Prespective...

While on a course today I spoke with a well known and highly respected member of the refereeing world (I won't mention names so don't ask) and we got to discussing the calls from last night (infact it pretty much took over the course)

I was of the opinion that as the Aussie passer was flat out the ball going from one side of the line to the other in the air was meaningless as the momentum had done so.

We then looked at the footage, relooked at the footage, and checked it out a few more times before both completely U turning on our original position, I was convinced the ball slips out of Folaus hands in the tackle, and slips 2-3 yards forward. He then said there was enough momentum to allow the try.

Then we rewatched it before coming to the conclusion we could watch it a million times and agree the other has a point, Wayne Barnes had a few seconds and no TMO... Poor lad!

The one call we did agree on though was the Cooper yellow card. That was a cop out and an appeasement for a royal man sausage up on Barnes part.

The referee spent 15 minutes explaining that if momentum is used in passing, the same must apply in knocking on, Cooper in no way tackled the Welsh player before the ball, but at the same time the ball was lost from the hands backwards, hitting the head before bouncing in exactly the same place the head contact was made.

Barnes had to award a try or scrum in this instance, but didn't want to take the flak of a last minute score to win the match. This ref isn't a fan of Barnes and has asked all in the meeting to rewatch numerous matches in the last 2 years where Barnes makes a non decision but appeases the crowd / home team with a slightly harsh decision on an individual while allowing the team in front to stay in front.

Unlucky Wales, but at the end of the day performances don't give you what you deserve, luckily for them or they wouldve been comprehensively beaten, you get what you get.

I might take more notice of this conspiracy theory if you could spell perspective properly.

Was the person you spoke to......let me guess.... The Mad Hatter? Stop making things up and embarrssing yourself!

Hardly groundbreaking that Barnes loses the plot though is it? Just look at 2007 for evidence of that!

The Saint wrote:Was the person you spoke to......let me guess.... The Mad Hatter? Stop making things up and embarrssing yourself!

Your entire input on this forum, when you aren't banned, seems to be accusing others of embarrassing themselves. if anyone should be embarrassed it is you Saint

If you have nothing else to offer why bother posting on here at all

I do feel that some refs bring their egos into the game and Barnes is clearly one of them, the other who immediately springs to mind is Walsh.
I don't think the pass was forward as the hands went backwards and relative velocity took care of the rest.
I do think Cooper's card was justified in that it was a try scoring opportunity and he tackled the man without the ball

What two whole people? My posts really wind you up don't they !

The Saint wrote:What two whole people? My posts really wind you up don't they !

There you go, revealing your true nature

You don't wind me up in the least, though clearly that is what you set out to do.

i just think you are rather annoying and bring very little to any debate other than accusing people of being anti welsh and throwing your toys in a very childish way.

Stick to rugby, if you can.

Scratch, I post my view on here, which is often the truth and the truth usually hurts a few people which is no fault of mine either. My post on this thread wasn't intended to insult you yet it's still really wound you up (clear from you taking offense to all my posts and how you constantly 'retort'). I just find that and your hypocritical nature really funny.  I hardly reply to your posts either because you're gullible and rude so I don't see there being much to take offense to.

Why didn't Barnes play advantage. He reasoned with QC that in preventing a try scoring opportunity he warranted the bin. But it was Barnes not QC who stopped North going over. Moreover if QC cynically stopped the game which I don't believe he would have done but if he did then with so much riding on the game wasn't it a penalty try situation?

Dontheman wrote:Why didn't Barnes play advantage. He reasoned with QC that in preventing a try scoring opportunity he warranted the bin. But it was Barnes not QC who stopped North going over. Moreover if QC cynically stopped the game which I don't believe he would have done but if he did then with so much riding on the game wasn't  it a penalty try situation?

He didn't play advantage because the ball was lost forward by Williams

The Saint wrote:Scratch, I post my view on here, which is often the truth and the truth usually hurts a few people which is no fault of mine either. My post on this thread wasn't intended to insult you yet it's still really wound you up (clear from you taking offense to all my posts and how you constantly 'retort'). I just find that and your hypocritical nature really funny.  I hardly reply to your posts either because you're gullible and rude so I don't see there being much to take offense to.

You love to take offence and to cast out offensive attacks on people.

TJ wrote:

The Saint wrote:Scratch, I post my view on here, which is often the truth and the truth usually hurts a few people which is no fault of mine either. My post on this thread wasn't intended to insult you yet it's still really wound you up (clear from you taking offense to all my posts and how you constantly 'retort'). I just find that and your hypocritical nature really funny.  I hardly reply to your posts either because you're gullible and rude so I don't see there being much to take offense to.

You love to take offence and to cast out offensive attacks on people.  

I think the best thing to do is just ignore him at this point.

Jeez some people on here make me snore. Bullsbok I answered your accusation on the other thread, why have you ignored it like I said you would?

IronMike wrote:

Dontheman wrote:Why didn't Barnes play advantage. He reasoned with QC that in preventing a try scoring opportunity he warranted the bin. But it was Barnes not QC who stopped North going over. Moreover if QC cynically stopped the game which I don't believe he would have done but if he did then with so much riding on the game wasn't  it a penalty try situation?

He didn't play advantage because the ball was lost forward by Williams

Thanks missed that

The Saint wrote:Jeez some people on here make me snore. Bullsbok I answered your accusation on the other thread, why have you ignored it like I said you would?

Because if i bothered to reply you where just going to come up with yet another "look at me " post or your go to response and just call my post embarrasing or idiotic like the post above

What a lot of nonsense. Wales can't beat a SH team. Get over it. They are a joke to the big 3 SH teams.

Bullsbok, you misunderstand me. I only do that to idiotic posts. As it stand, I have seen hardly any idiotic posts from yourself. That's TJ and quins job (and now Scratch by the looks of it). You said I had not posted on the subject and all I did was show you my first post did comment on the subject. Hope that clears things up for you pal . I'm outta ere now, I've procrastinated too much.

Scratch, leave Saint alone, The rest of you please stick to the topic at hand, otherwise leave the thread.

Let's not make this personal again.

guys,

Sorry I wasn't on to try to debate with some of you, aand apologies for the spelling (come on really? You have nothing better to contribute than a typing error)

My point was not to defend the Welsh, or rub their noses in it, it was merely giving my opinion and highlighting the difficulty in the 'forward pass' call, and the tendancies Barnes has late in games.

Just to regard to the 'hands were facing backwards' you know thats not a law right? the 'hands facing backward' is merely a tool used by refs to judge a difficult to determine flat/forward pass, the pass in question was undoubtedly gone forward, and Folaus hands undoubtedly faced backward, but if you watch a replay (and I suspect many of the main noise makers have not) you will see the ball clearly slipping out of Folau's hands.

Again I and a very well known ref debated it at length and both came full circle, the call by Barnes may have been right, but his execution of the call was definately wrong.

One could argue the ball came from the Welsh lads hands while facing backwards also, and as the ball bounced forward it could be argued momentum only took it so, why is it momentum counts while passing but not for failed passes that go to the floor?

Had Folau's pass to Timani bounced first would a knock on have been called?

I've never been a fan of the momentum interpretation.  If you're going to run fast, then throw the ball faster and run deeper to counter that (we're capable of throwing a ball faster than we can run, Bolt reaches about 27mph, the fastest recorded rugby pass is 48mph), making it more of a skill.

However, when the IRB addressed this interpretation issue a couple of years back, they specifically said:

"The referee must judge a forward pass purely on the passing action of the passer, and not be influenced by the movement of the ball relative to the ground"

And on those guidelines that he has been told to judge the issue, Barnes was correct.

gelodge wrote:I've never been a fan of the momentum interpretation.  If you're going to run fast, then throw the ball faster and run deeper to counter that (we're capable of throwing a ball faster than we can run, Bolt reaches about 27mph, the fastest recorded rugby pass is 48mph), making it more of a skill.

However, when the IRB addressed this interpretation issue a couple of years back, they specifically said:

"The referee must judge a forward pass purely on the passing action of the passer, and not be influenced by the movement of the ball relative to the ground"

And on those guidelines that he has been told to judge the issue, Barnes was correct.

The only way to get it right without the momentum rule is for both passer and receiver to stop dead. Then pass the ball then only start running once its caught, the point to point line at no less than 90 degrees to the opposition try line. Shall we revert to that perhaps?

Taylorman wrote:

gelodge wrote:I've never been a fan of the momentum interpretation.  If you're going to run fast, then throw the ball faster and run deeper to counter that (we're capable of throwing a ball faster than we can run, Bolt reaches about 27mph, the fastest recorded rugby pass is 48mph), making it more of a skill.

However, when the IRB addressed this interpretation issue a couple of years back, they specifically said:

"The referee must judge a forward pass purely on the passing action of the passer, and not be influenced by the movement of the ball relative to the ground"

And on those guidelines that he has been told to judge the issue, Barnes was correct.

The only way to get it right without the momentum rule is for both passer and receiver to stop dead. Then pass the ball then only start running once its caught, the point to point line at no less than 90 degrees to the opposition try line. Shall we revert to that perhaps?

I'm sorry but that is complete and utter rubbish. Plenty of passes go backwards relative to the pitch. The reason more is because they don't need to rather than they can't.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

gelodge wrote:I've never been a fan of the momentum interpretation.  If you're going to run fast, then throw the ball faster and run deeper to counter that (we're capable of throwing a ball faster than we can run, Bolt reaches about 27mph, the fastest recorded rugby pass is 48mph), making it more of a skill.

However, when the IRB addressed this interpretation issue a couple of years back, they specifically said:

"The referee must judge a forward pass purely on the passing action of the passer, and not be influenced by the movement of the ball relative to the ground"

And on those guidelines that he has been told to judge the issue, Barnes was correct.

The only way to get it right without the momentum rule is for both passer and receiver to stop dead. Then pass the ball then only start running once its caught, the point to point line at no less than 90 degrees to the opposition try line. Shall we revert to that perhaps?

I'm sorry but that is complete and utter rubbish. Plenty of passes go backwards relative to the pitch. The reason more is because they don't need to rather than they can't.

Agreed, international players now follow through with their hands after forward passes all the time now, to highlight to the ref that their hands have indeed gone back.

There is a moment when Folau loses control and the ball slips from his hands at an angle before his hands move in a backward direction also.

I'm not saying Barnes was right or wrong, just that this is a mirky grey area, and not the only one.

When Quade was yellow carded for his 'off the ball' tackle, Scott Williams hit the ball up onto his head and then headed the ball, does that count as a knock on? Just wondering cause if he hit the ball down onto his leg/foot my understanding is that it wouldnt have been a knock on?

Just wondering what the ins and outs are?

BTW, the wording of the Laws does not allow a momentum interpretation for knock ons:

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By comparison, the forward pass rule at least can be parsed to allow momentum (as seems to be the current IRB interpretation):
"A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By the letter of the law, Scott Williams knocked on, and Barnes was right to penalise Cooper for the early tackle (as Williams was not in possession of the ball, even if Cooper was only a fraction early going for 'man and ball'). The yellow card was also justifiable in the match context (tightness of the game and Wales being in a good attacking position), but was harsh considering the severity (or otherwise) of the offence.

I have only seen the highlights, but my impression was that it was the linesman that confirmed to Barnes that it was a knock on from Williams and not a knock back from Cooper, hence the delay in the whistle bringing North to a halt. None of the players on the field seemed to doubt the knock on decision, although obviously the penalty and card were more contentious.

So I think Barnes got both big calls arguably correct.

Dummy, cheers mate!

No problem with the calls made then, you have to think there was no penalty try given because Scott Williams knocked on (thus the certain try had vanished), if he hadnt, then surely there would have been a PT awarded.

Happy with that overall.

dummy_half wrote:BTW, the wording of the Laws does not allow a momentum interpretation for knock ons:

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By comparison, the forward pass rule at least can be parsed to allow momentum (as seems to be the current IRB interpretation):
"A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By the letter of the law, Scott Williams knocked on, and Barnes was right to penalise Cooper for the early tackle (as Williams was not in possession of the ball, even if Cooper was only a fraction early going for 'man and ball'). The yellow card was also justifiable in the match context (tightness of the game and Wales being in a good attacking position), but was harsh considering the severity (or otherwise) of the offence.

I have only seen the highlights, but my impression was that it was the linesman that confirmed to Barnes that it was a knock on from Williams and not a knock back from Cooper, hence the delay in the whistle bringing North to a halt. None of the players on the field seemed to doubt the knock on decision, although obviously the penalty and card were more contentious.

So I think Barnes got both big calls arguably correct.

Of course it does, it's implicit in the "loses possession of the ball and it goes forward" phrase. It is of course much harder to loose the ball backwards generally speaking. But it's played all the time in high ball catching situations. A player runs forward, leaps and is taught to turn side on, so if he drops the ball it goes "backwards". Of course, the forward momentum of the player often means the ball actually travels "forwards" but it is seen to be knocked backwards relative to the player. Happens. All. The. Time.

Comfort wrote:When Quade was yellow carded for his 'off the ball' tackle, Scott Williams hit the ball up onto his head and then headed the ball, does that count as a knock on? Just wondering cause if he hit the ball down onto his leg/foot my understanding is that it wouldnt have been a knock on?

Just wondering what the ins and outs are?

the former is a knock on, the latter would be deemed a kick. and then its about whether the support runner is ahead of the kicker or not and potentially offside.

Comfort wrote:Dummy, cheers mate!

No problem with the calls made then, you have to think there was no penalty try given because Scott Williams knocked on (thus the certain try had vanished), if he hadnt, then surely there would have been a PT awarded.

Happy with that overall.

if he hadnt knocked on it would have maybe been a try (Aus players didnt try to tackle north as it was clear to all that a knock-on had occurred). but couldn't in any circumstance been a penalty try.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

dummy_half wrote:BTW, the wording of the Laws does not allow a momentum interpretation for knock ons:

"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By comparison, the forward pass rule at least can be parsed to allow momentum (as seems to be the current IRB interpretation):
"A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

By the letter of the law, Scott Williams knocked on, and Barnes was right to penalise Cooper for the early tackle (as Williams was not in possession of the ball, even if Cooper was only a fraction early going for 'man and ball'). The yellow card was also justifiable in the match context (tightness of the game and Wales being in a good attacking position), but was harsh considering the severity (or otherwise) of the offence.

I have only seen the highlights, but my impression was that it was the linesman that confirmed to Barnes that it was a knock on from Williams and not a knock back from Cooper, hence the delay in the whistle bringing North to a halt. None of the players on the field seemed to doubt the knock on decision, although obviously the penalty and card were more contentious.

So I think Barnes got both big calls arguably correct.

Of course it does, it's implicit in the "loses possession of the ball and it goes forward" phrase. It is of course much harder to loose the ball backwards generally speaking. But it's played all the time in high ball catching situations. A player runs forward, leaps and is taught to turn side on, so if he drops the ball it goes "backwards". Of course, the forward momentum of the player often means the ball actually travels "forwards" but it is seen to be knocked backwards relative to the player. Happens. All. The. Time.

A, I finally see the problem GE has with the English. It's that he doesn't understand the language  

Law for knock-ons in simple terms - the ball goes forward (i.e. is a judgement on the direction the ball moves)
Law for forward passes - the ball is thrown forward (i.e. is a judgement on the direction of the throw, and 'movement of the hands').

I'm not arguing that wrong decisions have never been made in the example GE states for full backs coming forward to collect the ball and dropping it to their side (hell, I've played a fair bit at full back and got away with a few that have gone in front of sideways and been pulled up on a few that went marginally backwards), but there is not the same scope for interpretation - the Law is simple in this case.

If its not definitive... benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side. Its that simple.

And in 2 days since I haven't heard/read a conclusive argument that it was for certain a forward pass.

I've seen worse given. In the SH those are given all the time.

Quins, I've seen the ball come off people head before and the ref's always waived play on, thats why I asked.

It was a bit of a strange one.

Overall happy with the ref, the pass that was forward/not forward is a non-issue, we've all seen flatter passes ruled forward and worse passes ruled flat, I was happy with that. Just getting interested in this bit of play cause it was a strange phase all round imo.

Comfort wrote:Quins, I've seen the ball come off people head before and the ref's always waived play on, thats why I asked.

It was a bit of a strange one.

Overall happy with the ref, the pass that was forward/not forward is a non-issue, we've all seen flatter passes ruled forward and worse passes ruled flat, I was happy with that. Just getting interested in this bit of play cause it was a strange phase all round imo.

well i'm pretty sure it should be a knock on, unless the player who headed it caught it himself, or it went backwards. same if it hits a players back.

Comfort wrote:Quins, I've seen the ball come off people head before and the ref's always waived play on, thats why I asked.

It was a bit of a strange one.

Overall happy with the ref, the pass that was forward/not forward is a non-issue, we've all seen flatter passes ruled forward and worse passes ruled flat, I was happy with that. Just getting interested in this bit of play cause it was a strange phase all round imo.

I think it should have been play on and then check with the TMO (or Barnes look at the big screen himself). I think because all the Australians stopped and North kind of stopped Barnes felt obliged to blow his whistle, meaning a try couldn't be given. It certainly looked like the ball came back off his hand and then forward off his head.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Comfort wrote:Quins, I've seen the ball come off people head before and the ref's always waived play on, thats why I asked.

It was a bit of a strange one.

Overall happy with the ref, the pass that was forward/not forward is a non-issue, we've all seen flatter passes ruled forward and worse passes ruled flat, I was happy with that. Just getting interested in this bit of play cause it was a strange phase all round imo.

I think it should have been play on and then check with the TMO (or Barnes look at the big screen himself). I think because all the Australians stopped and North kind of stopped Barnes felt obliged to blow his whistle, meaning a try couldn't be given. It certainly looked like the ball came back off his hand and then forward off his head.

he could just as easily let north touch down, and rewound via the TMO to look at both events, the QC tackle, and the knock-on/forward pass, and he wouldnt have been committed to awarding a try.

he clearly blew up because he was confident (or the touch judge was) that the ball went forward.

I can only assume the player didnt touch the ball before it hit them on the head, thus they're deemed not to be in control of the ball or have attempted to catch the ball, thus not a knock on.

Hammer, yeah, to be honest that whole scenario seemed to confuse everyone, just getting interested in the technicalities of it all! No problem with the calls made.

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Comfort wrote:Quins, I've seen the ball come off people head before and the ref's always waived play on, thats why I asked.

It was a bit of a strange one.

Overall happy with the ref, the pass that was forward/not forward is a non-issue, we've all seen flatter passes ruled forward and worse passes ruled flat, I was happy with that. Just getting interested in this bit of play cause it was a strange phase all round imo.

I think it should have been play on and then check with the TMO (or Barnes look at the big screen himself). I think because all the Australians stopped and North kind of stopped Barnes felt obliged to blow his whistle, meaning a try couldn't be given. It certainly looked like the ball came back off his hand and then forward off his head.

he could just as easily let north touch down, and rewound via the TMO to look at both events, the QC tackle, and the knock-on/forward pass, and he wouldnt have been committed to awarding a try.

he clearly blew up because he was confident (or the touch judge was) that the ball went forward.

I think the fact that North stopped running before the whistle blew, might've been the dead give away.

And the aussies stopped well before Norths run because they saw Barnes going to his whistle. Thats a non event. Knock regardless of an early tackle or not.

Taylorman wrote:And the aussies stopped well before Norths run because they saw Barnes going to his whistle. Thats a non event. Knock regardless of an early tackle or not.

Yep...Obvious to everyone...except Gatland who maintains that it was a certain penalty try.  

Interestingly I would've thought the Biggar yellow card on his own line was a better candidate for a penalty try...

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Taylorman wrote:And the aussies stopped well before Norths run because they saw Barnes going to his whistle. Thats a non event. Knock regardless of an early tackle or not.

Yep...Obvious to everyone...except Gatland who maintains that it was a certain penalty try.   

Interestingly I would've thought the Biggar yellow card on his own line was a better candidate for a penalty try...

Breathtaking hypocrisy from Gatland .

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Taylorman wrote:And the aussies stopped well before Norths run because they saw Barnes going to his whistle. Thats a non event. Knock regardless of an early tackle or not.

Yep...Obvious to everyone...except Gatland who maintains that it was a certain penalty try.   

Interestingly I would've thought the Biggar yellow card on his own line was a better candidate for a penalty try...

Pretty sure he didn't say that. He just said it "could" have been, I think.