Rugby...

[Big H*]

Quite convenient to just ignore the context of the game. With a 9 point difference there is little hope of overturning the result and the last few minutes,but with a 2 point difference there is everything to play for. All you need is a penalty or a drop goal.

 

If the sky drops we will ALL have to wear blue caps, even you Rihanna fans, she loves you guys because you cannot beat anything!!!!!!!!

 

Better start listening to old farts!!!!!! ...... even old fart Alister C has conceded the stormers are kuk!!!!!!!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Big H*

[Big H*]

Anyway not so many small words afterall, but perhaps some old f arts need to stop trolling and look towards his better half for attention and affection rather than making a menace of himself here.

 

And you know this how????? .................... at your young age you should not be overwhelmed by your own problems

[Shebeen]

Quite convenient to just ignore the context of the game. With a 9 point difference there is little hope of overturning the result and the last few minutes,but with a 2 point difference there is everything to play for. All you need is a penalty or a drop goal.

 

Agreed, but we already knew he knows nothing about the game.

 

Standard of reffing has not been good this year, been noted by many.

Always good to see what the experts say, this is almost a week old but worth reading. the word 'probably' is really where the grey area emanates from.

 

http://www.rugby365.com/article/53945-law-discussion-ten-rebel-points

 

When the Rebels played the Stormers in Melbourne on Friday, there were two incidents that provoked discussion. In total they were worth two points to the Rebels.

The one concerned the retake of a penalty, the other a penalty try.

(i) Retaking the penalty

Deon Fourie is penalised at a tackle. The Rebels' captain Scott Higginbotham tell the referee that they were kicking at goal. Jason Woodward of the Rebels, receives the kicking tee, places the ball on it and takes careful aim at the posts which are straight ahead of him.

Meanwhile the Stormers gather in a close group for some kind of meeting.

Woodward comes forward to kick and at the lest minute swings across the ball and sends it bouncing near the cornerflag on his left as two Rebels and a Stormer race towards the ball.

The referee stops play and tells Woodward that he had indicated a kick at goal and was required to make a genuine attempt to kick at goal.

Then he says to the Rebels: Take it again."

Right?

Law 21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK

(B) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.

Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

There is nothing in the law that suggests that 'take it again' is an option to the kicker's team. It should have been a scrum to the Stormers.

It is not great if a referee makes a mistake in law.

(ii) Penalty try

The ball is bouncing all over the place. It seems to go forward from Luke Jones but the referee says it went backwards.

Nick Phipps of the Rebels gets the ball and passes it to Higginbotham on his right. Higginbotham kicks low with his left foot. It strikes the foot of Deon Fourie of the Stormers and bounces back towards Higginbotham. The ball strikes Higginbotham's foot and rebounds forward. Martin Bezuidenhout gathers the ball. Higginbotham tackles Bezuidenhout, his left hand and arm going round Bezuidenhout's front. Bezuidenhout drops the ball as he is tackled by Scott Higginbotham. Phipps foots the ball through towards the Stormers' in-goal. Phipps goes to chase it as Bezuidenhout tries to hold him back, pulling on Phipps's jersey.

The ball goes into the Stormers' in-goal where three players dive for it - Bryan Habana, Gary van Aswegen and Nick Phipps. Habana seems marginally ahead.

The referee consults the TMO saying: 'Please advise try, no try. And just go back to the last passage.'

The TMO examines the incident and says: 'I've got confirmed foul play on a pull-back. Otherwise a try would probably have been scored.'

The referee repeats the information and then says that in other words the TMO was recommending a penalty try and a yellow card for Bezuidenhout - which is what happened.

Bezuidenhout's foul play - is clear and obvious.

Law 10 deals with various forms of foul play.

Law 10.4 (e) Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.

Law 22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY

(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.

The TMO used the word probably. That was his judgement and it has the probability of being right. After all Habana just beat Phipps to the ball even though Phipps had been held back. It seems probable that he would have beaten Habana to the ball and so scored a try.

Accept all of that but what about the possible knock-ons by Jones and Higginbotham. The TMO appeared not to have examined them.

He was right not to have examined them.

The expanded TMO functionality includes identifying foul play, and clear and obvious infringements in the last two phases before a try is scored. All officials (the referee, assistant referees and TMO) are allowed to initiate a referral and make recommendations.

This would include a possible knock-on but applies only to a case where a try is scored. In this case the try was not scored. Then, according to the IRB's protocol, the possibility of a knock-on could not be considered. Ands so the experienced TMO did not consider the possibility of a knock-on.

It may be a pity that the protocol did not allow for a case such as this but the IRB decided it had to draw the line somewhere other wise the number of referrals to the TMO would escalate.

If the referee missed a knock-on in Higginbotham's tackle, it is understandable. It would not be easy to see where his left hand made contact with Bezuidenhout - the forearm, the hand, the ball. At east he did not guess.

In the case of the penalty try there is no infraction of law. One can only then discuss judgement and there is no evidence that it was faulty.

The protocol says this of dealing with an infringement other than foul play. Foul play my be examined anywhere on the field and at any time during play. It is not limited the way the examination of infringements is. Please, note again that it may not be used if a 'try' has not been scored.

Additional jurisdiction protocol .

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

• Knock-on

• Forward pass

• Player in touch

• Off-side

• Obstruction

• Tackling a player without the ball

• Foul play

• Double movement in act of scoring

2.4 Referee judgement decisions for all other aspects of the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.

2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion, on each occasion, that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.

2.6 For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.

2.7 If there has been an infringement, the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.

2.8 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

[forkie]

Somebody actually need to take a long hard look at the game and simplify it big time. Its not ha healthy situation when the rules are so many and so complicated that 5 different people can have 5 different interpretations.For example the downward pressure rule in the try. F-me if its over its a try. The hard work has been done.

 

I am by no means a soccer fan, but there is like 5 rules in the game. They are unambiguous. They dont even need teleivision refs. The game flows. I can get so frustrated wathing rugby sometimes

[Big H*]

Somebody actually need to take a long hard look at the game and simplify it big time. Its not ha healthy situation when the rules are so many and so complicated that 5 different people can have 5 different interpretations.For example the downward pressure rule in the try. F-me if its over its a try. The hard work has been done.

 

I am by no means a soccer fan, but there is like 5 rules in the game. They are unambiguous. They dont even need teleivision refs. The game flows. I can get so frustrated wathing rugby sometimes

 

I agree, but only for the five seconds a ruck may last!!!!!

[Cassie]

I agree, but only for the five seconds a ruck may last!!!!!

 

Oom H....just do me a favour this weekend and beat the Sharqies....I'm not supposed to shout forthe Bulls!! I't like kissing your granny with some tongue...

[flymango]

Still no Brussow? I'm starting to think there must be something else at play here (like something of a private/personal nature).

 

Players invited to the second Springbok training camp of 2013:

Forwards (19):

Tendai Mtawarira, Trevor Nyakane, Jannie du Plessis, Coenie Oosthuizen, Wiehahn Herbst, Adriaan Strauss, Bismarck du Plessis, Chiliboy Ralepelle, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe, Juandré Kruger, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Siya Kolisi, Marcell Coetzee, Willem Alberts, Arno Botha, Lappies Labuschagne, Pierre Spies, Ryan Kankowski

Backs (19):

Jano Vermaak, Francois Hougaard, Pat Lambie, Morné Steyn, Elton Jantjies, Demetri Catrakilis, Jean de Villiers, Juan de Jongh, Jan Serfontein, Robert Ebersohn, JJ Engelbrecht, Bryan Habana, Lwazi Mvovo, Raymond Rhule, Lionel Mapoe, Bjorn Basson, Gio Aplon, Zane Kirchner, Willie le Roux

[Stretch]

Oom H....just do me a favour this weekend and beat the Sharqies....I'm not supposed to shout forthe Bulls!! I't like kissing your granny with some tongue...

 

oi! we are going to get a klap....but i can hope.....and yes i put the sharks down for a win!

[nickc]

Oom H....just do me a favour this weekend and beat the Sharqies....I'm not supposed to shout forthe Bulls!! I't like kissing your granny with some tongue...

 

I am watching you two :ph34r:

[flymango]

Still no Brussow? I'm starting to think there must be something else at play here (like something of a private/personal nature).

 

 

Players invited to the second Springbok training camp of 2013:

 

Forwards (19):

Tendai Mtawarira, Trevor Nyakane, Jannie du Plessis, Coenie Oosthuizen, Wiehahn Herbst, Adriaan Strauss, Bismarck du Plessis, Chiliboy Ralepelle, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe, Juandré Kruger, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Siya Kolisi, Marcell Coetzee, Willem Alberts, Arno Botha, Lappies Labuschagne, Pierre Spies, Ryan Kankowski

Backs (19):

Jano Vermaak, Francois Hougaard, Pat Lambie, Morné Steyn, Elton Jantjies, Demetri Catrakilis, Jean de Villiers, Juan de Jongh, Jan Serfontein, Robert Ebersohn, JJ Engelbrecht, Bryan Habana, Lwazi Mvovo, Raymond Rhule, Lionel Mapoe, Bjorn Basson, Gio Aplon, Zane Kirchner, Willie le Roux

 

My team from the squad would be:

 

15 Lambie

14 Aplon

13 Serfontein

12 Ebersohn

11 Habana

10 Steyn

9 Vermaak

8 Alberts

7 Labuschagne

6 Coetzee

5 Du Toit

4 Etzebeth

3 Oosthuizen

2 Strauss (captain)

1 Beast (or Nyakane)

[nickc]

Still no Brussow? I'm starting to think there must be something else at play here (like something of a private/personal nature).

 

 

Players invited to the second Springbok training camp of 2013:

 

Forwards (19):

Tendai Mtawarira, Trevor Nyakane, Jannie du Plessis, Coenie Oosthuizen, Wiehahn Herbst, Adriaan Strauss, Bismarck du Plessis, Chiliboy Ralepelle, Eben Etzebeth, Flip van der Merwe, Juandré Kruger, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Siya Kolisi, Marcell Coetzee, Willem Alberts, Arno Botha, Lappies Labuschagne, Pierre Spies, Ryan Kankowski

Backs (19):

Jano Vermaak, Francois Hougaard, Pat Lambie, Morné Steyn, Elton Jantjies, Demetri Catrakilis, Jean de Villiers, Juan de Jongh, Jan Serfontein, Robert Ebersohn, JJ Engelbrecht, Bryan Habana, Lwazi Mvovo, Raymond Rhule, Lionel Mapoe, Bjorn Basson, Gio Aplon, Zane Kirchner, Willie le Roux

 

Yeah - what is the story with Brussow, every time it seems like there is a different story why he is not selected.

[flymango]

Yeah - what is the story with Brussow, every time it seems like there is a different story why he is not selected.

 

I've heard rumours it has more to do with off field performance than on field ... Pure speculation, of course.

[Wannabe]

Perhaps the Bulls tried to buy him and he wasn't interested (or they could not afford him) now it is payback from old Heyneke....

[nickc]

I've heard rumours it has more to do with off field performance than on field ... Pure speculation, of course.

 

Ahh - okay.

[Octavian]

I think Brussouw is to small. Meyer prefers big boys...up his arse...

[Big H*]

I think Brussouw is to small. Meyer prefers big boys...up his arse...

 

.............. somebody like Etsebet and that guy who dates chicks at Teazers????????