- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinion
I have read all sorts of comments about the legality of Mathieu Raynal’s decision – the timing of it, how it changed the result of the first Bledisloe Test.
I even read an amazing piece by Harry Jones on the ‘shrug’, to which I agree to a certain extent.
But I have another theory that may just clear up a lot of misconception about what actually happened.
Before you comment, kindly note the following:
• Was Raynal correct? Yes.
• Did Raynal warn Bernard Foley? Yes.
• Was the scrum correctly awarded? Yes.
• Did Foley’s teammates warn him? Yes.
• Did Foley take too long? Yes.
• Have I seen this awarded before? No.
• Did awarding the scrum change the result? No.
• Is this a good law? No.
My theory is based on punishment, the imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.
The offence in this case is Foley taking too long.
An analogy to explain my theory, a ten-year-old child gets called for dinner, but regularly takes his time and eventually seats himself down at the table before he begins eating.
One day the child is late, as he has been many times before, but this time there is no plate of food. The child asks, “Where is my food?” His parents tell him it’s been thrown away as punishment for taking too long to get to the table.
He says to his parents, “If I knew you would do that, I would not have been late.”
I believe 100 per cent that Foley did not know what would happen. Had he known what Raynal would have done, he would not have pushed his luck?
I suspect this one incident will set a precedent and we should see a little speeding up going forward.
I never moan at refs, and I am not going to start now. Raynal was entitled to make the decision, he did warn Foley, his teammates warned him, but Foley tried to call his bluff. But Foley did not know what was behind the bluff.
I am an analyst by trade, I understand the mathematics and implications of the decision and they are quite big.
Some suggested the game was gifted to New Zealand. This is obviously not true, but they were given a huge advantage.
The decision turned Australia’s 90 per cent probability of winning into a 70 per cent probability of the All Blacks winning – a massive swing in anyone’s book.
Raynal could have and should have implemented this law at other stages of the game.
Let’s say for a moment that Raynal had done this at the 54th minute, when the play was at the halfway line. The change in winning probability would be minimised, in fact I am likely to believe it would be a 50 per cent probability of three points, but that is my guess.
The only crime for me is Raynal’s lack of explaining what punishment would be prior to his final warning.
Rugby is a game of warnings: play it, leave it, kick it, throw it, etc. All are made with knowledge of the punishment. But I have never seen a penalty taken too late, as in Thursday’s circumstances, despite a clock on screen.
If rugby is a game of warnings and consistency, why was that missing?
Lastly, we have a clock that stops. If this was intended to stop time wasting, it has not worked.
If World Rugby is serious about stopping time-wasting, let’s start with the clock. Go ‘time on’ once the ball has been kicked or, better yet, once the line-out has been thrown.
I understand that TV dictates how long a game can go on for, but if a game goes over, then the team should be fined.
Ultimately, this was a melting pot of actions, consequences and unhappiness that could have been avoided with better clock-management, consistency of penalties, and timing of the decision.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.