Just against England....

Much was talked about the supposed "obstruction" by Hartley on Moore in last weeks Eng vs Aus game. In my eyes there was no obstruction, Hartley walking back facing his own posts and Moore going for the wrong man and giving him a shove.
Naturally the Australian media get on their one-eyed high-horse and make a massive meal out of nothing. Joined by the usual Welsh and Kiwi England-haters.

So what happens when Aus play Italy?
Kuridrani runs a line, runs straight into one of the Italian centres and throws his arms around him. Meanwhile, Toomua (?) runs through the hole created and touches down.
Bizarrely, no TMO was called for and the try was given. Great dummy-run calls Phil Kearns, the very same as was saying there's no way Farrell's try could be given.

So why is there such vitriol against England scoring a try from their backs?
And why no furore when Australia are awarded their "try"?
Surely the same folk should be bleating about this "injustice" and calling for the referee's head....
Thank goodness for Fox sports offering Australian OR British commentary for the Lions, or my tv might have had a hole through it!

The "one law for us, and another law for you" has always been the rule where the Australian media has been concerned.  The David Campese standard of Anglo / Australian relations has forever been the norm

Australian feminist writer Germaine Greer once said that "Australia is one giant rest home where no unwelcome news is ever wafted onto the pages of the worst newspapers in the world."  She wasn't necessarily talking about sport, but it does apply.

I'm afraid that such things as the instance you described occur and we just have to grin and bear it.  They'll never change.   For England's part, they should just carry on and not let it bother them.  

When responding to Australians it doesn't do to get involved in an exchange of puerile, infantile behaviour because they will simply drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Keep a smile on your face and be bigger than them.

For one whatever happened didnt make a huge difference in the result. That is singularly responsible for most reasons not to go on and on (and on in some cases) about a single incident.

Secondly I doubt many other than Oz in the SH watched it. We didnt get it in NZ and I havnt seen it.

Only thing I can say about Farrells try was it wasnt so much the obstruction it was where Hartley was standing combined with Farrell spotting the fact that Hartley was on one side with the player to Hartleys left- farrell then chose the path to Hartleys right, probably knowing, even if subconsciouly, the nearest guy (Hartley) wasnt going to tackle him.

I notice Farrell didnt run towards Hartleys left, where he would have run straight into the player behind Hartley, yet that was the straighter path to the tryline.

So although not a true obstruction, the combination of events probably helped as if Hartley wasnt there at all, the gap may have closed quicker.

Taylorman wrote:For one whatever happened didnt make a huge difference in the result. That is singularly responsible for most reasons not to go on and on (and on in some cases) about a single incident.

Secondly I doubt many other than Oz in the SH watched it. We didnt get it in NZ and I havnt seen it.

Only thing I can say about Farrells try was it wasnt so much the obstruction it was where Hartley was standing combined with Farrell spotting the fact that Hartley was on one side with the player to Hartleys left- farrell then chose the path to Hartleys right, probably knowing, even if subconsciouly, the nearest guy (Hartley) wasnt going to tackle him.

I notice Farrell didnt run towards Hartleys left, where he would have run straight into the player behind Hartley, yet that was the straighter path to the tryline.

So although not a true obstruction, the combination of events probably helped as if Hartley wasnt there at all, the gap may have closed quicker.

I rather think that Farrell simply ran where he did because that was where the gap was. It's basic stuff that you learn from day one.  As a schoolboy at Blackheath, I was told "Run at spaces not faces"  (at Harlequins, they tell you to "Run at gaps, not chaps")

For Farrell to have run to Harley's left would have been to run right into the face of a hulking great Australian hooker and although they are rubbish scrummagers, they can probably still manage to tackle a fly half.  It wouldn't have been smart rugby on Farrell's part, and I might suggest that a Kiwi would have done exactly the same thing and called it 'clever play'.   As I said in my previous missive, One law for you.......

Hartley simply stood his ground. Again, a Kiwi would have done exactly the same thing without any qualms whatsoever.

Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

Taylorman wrote:Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

I suppose he could have magicked himself out of the way, Harry Potter style.   I can see it now.... with a wave of his wand and a cry of "Relocatus" Hartley would obligingly get immediately back onside and sportingly allow Farrell to be tackled.  England would then lose the game and everybody in the southern hemisphere would applaud England for their sportsmanship and magnanimity.

Yeah, right.

Come on.... if it was anybody but England involved in this situation it would never have even been commented on in the first place.  

You are quite right in what you say, that Hartley was, technically, in an offside position but in a game where the ball has to be passed backwards, somebody is always going to be ahead of it.  This is why referees are allowed discretion.  George Clancy indulged the Aussie protests (probably hoping for a quiet life.  Fat chance) and it went to the TMO who, it was picked up on refmike, said "I totally agree" (that the obstruction was minimal) and so the score was given.

Yes, England had the temerity to beat Australia.  I know it's not in the script but sometimes we buck against the requirement to just turn up, be good chaps, and lose.  

Winning the match.  It must be our arrogance at work again, eh..?

Firstly Farrell was running towards his wings, looked up and saw the gap created by not enough obstruction, then changed his kine towards the gap.

The same situation occurred this weekend when Argentina's flyhalf ran through such a gap, but was called back for obstruction.

It is a very grey area and open to interpretation by referees.

I didn't see all of the Australian game as I was watching England vs Argentina. So I can't comment on the Kuridrani episode.

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

I suppose he could have magicked himself out of the way, Harry Potter style.   I can see it now.... with a wave of his wand and a cry of "Relocatus" Hartley would obligingly get immediately back onside and sportingly allow Farrell to be tackled.  England would then lose the game and everybody in the southern hemisphere would applaud England for their sportsmanship and magnanimity.

Yeah, right.

Come on.... if it was anybody but England involved in this situation it would never have even been commented on in the first place.  

You are quite right in what you say, that Hartley was, technically, in an offside position but in a game where the ball has to be passed backwards, somebody is always going to be ahead of it.  This is why referees are allowed discretion.  George Clancy indulged the Aussie protests (probably hoping for a quiet life.  Fat chance) and it went to the TMO who, it was picked up on refmike, said "I totally agree" (that the obstruction was minimal) and so the score was given.

Yes, England had the temerity to beat Australia.  I know it's not in the script but sometimes we buck against the requirement to just turn up, be good chaps, and lose.  

Winning the match.  It must be our arrogance at work again, eh..?

geez get off your horse pal, just seeing the situation as I saw it, regardless of who was who...I dont really care who won the match, and those are my first, and certainly last, comments on the matter...go aim all that bull at someone else please.

Biltong wrote:Firstly Farrell was running towards his wings, looked up and saw the gap created by not enough obstruction, then changed his kine towards the gap.

The same situation occurred this weekend when Argentina's flyhalf ran through such a gap, but was called back for obstruction.

It is a very grey area and open to interpretation by referees.

I didn't see all of the Australian game as I was watching England vs Argentina. So I can't comment on the Kuridrani episode.

Just to put my personal opinion of all such similar situations, Biltong..... I put them into the category of "some you win, some you lose".

You come across as the sort of chap who has been around rugby a while (and with that name, a South African, perhaps..?) and you know as well as I that many, many incidents occur in every match where technical infringements occur. Not all lead to scores and not all are seen by referees. Rugby is a game where there is always something, somewhere, going on.

From the first day we pick up a ball, we're taught to accept these things and accept the referee's decision with respect, when something goes your way, fine. When it doesn't, then you take it on the chin like a man and get on with the game. That's the way I always played, and that's how I watch the game now.

In the Australia game, England had a couple of things go their way. Fine. It was our day, end of. On another day, it may go against us and although I'll be disappointed, I hope there will still be enough of the old Corinthian in me to accept it with as much good grace as possible. That's the rugby I was brought up with and that's how I think it should be.

Taylorman wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

I suppose he could have magicked himself out of the way, Harry Potter style.   I can see it now.... with a wave of his wand and a cry of "Relocatus" Hartley would obligingly get immediately back onside and sportingly allow Farrell to be tackled.  England would then lose the game and everybody in the southern hemisphere would applaud England for their sportsmanship and magnanimity.

Yeah, right.

Come on.... if it was anybody but England involved in this situation it would never have even been commented on in the first place.  

You are quite right in what you say, that Hartley was, technically, in an offside position but in a game where the ball has to be passed backwards, somebody is always going to be ahead of it.  This is why referees are allowed discretion.  George Clancy indulged the Aussie protests (probably hoping for a quiet life.  Fat chance) and it went to the TMO who, it was picked up on refmike, said "I totally agree" (that the obstruction was minimal) and so the score was given.

Yes, England had the temerity to beat Australia.  I know it's not in the script but sometimes we buck against the requirement to just turn up, be good chaps, and lose.  

Winning the match.  It must be our arrogance at work again, eh..?

geez get off your horse pal, just seeing the situation as I saw it, regardless of who was who...I dont really care who won the match, and those are my first, and certainly last, comments on the matter...go aim all that bull at someone else please.

You stated your opinion, and I stated mine.  All square.

Let's call it 'vigorous tackling', shall we..? <wink>

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Biltong wrote:Firstly Farrell was running towards his wings, looked up and saw the gap created by not enough obstruction, then changed his kine towards the gap.

The same situation occurred this weekend when Argentina's flyhalf ran through such a gap, but was called back for obstruction.

It is a very grey area and open to interpretation by referees.

I didn't see all of the Australian game as I was watching England vs Argentina. So I can't comment on the Kuridrani episode.

Just to put my personal opinion of all such similar situations, Biltong.....   I put them into the category of "some you win, some you lose".

You come across as the sort of chap who has been around rugby a while (and with that name, a South African, perhaps..?) and you know as well as I that many, many incidents occur in every match where technical infringements occur.  Not all lead to scores and not all are seen by referees.  Rugby is a game where there is always something, somewhere, going on.

From the first day we pick up a ball, we're taught to accept these things and accept the referee's decision with respect, when something goes your way, fine.  When it doesn't, then you take it on the chin like a man and get on with the game.   That's the way I always played, and that's how I watch the game now.

In the Australia game, England had a couple of things go their way.  Fine.  It was our day, end of.  On another day, it may go against us and although I'll be disappointed, I hope there will still be enough of the old Corinthian in me to accept it with as much good grace as possible.  That's the rugby I was brought up with and that's how I think it should be.

I totally agree Fourth Lion.

Problem is people struggle to admit when something has gone their way and instead get defesive about it. Conversely people often make more out of one incident than they should.

When they get wound up the teams' supporters who have benefitted becomes more defensive and it doesn't take long for the argument to dominate the discussions.

Here I blame the IRB for having laws that aren't clear cut, but rather open to interpretation.

When England gets videos made of their offences that weren't penalized with no attempt to do the same for the opposition then you can come back to me.  

You should listen to Phil Kearns in a Bledisloe game and then the same plays are called good plays by his own players against other opposition. You don't know how good you have it!

Kia,
You should listen to Grant Nisbett and Muzza Mexted more often. You don't know how good you have it!

GN: "Toeava kicks off".
MM: "Not 10, is it?"
GN: "I don't know..."

  

Chargedown and the Forth Lion,
Steady on chaps. Imagine if you had lost yet again?
It works both ways. We understand we didn't have the rub of the green last Saturday but it's best for us to move on.

Best of luck next weekend. It should be a cakewalk for the ABs very close and entertaing match.

You should listen more LB? Muzza's been gone for ages. Justin Marshall usually calls it as he sees it regardless of who it favours.

Your guys are entertaining but they're as impartial as Campo is guarded. Nisbett has his fawning moments but Johnson was the worst and he's gone.

Mexted was fantastic, brilliant...for no one could actually be that stupid...genius...

I loved Murray Mexted, he was entertaining.

Justin Marshall is now my favourite overseas commentator.

The commentator I can't stand listening to is the English guy who commentated on the England game, can never remember his name.

He twists his words in such a manner that you would think England is the best thing since cheese, and that against Argentina.

I'm going back in time kia. So you are saying your present commentary is squeaky clean?

ha ha. Good one. You're hilarious.

They are all the same. Had a chuckle listening to the Wales-SA, Scotland-Japan, France-NZ,... even the US-Maori games.
All baised but some slightly more so. I'm beyond complaining to the night air these days. It's all standard fare to me but I still enjoy listening to them all funnily enough.

The Welsh commentators are seriously biased, they love replays and complain about things we did all the time.

Worth starting another new thread, eh BB?  
(No! Just kidding!)

Stuart Barnes? I find Moore entertaining like watching with an English mate in the pub. National bias is everywhere in broadcasting as, like the press, you're catering to your public. Just some do it in a more brazen or entertaining way. I actually like listening to the Aussie commentary as they too are like Aussies in a pub calling the game as they see it and you forgive them a lot because they're funny. Lie watching the Top 5 videos that have a clear Aussie bias but it's their show and they're funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9V4avIxsU

Yes, that's the guy. Barnes, Barnes, Barnes, must repeat that a million times.

I agree there is some national bias amongst commentators, however I have to say some SA commentators are very polite, only slightly biased and always very respectful and complimentary of the opposition, especially when they do something good.

Excellent BC.  

I'm glad you see it like that. No, of course they are.

Our blokes have had a lot of practice covering their anger and frustration with slapstick humour... or fawning over the opposition's "brilliant" play. It's quite embarrassing really. They have been running out of superlatives for our guys for a long time now... so have finally started to give our opposition credit where it is due.

The top 5 thing is a joke you realise, kia? It's an uneasy and awkward kind of political correctness you understand?

Biltong wrote:Yes, that's the guy. Barnes, Barnes, Barnes, must repeat that a million times.

I agree there is some national bias amongst commentators, however I have to say some SA commentators are very polite, only slightly biased and always very respectful and complimentary of the opposition, especially when they do something good.

yeah we had Barnes here as a host commentator for 2011. He'd develop a twitch if he had to say anything positive about the ABs and other sides. But it wasnt just that his whole smug approach- Tended to talk down to our guys as 'if he actually knew the game more' ...real twerp.

Yes, Stuart Barnes. He's almost as shocking as our cricket commentators. Twerps!

I honestly believe in black magic and evil curses now because of them!
(except for Richie and Chappell... to a degree)

What is enough obstruction?

I was not that interested in who won the game, but I thought the call was strange. There was a clear obstruction and it was reviewed.

If a player makes a clean break and one of his team mates pulls a defenders shirt, I've never heard a ref say let's allow the try because it didn't look like "enough" of a shirt pull to make a difference.

Either there was obstruction or there was not. Are we going to see refs say "that was only a very very small knock on - not enough to stop the game"?

chargedowntotheface wrote: In my eyes there was no obstruction, Hartley walking back facing his own posts and Moore going for the wrong man and giving  him a shove.

I'm not sure how Moore would have gone for the wrong man since Hartley was standing in our defensive line, ahead of the ball carrier and therefore no chance of getting the ball or being a threat. He went for him cause he was standing between himself and the ball carrier. Moore knew who had the ball he just couldn't get to him.

The Kuridrani one, I thought the Italian defender had a choice to make and picked wrong. He wasn't impeded at the time the ball went in front of him and chose the inside runner. If he wanted to stay on the outside man he could have. You see that sort of play in the NRL all the time. I'm not complaining about the ref, just offering my puerile, infantile take on it.

Taylorman wrote:

Biltong wrote:Yes, that's the guy. Barnes, Barnes, Barnes, must repeat that a million times.

I agree there is some national bias amongst commentators, however I have to say some SA commentators are very polite, only slightly biased and always very respectful and complimentary of the opposition, especially when they do something good.

yeah we had Barnes here as a host commentator for 2011. He'd develop a twitch if he had to say anything positive about the ABs and other sides. But it wasnt just that his whole smug approach- Tended to talk down to our guys as 'if he actually knew the game more' ...real twerp.

Yeah, remember that well, he has a patronising manner in which he talks about other teams.

Really can't stand him.

I'm aware of the top 5 concept LB and was frustrated when they were prevented from putting more cheerleaders in the top plays of the week as in Id love to play with that .

Back to the OP the key to incidents being highlighted is when the match is close. A worse error by Clancy for me was when Folau was blown up for taking out the catcher much like Read at a restart against England last year. But these plays are forgotten because tries weren't scored off them and therefore not deemed to be crucial calls. Much like a kicker at the end gets the blame rather than someone who bombs a scoring chance at the beginning of a game.

I have to admit I quite like a bit of variation with the commentators (i.e. the straight guy balancing his more one eyed co commentator). Been watching a lot of the tests this year at the pub (i.e. to escape the sprogs and catch up with mates) so haven't heard a lot of commentary.

Back to the OP (I'm probably throwing a bloody carcass to wolves here). Thought both examples were obstruction. There is an assessment on the SA referees site. Essentially the writer thought it was fine. I'd say the same argument applies to the Italian game. I don't agree. I think they were both obstruction. I suspect in the Italian game it looked fine from the ref perspective, but if he'd gone upstairs it would have been ruled obstruction.

I'm more annoyed with the English obstruction than I am with the Australian one (which I think should have been penalised). The issue for me is intent (It's not a consideration I know). To me the Aussie obstruction is poor timing. Cooper (?) had 3 options a player cutting back and two players running wider. The player cutting back fixes the defence. The problem was that timing has to be perfect and it was wasn't and Kuridrani made needless contact at the end. For me Hartley's set him self in the Australian backline and was intentionally obstructive. I've seen players carded for a lot less. It's a pretty subjective view and I accept that many will disagree but that's my opinion for what it's worth.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I'm aware of the top 5 concept LB and was frustrated when they were prevented from putting more cheerleaders in the top plays of the week as in Id love to play with that .

Oh, I'm 100% Pure Wool with you there!  

I haven't seen the Italian incident, but I am not sure about intent in the English one. Yes, Hartley ended up in an offside position and wass lumbering back onside like a proper front rower, but both at the time and on the replay it looked to me that he didn't look behind him or change his line. He didn't do anything deliberate to get in the way.

It's in the nature of rugby that players will be offside all the time. If you penalised every incident, then the game would be unplayable and unwatchable, so the referee has to make a decision about whether a player is unduly influencing play from an offside position.

In Hartley's case, he doesn't try to get in the way. He doesn't try particularly hard to get out of the way, either but he doesn't have to because referee's aren't empowered to make judgement calls on whether player is trying hard enough. It's similar to the kick chase scenario where a slower player isn't causing obstruction if they maintain their line.

Hartley committed a technical infringement but ultimately it's no worse than, say, Hooper lying on the wrong side of a tackle and doing just enough to get out of the way that he doesn't get penalised - while still slowing down the ball. How many times did that happen in the game?

I'm far more bothered about crossing and dummy runners being offside because the intent of the move is to take defenders out. If it works properly, they are taken out because they commit to the wrong guy, and that's fine. But if the defender ends up colliding with an attacker who's gone offside on a dummy run line then that should be a penalty.

I don't think many English fans like Barnes either by the way … in contrast, thinking of the good ones, I think Michael Lynagh is one of the most balanced and impartial pundits. Francois Pienaar was another good one but we don't see as much of him these days ...

I don't think many English fans like Barnes either by the way

Now there's a nicely put understatment if there ever was one.

I think his mam loves him, but Toad from Toad Hall is not loved by many others.

So wait -

England used an obstructing player and got away with it. You campaigned that it was legal at the time.

So now Australia have done it and you want them to be penalised?

Wow. Talk about wanting your obstruction and a penalty too!

GE, you were rather slow getting to this thread. Were you obstructed?

I'm pretty sure I heard him say England were 'illustrious' against Aus  

Yes Cyril there's an English broadband provider obstructing my every post! In fact 4 of them...

Just a point on, of all people, Germaine Greer.  I saw her mentioned above and it made me smile.

If I was Australian, the Australian feminist writer Germaine Greer wouldn't be a person I'd choose to collect a quote from regarding Australia and Australians. 
Australians might helpfully suggest to her that commenting on her fellow countrymen might be best served by living with them rather than telling them how backward and deadbeat they are from an intellectually pompous 10,000 miles away.
England seems a place guilt-trip Australians go to get the bush dust out of their hair and to become 'posh'

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Biltong wrote:Firstly Farrell was running towards his wings, looked up and saw the gap created by not enough obstruction, then changed his kine towards the gap.

The same situation occurred this weekend when Argentina's flyhalf ran through such a gap, but was called back for obstruction.

It is a very grey area and open to interpretation by referees.

I didn't see all of the Australian game as I was watching England vs Argentina. So I can't comment on the Kuridrani episode.

Just to put my personal opinion of all such similar situations, Biltong.....   I put them into the category of "some you win, some you lose".

You come across as the sort of chap who has been around rugby a while (and with that name, a South African, perhaps..?) and you know as well as I that many, many incidents occur in every match where technical infringements occur.  Not all lead to scores and not all are seen by referees.  Rugby is a game where there is always something, somewhere, going on.

From the first day we pick up a ball, we're taught to accept these things and accept the referee's decision with respect, when something goes your way, fine.  When it doesn't, then you take it on the chin like a man and get on with the game.   That's the way I always played, and that's how I watch the game now.

In the Australia game, England had a couple of things go their way.  Fine.  It was our day, end of.  On another day, it may go against us and although I'll be disappointed, I hope there will still be enough of the old Corinthian in me to accept it with as much good grace as possible.  That's the rugby I was brought up with and that's how I think it should be.

Thats the reason why we cant complain too much if the other team scores an illegal try, Wales did it against Ireland in the 2011 six nations, when its in your favour its called "streetwise", when its not, its cheating.

THE LINEOUT HAD FORMED MUN !!!!!

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

I suppose he could have magicked himself out of the way, Harry Potter style.   I can see it now.... with a wave of his wand and a cry of "Relocatus" Hartley would obligingly get immediately back onside and sportingly allow Farrell to be tackled.  England would then lose the game and everybody in the southern hemisphere would applaud England for their sportsmanship and magnanimity.

Yeah, right.

Come on.... if it was anybody but England involved in this situation it would never have even been commented on in the first place.  

You are quite right in what you say, that Hartley was, technically, in an offside position but in a game where the ball has to be passed backwards, somebody is always going to be ahead of it.  This is why referees are allowed discretion.  George Clancy indulged the Aussie protests (probably hoping for a quiet life.  Fat chance) and it went to the TMO who, it was picked up on refmike, said "I totally agree" (that the obstruction was minimal) and so the score was given.

Yes, England had the temerity to beat Australia.  I know it's not in the script but sometimes we buck against the requirement to just turn up, be good chaps, and lose.  

Winning the match.  It must be our arrogance at work again, eh..?

"Even crushed against his brother in the Tube the average Englishman pretends desperately that he is alone."

Germaine Greer  

 http://www.poemhunter.com/quotations/famous.asp?people=germaine%20greer

Brian Moore is biased?

To be honest i don't i've ever heard anyone else say that, have you ever heard him lay into England?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQWT-B0EBw

boomeranga wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Didnt say they wouldnt...that was my take on it, regardless of who was who. Its just whether hartleys static position was helping the situation. Being in fron t of the ball carrier, Hartley had no 'ground to stand'. He is in an offside position in terms of being involved in any play. And if Farrells decison was based on Hartleys position, then by definition he is involved in play.

I suppose he could have magicked himself out of the way, Harry Potter style.   I can see it now.... with a wave of his wand and a cry of "Relocatus" Hartley would obligingly get immediately back onside and sportingly allow Farrell to be tackled.  England would then lose the game and everybody in the southern hemisphere would applaud England for their sportsmanship and magnanimity.

Yeah, right.

Come on.... if it was anybody but England involved in this situation it would never have even been commented on in the first place.  

You are quite right in what you say, that Hartley was, technically, in an offside position but in a game where the ball has to be passed backwards, somebody is always going to be ahead of it.  This is why referees are allowed discretion.  George Clancy indulged the Aussie protests (probably hoping for a quiet life.  Fat chance) and it went to the TMO who, it was picked up on refmike, said "I totally agree" (that the obstruction was minimal) and so the score was given.

Yes, England had the temerity to beat Australia.  I know it's not in the script but sometimes we buck against the requirement to just turn up, be good chaps, and lose.  

Winning the match.  It must be our arrogance at work again, eh..?

"Even crushed against his brother in the Tube the average Englishman pretends desperately that he is alone."

Germaine Greer  

 http://www.poemhunter.com/quotations/famous.asp?people=germaine%20greer

i do tend to agree with lion, hardly anyone has mentioned Cooper pulling back Ashton when he was tracking behind Yarde (when he was pushed into touch).

chargedowntotheface wrote:Much was talked about the supposed "obstruction" by Hartley on Moore in last weeks Eng vs Aus game. In my eyes there was no obstruction, Hartley walking back facing his own posts and Moore going for the wrong man and giving  him a shove.
Naturally the Australian media get on their one-eyed high-horse and make a massive meal out of nothing. Joined by the usual Welsh and Kiwi England-haters.

So what happens when Aus play Italy?
Kuridrani runs a line, runs straight into one of the Italian centres and throws his arms around him. Meanwhile, Toomua (?) runs through the hole created and touches down.
Bizarrely, no TMO was called for and the try was given. Great dummy-run calls Phil Kearns, the very same as was saying there's no way Farrell's try could be given.

So why is there such vitriol against England scoring a try from their backs?
And why no furore when Australia are awarded their "try"?
Surely the same folk should be bleating about this "injustice" and calling for the referee's head....  
Thank goodness for Fox sports offering Australian OR British commentary for the Lions, or my tv might have had a hole through it!

Well lets first get one thing clear . Obstruction was called .... just not enough of it to prevent the defender getting Farrell. Apparently. But the ref did say there was obstruction

The Eng v Aus and Aus v Italy cases were very different - in one you have a player recovering from a previous ruck and loitering in a position that technically obstructed a would-be tackler (although the gap Farrell went through came because the next man out in the defensive line charged up to try and stop the outside pass, leaving the hole for OF to go through). The Auus v Italy one was one of their typical running players in front of the ball carrier moves - a rule they have been exploring the outer edges of legality on for most of the last decade. The ref is at least being consistent with the recent interpretation of the rule in allowing that one to stand, although I do think the IRB need to look at this type of dummy running and then having the ball carrier following through the gap that is created. It seeems to me to be against the intention of the Laws even if not their current implementation.

The one we got given against Argentina was more similar to Hartley's one, although I think the Argie forward did more in actively trying to obstruct rather than just not trying to get out of the way. I think we were a bit lucky to be given the penalty for that one, but would have been very unlucky not to be allowed Farrell's try.