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.

I think you have both had a misunderstanding. Cas I'm sure meant relative to the tractor/thrower. With that accounted for it appears you've actually both been in agreement

ChequeredJersey wrote:Also shouldn't we be thinking of accelerations/decelerations not speeds? Only the throwing matters and you can't throw the ball at a speed, you project it with an accelerating force

yes. its all about the vectors.

but thats going to get us nowhere in this discussion CJ as we will be accused of talking about animals involved in disease transmission.

quinsforever wrote:Cas - you said this

"his hand, and thus the ball, travels at 100mph (relative to the ground) backwards"

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the ground his hand and the ball need to be moving at 190mph backwards.

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the CAR moving at 90mph in the other direction, the hand and his ball would be moving at 10mph backwards relative to the ground.

You know full well I meant relative to tractor not ground. Biltong and the doctor have confirmed my theory. My work is done.

Good night.  

ChequeredJersey wrote:I think you have both had a misunderstanding. Cas I'm sure meant relative to the tractor/thrower. With that accounted for it appears you've actually both been in agreement

unfortunately, on t'internet i can't go by what he meant, only by what he said.

and if we do agree on the meaning of my tractor analogy, then does cas now understand the relevance of player momentum to the pass traveling forwards vs being thrown forwards?

Casartelli wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Cas - you said this

"his hand, and thus the ball, travels at 100mph (relative to the ground) backwards"

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the ground his hand and the ball need to be moving at 190mph backwards.

for the ball and his hand to travel at 100mph relative to the CAR moving at 90mph in the other direction, the hand and his ball would be moving at 10mph backwards relative to the ground.

You know full well I meant relative to tractor not ground.  Biltong and the doctor have confirmed my theory.  My work is done.

Good night.  

i assume nothing. i infer nothing. i read and respond.

i learnt when working in america that ASSUME is the word that makes an ASS out of U and ME

Biltong wrote:

Casartelli wrote:

Biltong wrote:If you are trsvelling forward at 90mph, and you throw a ball backwards at 90mph you will effectively have countered the forward motion.

So to ensure backward motion of the ball you only need to throw backwards at a rate of more thn 90mph.

90.0000000001 will already provide a backward motion on the ball.

Although you would need to measure in microns to measure it if it has remained airborn for but a second or two

Thanks Bilt.  Any chance you could also ban Quins/Mysti for making Einstein spin in his grave?

 

I think he is doing more than spinning in his grave mate.

I suspect he has already revised his theory on relativity.  

Spinning? he must be positively Wee weeing his pants since the law we are debating is Newton's not Einstein  

einstein would certainly be a tad miffed to be woken up to solve a basic A-level maths mechanical physics question.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair to Barnes he was on the other side of play so he wouldn't have spotted the knock on. That's why you have more than 1 official.

Indeed. a part of the issue with rugby refs - they cannot see everything.

I thought Barnes had a good game and got all the contentious calls right. But he did make a mess of the incident in question but we got the right answer out of it in the end

Forward passes. the rules say "ball forward in relation to the try line" However since the IRB video its been shown how difficult it is to actually do this and to see it properly. So the guidance to the refs is for them to disallow a try they have to be sure the ball went forward and they should be guided by the direction of the throwers hands - ie did he throw the ball backward?

On that measure the call was correct.

Strictly speaking from the laws maybe it was a forward pass but the decision made was in line with the advice to referrees so a correct decision.

Or to sum it up really nice and succinct:

The ball moved forward but the pass wasn't forward, so no issue, try.

Maes should be firing up his laptop just about now...

I hope something new comes out of the HC this weekend. Feel like I'm a Bill Murray movie.

An irony here is that the system is already in place to deal with this issue, and has always been. It’s called the ref’s/lineman’s judgement. In real time, in real speed. Provided the official is reasonably up with play, then human judgement (ie. the power of the eye and brain) is particular good at judging direction. And usually the right call is made (the ref’s judgement here is orders of magnitude more accurate than his judgement about who brought the scrum down, for example. Or whether McCaw is offside). The current hoo-ha (apart from a certain degree of sour grapes) is due to the endless slo-mo replays and the age the TMO takes to judge every angle (he’s got to justify his wage I guess). So let the ref – ref, I say.

As an illustration, during the game in question, I actually thought the pass for North’s 1st try was clearly forward and was a little surprised (but somewhat relieved) it wasn’t reviewed. Whereas for the pass for the 3rd Aus try it didn’t occur to me real time that there was a problem with it. Funny eh?

I guess, to please some, we could chalk both tries off. And let’s see….that gives us an Aus win. Sorted.

Aus's first try had a forward looking pass to me, and as it was a back door ridiculopass by Cooper, whether it was thrown backward or not is inherently more dubious

TJ wrote:Forward passes.  the rules say "ball forward in relation to the try line"  However since the IRB video its been shown how difficult it is to actually do this and to see it properly.  So the guidance to the refs is for them to disallow a try they have to be sure the ball went forward and they should be guided by the direction of the throwers hands - ie did he throw the ball backward?

On that measure the call was correct.  

Strictly speaking from the laws maybe it was a forward pass but the decision made was in line with the advice to referrees so a correct decision.

You see what you've done there again, you've cropped the vital word out deliberAtely to make your point.

You started at "ball forward" and have missed out the word THROWN THROWN THROWN THROWN THROWN THROWN not TRAVELS.

See? It wasn't thrown forward, so no problem.

And everyone knows that, surely? I mean everyone will have learnt in primary school what a forward pass is, and it won't have needed a physics lesson either.

Well I thought so, but to find out an international coach doesn't know it and apparently half the posting population of welsh fans is quite staggering.

Next they'll be revealing they don't really understand the offside law either.