What was Wayne Barnes Thinking?

First topic message reminder :

Before I start on this one let me get something out first. This is not a "We were robbed by the ref" post. No sour grapes or blaming the ref.

This is a question about trying to understand WB's thought processes in the 10 seconds or so after the incident which led to Quade Coopers yellow card. This is how I saw it:

Quade Cooper in with an early tackle...... Penalty to Wales....... No signal from WB for advantage and no whistle.

Ball knocked on by Wales.......... Play should be stopped and taken back for the penalty...... Still nothing from WB

George North Picks up the ball......... Play should now definitely be stopped If he didn't see the penalty offense then perhaps he was playing advantage to Australia..... If he hadn't seen the knock on then perhaps he was still playing advantage to Wales even though he didn't signal it.

Everyone on the pitch stops, seemingly waiting for WB to blow up for something, the crowd starts to get restless and eventually George North saunter under the posts. Every player on the pitch has committed the cardinal sin of not playing to the whistle.
Now WB blows up BEFORE GN touches down, and then asks for a video replay which confirms a penalty offense followed by a knock on therefore penalty to Wales.

Now my question is Why did he blow up at that point? if he wasn't sure about the penalty or knock on wouldn.t it have been better to let GN touch down first? If he had seen either then why no signal for advantage or earlier whistle?

Any ideas please.

As is the " better review that just incase" 5 minute pause between every score (or no score) which could better have been utilised to reset a scrum 19 times.
Wouldnt it be better if the referees just sat at home and watched it on TV live acting as a continuous TMO?

Question to maes: you keep bringing up that Rolland and the TMO both saw it as a forward pass, but no one else has heard this, or indeed anything similar. Can you provide some evidence to your claim?

Most people heard Barnes say "I've seen it, and as it isn't clear, I'm going to award the try". Not "I can't hear the TMO, so I'm going to award the try".

here's even the link to the game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfay60EfI84

(around the 57 minute mark)

Can't hear what Rolland says to Barnes (the commentators are talking), while the only words you hear from the TMO are right before Barnes makes the call with "Wayne, I have a decision", to which Barnes replies "I've seen it clearly on the screen, it's not clear and obvious, I'm awarding the try" (his exact words). Now put up of b*gger off, we've all had enough of your b*llsh*t.

Quite right Madfor

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/05/the-breakdown-rugby-union-forward-pass

Even 'graceless Gats' got it wrong!

"Confusion reigns as the forward pass rule continues to baffle everyone"
 
To be honest, I don't think it's fair to say "everyone" was baffled.

I really don't see where the confusion arises.

The law clear states "THROWN forward", not "TRAVELS forward". At no time does the law state anything about the path or flight of the ball, it's all in the use of THROWN. It's describing the impulse, the force, nothing at all to do with the flight of the ball.

Surely anyone with a vague grasp of logic can see that?

This topic will go in circles forever.

Biltong wrote:This topic will go in circles forever.

Yeah, it really needs to move forward now.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:This topic will go in circles forever.

Yeah, it really needs to move forward now.

but is it going to travel forwards or does it need to be thrown forward?  

I thought the whole thread was flat to be fair.

I'd also like to point out that another thread has just been locked and aside from starting the thread. It was nothing to do with me at all. The thread descended into childish bickering without my involvement whatsoever. I feel so proud. So reformed. Like I could go on posting....forever.

Lets not look back to your former days Empire.

I think initially the discussion went backwards but external factors meant it actually progressed forward (relative to the forum not the poster)

so what you're saying GE, is you took a punt and when the ball came down various posters fumbled it, put each other accidentally offside, there was a bit of pushing and shoving, handbags, and the ref sent everyone in for an early bath as there was nothing good to salvage

GloriousEmpire wrote:I thought the whole thread was flat to be fair.

I'd also like to point out that another thread has just been locked and aside from starting the thread. It was nothing to do with me at all. The thread descended into childish bickering without my involvement whatsoever. I feel so proud. So reformed. Like I could go on posting....forever.

looked flat to you. but to some of the posters going backwards that obviously seemed forward and therefore backward progress for their point, and to those more forwardly inclined, you flatness was backward to them and hence a positive step forwards  

The OP is a good one. Shame it descended into exactly the noise he didn't want.

so what if your body is slightly a couple degrees at an angle , but still your hand movement is backwards but you more or less throwing it forward   good try Australia . its easier

From IRB: Laws of the game.
Definition: Throw forward

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

When did this direction of the hands thing come about? I cant find any reference to it on the IRB Rules website. Never heard of it until this season.

Not convinced with this hand motion definition of a forward pass.

It's because it's possible for the ball to travel forward due to momentum. However, it's impossible for someone to throw the ball forward if your hands actually aim backwards (try it!). On the flip side, if the hands were moving forwards when the ball is released then the probability is that is what caused the ball to go forward and is thus a forward pass.

Yes I understand the whole momentum thing. But if this hand movement definition is replacing the old rule, what would stop a player positioning himself at an angle or even in the opposite direction and by using a 'backward hand motion' throwing the ball forward.
Has it been incorporated as a rule? Has it replaced the old rule?
It just doesn't look right when a ball travels clearly forward (sometimes many meters) but because the hand went back it is deemed ok.
I think you can allow some margin for momentum, but when we are talking meters it just doesn't look right for me.

And where does it say in the rules it is ok for a ball to travel forward?

Swperb wrote:And where does it say in the rules it is ok for a ball to travel forward?

Where does it say it can't travel forward?

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

This is what I mean. Has the hand movement definition replaced this law? If so then the try was technically ok.
If not, then the try should not have been allowed. The ball was thrown by the Australian player towards the Welsh dead ball line.

The key words there are 'throw' and 'pass' forward. You can't do either if the hands are aiming backwards. Or, if they pass or throw it sideways (flat) or backwards, and the ball still travels forward (due to momentum), then that's OK. That's how I interpret the rule anyway.

Swperb wrote:A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

That doesn't say travel forward does it? It says thrown forward. It's taking the player as the frame of reference. It doesn't specifically state the exact meaning but it doesn't disallow it. It's also endorsed by supplementary info, eg Total Rugby (IBB programme) video.

Some people are never happy. i thought barnes had an unusually good game letting things flow and letting teams have good advantage before moving on. Stop making this about the ref and accept that australia were the better team on the day. Move on please!

This is the problem. The ball can now travel many meters towards the opposite teams goal line due to 'momentum'. The 'hand direction interpretation is at odds with the original rule, which as far as I am aware is still the actual rule.

Did the Australian player throw the ball? Yes
Was it towards the Welsh dead ball line? Yes

Until the original rule is amended to incorporate the hand movement interpretation we have seen this season, then they are currently not compatible.

But it still looks wrong to me.

I'm not making this about the ref. This is something that has bothered me for a while now. Wales lost because they where outplayed by Australia for a long period in the game. I have no qualms about the outcome. In fact a Welsh win would have papered over a lot of the cracks they need to sort out before the World cup. They need a plan B and C.....

Many meters? Give me a break

But the ball wasn't thrown towards the line relative to the player. There's nothing at odds with the current law, using that particular interpretation (as endorsed by the IRB). Forget the hands. That's used to help determine the ball is thrown in (as Griff said).

I don't mean many meters in this instance. But it does happen GE.

i totally understand why the IRB do this. if two players are running at the same speed and level with each other, a flat pass would be one that is into the hands of the receiving player if they were both still running at the same speed, still level with each other. the pass would have strictly speaking moved forwards by the amount of ground the players covered during the time the ball is in the air. but it was absolutely not thrown forwards.

this interpretation has been made clear by the IRB because i) video replay technology meant they needed to address it, and ii) players are chucking the ball long distances, much further than20 years ago, and hence it was "traveling forwards" further proportionate to the time it was in the air.

Good points Quins.

Swperb wrote:This is the problem. The ball can now travel many meters towards the opposite teams goal line due to 'momentum'. The 'hand direction interpretation is at odds with the original rule, which as far as I am aware is still the actual rule.

Did the Australian player throw the ball? Yes
Was it towards the Welsh dead ball line? Yes

Until the original rule is amended to incorporate the hand movement interpretation we have seen this season, then they are currently not compatible.

But it still looks wrong to me.

You're missing the key question there:
Did the Australian player throw the ball towards the dead ball line? No (IMO). He threw it flat or slightly backwards and the momentum carried it towards the try line.

I get the momentum issue. But when you see the ball moving forward from a pass, it just looks wrong. A little give and take for momentum maybe, but when your talking meters it doesn't sit well with me.

But I do understand why they have brought something like this in for consistency. I mean if it were up to individual referees to judge a little give and take for momentum, then we would have 'controversy' in each game.

I know, what was he thinking allowing that pass.........was well forward when north caught it!

 

Griff wrote:Good points Quins.

I've never seen it be meters.

This wouldn't even be so bad, but if the call had been the other way, the exact same suspects would be defending it.

I'm trying not to make this about the Australia game, as it is a bugbear of mine in general. But I was sat right next to where the try was awarded and the ball travelled at least one meter towards the Welsh goal line from the Fullback to the wing.

But if this 'hand rule' is now a law then it is a try.

It's not something I particularly like but agree that to do otherwise would tip the game either further into defensive dominance.

But it's :cuss:ing annoying when you hear a ref say "It was clearly forward. He caught it the other side of the line".

Oh Frak, the martyrs here. My heart bleeds for you.

Nah. Suck it up. You lost.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Oh Frak, the martyrs here. My heart bleeds for you.

Nah. Suck it up. You lost.

Me? I'm not Welsh.

Ok, for fear of evoking the wrath of the forum I shall refrain from referenceing the Australia game on this thread henceforth, as clearly I am a bitter, bitter person.  

But as a hypothetical question, (totally unrelated to game I must not mention) according to the 'hand rule', what would stop a player from turning their back to the opposition and throwing the ball with their hands in a backward motion over the heads of the opposition to a fellow player?

Swperb wrote:Ok, for fear of evoking the wrath of the forum I shall refrain from referenceing the Australia game on this thread henceforth, as clearly I am a bitter, bitter person.  

But as a hypothetical question, (totally unrelated to game I must not mention) according to the 'hand rule', what would stop a player from turning their back to the opposition and throwing the ball with their hands in a backward motion over the heads of the opposition to a fellow player?

Because the 'hand rule' isn't a rule. It's an aid to judge the direction of the pass.

quick calculation for everyone's enjoyment (or not)

lets assume the avg back is running at 20kmh (5.56metres per second) when they pass the ball.

lets also assume that a long pass which is thrown hard goes at an average velocity of 50kmh (13.89metres per second).

if a long pass (13.89metres) is thrown in these circumstances, it would take 1.00 seconds in the air. If that pass was thrown FLAT, ie hands neither forwards or backwards, then in theory the ball, by the time ir arrived in the catchers hands, could have travelled an astonishing 5.56metres forwards, solely due to the momentum of the passing player!

Swperb wrote:Ok, for fear of evoking the wrath of the forum I shall refrain from referenceing the Australia game on this thread henceforth, as clearly I am a bitter, bitter person.  

But as a hypothetical question, (totally unrelated to game I must not mention) according to the 'hand rule', what would stop a player from turning their back to the opposition and throwing the ball with their hands in a backward motion over the heads of the opposition to a fellow player?

If the attacking player turned their back to the opposition (as opposed to facing them front on) and threw the ball backwards over their head then their hands would be facing aiming/towards the opposition try line when passed and the ball would travel forward! A classic forward pass!

It doesn't say anything about the way the hands are facing? Just that "The leading hand is going in a backwards motion....".

Swperb wrote:It doesn't say anything about the way the hands are facing? Just that "The leading hand is going in a backwards motion....".

And since 'forwards' is towards the opposition try line, backwards is...?

Wow. I used to think "village idiots of rugby" was a euphemism.

Stop being a man sausage GE.