something wrong.


Having said that, it does not excuse him from calling players "an Irish c**t", nor the episode with England down under. He served his punishment on those topics.
Would you drop/declare Julian White/Danny Grewcock never to play for England again for their misdemeanours on the park?

I would, but then I am Scottish :) Seriously though no man is bigger than the game. If a bad exmple is set others follow. Again football shows the way not to do it.


The latest incident has bee completely taken out of context by all - Nigel Davies is probably no more a guilty party than Walsh. BELIEVE me, if a hack can twist something into a story - they will. You telling me you take what you read in the media as gospel?

What was reported in certain media on the incident was factualy wrong. Take it from me.

The problem is that there was a story at all. Walsh is 'accident prone' he is not going to improve, I await his next media moment.

OB..
13-02-07, 20:02
Jaycee - you choose to believe a newspaper report about what Nigel Davies claimed Steve Walsh said, quoting silence as proof of accuracy despite the ban on comment. The ice is too thin. Don't skate on it.


Quote:
I am old school though and believe we need referees to be held in awe and treated like sages. If we lose respect the players will start questioning our decisions and it all falls to pieces and we could end up like our footballing cousins.Respect needs to be earned through performance, not simply because the man is holding the whistle. I'm sure you agree with that, and would use it as an excuse to ban Steve Walsh.

After his performance on Satruday I have no problem respecting his refereeing ability. He has indeed blotted his copybook in the past, so should be on a warning, but so far for me he has not merited another yellow card, let alone a red one.

I recall that Paddy O'Brien awarded himself a yellow card after the Fiji v France game in 1999, but returned to the fray after his nominal 10 minutes in the bin for regaining his confidence.

jboulet4648
13-02-07, 20:02
Of the 31 men (or women) on the pitch, of what number would you place the referee in terms of importance to the game?

Would you say the referee is the 31st man?
I wouldn't, the ref is far more important to the game than many players on the pitch, and to referee at the top level, you need a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Each ref displays his chip slightly different. Does Walsh have abrasiveness to his demeanor, yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

CHips on peoples shoudlers rub some the wrong way, and no matter what the person did, fault would be found, guilt would be laid, no matter what the evidence, or lack there of suggests.

There are posters on this forum, who based on what they have written, or how they write their posts, I can see why they have some of the probelms on the field with the players, hence their chip. Should someone come out and say keep them from reffing at the highest level they are capable of?

Jaycee
13-02-07, 22:02
Jaycee - you choose to believe a newspaper report about what Nigel Davies claimed Steve Walsh said, quoting silence as proof of accuracy despite the ban on comment. The ice is too thin. Don't skate on it.

You are taking the ban on talking too far OB. If a man is accused of something you have to reply, it is not the same as talking about a game. His silence is taken as proof by the majority of the public, that's how the media works, you don't deny it you are assumed to have done it. You can twist the words as much as you want but that is the way life is.


Respect needs to be earned through performance, not simply because the man is holding the whistle. I'm sure you agree with that, and would use it as an excuse to ban Steve Walsh.

After his performance on Satruday I have no problem respecting his refereeing ability. He has indeed blotted his copybook in the past, so should be on a warning, but so far for me he has not merited another yellow card, let alone a red one.

I disagree his past misdemenors are meerly showing his character, he is arrogant and self serving. On the pitch he wants to be in the picture more than the players, that's his nature. He may referee games well on many occasion but the problem is still there and surfaces from time to time, usually when he is not centre of attention, TJing or 4th official, and wants to make a noise to be noticed. He is high maintenance why bother with him he brings a bad name to refereeing. There are plentyof other of his refereeing standard.

OB I am afraid I must call a halt to our little discussion at this point I am sure the next contraversal post I put up we will meet again. I have a busy week from now on this means I'll not be able to hang about chatrooms. I am sure you will post on in this thread but I will not be able to reply. Have fun till next time. :)

OB..
13-02-07, 23:02
You are taking the ban on talking too far OB. If a man is accused of something you have to reply, it is not the same as talking about a game. His silence is taken as proof by the majority of the public, that's how the media works, you don't deny it you are assumed to have done it. You can twist the words as much as you want but that is the way life is.I'm afraid this is nonsense. Yes, the media will always attempt to draw conclusions. It is one of their techniques for trying to get people to respond. And they will continue to get things wrong as a consequence. Consider the situation of the police on a murder case who cannot afford to give out information.

There is no need for us to follow suit in such illogicality.

Robert Burns
14-02-07, 13:02
There are plenty of other of his refereeing standard.

I'm waiting by the phone Paddy!! :rolleyes:



(Can't believe Steve Walsh has a 6 page thread dedicated to him)

jboulet4648
14-02-07, 13:02
On the SA Referee website, there is an article on Steve Walsh

http://www.sareferees.co.za/referees_news/story_9207084255.php

The last paragraph of the article is copied below.....hence according to Walsh the report of his comments was factually incorrect, hence here is the denial some of you have been screaming for!

Now can we get back to what matters, he had a FANTASTIC match on Sunday.

2. Are you behaving?

"That’s a good question isn't it.... Yes, I believe I have been. Although an article that appeared on your website earlier in the week that was factually incorrect has made my build to this weekend’s game more difficult than it needed to be. Which is especially disappointing considering what has taken place in the past?"

He will be fine.

ex-lucy
14-02-07, 19:02
Now can we get back to what matters, he had a FANTASTIC match on Sunday.

Whoah there .... a critical match deciding mistake ... and he had a fantastic match?
Looks like i am up for a pretty good match every Saturday then...

OB..
15-02-07, 01:02
Whoah there .... a critical match deciding mistake ... and he had a fantastic match?
Looks like i am up for a pretty good match every Saturday then...What are you referring to as the "critical match deciding mistake"?

Dixie
15-02-07, 08:02
Come on guys - we've been round this track before, and it's getting tedious. Ex-Lucy means the failure to allow advantage to run on a little from the French knock-on in the Irish 22, which meant that the only two players who didn't hear the whistle sprinted 85 metres (would it have been as far if the French fliers had bothered to chase?). OB points out that blowing a whistle following an attacking infringement to prevent the defending side having to tackle a big guy in a critical situation is not a mistake. Difference of opinion as to whether that was an error - rest of the game pretty impressive - the question is, should the guy be hanged. The jury will remain out, as they can't reach unanimity. Retrial, new cast, move on.

Rant over!

Wert Twacky
15-02-07, 11:02
Bryan - no, I am not a party in the Fourth Estate (media), but I do have connections in printing/publishing and have worked in tandem with certain media over the last 20-odd years.
They have a job to do, as do we all, but those with little/no experience of the media often get sucked into a story.
I mean "Vicar denies affair" headlines are great if your a bored hack with no news. Ring up the local vicar, ask him a question, he denies it - there's a story, and from what? Nothing. It's done all the time. People shouldn't be so naive - that's all I'm saying.

As for ex-Lucy's "critical match deciding decision", as OB says - what did he get wrong?

Joublet mentioned earlier in this thread that by the reactions/posting of some on this forum, one can sometimes understand why individuals may have certain issues with their games. If we are all to learn, a huge deal of good can be taken from SW's game on Sunday. It's obvious that a few just can't see the wood through the trees.

And there I will leave it.

Emmet Murphy
15-02-07, 12:02
The fact that we cannot agree on whether or not a try would have been scored shows that there was inadequate advantage played. For anyone to dispute that is ridiculous. I personally think that that was a real try-scoring opportunity but of course cannot be certain because play was stopped prematurely. However, it was one error made in what was an otherwise very good performance by Steve Walsh.

ex-lucy
15-02-07, 14:02
However, it was one error made in what was an otherwise very good performance by Steve Walsh.

Error 2: the holding back of Horan in the 22m by Hirondiquy (sp) ...

madref
15-02-07, 14:02
Gentleman,

Fellow referees bashing fellow referees in a public forum not good, how can we expect players and pubic respect us on a saturday, when we get this sort of debate.

Please put it in the referees private part if you are going to continue the bashing

David

jboulet4648
15-02-07, 15:02
It's obvious that a few just can't see the wood through the trees.
And there I will leave it.

Well Said!!!

OB..
15-02-07, 18:02
The fact that we cannot agree on whether or not a try would have been scored shows that there was inadequate advantage played. For anyone to dispute that is ridiculous.Well I'm going to dispute it.

France had recovered the ball after their knock-on. It is thus very unlikely that Ireland would gain any advantage. I claim it is normal to blow the whistle at that point rather than playing more advantage. I think it is unreasonable to think a player might throw the ball away under those circumstances. It was a very unusual occurrence, and you play the percentages where advantage is concerned.

Whether a try would actually have been scored if the whistle had not been blown before the interception is irrelevant. Clean possession to Ireland would have been sufficient advantage in that position - it is all they could have expected from a scrum.

jboulet4648
15-02-07, 19:02
I do concur whole heartedly with you OB....

Emmet Murphy
15-02-07, 20:02
OB ... he could have waited a little longer than he did: what harm would that have done? We don't know what would have happened because he blew his whistle early. It is very possible Ireland would have scored but like I said we will never know. When you say that a scrum would have been a sufficient advantage surely you must concede that scoring seven points is a far greater advantage!! I agree it was an unlikely sequence of events but that isn't really a satisfactory explanation. Every match is different and teams will attack from any part of the pitch: it would not have been the first time a defending side scored a breakaway try from within their 22.

jboulet4648
15-02-07, 20:02
Consider if you can the possibility of the softness of the pass which resulted in the interception being the result of the whistle. If the whistle was not blown, maybe there would have been a harder pass......

Also consider
In 20 matches in only three did advantage accrue more than half the times the referee allowed for it - Chiefs vs Brumbies, Italy vs France and, best of the three, Lions vs Waratahs.

In those 20 matches the referee gave the players the option of playing on 335 times. It accrued on 115 occasions - 34% of the time. Going by percentages, why continue to play advantage when advantage most likely was not going to accrue?

Lastly, given field location, if you were the captain of Ireland, at the first initial knock, seeing the french player pick it up, what would you rather have called, a scrum, or ball in french possession (you do not know the result of ball in french possession?

Emmet Murphy
15-02-07, 20:02
Lastly, given field location, if you were the captain of Ireland, at the first initial knock, seeing the french player pick it up, what would you rather have called, a scrum, or ball in french possession (you do not know the result of ball in french possession?Given the quality of PoC's decision making in recent weeks for Munster and for Ireland that's anyone's guess really! :D

Seriously though, I do understand all the arguments put by OB and by yourself jboulet4648, I just think if he had waited maybe three seconds longer there is no way he'd have blown his whistle. Ask yourself this question - if Chris White had been there in that exact situation, do you think we would have had a defending scrum to Ireland?

jboulet4648
15-02-07, 21:02
Yes. Chris White, Spreaders, Barnes, Kaplan, Dickinson, Deaker.....based on percentages and field position.....yes, yes, yes....

I am not a Walsh fan to say the least but I cannot fault him for this call.....

Emmet Murphy
15-02-07, 21:02
Ok then - fair enough :)

ex-lucy
16-02-07, 09:02
"I am not a Walsh fan to say the least but I cannot fault him for this call....."

strange, because the man himself apologised and said it was a mistake.

When i ref colts and junior matches i allow more advantage in these situations because you just dont know what is likely to happen in the next few secs. More prob of unlikely events. When reffing level 10s and 11s, less adv bec of probabilities in this situation.
in internationals there is more probability of interceptions and breakaway tries so thus longer adv should be played.
If ya man himself admits it was a mistake ..... why argue against it.

Robert Burns
16-02-07, 13:02
So you would play advantage to a team that is not in possession, in case they can get possession back. That's very unlikely is it not?

From a knock on advantage if the same team picks the ball back up we blow, not just SW, all of us. Advantage has not happened.

SW blew his whistle before Ireland picked the ball, you can see that because the person that the ball was going to just stops. which led to Ireland picking it up and running, if the whistle had not gone, he would not have stopped and ireland would still have been without possession.

jboulet4648
16-02-07, 14:02
SW blew his whistle before Ireland picked the ball, you can see that because the person that the ball was going to just stops. which led to Ireland picking it up and running, if the whistle had not gone, he would not have stopped and ireland would still have been without possession.

EXACTLY!!!

ex-lucy
16-02-07, 15:02
so if blue 2 knocks on .. and blue 2 dives on the ball ... you blow up?

what if a green player is standing above blue 2 trying to take adv? but cant because blue is holding on ?
you have already blown ... you are never going to know what happens next .. but green picks up from the floor and passes out and green makes ground - too late, whistle gone.

a similar scenario happens regularly in junior matches because of the lack of skill ...
blue knocks on ... picks it up and passes ... i wait (playing adv) ... red intercepts and passes to red winger who screams away for a try (or makes good ground).
or blue knocks on ... kicks it 20/30m ... i wait (playing adv) ... red 15 picks up and runs and makes good ground.

you dont know ... so why dont you just wait 2 or 3 secs .. that winger just might be very fast.

i thought our mantra was something like:
think quickly
talk less quickly
blow slowly
i.e.
think quickly: blue knocked on .. let's see what happens ...
talk less quickly: "advantage"
blow slowly: waiting ....

Robert Burns
16-02-07, 15:02
so if blue 2 knocks on .. and blue 2 dives on the ball ... you blow up?

what if a green player is standing above blue 2 trying to take adv? but cant because blue is holding on ?
you have already blown ... you are never going to know what happens next .. but green picks up from the floor and passes out and green makes ground - too late, whistle gone.

a similar scenario happens regularly in junior matches because of the lack of skill ...
blue knocks on ... picks it up and passes ... i wait (playing adv) ... red intercepts and passes to red winger who screams away for a try (or makes good ground).
or blue knocks on ... kicks it 20/30m ... i wait (playing adv) ... red 15 picks up and runs and makes good ground.

you dont know ... so why dont you just wait 2 or 3 secs .. that winger just might be very fast.

i thought our mantra was something like:
think quickly
talk less quickly
blow slowly
i.e.
think quickly: blue knocked on .. let's see what happens ...
talk less quickly: "advantage"
blow slowly: waiting ....

Slightly different because the play is where green can have an immediate advantage because of the situation that is infront of you, you will be able to see green is there first and if he can't get the ball you blow for the penalty.

But in the one we are talking about the ball is knocked on by blue, blue picks up and is passing it out, there is no lack of skill and so interceptions are very unusual (although great to watch).

As I said, had SW not blown his whistle, blue would still be in possession and he would have had to call it back again.

If you wait a bit longer in your games for advantage to appear, and the offending team still has possession, do you not think the players will be wanting you to blow? In fact, most will probably have stopped and will be waiting for you to blow because they do not have possession.

How many times out of 100 in senior rugby does a team not in possession win it back within an advantage play to then use it? I would say very few.

OB..
16-02-07, 17:02
In the France case there was no Ireland player near enough to get the ball.

jboulet4648
16-02-07, 18:02
It is asinine to even compare the advantage played in junior rugby with that played on the senior level or international level.

Junior rugby you will do anything to get flow into the match. Senior high level rugby, the skill is there, the flow is there, so no need to try to create more flow by playing needless advantage. It actually wastes valuable time and energy by continuing play with the HOPES something may come out of it, especially in the case of a scrum advantage....Penalty advantage you may go longer, but only if there is the good chance something will develop.....

In the case we are talking about, scrum advantage, with French recovery of a knock and ball in hand, it is a no brainer, whistle, scrum green. If the Irish were close enough to play the ball after the original knock, and teh french player took that away from him, then thats a penalty.....and in that instance you would not play advantage, whistle right away....why? because the team who knocked took advantage away by reclaiming possession of the ball.....

ex-lucy
17-02-07, 10:02
I think, we will have to agree to disagree as far as our ideas of advantage goes in this situation, despite the ref himself admitting he made a mistake...

beckett50
17-02-07, 11:02
strange, because the man himself apologised and said it was a mistake.


I'd put this down to good game management. Most of us have had the situation when a 50/50 call turns out that it COULD have been the wrong the call. Simplest way to defuse a potential situation is to smile and say "Sorry".

Get more respect from the players that way, IMHO.

Ex-Lucy, your vitriol to this man amazes me. Perhaps we should start to analyse some of your calls?:D

OB..
17-02-07, 11:02
I think, we will have to agree to disagree as far as our ideas of advantage goes in this situation, despite the ref himself admitting he made a mistake...Hindsight is 20/20. The true test is to stop the tape at the point where the second French player recovers the ball and ask if any referee would seriously consider playing on in case Ireland gets the advantage.

It is all a matter of probability. The referee assesses the likelihood of advantage accruing to the non-offending team. He balances possible gain against wasted time and effort. And he does this on the spot. When a team recovers the ball with no opponent being near enough to tackle, I claim that probability is very low, and it is time to blow the whistle.

I agree with Steve Walsh's initial instinct that advantage was too unlikely to be worth pursuing. What happened later does not change the original probability. Why would you have played on?

It is hard to say just how much effect the whistle had on player reactions. Without it, things might have worked out differently.

I don't claim to know why Steve Walsh apparently said he got it wrong. Obviously the sight of Murphy streaking away must have made him feel "Oh no!" He knew he would get crucified by the Irish crowd, whatever his assessor said (wouldn't it be nice to know that?). At least nobody can accuse him of arrogance this time!

beckett50
17-02-07, 17:02
Law 8.



WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE


The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain
advantage is not enough. If the non-offending team does not gain
an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and brings play back to
the place of infringement.



Perhaps SW had the above in mind:rolleyes:

ex-lucy
17-02-07, 18:02
Ex-Lucy, your vitriol to this man amazes me. Perhaps we should start to analyse some of your calls?

pls dont .... i am not the top international referee refereeing in the top international game of the day.... and i do far and away enough self assessment .... especially after today's match !!
I beat myself up enough after a game.
One of the reasons i took up refereeing is because i thought i could do better .... reality check passed me by a while ago ..
Bu the guys at the top ... oh well ! Another argument. Ask Paul Jewel what he thinks!

ex-lucy
17-02-07, 18:02
It is hard to say just how much effect the whistle had on player reactions. Without it, things might have worked out differently.

aha ... and there lies the crux of the matter .. what Emmet has said and i have said.

jboulet4648
17-02-07, 20:02
These bring up another interesting point....

Here he is, Irish crowd booing, he realizes he MAY have made a potential mistake, however, looking at it, he was correct, and he says sorry, scrum here, and withheld his confidence, did not dwell on it, or let it effect the rest of his match. Once again, well done SW!!

ex-lucy
17-02-07, 21:02
or let it effect the rest of his match. Once again, well done SW!!

except the holding back of Horan by Hirondequy(sp) in the blue 22m ... which i thought was a penalty (at least).

i think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
You say tomatoes and i say tomatoes ... and the ref himself says tomatoes.

Robert Burns
17-02-07, 22:02
Have you heard a Kiwi say tomatoes? strange accent sometimes, lol.

Pug = pig
pig = peg

lol.

OB..
18-02-07, 00:02
aha ... and there lies the crux of the matter .. what Emmet has said and i have said.No. It relates to what happened AFTER he blew the whistle and is thus irrelevant to the question of whether he should have blown at that point or not.

99 times out of 100 his decision would have been unremarkable. You don't play on for a 1 in 100 chance.

Jaycee
18-02-07, 14:02
Hello peps!
Well I am not so busy today so helmet on and here we go.
Oddly I am not too bothered about the knock on advantage. It was a call I have been encouraged to make, and still resist, for years. Inside the defending sides 22 there is very little advantage to be gained so blow the whistle in case the attackers score and then it's more difficult to pull it back. This is the general advice I have been given over the years, I personnally take the risk and let it ride for a few more seconds incase the scenario that happend to Walsh happens, I have not had to pull back a try yet. In Walsh's game he did what he was probably been regularly told to do.
I would however like to ask the panel what they think is advantage when 14-13 up and on penalty advantage well within the kicking range of an accurate kicker like O'Gara? 3 times Walsh played advantage and Ireland failed to score, OK they did gain a positional advantage but at 14-13 surely at least one of these advantages should have been a kick at goal. It has been said,somewhere, that it was the scrum half's inexperience at not throwing the ball to the ground that was the problem but I feel Walsh should have given a kick at least once. I have been advised to do so in similar positions as no score is no advantage when you have almost certain 3 points.
The referee at the Scotland game, Alan Lewis, regulary pulled back and awarded kicks at goal in similar positions.

jboulet4648
18-02-07, 17:02
again, one of those situations which the IRB is trying to get away, hence all the new experimental laws being tested, where the referee decides the match, not the players.......

It is a tough one, players normally want to play advantage, and it should be up to them to decide when they do not want the advantage, hence throwing the ball down. If a ref pulls back and awards the PK instead pf playing advantage, isn't that essentially coaching the players in a sense, or at least passing judgment that they cannot gain the advantage?

It is interesting to note that the posters to this thread, for the most part, who believe Walsh made no incorrect decision with the amount of advantage played on the knock, are all above level 9?

OB..
18-02-07, 17:02
I agree Walsh is more open to criticism for those decisions. The rule of thumb I am familiar with is that inside the "red zone" (22), penalty advantage is rarely over unless there is a score. At higher levels I would expect the red zone to be bigger because the kickers are better.

However in one case I seem to recall that Ireland made some 30 metres and almost scored. I have not looked at the tape and do not recall any other details. Were there any similar examples the other way?

I think there should be some sort of time element involved. If a team is making steady progress through several phases, does it really make sense to cancel out all that effort if they have advanced 20-30 metres?

I think a team should be allowed to elect to take the penalty (done informally at present). That means the referee does not take their decision for them - you can assume that if they don't go for the kick, gaining a goodly distance is sufficient recompense.

jboulet4648
18-02-07, 18:02
I think a team should be allowed to elect to take the penalty (done informally at present). That means the referee does not take their decision for them - you can assume that if they don't go for the kick, gaining a goodly distance is sufficient recompense.


I had one high level match last season which the attacking side had advantage, and their tactic was to set up these slow driving mauls, peel off and set up another slow driving maul.....played advantage for about 30s and then called adv. over. Their gain in ground was minimal, but they had every opportunity to play the ball as the chose, with out defending side prohibiting them. This was their tactic, they were able to freely execute their tactic, adv over. It was inside the defenses 22, but that is how the team chose to play it.....What good would I have done by calling a penalty so they could attempt a PK, except for raising my Penalty count, slowing the game down and not allowing the team to play their brand of rugby. The assessor thought so to

Judah was consistent in not allowing undue pressure on the non-offending team. Territorial and tactical were well adjudicated. His signals and verbal communications played a big part in allowing the match to flow consistently.

didds
18-02-07, 19:02
But its not about whether sides CHOOSE to use their advantage or not. The laws state - and I am happy to be corrected - that advantage occurs for tactical or territorial reasons.

I see no remit of a referee to overlook those criteria because a team has failed to act positively towards making a tactical or territorial benefit.

Who has transgressed the laws here - the side being left with potential advantage or the side that made the error originally?

didds

OB..
18-02-07, 19:02
didds - the discussion is about what constitutes tactical or territorial advantage. That is not something I expect to measure with a yardstick or a stopwatch, though both come into it.

I like Judah's approach, which seems to be in the spirit of the team who had the advantage. It is also a situation where allowing a team to ask for the penalty would help.

Law 8.1 (a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

Jaycee
18-02-07, 20:02
However in one case I seem to recall that Ireland made some 30 metres and almost scored. I have not looked at the tape and do not recall any other details. Were there any similar examples the other way?.

To be honest I don't remember the other 2 examples. I do remember the one you refer to and felt that one was justifiable, just, the other 2 I logged away as being a bit harsh. I believe Ireland played the advantage, rather than throwing the ball down, because they expected to be called back if they did not score as that is the usual result. I have seen teams just miss a try by inches and still get their kick at goal.


I think there should be some sort of time element involved. If a team is making steady progress through several phases, does it really make sense to cancel out all that effort if they have advanced 20-30 metres?.

20 to 30 meters and still in possession maybe but still 3 points is better than none especially in such a close game. The time limit doesn't seem to apply at the top level inside the 22.. I certainly apply one, if a team are not doing anything after a while, not sure how much time as Iíve never measured it, I call it back and most other refs I watch at anything below the tv level do the same. I think itís an audience thing, people at home, and producers, want to see the ball in play and tries scored so refs are told to play longer advantage, especially in the 22. to see if they can get a score. This is where Walsh seemed to go against convention, he played the long advantage but didnít call it back. If he does this regularly teams will take the kick rather than play on, as it stands they are willing to give it a go and thus please the tv stations. Just a hunch on this one but seems to fit the facts.

JBoulet you said

Their gain in ground was minimal, but they had every opportunity to play the ball as the chose, with out defending side prohibiting them. This was their tactic, they were able to freely execute their tactic, adv over. It was inside the defenses 22, but that is how the team chose to play it.....What good would I have done by calling a penalty so they could attempt a PK

From your description they never gained an advantage. Territorially they made minimal ground and tactically they never had anything eg a 3 on 1 overlap. I think your assessor was in error.

If I may cut and past from an earlier post
WHEN ADVANTAGE DOES NOT ARISE
The advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage is not enough. If the non-offending team does not gain an advantage, the referee blows the whistle and brings play back to the place of infringement.

Blowing the whistle would have given them the choice. If they wanted to kick at goal they could have, if they wanted to maul on the could have set up another one probably further forward than the last one. Not giving the penalty deprived the innocent team of their recompense for being fouled. It also says to the defenders you can foul the attackers at will if they are mauling as the ref is not going to blow.

jboulet4648
19-02-07, 00:02
Blowing the whistle would have given them the choice. If they wanted to kick at goal they could have, if they wanted to maul on the could have set up another one probably further forward than the last one. Not giving the penalty deprived the innocent team of their recompense for being fouled. It also says to the defenders you can foul the attackers at will if they are mauling as the ref is not going to blow.

I disagree.....
First off what choice, to kick or attempt to reform a maul off of a line out or tap? What if they didn't execute?

A strong pack does gain an advantage of having a slow driving maul in that not only are they playing the game on their terms, they are wearing their opponents down, this is a tactical advantage.....

with back play, you would probably say a three on 1 is a tactical advantage, play on, well, lets look at it from a forward perspective? How can forwards tactically gain their advantage? A maul is slow driving forward, wearing opposition out, along the 5 meter line (tough kick from here) and it is progressing, the scrum half is dictating movement, they know they have advantage, so they decide to play on.....how if this goes on for a good portion of time, not a tactical advantage being gained? You play for the spirit of the team with the advantage, do you not? Hence a team is a weak scrummaging team, I would give them a slightlylonger advantage for a knock on, knowing they may lose possession if I blow the whistle. Or if the kicker has two right feet. Advantage is played for tactical or territorial gain, yes, but it should be in the best interest of the spirit of the team with the advantage as well.

Now going back to Walsh, was his use of advantage in the instance within the 22 slightly short? Se le vie....I would say that was his only personal question mark....

Ex-Lucy, yes I know the grab, but angles my man, angles....if it happened at the right angle Walsh may not have seen it, and if not informed by TJ's (we don't know if he was or not) how can you make a phantom call?

jaycee1
19-02-07, 08:02
A strong pack does gain an advantage of having a slow driving maul in that not only are they playing the game on their terms, they are wearing their opponents down, this is a tactical advantage.....

We will have to agree to disagree then as I can see no tactical advantage in a rolling maul moving forward a minimal amount. Wearing a team down is not a tactical advantage I have ever heard of being played and is very subjective, the defenders may be large grunts who love a big maul as it means they donít have to run and surely it tires the attackers just as much? I would also add again how does the defending team feel they have been penalised if the attackers only move forward a small amount, I would say most defenders would settle for that as a penalty. Things maybe different in the US so perhaps therein lies our difference in views.
A compromise could have been asking the captain, if possible, or the scrum half do they want the penalty before you stop advantage. That way they still had a choice in an odd advantage situation.


Now going back to Walsh, was his use of advantage in the instance within the 22 slightly short? Se le vie....I would say that was his only personal question mark....

I too thought he had a good game apart from his interpretation of penalty advantage however this was crucial in the context of the game. It possibly decided it. At the top level mistakes happen, missing deliberate trips etc, however his interpretation of advantage 2, possibly 3 times, cost Ireland points in a very close match, it was something that was wrong with his game that cannot be put down to a mistake. I donít think you can just say ce la vie to the wrong team winning, the top refs are there to stop errors of this magnitude that is why they are the top guys, they only make small errors.
I havenít noticed this tendency of Walsh before as this is the first game it has stuck out as being crucial I will watch this from now on and see if he does it all the time.

Davet
19-02-07, 12:02
The most disturbing thing thing about this thread is the apparent belief by some in the tabloid red-top idea that there is a perfection which should be attained by all top... whatevers. Sports stars, Politicians, referees, (though never, interestingly, journalists!).

This is a wholly fallacious point of view. The elite - of whatever brand, still put on their trousers one leg at a timne, and do not have superhuman powers. Nor are they (nor should they be) any more special than the rest of us in other ways, intellectually, morally or whatever.

Steve Walsh is a top level referee. He is not infallible. Nor are any of them. He is a better ref than most of us on here by a number of degrees, he makes fewer, but not zero, mistakes. he is fitter than most, he has better game management skills than many. In any single element there may be contributors on here who are better. There are probably few of us who are better at all of the elements.

If we were, it would be us out there.

(Note - I do say most - it has been clear to me for some time that the iRB have overlooked my own performances to a quite staggering degree.)

SimonSmith
19-02-07, 12:02
I'm a little confused by the disagreement over the definition of tactical advantage.

I thought that was pretty clear by the use of the concept of freedom to use the ball as you wish.
You may think that a rolling maul is no great tactical advantage, but I would disagree - you are in control of the ball and have the chance to use it as you wish. If you want to wrap it up, that's your lookout. I say you have tactical advantage.

Jaycee
19-02-07, 13:02
I'm a little confused by the disagreement over the definition of tactical advantage.

I thought that was pretty clear by the use of the concept of freedom to use the ball as you wish.
You may think that a rolling maul is no great tactical advantage, but I would disagree - you are in control of the ball and have the chance to use it as you wish. If you want to wrap it up, that's your lookout. I say you have tactical advantage.

As I said things are different in the US, a rolling maul advancing a minimal distance it is not a definition of a tactical penalty advantage I have come across while refereeing around the UK, (and Ireland incase I offend the Irish :) ). By the definition applied by you and JBoulet meerly having the ball and able to choose what happens is an advantage. What if the rolling maul is just outside the side's own 22 they have penalty advantage and after two steps it's over the scrum half takes the ball from the now stationary maul and passes it missing the no.10, the opposition 10 picks up and scores. What tactical advantage did they gain? To me a penalty kick to touch would be alot more useful.

beckett50
19-02-07, 13:02
I would lean toward an agreement with Simon on this issue.

If you (as the referee) are playing advantage and have signalled such and advised whether it is a penalty advantage or scrum advantage then it is down to the attacking team how they use that advantage. As referees, our task is to gauge whether they have used the advantage given or not. If they have, in whatever form, then we call "Advantage over!". If not then we either to continue to play it for a bit longer or call it back.

On personal front I will always play a penalty advantage longer than that for a scrum infringement simply because of the likely outcome from a scrum restart. Yes, I know they could lose it against the head but lets have a sense of positivity here.

Inside the defenders 22 (red zone) if the attacking team have gone from one side of the pitch to another through 6 phases of play without breaking the try line, then IMHO they have had all the chances they can under the advantage Law and so "Advantage over!". FWIW this idea of playing advantage till they score is the thin end of a long wedge. What happened to rewarding to good defense?

After all, if the defenders are all staying on-side at the breakdown, moving away and not interfering on the ground why should the attacking side have as much "free ball" time as they want to post a score. The tactical decision rests with the players, we can only judge.

Also, as I've already said, depends very much on whether a scrum or penalty infringement.

Perhaps we should move this thread to one about advantage, seeing as it has developed along those lines and away from the SW character assassination it was;)

didds
19-02-07, 13:02
didds - the discussion is about what constitutes tactical or territorial advantage. That is not something I expect to measure with a yardstick or a stopwatch, though both come into it.

...

Law 8.1 (a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.



Err... yes. Entirely. So - the question is simply with the oppo having transgressed, has the non-offendingf team gained a territorial or tactical advantage. If the answer is "no" then the original penalty applies.

NOWHERE does the law state that the non-offending side MUST seek to USE the advantage. I can see that trhe ref chose to interpret a 2 or 3 metre slow mauled gain as "advantage acheived" - but I would counter that the ref is thus in effect choosing to create situation the laws did not seek to enshrine. ie he is "punishing" the non-offending side for "not trying harder". The laws do NOT require a team to "try harder".



didds

Robert Burns
19-02-07, 13:02
Jaycee and Jaycee1,

You're just bloody confusing matters with the names!!

lol.

jboulet4648
19-02-07, 13:02
As I said things are different in the US, a rolling maul advancing a minimal distance it is not a definition of a tactical penalty advantage I have come across while refereeing around the UK, (and Ireland incase I offend the Irish :) ). By the definition applied by you and JBoulet meerly having the ball and able to choose what happens is an advantage. What if the rolling maul is just outside the side's own 22 they have penalty advantage and after two steps it's over the scrum half takes the ball from the now stationary maul and passes it missing the no.10, the opposition 10 picks up and scores. What tactical advantage did they gain? To me a penalty kick to touch would be alot more useful.

Where does two steps come from? I never said anything about only two steps. In that instance of course advantage would not be gained, and its a penalty. However, the situation I am referring to is one where a maul is driving, say 7-8 meters, not 20, but it moved those 7-8 meters in a way dictated by the non offending team so they can control this phase and set up the next phases of play from this maul, then you should consider that they tactically have gained their advantage.....now if after this if the scrum half cannot throw a proper pass, and it is picked off, it is of no fault of the referee for poor play on the #9's part, if the defending player was on side...advantage was still over.

Same look in the backline, three on one, advantage immediately over with that overlap, and the pass is knocked on due to stonehands, not due to any action of the defense....the advantage was over the minute there was an overlap, however poor skill kept the attacking side from making the most of it...

SimonSmith
19-02-07, 17:02
I'm not sure that it's different in the US. I'm applying the law as writ. This is the law definition:
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to
play the ball as they wish.

If I call advantage, and they keep the rolling maul, regardless of pitch position, that's their decision.
How can you argue that perpetuating a rolling maul is NOT freedom to play the ball as you wish?

Bryan
19-02-07, 19:02
I heard from one referee that the only advantage to gain when playing advantage for a PK offence inside the attacking 22m area was a score. Anything other than that and advantage hadn't been gained. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I see the point raised.

Judah, arguably you thought the team had gained a tactical advantage, and I am inclined to agree. However (and I don't know the position on the pitch), but if you had known they were going to create a rolling-maul, would you not swiftly blow for the PK so they could kick the ball 20m down the pitch and start a series of rolling mauls 20m closer? Hypothetically, would this not also be a way to help the game to save the attacking team the effort of having to maul it that much further?

In this era of modern goalkicking, you could argue that a referee should call back anything within 40m of the posts, as the attacking team could make the kick-at-goal, but this would be ludicrous.

To me this comes down to the question of "can the non-offending team have 2 bites of the cherry"? Teams are expecting to get 2 chances off a PK advantage inside the 22m, and I don't think that's entirely justified. If teams were made aware that this wasn't the case, you'd see more half-backs intentionally throwing away thier own ball to get the shot at goal.

Jaycee
19-02-07, 20:02
Where does two steps come from? I never said anything about only two steps.

You exact words were:-
Their gain in ground was minimal

7 to 8m in not minimal again a problem in American and British definitions. 7 to 8 m it is a situation where I would declare scrum advantage over as they are in a better postion than they would be in from a scrum 7 or 8 yards back ie ball at the back of a bunch of players going forward.


However, the situation I am referring to is one where a maul is driving, say 7-8 meters, not 20, but it moved those 7-8 meters in a way dictated by the non offending team so they can control this phase and set up the next phases of play from this maul, then you should consider that they tactically have gained their advantage.

OK lets change to 7 or 8 m. The only advantage they have they gained is 7 or 8 meters that's the only difference from where they would be if the opposing team had not infringed, that is not sufficient for a penalty advantage, as you first described it in the defenders 22 unless of course this has brought them to a couple of yards from the try line but I will not bring in another scenario it's getting complicated enough. What if it was a scrum advantage you had given and not a penalty one what would you think would be sufficent advantage? 2 meters? Genuine question.



.....now if after this if the scrum half cannot throw a proper pass, and it is picked off, it is of no fault of the referee for poor play on the #9's part, if the defending player was on side...advantage was still over.

Moving the maul forward a few yards is not the end of advantage as I see it. I put the bit about the missing the pass to illustrate the possible disasterous consequences in an extreme situation, I should have kept is simple, my error. Whether he hit the 10 or not moving a maul forward from your 22 a few yards does not present any massive tactical advantage such as a 3 on 1 in the backs the two are not compatable. The missed pass would be my signal to blow as no advantage accrued as they have now probably lost some yards and are being borne down on by the opposition backs. A nice kick to touch and a throw in is alot better than some ball back from where you started.


Same look in the backline, three on one, advantage immediately over with that overlap, and the pass is knocked on due to stonehands, not due to any action of the defense....the advantage was over the minute there was an overlap, however poor skill kept the attacking side from making the most of it...
Yep, that is an advantage there is a clear opportunity there that unlike a maul which does not offer such a golden opportunity to gain massive yards. The dropping of the ball is their own fault. We agree on this.

SimonSmith
19-02-07, 20:02
JayCee - you're debating territorial advantage. I would argue that the rolling maul, if it continues AFTER I have indicated "advantage", more than meets the criteria of gaining tactical advantage.

Jaycee
19-02-07, 20:02
I'm not sure that it's different in the US. I'm applying the law as writ. This is the law definition:
(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to
play the ball as they wish.

If you take the law exactly as it is stated receiving a ball 20 meters back towards your own goaline from the place of infringment in open play would immediately signal advantage over as you can do what you want with the ball. I cannot see the immediate advantage in such a position. The law on advantage is subjective, different countries it appears have different views on what advantage is and how it is played at different level witness the start of this discussion on Walsh's odd decisions not to give kicks at goal inside the French 22.


If I call advantage, and they keep the rolling maul, regardless of pitch position, that's their decision.
How can you argue that perpetuating a rolling maul is NOT freedom to play the ball as you wish?

In your example just stated above if a team continues to roll this maul for a significant distance, high teens or 20m, then I would probably consider penalty advantage over depending on pitch position and how the maul ended, the original discussion had the distance as a minimal amount and it was inside the 22 so a kick at goal was a good option. Near 10m I would consider scrum advantage over.

Jaycee
19-02-07, 20:02
JayCee - you're debating territorial advantage. I would argue that the rolling maul, if it continues AFTER I have indicated "advantage", more than meets the criteria of gaining tactical advantage.

Simon sorry to lapse into territiory it's probably because I cannot see a tactical advantage in a maul that moves 8m only to leave the attackers with a solid defensive line set against them when they could have kick at goal or a lineout to set up another maul yards from the goaline. I don't know any captain that would take an 8 yard maul instead of a penalty in the 22.

didds
19-02-07, 20:02
I don't know any captain that would take an 8 yard maul instead of a penalty in the 22.



... unless it started 7.9 metres out from the tryline ;-)

didds

Jaycee
19-02-07, 20:02
... unless it started 7.9 metres out from the tryline ;-)

didds

Thank you Didds :)

Jaycee
19-02-07, 21:02
JayCee - you're debating territorial advantage. I would argue that the rolling maul, if it continues AFTER I have indicated "advantage", more than meets the criteria of gaining tactical advantage.

Wait a minute I see now penny has dropped. You are assuming that since they are continuing mauling after you shout advantage it is clearly thier wish to play that way so they have tacical advantage as per (d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.
Must say this is a different way of interpretating tactical advantage from what I am used to. I have to agree as it stands you are technically correct though I wouldn't like to try explaining it on a pitch over here which brings me back to a reply I made earlier on that.
If you take the law exactly as it is stated receiving a ball 20 meters back towards your own goaline from the place of infringment in open play would immediately signal advantage over as you can do what you want with the ball, set up a maul pass it or kick it. I cannot see the immediate advantage in such a position perhaps after 30 seconds or so but as the law stands it is immediate as the player can do what he wishes. The law on advantage is subjective, different countries it appears have different views on what advantage is and how it is played at different level witness the start of this discussion on Walsh's odd decisions not to give kicks at goal inside the French 22. Which brings us nicely back to the start.
:0)

SimonSmith
19-02-07, 22:02
Disagree with your last paragraph, and that may just be me parsing language.

If I blew immediately the guy received the ball, then I would not have complied with the ball, as he would have been able to realize that advantage - to use the law concept, he would only have had the opportunity to get advantage.
HOWEVER if he gets the ball, I call advantage and he then plays it, then I think the fact that he had complete freedom to play the ball goes into my decision making - that's why in my earlier post I made it clear that the actions AFTER the call of "advantage" was what was influencing my thinking. This isn't a black and white issue, but I think that there's a good debate here.

jboulet4648
19-02-07, 23:02
Jaycee has seen the light....whether he agrees is irrelevant, but seeing may lead to believing!

Jaycee
20-02-07, 08:02
Jaycee has seen the light....whether he agrees is irrelevant, but seeing may lead to believing!

You forgot the Halleluiah :D

I do not agree however it is an advantage. As it was in the 22 I will stick to my original premis that a kick at goal is what a captain would expect if no possible scoring opportunity presents itself. It is the red zone.
I think we should agree to disagree, as though I see your point and you mine, I don't think any of us will change their minds, it goes against all of our experiences in advantage so far by the look of it.
Thank you for the discussion, you have both livened up a so far quiet week, till the next time.
:)

SimonSmith
20-02-07, 12:02
I do not agree however it is an advantage. As it was in the 22 I will stick to my original premis that a kick at goal is what a captain would expect if no possible scoring opportunity presents itself. It is the red zone.


I agree with that. BUT...
This may be where captaincy or astute players come into their own.

Let me go back to my little scenario. Rolling maul and I call advantage. The captain has to make his mind up - what does he want? If the maul KEEPS going (and the judgment is a little elastic) I would argue he made his mind up - he'd rather try to get his 7 than the slot at goal. His choice, not mine.
Bear in mind too, that as the law stands, if his team is a good mauling team it is VERY difficult to stop a good rolling maul lawfully.

I do see your hesitation Jaycee, and have some sympathy with your position. This has forced me to think through my reasoning on advantage - but I'm fairly comfortabler with where I alighted!

Jaycee
20-02-07, 14:02
Let me go back to my little scenario. Rolling maul and I call advantage. The captain has to make his mind up - what does he want? If the maul KEEPS going (and the judgment is a little elastic) I would argue he made his mind up - he'd rather try to get his 7 than the slot at goal. His choice, not mine.
Bear in mind too, that as the law stands, if his team is a good mauling team it is VERY difficult to stop a good rolling maul lawfully.


After some analysis I would like to sum up.

We both believe that the offended team should have a chance to score.

You believe that a maul is a very good scoring chance and after a few meters thatís it, advantage over, as the maul is moving. It might never have got within sniffing distance of the line but the mere fact it was a moving maul is enough to forego a relatively simple 3 points opportunity. To me thatís not an opportunity worth giving up a kick at goal as to me there must be some equality in the chance given to the one removed by calling advantage over. I would give the kick at goal if they failed to get the maul close to the line or even over it as rolling mauls that get over the line are not even certain to score, of course where the maul starts is important here but you say that the maul is the thing meerly having it is sufficient for tactical advantage.

The discussion is not therefore really about advantage but whether a maul is a gilt edged scoring opportunity worth a short range kick at goal.

SimonSmith
20-02-07, 15:02
After some analysis I would like to sum up.

We both believe that the offended team should have a chance to score.

You believe that a maul is a very good scoring chance and after a few meters thatís it, advantage over, as the maul is moving. It might never have got within sniffing distance of the line but the mere fact it was a moving maul is enough to forego a relatively simple 3 points opportunity. To me thatís not an opportunity worth giving up a kick at goal as to me there must be some equality in the chance given to the one removed by calling advantage over. I would give the kick at goal if they failed to get the maul close to the line or even over it as rolling mauls that get over the line are not even certain to score, of course where the maul starts is important here but you say that the maul is the thing meerly having it is sufficient for tactical advantage.

The discussion is not therefore really about advantage but whether a maul is a gilt edged scoring opportunity worth a short range kick at goal.

Erm, a little, but then a little "no" as well.

It's about the "freedom" element, and the repercussions of choices that you make.

I'm telling the attacking team that they have advantage; my stance is that an effective rolling maul constitutes freedom to use the ball as you wish.

The captain/scrum half has to make the decision: 3 points or continue the maul.

That's THEIR decision, not mine. If the maul got stopped, ball tied up in the middle, then I would revisit the question of "freedom...etc". However, if I feel that THEY have been in control and made their choice, then THEY have to deal with the fact that they may very well have turned down a kickable three points.

How close they got to the line, or the number of metres they moved are incidental factors for me, not prime movers - it's my assessment of how much freedom they had. If they make a bad choice, I'm not going to doubly penalize the defending side. You may almost be offering the attackers two bites....

jboulet4648
20-02-07, 15:02
Simon

Two great minds think alike!

J

SimonSmith
20-02-07, 15:02
Or fools seldom differ.

But I prefer your version!

Jaycee
21-02-07, 08:02
You may almost be offering the attackers two bites....

Almost, I hold advantage, in the red zone, until it shows the same amount of opportunity that a kick at goal would offer otherwise it's no advantage compared to a kick at goal.
We will agree to differ, we have fundamental differences of opinion on this.
Pleasure talking to you and thanks for making me look differently at advantage.

Account Deleted
22-02-07, 09:02
I'm no fan of Walsh . however, The blow did come when the French player picked up the ball . Yes, with hindsight, he would have waited but the call was reasonable and one we have all probably made in our time.
The issues wit hscrums going past the 90 and back foot offside. I saw nothing that is not "normal" at the top level. So to single Walsh out for what looks like a "secret" ditrective to the big boys is a little unfair.

Let's be honest: At international / Top club / Regional level the following hold true in 99.9% of games:-

1; Sentinels are ignore (Back foot)
2; Scrum Feed
3; Back Row bind
4; Scrum Collapse
5; Scrum Pop
6; Scrum 90

i know that the comment will be about "Material affect". That does not wash in all these cases.

didds
22-02-07, 14:02
so - what exactkly does the mauling captain have to do to ensure he gets his 3 points opportunity and not risk "advantage over" because the maul has progressed past the gain line? Strictly within the LoTG?

didds

Dixie
22-02-07, 15:02
so - what exactkly does the mauling captain have to do to ensure he gets his 3 points opportunity and not risk "advantage over" because the maul has progressed past the gain line? Strictly within the LoTG?

didds
Especially if the mauling captain is the Full Back!

jboulet4648
22-02-07, 15:02
I do not see where this entitlement to three points comes from? Nowhere in the lawbook does it say advantage on a penalty means 3 points, or a try....

it says a tactical or territorial advantage....if a team chooses to drive maul which consumes time and energy of the defense, that was there choice....

FlipFlop
22-02-07, 17:02
so - what exactkly does the mauling captain have to do to ensure he gets his 3 points opportunity and not risk "advantage over" because the maul has progressed past the gain line? Strictly within the LoTG?

didds

Get the half to get the ball out and either knock on or stand still and get tackled. That's the standard "I don't want the advantage" behaviour these days. Or if they stop driving forward before the gain line.

I'll even accept the captain saying words along the lines of "I'll take the penalty please". If players think that the kick is better, then let them have it. It's their decision really.

If you look at where the advantage law came from historically, then this is in line with that. (For those who don't know, the game used to reffed by the captains, so the captain infringed against wouldn't call the infringement if he thought they could gain more advantage than if he called it)

didds
23-02-07, 10:02
Get the half to get the ball out and either knock on


So you are adviocating a deliberate knock-on - which is a PK to the oppo surely?


didds

Robert Burns
23-02-07, 11:02
There was a good example in Barnsey's Italy/France game where they had a penalty advantage and the half back just asked for the penalty, Bransey gave it and stated advantage not wanted.

No probs with that.

Wert Twacky
23-02-07, 12:02
Didds,

Please tell me there's some element of tongue in cheek with that last statement?

FlipFlop
23-02-07, 13:02
So you are adviocating a deliberate knock-on - which is a PK to the oppo surely? :D


didds

Added the smilie for you.

beckett50
23-02-07, 16:02
So you are adviocating a deliberate knock-on - which is a PK to the oppo surely?


didds

Except that as we are playing advantage we come back for the original offence - but of course you knew that :p

didds
24-02-07, 17:02
Didds,

Please tell me there's some element of tongue in cheek with that last statement?

err.. was that the deliberate knock-on query?

well... what would you give to a deliberate knock-down/up/away in other circumstances? so what's the difference with a deliberate knock-on to ensure no advantage accrues?

didds

didds
24-02-07, 17:02
Except that as we are playing advantage we come back for the original offence - but of course you knew that :p

... well, that comes back to other threads about what should penalised... the original offense or the subsequent one. Deliberate knock on ois taking the proverbial out of the lotg IMO. Bad sportsmanship etc.

didds

ex-lucy
01-03-07, 14:03
just read this:

http://www.planet-rugby.com/Story/0,18259,3551_1933015,00.html

very interesting

Davet
01-03-07, 14:03
Advantage must be clear and real - a mere opportunity to gain advantage is insufficient.

At least that what the law says. see 8.2

Didds

- If Red knocks-on, and Blue then deliberately knocks-on, we come back to the original offence, unless advantage is over - which, given that its the next movement, it almost certainly won't be.

The fact that you think its taking the piss is immaterial.

didds
02-03-07, 22:03
davet - accept what you are saying ENTIRELY... but then in effect what the law ALLOWS is in some circumstances the advantage playing side can cheat with impunity?

i.e. if they get away with it they "win" and if they don;t they get the original infringement in their favour. How does that sit with the law on sportsmanship and gentlemanly conduct?

didds

Davet
04-03-07, 13:03
Define "cheat".

Is the flanker with hands in the ruck "cheating"?
Is any any deliberate breaking of the Laws "cheating"?

If so, then I have never met a rugby player who wasn't a cheat.

Such "cheating" is part and parcel of the game. It's why we need refs. If it didn't happen then the respective captans could no doubt sort out the issues between themselves.

As to "gentlemen" - I wouldn't trust one as far as I could throw him.

didds
04-03-07, 15:03
well... in this regard cheat=deliberately break the laws of rugby.

However you want to define it though the situation now arioses that a player "with advantage" is in the position of knowing he gets two bites of a cherry - he can try to "bend"/break the laws with a view to gaining an EXTRA advantage (so to speak) in the knowledge that the worst thing that will happen is his side retain the original offense.

As for gentlemanly, presumably the law makers have a view of what is or ois not permitted on the fioeld of play, and I amsuggesting that deliberately choosing to break a law in the circumstances described is thus "ungentlemanly" - it goes against the basic rules of fair play blah blah blah.

And finally i ask as refs whose purpose is - amngst others - to prevent cheats from prospering (as dave has explained) how do you feel about the situation decrivbed... where a cheat cannot in effect lose?

It doesn't sit well with me. But then I am not a referee.

didds

Davet
04-03-07, 17:03
If advantage were not permitted then the problem would not arise. But I suspect that this would be a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

If offences had a hierarchy, and so if red infringed at a low level, and we play advantage to blue, who then infringe at a high level - then I suppose we could decide against the more serious offence.

But how do we rank offences - 1 Scrum offence, 2 FK offence 3 PK offence? What about same level offences. Red are offside, blue have possession then commit a crossing offence?

Or should we have some other ranking... lower number in the Law book is lower in rank?

Account Deleted
06-03-07, 08:03
I've heard that there is consideration for banning the deliberate knock-on (used to signal "no thanks" to advantage). The Idea is that if it happens the ref calls advantage over and gives a penalty against the team deliberately knocking on.

I'm not too sure how practical the idea is though.

didds
06-03-07, 09:03
I've heard that there is consideration for banning the deliberate knock-on (used to signal "no thanks" to advantage). The Idea is that if it happens the ref calls advantage over and gives a penalty against the team deliberately knocking on.

I'm not too sure how practical the idea is though.

which would reflect the laws as they are writ i.e. a deliberate knock-on is a PK.

However, I would also concur that there needs to be some "official" way for a side to indicate they do not wish ADVANTAGE to be played.



How about the skipper has to start singing "Two Little Boys" ? ;-)



didds

Davet
06-03-07, 10:03
I suspect that the reason why players drop the ball forward to signal they don't wany advantage is because they do not trust the referee.

If they di, then they would have a good go at gaining an advantage - i.e. a position BETTER than an attempt at 3 points, safe in the knowledge that if such did not arise, fairly quickly, that the ref would come back to the offence.

When refs seek ways to keep the game flowing it becomes tempting to play a long advantage, and then to call it over after a 5 pass 10m territorial "advantage" - which is nowhere near as good as the 3 points attempt, or even the long kick to touch with benefit of throw.

Its not the Laws we need to worry about - it's ourselves.

didds
06-03-07, 20:03
If they di, then they would have a good go at gaining an advantage - i.e. a position BETTER than an attempt at 3 points, safe in the knowledge that if such did not arise, fairly quickly, that the ref would come back to the offence.


indeed... but never forgetting the occassional happenstance that a side is 2 points behind with PK advantage 15m dead in front of the posts with a m inute to play.

Who wants/needs advantage then compared to "a banker"? Especially (which i appreciate is where Dave's point comes in) if there is ANY danger of "advantage over" occurring.

didds

SimonSmith
06-03-07, 21:03
indeed... but never forgetting the occassional happenstance that a side is 2 points behind with PK advantage 15m dead in front of the posts with a m inute to play.

Who wants/needs advantage then compared to "a banker"? Especially (which i appreciate is where Dave's point comes in) if there is ANY danger of "advantage over" occurring.

didds


I think that that might be a different more difficult question: to what extent does a team's skill level/score/time of game affect the application of advantage?

I could make an argument that a consistent application of the advantage law, appropriate to the tone of match is what is important.

Account Deleted
06-03-07, 21:03
which would reflect the laws as they are writ i.e. a deliberate knock-on is a PK.

However, I would also concur that there needs to be some "official" way for a side to indicate they do not wish ADVANTAGE to be played.



How about the skipper has to start singing "Two Little Boys" ? ;-)



didds


Indeed they are so written. However, presently the ref comes back to the first offence. The suggestion is that the penalty will override the first offence. Players will "drop" the ball is ever more cunning ways to avoid it being called deliberate.

Dickie E
07-03-07, 01:03
I suspect that the reason why players drop the ball forward to signal they don't wany advantage is because they do not trust the referee.

If they di, then they would have a good go at gaining an advantage - i.e. a position BETTER than an attempt at 3 points, safe in the knowledge that if such did not arise, fairly quickly, that the ref would come back to the offence.

When refs seek ways to keep the game flowing it becomes tempting to play a long advantage, and then to call it over after a 5 pass 10m territorial "advantage" - which is nowhere near as good as the 3 points attempt, or even the long kick to touch with benefit of throw.

Its not the Laws we need to worry about - it's ourselves.


If the penalty offence is within kicking distance (in the ref's opinion based on team skill, weather conditions, etc) maybe advantage should be played until a try is scored or the attacking team makes a mistake (in which case the penalty would then be awarded). In other words, the only outcomes following an offence within kicking distance would be a try or a penalty. This means the attacking team would have no compunction to "drop" the ball.

Davet
07-03-07, 10:03
If the penalty offence is within kicking distance (in the ref's opinion based on team skill, weather conditions, etc) maybe advantage should be played until a try is scored or the attacking team makes a mistake


Now that could be a long long time - I have seen sides go through 15 phases of play, all in the opposition 22 before something gives. I don't really see playing advantage for about 5 minutes will help the game - that time juts becomes dead - the clock has run down.

I would rather referees look at advantage objectively, and after letting play continue for a few seconds to see what's what come back to the penalty.

Which is what Walsh did - and got caught out by a half second. Bummer, but sh!t happens.

Refs must read the game, and make decisions accordingly - and not be hung out to dry for an odd unlucky break - such as happened here.

"Red Advanatage, Blue 12 offside ".............."Going nowhere, gents. Back we come, Penalty to Red"