Search results

But that’s exactly the issue Stu. And To be clear, you're suggesting that we apply the law as absolute in regards to the TMO protocol, but allow interpretation when it comes to defining a ruck? Why not the other way around? Isn't that the recipe for disaster?

Cross, in many ways I absolutely agree with you. The Laws are there for a reason - and should be followed whenever it's practicable to do so. However, the mess we find ourselves in at the moment with regard to the way the TV game is refereed, and the way the law book reads (despite many attempts...

Apologies, potentially poor working by me. The penalty was given against SA. i.e. To New Zealand. ...And yes as I stated - the TMO brought it back for a knock on - but Barnes didn't react to that because he didn't have to, having seen the penalty offence by Etzebeth while reviewing the knock...

I think this is a spurious argument. The play was never brought back for a knock on - it was for the penalty against SA. The whole "Two Phases" argument doesn't apply for that. It's true that the knock on seemed to be the reason the TMO flagged it to WB (it was certainly how the communication...

I agree with crossref , and IMO - better to get the right decision, even by the wrong method. But when you look at it - he actually came back for the penalty ( I think for playing the man in the air at the lineout). The TMO brought his attention to the knock on- but Barnes spotted the penalty...

I think the wording of Law 7 is interesting here: A player must not: Intentionally infringe any law of the game. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed...

I think it was implying he jumped into the tackle. At least that what I thought it was.

@didds When the draw was made in 2020 - Wales were ranked 4th, not 9th. That’s why they were seeded top in a pool. Scotland were 9th- that’s why they ended up with 2 top teams in their pool.

In my mind, the law read that the ball must go through the posts from direction of the playing area, but evidently it just says it must be kicked from the FOP. Think I would stick with my instinct and not give it, but not sure how I’d answer any questions in the bar later.

I thought it was 8.4 Conversion, penalty goal and dropped goal For any goal to be successful, the ball must be kicked over the crossbar and between the goal posts without first touching a team-mate or the ground. Didn't hit the ground Didn't hit a team-mate = Successful kick. Same for a PK and...

For me, 18.2.b covers that, and i see it as you do - 2. The ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal if: a) The ball reaches the plane of touch but is caught, knocked or kicked by a player who is in the playing area. b) A player jumps, from within or outside the playing area, and...

Agreed. But then....who is at the moment? I can imagine Wayne Barnes would be pretty good at this when he finally hangs up his whistle, but struggle to think of a recently retired Ref who would be better.

NFL do this pretty well, with an ex-umpire or laws expert on hand to explain controversial or borderline decisions. Often explaining why the umpires might have got it wrong - i.e. influences, visibility etc.

I think i remember the incident you're referring to. It was indeed a penalty and the player (Louis Rees Zammit i think) did exactly as you say - started by standing outside the playing area, jumped, knocked the ball from outside the plane of touch, back across the plane into the playing area...

My mistake then! Apologies.

I think that’s quite disrespectful to the role of a hooker at international level.

It was brought in, I believe- partly as a response to Wales and Frances tactics in their 100+ minute match a few years ago (2018/19?).

Ok, you’re picking up MY language there, not WRs. Not sure what that gets you, but fair enough ?‍♂️ The application guidelines are there to add detail, and advice on how to apply the laws. while it’s bad luck for Italy, there’s also a lesson there for all players - if your in a position that...

I think at this level, each position is so specialised that it’s less likely that a prop can substitute for a hooker. Thinking player safety- having a few matches as a Hooker at under 16s probably doesn’t suggest you can keep yourself safe at international level.

It’s in the application guidelines, rather than the law itself. If you’re using the app - hit the “more” ellipsis and then guidelines - there’s a handy table there to tell you what should happen. Ref has it spot on (although probably not what the law was intended for).