Reds v Hurricanes
-
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Rancid-Schnitzel Not going to deal with personal attacks mate.
There are two sides to this, regardless. Your point's aren't without vindication, granted. But what should Gardner do ... he's made the wrong decision, there is evidence in front of him showing him it's the wrong decison. Is he supposed to just ignore that? Then what happens if the reds lose by 4, and Gardner has awarded a try when there was evidence that he shouldn't have that he has seen? Imagine the outcry.
Is the current procedure perfect? Absolutely not. Are the correct rulings coming through at the end? Yes.
And for what it's worth ... Owens awarded Le Roux's try. And then referred it to the TMO after being advised to by the assistant ref.
Did you not read what I wrote? He awarded the tries far too quickly without consulting either the TMO or other officials. At least 2 of those should have always gone to the TMO. That is what I'm complaining about. Do you understand that now? But yes thank you for those remarks about the Canes having to learn the basics.
The Le Roux rundown immediately went to the TMO. It was a piss poor comparison in relation to my criticisms about the other night.
-
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Game was a bit ordinary. Looked like it was going to be 30 nil at half-time, but the yellow card (what the hell was that for?) changed things and then of course the ref kept blowing for tries and then changing his mind. They have to fix this shit. The entire crowd, Reds fans included, went apeshit when he annulled that TJP try. Ultimately people want to be entertained not witness that kind of bullshit. That was goddam farcical.
Alternatively, the canes should not step into touch, not knock the ball on and when taking a quick tap, tap the ball ... These 3 are basics.
I agree. I have no issues with what happened, as the correct call was made.
I would only have an issue if the Reds got a try and a reply wasn't shown until after the conversion.Perhaps the kicker should go for the conversion quickly instead of celebrating to cancel out the calls made from the big screen..
-
@mimic said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Game was a bit ordinary. Looked like it was going to be 30 nil at half-time, but the yellow card (what the hell was that for?) changed things and then of course the ref kept blowing for tries and then changing his mind. They have to fix this shit. The entire crowd, Reds fans included, went apeshit when he annulled that TJP try. Ultimately people want to be entertained not witness that kind of bullshit. That was goddam farcical.
Alternatively, the canes should not step into touch, not knock the ball on and when taking a quick tap, tap the ball ... These 3 are basics.
I agree. I have no issues with what happened, as the correct call was made.
I would only have an issue if the Reds got a try and a reply wasn't shown until after the conversion.Perhaps the kicker should go for the conversion quickly instead of celebrating to cancel out the calls made from the big screen..
And that's the problem that @Rancid-Schnitzel was talking about. It all comes down to what they play on the big screen. The tackle in the air on Savea didn't get replayed at all - gee I wonder why. I can almost guarantee that if the Reds were awarded the same try it would not be replayed until well after the fact.
So you essentially have the home TV crew influencing decisions that have a big impact on the match. It's farcical and I am amazed that WR has not addressed it at all.
-
@No-Quarter Yeah, I agree, you'd think WR would have got involved by now. I have no issue that the correct result was reached. However, I do think there is an issue with what gets replayed - there were a couple of times I'm surprised the TMO didn't check when the decision would have gone against the Reds. So, I guess the TMO only gets the Fox feed and can't chose to check stuff themselves.
TBH, I think Gardiner is a great ref, and I think he'll take learnings from this, probably to ask for TMOs to check stuff more in the future - which may turn out to be a bad thing in the long run as no ref will want to make an on field decision anymore.
-
and it isn't like this hasn't been happening for years now too...think the decision to (correctly) not award Cowan a try a few years back, despite it being outside the parameters of the TMO was one of the first instances I can recall, although that was TMO not local producer, so probably not great example haha....but they are becoming more frequent, with Owens awarding a try and then over turning it himself based on video replay, first time he did it was in the RWC.
Surely it wouldn't take much to tweak the rule to make allowances for these circumstances, although we don't want refs to second guess themselves and not award a try for fear of getting it wrong and being overturned by the TV replays.
It does seem daft that local TV producers can unfairly influence the ref.
-
Wow ... something must have escalated to get RS banned .. I don't disagree with his points, but in each situation, the right decision was ultimately made. Thus, I'd prefer focus to be on the Canes for the mistakes than the referee taking the time to find them.
Anyway, I was only watching background, but I thought in each situation after he awarded it, he was informed by the TMO / AR to check it out, not by what he saw on TV.
-
I don't clearly recall the Surveyor incident. Was there an immediate stoppage in play? Seems to me that a try no try will inevitably attract more scrutiny but I agree there need to be rules. Am I mistaken in thinking at the cricket that they use a stadium feed as opposed to the broadcasters feed? Surely this can be done with rules governing it's use
-
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Wow ... something must have escalated to get RS banned .. I don't disagree with his points, but in each situation, the right decision was ultimately made. Thus, I'd prefer focus to be on the Canes for the mistakes than the referee taking the time to find them.
Anyway, I was only watching background, but I thought in each situation after he awarded it, he was informed by the TMO / AR to check it out, not by what he saw on TV.
He just kept on whining about having posts deleted.
-
Often more replays are shown on the TV than at the ground. The big change now is that the ref uses the big screen to view replays in conjunction with the TMO/ARs. The TMO should have multiple camera views available to them so will always be able to correct a mistake.
-
@Bovidae said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Often more replays are shown on the TV than at the ground. The big change now is that the ref uses the big screen to view replays in conjunction with the TMO/ARs. The TMO should have multiple camera views available to them so will always be able to correct a mistake.
Yeah I think too much is made of what gets shown on the big screen st the ground given what is available. We don't know what is in the mind of the ref and it may well be that there is doubt even when a try or foul play has been ruled and the TMO process can then play out.
The big screen may or may not add to that doubt, but more often than not the TMO with superior view can provide more certainty.
It isn't a flawless system because human judgment is still relied upon, but I don't think what happened in this match was a major problem.
-
@Nepia said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@No-Quarter Yeah, I agree, you'd think WR would have got involved by now. I have no issue that the correct result was reached. However, I do think there is an issue with what gets replayed - there were a couple of times I'm surprised the TMO didn't check when the decision would have gone against the Reds. So, I guess the TMO only gets the Fox feed and can't chose to check stuff themselves.
TBH, I think Gardiner is a great ref, and I think he'll take learnings from this, probably to ask for TMOs to check stuff more in the future - which may turn out to be a bad thing in the long run as no ref will want to make an on field decision anymore.
Angus will probably also learn not to let himself get talked into a ruling by a yappy halfback when flustered.
Correct ruling would have been a scrum to the Reds after TJP didn't clearly take the tap (21.4(d))
I have only ever seen this sanction used once though and the player blew up at the ref so hard that the Union made him go to an anger management course before he was allowed to take the field again.
Usually if the ref sees it he gets the penalty to be re-taken properly.
-
-
@Bones said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Crucial Yeah I'd been wondering that and was surprised by Gardiner's change of mind on that one. I thought I must've got it wrong!
Thought I'd have a look on the Rugby Refs site to see if this raised a debate and .....http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20275-TJ-Perenara-s-Bluff
-
In that refs site, do they ever come to a conclusion?
From what I could see one guy cites -
21.3 HOW THE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of
kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from
knee to the foot, excluding the knee and the heel.
(b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The
opposing team throws in the ball.and its case closed. The another dude points out (rightly?) that the kick is not taken in any way, therefore it can't have been taken illegally, which also seems right. Then they bicker for 3 pages. Does anyone finally conclude which was OK?
-
@Crucial Nice. Interesting point being made on no tap actually occurring. Springs to mind when you often see a player do a "dummy" tap and go just to put the shits up the opposition - which never gets called up as an infringement, so I guess TJP's could slot in under this.
-
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Crucial is correct here. A failure to take the free kick in the prescribed manner has the sanction of a scrum to the opposition. Whoever is arguing against that point isn't fit to be a ref.
Yep, I read that bit, but the ways in which he can "fail" are listed. TJ doesn't fail in those ways. He doesn't take a tap in any way, correct or incorrect - from the link -
None of this applies.
There is no Law in the book that allows a scrum to be ordered for what happened because TJP did not commit any infringement. He simply picked up the ball and ran... it wasn't an incorrect type of kick or a bounce off the knee, which are the only infringements for which a scrum can be ordered. Why should Gold be disadvantaged because the AG initially failed to notice that TJP hadn't kicked the ball.
If you can show me a Law that says a player failing to kick the ball at all at a PK/FK is an infringement, I'll happily recant.
From there, for 4 more pagsm, no one shows how its an infringement. It sort of feels pedantic, but it also feels like he is right. I honestly have no idea
-
I remember in a Chiefs v Hurricanes game Ian Smith insisting they show a reply of something Sam Cane did off the ball. It got shown on the big screen until the ref called play back. While I like correct decisions getting made, typically only one side is getting the extra scrutiny. Smith would have kept his mouth shut if it was a Hurricane's infringement. Besides, I don't like commentary and ground staff having any input on game decisions.
-
@gollum It's simple: He didn't make a clear kick. That's the infringement.
