Apologies for lack of paragraphs. I tried editing but failed.
I think it is agreed that Todd was not offside and that he either intentionally fell/was forced into his prone position against the goal post thereby preventing the attacking player from grounding the ball against the post. Does it matter whether he ended in the prone position in front of the coast unintentionally or deliberately?
What about the common occurrence where a defending player(s) is lying on the ground on or behind the goal line beneath an attacking player and preventing the attacking player (either by “wrestling” with the attacking player and/or by taking up the space where the attacking player would otherwise be able to ground the ball/“play” the ball) from grounding the ball/a try being scored? The decision is “Held up, 5m scrum, attacking ball.”
If the quoted law does not apply to the standard “Held up” situation, why should it apply to the “lying against the post” situation. If the defending player is in a prone position against the post, i.e. in on the ground against the post and where the ball can be grounded for a try, presumably he is “in goal” rather than “the field of play” And I further presume, therefore that he is not required to roll away?
Having said all that, one referee mistake that had no impact on the result is really not worth wasting time on but I would hope that incident is brought to Mr Owens’, and the other referees, attention and the correct interpretation of the law determined. And I accept that it probably won’t be my interpretation.

Regarding the law about contact in the air, as I understand the law, if two players collide in the air jumping for a high ball from a kick that both have a more or less equal chance of catching, both are considered to be legitimately competing for the ball, and if one player is upended and lands in a dangerous position and is injured, whether he catches the ball or not, neither are considered to be committing a penalty offence even if the injured player was in a marginally, but noticeably (according to referee’s point-of-view/opinion?) better/worse position (jumping a fraction earlier/later or higher/lower or closer to/farther from the ball’s trajectory. Is my understanding correct.

What happens when a defending player is positioned directly under a high ball in perfect position to catch it with out jumping for it and an attacking player chasing through at speed jumps high for the ball a metre or two from the defending player and takes it in the air at the same time as his knees collide with the defending player’s head/jaw not only resulting in concussion and/or other severe injury to the defending player’s jaw but causing the attacking catcher to half-somersault forward and to land on the back of his head and neck much as David Havilli did in the Final. Who is at fault. The stationary defender does not behave recklessly. He is focussing on the ball ready to catch it. He may/will not be aware of the attacking player until the player appears in his line of sight jumping to catch the ball. The defending player will not have time to get out of the jumping attackers space. Under the law as it stands is the defending player committing an offence, interfering with a player in the air seeking to catch the ball? If he is the law is an ass – somebody else said about some other law. During the sequence of events outlined it is the attacking player who behaves recklessly. The attacking player will/should have been accutely aware of the defending player’s position beneath the dropping ball. Surely the attacking player behaved recklessly in jumping into contact with the defending player (and injuring him). Reckless in the sense of his own safety and also in the sense of of the safety of the defending player. Isn’t there a law dealing with “behaviour contrary to the spirit of the game”. If there is, I would suggest that in the scenario that I have outlined, if anybody is to be penalised it should be the attacking player for reckless behaviour resulting in injury to the defending player, and to himself! (The scenario outlined is not so much different from the tackling in the air incident that resulted in a penalty against tackler Kieren Read in the 3rd Test, I think, against the BIL – which included the controversial jumping into contact to take a pass factor. And this raises another question – how is this different from a tackle In the air of a winger forcing him into touch as he is diving for a try in the corner?)

That’ll do me. Appreciate comments and whether the scenario/s outlined and similar are covered by the laws of the game.

Republican, with respect, a 9k crowd at a 1/4 final and final game for the club’s coach and probably greatest player after 20yrs or so with the club and final game for other long-serving players and the unbelievable come back game for ChristianL (and the chance to see last year’s World Rugby Player of the Year) does not scream “Rugby Heartland”. I’m sorry, but it is more than disappointing. It is embarrassing.

What was the crowd number for the game? I didn’t hear the gate announced during the commentary. There looked to be more unoccupied than occupied seats in the stands. For a quarter-final! How is a Superugby team justified in Canberra ahead of Perth? And even ahead of Melbourne? It can’t based on the quarter-final attendance. Surely the Force must be retained given Perth’s strategic location and the growth potential for the game in Perth that is being realised. May be a Melbourne club can play two or more of their home games in Canberra, or vice versa?

Thanks for the link. I agree that the conversion missed.

Geoff,
I’ve just checked my recording of the Fox Sports 0700 Sunday replay of the Test (not the live version). I don’t believe it, Foley is shown preparing to commence his approach for the kick, then the next shot is the penalty attempt from half-way. The shots showing Foley’s kick missing have been editted out! I also think, but need to check the replay to confirm, that the elbowing incident is not shown in the replay. What is Fox playing at?

My recollection, without checking, is that the Captain of the 1956 Springboks in NZ (whose name has slipped my mind but who I’m pretty sure played fullback and whose selection as Captain was somewhat controversial in the first place) missed selection in some, if not all, of the Tests. So, if my recollection is correct, I concur that Strause will be one of the first but not the first Bok Captain to be dropped, if indeed that is what eventuates.

The issue to me is not whether Joubert got the decision right or wrong or how he was treated by WR. I don’t believe he was hung out to dry. I believe WR said what needed to be said, had to be said. For rugby supporters generally and for Scottish supporters particularly (and perhaps also for Wallabies supporters particularly) given the generally inaccurate and biased opinions on rugby sites and in sports columns around the world. The facts of the matter needed to be presented.

The issue to me is that the Wallabies were trailing by two points with about two minutes on the clock when they received a kickable penalty from referee Joubert, subsequently confirmed as a mistake. That it was a mistake is a fact determined by WR (though it seems that many on this site, including SZ, continue to dispute the absolute final arbitor, WR’s, decision)? But what does it matter, the referee’s decision is final during the game and it provides the Wallabies with the opportunity to win the match a classic” get out of jail” opportunity for Christ’s sake). The goal was kicked and the Wallabies won the match. This is another fact, that nobody is disputing, but more than that many on this site maintain that the Wallabies not only won but they deserved to win.

Apparently the Wallabies deserved to win because they scored five tries to three by the the Scottish, including two gifted to the Scottish via a charge down and an intercepted pass by a prop who shouldn’t have passed and shouldn’t have been at first receiver off a ruck in the first place (both mistakes by the wallabies/opportunities taken by the Scottish?), and with the third scored by the Scottish player picking up the ball from an offside position in the ruck (another mistake by Joubert rather than the Wallabies defensive screen?). Also the Wallabies were robbed of a sixth try when Joubert, with the help of the TMO, determined that Will Genia, knocked-on (another fact not acceptable to many on this site – and therefore classified as a mistake by Joubert?). And what about the three scrum penalties against the Wallabies when the Scottish were clearly the offending team? Thus the gifted tries rather than scoring opportunities provided by Wallaby errors and further errors by the referee, in one case not supported by the facts and in the case of the scrum penalties without presentation of supporting evidence. The evidence supporting the claim that the Wallabies deserved to win is not what one might call persuasive, but it really doesn’t matter. I am 72 years old and played my senior rugby in Dunedin and Christchurch in the early mid-sixties, a few games in Perth in the late-sixties/early-seventies and my last game on Port Moresby in the late-70s. When I played the game in three countries over nearly two decades, deserving to win and winning were not necessarily mutually inclusive. And I don’t believe things have changed since my days.

Whether the Wallabies deserved to win or not, whether Craig Joubert, in granting the last minute kickable penalty to the Wallabies made a mistake or not, whether Craig Joubert made other refereeing errors preceding the final penalty converted by Foley generally favouring the Scottish, and whether Craig Joubert has been “hung out to dry” by WR are not the issues. If you like, they are sub-issues.

The real issue is that, as outlined in para 2, the Wallabies “got out of jail” when Joubert’s last minute penalty was converted by Foley. The Wallabies were very, very lucky and the Scottish were very, very unlucky (although, given the state of the game – the score, the time on the clock, the weather) the Scottish made the initial error in not calling the fateful line-out leading up to the penalty to No 2 (rather than “make their own luck” they “made their own unliuck” if you like).

But put it this way, if we change the circumstances slightly so that Joubert’s decision is to call scrum rather than penalty when subsequent replays show that the ball wasn’t played at/touched by Phipps and the decision should have been penalty, how do you think Wallabies supporters would have reacted?

I am disappointed, even saddened, but perhaps not really surprised. by the focus and the tone of the contributions on this subject on this site. The focus on what are in my opinion the sub-issues instead of the real issue, indeed the general failure to even acknowledge the real issue. “You win some you lose some” and “that’s the way the cookie crumbles” is not the appropriate acceptance of the outcome. If I was a Wallabies supporter I would be thanking my lucky stars that my team got through to the semi-finals and commiserating strongly and sincerely with Scots rather than rationalising the win. Just try and put yourselves in their position. Now that would be in the real spirit of rugby. Just imagine the scenario of the Wallabies losing because of a referee error outlined in the previous para.

A fan sledge from the late 60s/early 70s in Perth that has stuck in my mind occurred in a Nedlands (I think v Associates) match at the Nedlands’/Associates'(?) home ground on the river. I was playing in the backs for Nedlands. Soak’s forwards were all over our pack. But at a line-out one of the die-hard Nedlands’ supporters, may be the inimitable “Squire” a well-known long-time Neddies’ member, shouted “keep it up Nedlands, they’re beginning to wilt.” Squire’s words of encouragement were followed immeditately by another shout from elsewhere in the crowd along the touch line “Yes – they’re a bunch of blood-y flowers!”

Another memorable fan sledge I also re-call reading of somewhere (in Jack Fingleton’s “Cricket Crisis” I think – growing old is a pain in the ass) is the call by the famous barracker (“Yabba” ?) at the SCG Test (after the Adelaide Test) during the Body Line Series to a fly-swatting MCC Captain “Leave our flies alone Jardine. They’re the only friends you’ve got here.” or words to that effect.