What Chabal did was wrong — no two ways about it. How would players or coaches feel if referees started criticising them and their performances in public the way Chabal did in respect of referees? Referees don’t criticise players or coaches in public like this and players and coaches should not criticise referees in public either. For the whole system to work there needs to be a basic level of respect displayed between players/coaches and referees — even when decisions don’t go your way and you think the whistle blower is biased or an incompetent idiot (which he may be — but then again the problem may be that the person criticising the referee is biased/incompetent etc).

It’s not a question of whether referees should be beyond criticism; of course they shouldn’t be. It is, however, a question of whether it is appropriate for a current player to criticise a current referee in public as Chabal did. It is not and should not be. Journalists and members of the public are and should be free to analyse referees’ performances and to criticise them in public fora like this one; players should not be.

The position of players (and coaches for that matter) vis a vis referees in rugby is a bit like the position of lawyers vis a vis judges. You can’t have a lawyer holding a press conference on the steps of the courthouse after he’s lost a case accusing the judge of incompetence or bias. It shows a fundamental disrespect for the whole legal system of which he is a necessary participant. Such behaviour is (in my view rightly) seen as contempt of court and is completely unprofessional. A lawyer who did that would face disciplinary proceedings and probably be barred from practice — and rightly so. And similarly you can’t have players (or coaches) criticising referees in public or referees criticising players (or coaches) in public. By all means, players and coaches should be able to raise their concerns about a referee’s performance through appropriate internal channels. I’m all for referees getting feedback on their performances and being held accountable for inadequate performances. But leave the public criticism of referees to journalists and members of the public at large. You can’t have a game of rugby without the players and similarly you can’t have a game of rugby without a referee. That requires the referees respect the role of players and that players respect the role of referees.

But surely that was a problem with the audio between the TMO and the match referee. Everyone watching on TV knew it went over and I’m sure that after viewing the video the TMO also came to that conclusion very promptly. The problem was that once he’d come to that conclusion he couldn’t communicate it to the referee because of problems with the audio equipment.

The actual figures are around 500,000 Kiwis living in Oz and around 65,000 Aussies living in Enzed.

You’re right: the idea of cumulative viewing figures is not that difficult to comprehend. But did it occur to you that they did in fact *comprehend* it and were actually *criticising* the concept by mocking the double (multiple in fact) counting that goes on?

I understand perfectly well what a figure of 4 billion cumulative viewers means. I just find it a somewhat misleading metric of an event’s true popularity. The figure is fine in so far as it goes but I also want to know how much double counting is going on.

Does anyone know exactly when the “hit” came into the scrum?

Watching some clips of matches from the 1984 Wallabies tour of the British Isles shows scrums packing down without the “hit”. For instance this video of Scotland vs Australia (1984) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXyWYXOLPRE shows scrums packing down at 0:12 and 3:36. Other matches from the same tour (follow the links on youtube — they’ll either come up in the related videos or click on the author of that video for more uploads from the same source) also show scrums packing down the old fashioned way.

I’ve never played in the front row but looking at the scrums nowadays it would appear that most of the collapses arise out of the “hit”. If you had the two teams packing down like they used to you would get far fewer collapses but still an opportunity for a dominant pack to get a shove on, which includes the possibility of scoring a pushover try if they are good enough.

You wouldn’t need to change the laws, just interpret the existing law against pushing before the ball is in to mean that the two teams have to pack down (like we used to have) rather than charge at one another on the engagement (as we currently have).

“What about the bizarre five minutes it took to decide whether an italian penalty went over or not (when it clearly did) ??”

What about them? None of what happened there was Berdos’ fault. The two touchies — the people who should have the best view of whether a goal was scored or not — failed to signal that the ball had carried through the posts and over the cross bar for a goal. Now in theory Berdos could have overruled them on the spot if he was of the view that a goal had been scored. But in these days where we have a TMO it would be a brave ref who overruled the touchies without going to the TMO. And when Berdos did try to go to the TMO the microphone / earpiece didn’t work which meant he couldn’t communicate with the TMO. Hardly Berdos’ fault.

The premiershiprugby.tv stream was legit (i.e. not in breach of copyright); other streams were not (i.e. in breach of copyright). The legit streaming sites (where they exist — often the only streams are those in breach of copyright) usually charge you to watch the stream; the non-legit ones typically do not.

I don’t condone breach of copyright of course, but for those interested there are websites that list various streams.

There are various platforms for streaming. There are those which require you to install some extra software on your computer (such as sopcast or veetle — available free for download) for the stream to work in your browser. And then there are those that do not require any additional software.

Indeed there must — unless it gets shut down (as the streams often are — after all, it’s not exactly legal and the rights owners often try to shut down the streamers). Try http://is.gd/gQNul (although the stream listed there — assuming it goes ahead and of that there is no guarantee — will require you to install Veetle). There may be other streams of this match as well if you care to trawl other streaming sites for information.

@ Jerry:
“it does seem to be something of a loophole that a player tackled near the goal line is allowed to reach out and score and a tackler simply has to allow him to do so. If he’s allowed to try and score, surely the defender should be permitted to prevent him?”

Defending players who are on their feet do NOT simply have to allow the tackled player to plant the ball over the goal line. Law 22.4(f) (which was quoted above) says that “defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.”

Whàt dö yôù méàn wë càn’t dö acçênts? Are you saying that people don’t know how to type them or that The Roar won’t display them?

“where else in the game excpet for the scrum, will a referee yellow card somebody for poor technique? If you are a bad passer, a slow runner, a poor tackler, then the advantage of the other team comes from exploiting that weakness. Does anybody truly believe that the Australian front row was trying to end up face down in the mud in every scrum?”

Well I suppose the answer to that is that technically the referee is not penalising for poor technique but for repeated infringements (and it just so happens that the repeated infringements are often a result of poor technique). You do actually see referees carding players for repeated infringements not to do with the scrum (but these usually aren’t due to poor technique). The thing about scrums is that poor technique is much more likely to lead to an infringement than poor passing or running or (to an extent at least) even tackling technique. Moreover, the effects of poor scrummaging technique can be a lot more dangerous — not just for the player with the poor technique but for other players as well — than poor technique in other areas of the game,

On your second point:
“I was also mildly intrigued by some (2 in particular) of Barnes’ scrum penalties on the weekend. Without any attempt to deny the fact that we were getting pummelled, I noted two occassions when Rees popped his head up first and they received a penalty. Sure the Wallaby scrum was back pedalling, but why penalise Australia for standing up in that situation? I don’t think going backwards is against the law.”

First, things first: Scrums are probably the hardest part of the game to referee. It’s easy to criticise referees from our armchairs, but actually refereeing the scrum well is not at all easy. So I don’t want to be overly critical on referees.

HOWEVER, like you I’m frustrated that referees always seem to penalise the team going backwards. So I agree with your general point (although don’t particularly want to get in a debate about the specific scrums from that match as I honestly don’t remember them all in detail). It is not an offence to have a weaker scrum or to be moving backwards in a scrum. I wish referees would take that to heart. If a scrum is moving and then collapses it does not automatically follow that the team moving backwards is responsible for collapsing it. The scrum may have collapsed due to no-one’s fault or it may even have collapsed due to an infringement by the stronger scrummaging team (who perhaps want to play for the penalty rather than work the scrum ten metres downfield or after getting the shove on lose their dominance or concentration). A truly dominant scrum should be able to march the opposition 20 metres downfield instead of playing for the penalty. I wish teams with dominant scrums got this kind of advantage from their scrum instead of penalty after penalty. That would make for better spectacle for the viewer. If you’re interested in a freakish scrum where one team pushed the other almost 30 metres (from the half way line to the 22) check out this clip from a week ago in the English premiership:
http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2010/11/midweek-madness-northampton-saints-30m.html

Finally on the Rees incident you mentioned from Wales versus Australia: the reason Rees’ head popped up may have been due to an infringement by the Australian front row and not Rees deciding to stand up in the scrum of his own accord. For instance Law 20.8(i) says “A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air, or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. This is dangerous play. Sanction: Penalty kick.”

Blake’s certainly big, but how’s his scrummaging technique?

The state of the pitch is not Barnes’ fault. Incorrectly penalising a team for collapsing a scrum is.

Indeed. You are perfectly correct to point out that at a tackle the tackler(s) also have obligations under the laws of the game. But that is not relevant to the question of whether a try was scored. They are two discrete questions. An infringement by the tacklers (not rolling away) cannot turn a non-try into a try or, in common parlance, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. If the referee was of the opinion that Carter and Whitelock had not complied with Law 15.4 (a question on which I express no opinion for present purposes) then he should play advantage to England and if no advantage accrues award England a penalty. Hartley’s actions would not have amounted to an advantage to England (since according to the laws of the game it was no try) and the correct decision then would have been to award a penalty to England for the first offence by the NZ tacklers.

While it is firly clear what people mean when they talk of a double movement, the terminology of “double movement” isn’t to be found anywhere in the laws of rugby union and isn’t particularly helpful.

The relevant question is (1) whether a tackle took place and if so (2) whether the tackled player played the ball correctly after the tackle.

Law 15 defines a tackle as follows: “A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground”

And Law 15.5 says how a tackled player can correctly play the ball after a tackle:
“(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once. Sanction: Penalty kick.
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately. Sanction: Penalty kick.”

This is the ordinary tackle law that applies everywhere in the field of play. But in the case of tackles near the goal line Law 24.4 adds some further clarification (i.e. Law 22.4 doesn’t replace Law 15.5 but supplements it). Law 22.4 provides in part:
“(d) MOMENTUM TRY. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.
(e) TACKLED NEAR THE GOAL LINE. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.”

It’s really not that difficult. Just go go through the options logically.

Q: Was Hartley tackled (bearing in mind the definition of a tackle)? A: Yes.
Q: Did Hartley’s momentum carry him in one continuous movement into the in-goal (thereby obviating the need to correctly play the ball after the tackle under Law 15.5)? A: No
Q: Did Hartley reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line (as 15.5(c) and 22.4(e) *permit* him to do)? A: Yes
Q: Did he do so immediately (as 15.5(c) and 22.4(e) *require* him to do)? A: No

Result => penalty to NZ for a contravention of Law 15.5(c) (not immediately playing the ball after the tackle).

Perhaps they could use the money saved on Gits on re-establishing the ARC 😀

About 20 years ago most refs would probably have agreed with you Wally James and awarded a scrum after a player in Donald’s position failed to find touch with his clearing kick. But the game has long since moved on. If you’ve been watching the game for any length of time you should have noticed this shift in the application of the advantage law. For years now — I would say at least 10, probably 15 — refs have been consistent in adjudging kicks like this to be advantage over. Rolland’s decision here was completely consistent with the way the game has been refereed for several years now.

If after a knock-on a player pumps it downfield for a substantial territorial gain then that’s an advantage, even if he fails to find touch. Admittedly, it’s not the greatest possible advantage in these circumstances (a touch finder would have been a greater advantage in these circumstances), but then that’s not the referee’s concern. All he is concerned with is whether the team gained an *actual* advantage. That they didn’t gain the greatest *possible* advantage is no concern of his.

Two counterfactuals to give you some food for thought:

(1) What if Donald had found touch, but only close to the touchline, thereby allowing Beale to take a quick line out and play on pretty much as he did and Beale had broken the line? Is that an advantage to NZ? Yes. It’s not the greatest possible advantage (a greater advantage would have been for Donald to have kicked it into the crowd, thereby denying Australia the chance of a quick line out). But it’s still an advantage. The referee is not responsible for players not executing their kicks to perfection or not chasing well enough to prevent a quick line out.

(2) Or what if Donald had punted the ball downfield close to the touch line without a Wallaby in cooee and with NZ backs chasing hard but with the ball taking a cruel turn and beating them into touch, before they could pick up and score an otherwise certain try? The greatest possible advantage? No, of course not; here NZ would have liked the ball to have stayed in rather than gone out. But an advantage nonetheless? Yes, of course. they cleared the ball downfield after a knock-on near their own line. A referee would be wrong to call it all the way back for a scrum simply because NZ didn’t gain the greatest possible advantage from such a situation. As long as they gain an actual advantage, then you don’t go back for the scrum.

Agree re Hartley’s try: ignoring the infringements in the lead up, he should have been penalised for not playing the ball correctly after a tackle. Yes, Hartley grounded the ball in the in-goal (which you are permitted to do after a tackle), but he didn’t do so *immediately* (as the law requires) — therefore it should have been a penalty to NZ.

Disagree re Gear’s try, though. Yes, it was very close and I would hate to have to call it. It was one of those where the foot going into touch and the ball being grounded in the in-goal were almost simultaneous and everything hangs on which happened first. The video evidence was inconclusive so the question is what is the correct approach where the video is inconclusive. And this is where I disagree with you (and others) on the concept of one team getting “the benefit of the doubt”.

In my view it is a category mistake to talk about one team in rugby getting “the benefit of the doubt” in a situation like this. It’s wrong to say that the defensive team should get the “benefit of the doubt”. But it’s equally as wrong to say that the attacking team should get the “benefit of the doubt”. We’re not playing cricket here where the concept of “benefit of the doubt” is actually written into the laws of the game (the LBW law explicitly says that the batsman gets the benefit of any doubt). Talk of giving one team (whether the attacking team or the defending team) the “benefit of the doubt” when there is doubt about whether a player has gone into touch before grounding the ball for a try is an alien concept which has no place in rugby. All it does is serve to confuse matters.

The better approach is to adopt a presumption that the ball is in play unless it has been adjudged to have gone out. Obviously adopting this presumption will favour one side over the other when you apply it in a concrete situation. But that is not the same as saying that you give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side over the defending side (or the defending side over the attacking side as the case may be).

So when it comes to Gear’s possible try: We presume the ball is in play until it is adjudged to have gone into touch. If there is no clear evidence that Gear took the ball into touch before grounding it in the in-goal then our presumption is that the ball was not out which means that the try stands (assuming of course that the grounding was good). The end result of this may be an *appearance* that the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt. But it’s important to realise that we’re not giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt. They are not beneficiaries of any doubt. What they are beneficiaries of is a *presumption* that the ball is in play until it is seen to go out. In a different situation the defending team could be the beneficiary of such a presumption.

You’re reading far too much into this Mokicat.

All the author did was reminisce about *his* own experiences with club rugby during his youth. Nothing more, nothing less. How anyone could legitimately infer from this that the author thought that other sports could not be responsible for similarly happy memories in others is beyond me. Just because someone writes something positive about one thing doesn’t mean he thinks negatively of the things he doesn’t mention. Silence does not equate to disparagement.

I don’t think the real problem is that the agency is Aus-centric. It’s that the agency — like a lot of Australians — is completely ignorant when it comes to rugby union. We have international rugby league taking place in Australia around this time, so why not international rugby union as well?

Even the most NZ-centric or South Africa-centric press agency would not have made such a basic error in reporting on the All Blacks or Springboks touring another country. An Aus-centric agency that knew its rugby would not have made such a mistake, But sadly rugby union doesn’t feature on the radar for most Australians which is perhaps the main reason why you come across such embarrassing mistakes.

Besides that, I put it down to the generally poor journalistic and educational standards of the present day. The newspapers of 50 or more years ago, staffed largely by people who left school at 14, were far superior to those of today staffed by so-called university graduates who struggle to write grammatically correct English sentences.

http://www.rugby.com.au/fixtures_results/spring_tour/fixtures_and_results,94509.html

Tests against NZ (30 Oct in HK), Wales (6 Nov), England (13 Nov), Italy (20 Nov) and France (27 Nov). Tour matches against Leicester (9 Nov) and Munster (16 Nov). I thought the Irishmen lurking around these parts would have known about the latter fixture 😉 . Despite not playing a test against Ireland the Wallabies are travelling there for a tour match. And despite playing tests in both France and Italy there are no tour matches there. I would love to see the Wallabies play against one of the top French clubs. Alas, it’s not happening.

Agreed. Afternoon games make for better rugby, are more convenient for the majority of people who would like to attend the match and on this particular occasion an afternoon game wouldn’t clash with the NRL and AFL finals being played on the same night.

But one thing I’d be curious to know is how much control the ARU actually has over kick-off times for tests on Australian soil. Generally speaking night games are more TV-friendly for broadcasters (more potential viewers so more advertising revenue). And from a time zone point of view the later the kick-off in Australia the more convenient it is for viewers in Europe, Asia and Africa. And the more potential viewers you have in overseas markets the more money the broadcast rights are worth. So what’s got me wondering is whether the broadcasters insist on night time games to maximise their investment in the TV rights and whether the ARU is beholden to the broadcasters’ wishes in this regard (eg by way of binding contractual terms on match times) or whether the ARU still has full control of kick-off times.

“… willl be struck down as blatantly in breach of EU regulations”.

That’s some confidence you’ve got there MR. It may well be found to be in contravention of the EU rule on the free movement of persons. But then again, maybe not. There is such a thing as uncertainty in the law and this is a prime instance of it.

In the Bosman case (a case from 1995 involving a Belgian soccer player who when off contract at his Belgian club wanted to move to a club in another EU country) the European Court of Justice held that rules on *nationality* which provide that a club may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of another EU member state are not allowed. But the question of whether rules that discriminate according to place of *residence* are in breach of this principle is still an open question. There are in fact other industries besides professional sport which *do* put in place restrictions on the basis of a certain amount of residency in the country and which have never been found to be in breach of the free movement of persons. For instance police forces in EU countries typically require prospective applicants to have lived in the country for a certain period of time before applying for a job with them. You can’t get off straight off the plane from France and apply for a job with An Garda (the police) in Ireland — and that rule applies to French and Irish citizens alike. The discrimination here is on the basis of *residence* not *nationality*. French citizens who meet the residence and other (eg language) requirements are perfectly free to apply for a job with the police in Ireland on the same basis as Irish citizens who meet the residence and other requirements.

So it’s quite clear that the LNR can’t put in a place a rule that says 60% of squad members must be French citizens. Such a rule would clearly discriminate against citizens of the other 26 EU member states on the basis of their *nationality*. But whether a rule which says X% of squad members must have lived in France for a certain period of time does (or, as the quota actually puts it, attended a rugby academy in France for Y years or played rugby in France for Z years) is very much an open question. Maybe, maybe not. We’ll have to wait and see if this gets challenged before the courts and if so what the courts have to say.

The problem is that that too much rugby is being played and you can only fit so much rugby in a given season.

South Africa was not prepared to agree to an expanded Super 15 where the top players were unavailable for the business end of the Currie Cup season. And Australia was not prepared to start the season any earlier (which would mean playing in hot Summer weather and competing against cricket etc). Result = current format where you don’t play every other team in a season. That’s what you get when you have three different countries with different interests negotiating a single outcome.

Bring back amateurism. Let them play for the love of it.