Tour to NZ 2022

[hugonaut]

The commentary on the Penalty Try was interesting. They were arguing that Saturdays decision was correct as Sexton didn't pass the ball. Well he couldn't really as his intended target was sitting on the ground.

Nothing but sophistry.

Awarding a penalty try is completely in the referee's gift. They can't write a law that defines when penalty tries have to be awarded, because it would be practically impossible to describe all situations and totally impossible to memorise said scripture.

With regards to the argument put forward today – why would you pass to a player who is on the ground? He can't play it, he's on the ground and out of the game. Why was he on the ground? Because the tighthead tackled him without the ball.

Peyper let play continue: he only called it back because the TMO told him to. So Sexton should have thrown a pass to a player who can't play the ball in order to force the referee's hand to give a penalty try, when the ref wasn't going to give anything? It's a byzantine argument.

"Penalty try: Awarded when, in the opinion of the referee, a try probably would have been scored (or scored in a more advantageous position) if not for an act of foul play by an opponent."

The referee just has to think that a try probably would have been scored. There's not an awful lot more to it that that. Would Ringrose have held the pass? Probably. Would he have beaten the cover? Probably. Would Jordan Barrett have tackled him and prevented him from scoring? Probably not.

Peyper was determined not to give a penalty try, so "in the opinion of the referee", it wasn't a penalty try. Because he's a dose.

[sunshiner1]

by hugonaut » July 12th, 2022, 2:48 pm


Peyper was determined not to give a penalty try, so "in the opinion of the referee", it wasn't a penalty try. Because he's a dose.

+1 He seems to be particularly obliging to New Zealand which is surprising for a Saffer.

[Oldschoolsocks]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

Why though? I love intercepts, shows great bravery and reading of the game from the defender, I really don't see why any laws should prevent them happening. In the vast majority of cases it's easy to spot when it's a deliberate slap down.

Was it you who mentioned that a lot of dropped balls are immediately pinged for being knocked on? Whoever it was it's something that drives me mad too and I'd see this the same way. If you're making a legitimate attempt to catch it then I can't fathom why it should be a penalty. It's not like it's rampant and it's not a dangerous act that needs to be stamped out. I'd hate for defenders to turn into robots who just get back in the line and are taken through the phases. We already see that at times at the breakdown when players are afraid to try and pinch a ball that's wide open. I hate that sh!t, give the players some freedom to play outside the systems.

A failed intercept needs to be a penalty for the same reason that you need to lose a player for an uncontested scrum. Cynicism

[hugonaut]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

Why though? I love intercepts, shows great bravery and reading of the game from the defender, I really don't see why any laws should prevent them happening. In the vast majority of cases it's easy to spot when it's a deliberate slap down.

Was it you who mentioned that a lot of dropped balls are immediately pinged for being knocked on? Whoever it was it's something that drives me mad too and I'd see this the same way. If you're making a legitimate attempt to catch it then I can't fathom why it should be a penalty. It's not like it's rampant and it's not a dangerous act that needs to be stamped out. I'd hate for defenders to turn into robots who just get back in the line and are taken through the phases. We already see that at times at the breakdown when players are afraid to try and pinch a ball that's wide open. I hate that sh!t, give the players some freedom to play outside the systems.

It doesn't prevent intercepts from happening. Players can still go for intercepts, they just have to intercept it rather than knock it on. I'm not saying that it has to be a clean catch, I'm saying that it has to be regathered.

What I have proposed favours clarity over nuance. At the moment they can be judged as an unintentional knock-on or as a intentional knock-on based on a referee's whim or home advantage or situation in a match. This solution lets every player on the pitch know what is going to happen, without fail, if they go for an intercept and don't get it. It makes life easier for referees.

[desperado]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

I think the law is clear. None of that is there anyway; unless I'm missing something. It seems clear to me; and clarified further with the short vid (World Rugby Laws app)

[the spoofer]

The commentary on the Penalty Try was interesting. They were arguing that Saturdays decision was correct as Sexton didn't pass the ball. Well he couldn't really as his intended target was sitting on the ground.

Nothing but sophistry.

Awarding a penalty try is completely in the referee's gift. They can't write a law that defines when penalty tries have to be awarded, because it would be practically impossible to describe all situations and totally impossible to memorise said scripture.

With regards to the argument put forward today – why would you pass to a player who is on the ground? He can't play it, he's on the ground and out of the game. Why was he on the ground? Because the tighthead tackled him without the ball.

Peyper let play continue: he only called it back because the TMO told him to. So Sexton should have thrown a pass to a player who can't play the ball in order to force the referee's hand to give a penalty try, when the ref wasn't going to give anything? It's a byzantine argument.

"Penalty try: Awarded when, in the opinion of the referee, a try probably would have been scored (or scored in a more advantageous position) if not for an act of foul play by an opponent."

The referee just has to think that a try probably would have been scored. There's not an awful lot more to it that that. Would Ringrose have held the pass? Probably. Would he have beaten the cover? Probably. Would Jordan Barrett have tackled him and prevented him from scoring? Probably not.

Peyper was determined not to give a penalty try, so "in the opinion of the referee", it wasn't a penalty try. Because he's a dose.

Likewise today. Scannell would almost certainly have scored if the MAB LH hadn't joined the maul illegally 2m from the line. Stone clad PT.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

Why though? I love intercepts, shows great bravery and reading of the game from the defender, I really don't see why any laws should prevent them happening. In the vast majority of cases it's easy to spot when it's a deliberate slap down.

Was it you who mentioned that a lot of dropped balls are immediately pinged for being knocked on? Whoever it was it's something that drives me mad too and I'd see this the same way. If you're making a legitimate attempt to catch it then I can't fathom why it should be a penalty. It's not like it's rampant and it's not a dangerous act that needs to be stamped out. I'd hate for defenders to turn into robots who just get back in the line and are taken through the phases. We already see that at times at the breakdown when players are afraid to try and pinch a ball that's wide open. I hate that sh!t, give the players some freedom to play outside the systems.

It doesn't prevent intercepts from happening. Players can still go for intercepts, they just have to intercept it rather than knock it on. I'm not saying that it has to be a clean catch, I'm saying that it has to be regathered.

What I have proposed favours clarity over nuance. At the moment they can be judged as an unintentional knock-on or as a intentional knock-on based on a referee's whim or home advantage or situation in a match. This solution lets every player on the pitch know what is going to happen, without fail, if they go for an intercept and don't get it. It makes life easier for referees.

It doesn’t prevent it but it would clearly discourage it enormously so would have the same effect.

I think you have to allow for nuance for a lot of decisions really. Obviously you try and reduce it as much as possible but we already have it for players being in a realistic position to catch a ball in the air and I think that by and large that works really well. In fact I’d say that sometimes it’s worse to have that kind of clarity such as when a player gets upended but lands on the top of their back as opposed to their neck or head, or like on Saturday when Hansen was, arguably, caught on the chest first so a yellow card was given instead of a red.

To my mind there are certain incidents where it’s pretty obvious if someone has been cynical, reckless, or deliberate, and failed intercepts are definitely in that category so a bit of nuance is fine.

One of Leinster’s greatest ever moments was a one handed intercept against Munster. I would really hate for a player like BOD to have to have reined himself in so that we could wait for an opportunity for Rocky to counter ruck successfully. For me it’s something that should be encouraged as opposed to stamped down on.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

A failed intercept needs to be a penalty for the same reason that you need to lose a player for an uncontested scrum. Cynicism

But that ignores the fact that you can actually make a judgment on whether the attempted catch was legit and what the situation was. For example, big difference between a failed one on your own line when you’re committed to the ball carrier and there’s a free man outside, compared with on halfway when a catch will see you under the sticks.

If people want to it to be more black and white then I could get on board with any failed intercept in your own 22 automatically being a yellow, but to have that view about them in general doesn’t make sense to me at all.

[the spoofer]

Nuance is all well and good until you play NZ in NZ and nuance becomes bias.

[OTT]

One of Leinster’s greatest ever moments was a one handed intercept against Munster. I would really hate for a player like BOD to have to have reined himself in so that we could wait for an opportunity for Rocky to counter ruck successfully. For me it’s something that should be encouraged as opposed to stamped down on.

If he knocks that on he would have got a yellow (I believe) and that was 13 years ago.

He knew the risk then (I believe) and took the gamble. He’s caught it and he’s a hero. Have a picture of it hung up, legendary. If he fails he deserved a yellow, Munster had 5 men plus Howlett running a line from the inside against Birch.

The reward was huge, the risk was huge. In BOD we trust!

[hugonaut]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

I think the law is clear. None of that is there anyway; unless I'm missing something. It seems clear to me; and clarified further with the short vid (World Rugby Laws app)

I was trying to illustrate how commentators are describing the reasoning behind awarding a scrum rather than a penalty – that's where most people watching the match are getting their information on the laws from [and besides, you have underlined a part I quoted directly from the law].

Here's another way of looking at it: why should a team's attack stop for a defensive player's mistake? If the defensive player intercepts the pass, well and good, it's an offensive mistake to make a pass that is intercepted. If it's a knock-on, then the defensive player has made a mistake and the attacking team have to take the brunt of it, their attack is stopped stone dead.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

One of Leinster’s greatest ever moments was a one handed intercept against Munster. I would really hate for a player like BOD to have to have reined himself in so that we could wait for an opportunity for Rocky to counter ruck successfully. For me it’s something that should be encouraged as opposed to stamped down on.

If he knocks that on he would have got a yellow (I believe) and that was 13 years ago.

He knew the risk then (I believe) and took the gamble. He’s caught it and he’s a hero. Have a picture of it hung up, legendary. If he fails he deserved a yellow, Munster had 5 men plus Howlett running a line from the inside against Birch.

The reward was huge, the risk was huge. In BOD we trust!

Would he have? I think it would just have been a scrum, especially back then. But you get my point anyway? It's...

1) A skill in itself.
2) Can provide great moments
3) Being stricter on failed attempts would likely kill it.

I do get the concerns to an extent, like I said above if people want to take subjectivity out of it then I would suggest that you do that based on the area of the pitch rather than just saying it's a penalty if it's a knock on. I'd be pretty happy with that, you're far more likely to be cynical in your own 22 so I'm happy not to give the defender the benefit of the doubt in those situations.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

The law needs to change. It's too open to interpretation, abuse and controversy. Players and referees need to know where they stand.

Failed intercepts which result in a knock-on should be penalties. All this stuff about hands up, hands down, ball up, ball down, single hand, two hands, "a reasonable expectation that the player could regather possession" ... just get rid of it.

From there, you can apply other sanctions varying with the incident [i.e. yellow card, penalty try etc.]

I think the law is clear. None of that is there anyway; unless I'm missing something. It seems clear to me; and clarified further with the short vid (World Rugby Laws app)

I was trying to illustrate how commentators are describing the reasoning behind awarding a scrum rather than a penalty – that's where most people watching the match are getting their information on the laws from [and besides, you have underlined a part I quoted directly from the law].

Here's another way of looking at it: why should a team's attack stop for a defensive player's mistake? If the defensive player intercepts the pass, well and good, it's an offensive mistake to make a pass that is intercepted. If it's a knock-on, then the defensive player has made a mistake and the attacking team have to take the brunt of it, their attack is stopped stone dead.

It's not stopped stone dead, they get a scrum. On that point though, I'd suggest that a game can't end after a failed intercept. I can't ever remember it happening but that might be a big incident one day.

[Dave Cahill]

The problem with any law that involves an action thats open to interpretation is that it involves an action thats open to interpretation. The problem isn't ones like today or in the Wallabies - England game, they were clearly attempts to catch the ball that failed. And thats why the problem is ones like today and in the Wallabies - England game. So if you remove the grey area then you remove the problem. The law is clear, but it depends on opinion. One refs reasonable expectation is another refs cynical play

[pangurban1]

Quite a turnaround for both games.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I have to eat humble pie with regard to Scannell. I thought he was done at this level but he was really good again today. There have been a few Munster players that I’ve written off after watching them play in red but then they step up for Ireland, hopefully that new coaching ticket can get them performing well consistently.

Really impressed with that performance. It can’t have been easy to prepare for this one and improve on the first game but they were physical, well organised, the half backs controlled things, and the backs were sharp when they needed to be, what more could you want?

Treadwell had a stormer. There really is a player in there and he’s only 26. I’m not sure he’ll ever be consistent and make the Ulster starting jersey his own, but from an Ireland POV we only need him to provide the odd cameo and he’s well capable of that.

Big Joe gave away some penalties again but I’ve a lot of sympathy with two of them. For the one where Dickson was looking at him and pointing he didn’t actually tell him to leave it so he could easily have thought he was being told he was good to go. For the one where he got back up after coming through the ruck he didn’t actually go for the ball and was just showing good fight. In general he was excellent and that offload was sublime. I thought Baird was very good when he came on too. Back row all very good but Coombes really hit his straps and hopefully he’ll do it in the test team in November, we could really do with that ball carrying option.

Thought the halfbacks went well. Casey kicked well in tough conditions and Frawley looked so comfortable again. I thought Frawley’s work after Treadwell stole a lineout following the yellow card was absolutely outstanding. His clearing kick was excellent but then his chase and aggressive defence was really inspirational stuff.

Larmour looked sharp and I was happy for him getting his two tries but his kicking was pretty average. If he’s going to kick long like that then it should be close to the touch line instead of giving Love the whole field to run at. JOB didn’t get much ball but I was really impressed by him as well, very physical in defence and mopped things up brilliantly at the back, particularly that sliding catch.

[Ruckedtobits]

One of the biggest differences today against the Maori was our defensive qualities. Our tackling was more aggressive and accurate. Our line speed was generally quick and united and our chase line, mostly, was connected and talking. Those are huge improvements in a scratch team and demonstrate the quality of the coaching over the past fortnight.

That's perhaps the biggest benefit of a Tour. The constant interaction and learning between players and coaches and among players together. Today, this group looked and played like a team and on top of that their skills emerged more effectively.

There were some criticisms of McCarthy for penalty concessions but some of what he did was superb. One 'strip' and offload on the left side at halfway was magnificent whilst some of his attempted poaching was nearly very good. If he can learn from Timoney how to set himself stronger when he arrives at breakdown, he will have another valuable skill.

80 minutes against a Maori pack in filthy weather is a great entry on his CV. To have accomplished it on a winning team, is an even better one.

[dropkick]

It was an excellent performance. Not perfect but a big improvement on the last game. That win will give the whole squad a lift and put more doubts in NZ minds.

[riocard911]

'We're angry': Sam Cane demands All Blacks backlash

He's welcoming the chance to unleash fury and make amends for the Disaster in Dunedin.

12 July, 2022 - 08:10 AM
New Zealand Herald


I didn't post the link, as the article itself is behind a paywall. The headlines say it all, though. No doubt Team Ireland are quaking in their boots ....

p.s. Franno managed to get an article about himself in the same newspaper, headlined: "Ian Foster 'a clown': Irish rugby writer slams All Blacks". What a tool....

[Experimental]

Thought Treadwell went up a level today, and its amazing how much better Scannell looks with some decent coaching. Some terrible mistakes, but for scratch team v scratch team youd have to say in the conditions that was pretty decent. Bundee and Henshaw for me on sat, with Frawley and Larmour on the bench. I reckon Earls and Joey have had enough minutes. Might be a week too soon for McCloskey