Gareth Davies try was correct decision

First topic message reminder :

Hi just something thats been annoying me a little since the game yesterday was how many people thought davies was offside, they have either not taken the time look at the replay close enough or dont understand the offside law


If you go to bbc iplayer and watch the 6 nations forum, fast forward to 12.50 and you can see initially davies is in an offside position but then when roberts plays the ball back, roberts then moves forward and davies moves slightly back into an onside position as roberts is infront of him before he plays the ball

No 7&1/2 wrote:No Roberts hits the ball 'back' and it lands in a position further forward. Now there is the argument for momentum etc but the speed of the ball and the players and given the situation I don't think thats relevant. Also given the amount of flat passes made at speed which get pinged I'm not sure half the refs follow that direction anyway.

So you are saying that no Scottish hand touched the ball ?

Ok doc. Didn't look that way on the replays but ok.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No Roberts hits the ball 'back' and it lands in a position further forward. Now there is the argument for momentum etc but the speed of the ball and the players and given the situation I don't think thats relevant. Also given the amount of flat passes made at speed which get pinged I'm not sure half the refs follow that direction anyway.

There are a number of key elemenets, and I'm not saying your wrong or right, but everone at least has to recognise the difficulty and subtle nature of this kind of decision.

I personally think Davies was offside, until played on again.

There are numerous similar examples of forwards offside at the ruck returning to play before a chargedown puts them back onside, so there is precident

It was the wrong decision by the laws but yes Fanster there are plenty of examples where similar mistakes have been made.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was the wrong decision by the laws but yes Fanster there are plenty of examples where similar mistakes have been made.

So no debate, your word is law?

Plenty of debate here but this decision is pretty clear cut. It's not one of those where it's close it's plain in the law.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Plenty of debate here but this decision is pretty clear cut. It's not one of those where it's close it's plain in the law.

Well it's clearly close, because a top level ref, and plenty other disagree with you...

BTW are you also of the opinion that Earls should have seen 2 yellow cards last week for 2 tip tackles?

I thought both were pens definitely, luckier with the first not to pick up a yellow, the 2nd not for me. One fo those things though like this incident where if the decision differs in the first it affects every action and consequence after that point ie he may have made the 2nd or not - infinite things could have happened etc.

The ref got it wrong in this case, it happens.

It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I thought both were pens definitely, luckier with the first not to pick up a yellow, the 2nd not for me. One fo those things though like this incident where if the decision differs in the first it affects every action and consequence after that point ie he may have made the 2nd or not - infinite things could have happened etc.

The ref got it wrong in this case, it happens.

But the laws state:

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Did Earls not lift then drop Williams on the upper body (elbow/shoulder)?

I personally think a penalty was the right call, for the good of the game on the day, and in general. Similarly if all refs follow every letter of the law the breakdown becomes a sham, and following the letter of the law cost Scotland a RWC semi final.

It's the dropping or driving which I don't think happened in the 2nd instance (if I'm thinking of the right one. play was going from left to right for Ireland at the time?

Not sure how the letter of the law cost the Scots? I am of the opinion it's too simplistic to pick out 1 ref decision from 80 plus mins and blame only that point though.

Gareth Davies's try, yes he was offside. It should not have been allowed. But, Scotland got away with an awful lot on Saturday as well.

So I would suggest, instead of moaning and looking for excuses, lets talk about how Scotland did not have the ability to pull away when they were on top.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's the dropping or driving which I don't think happened in the 2nd instance (if I'm thinking of the right one. play was going from left to right for Ireland at the time?

Not sure how the letter of the law cost the Scots? I am of the opinion it's too simplistic to pick out 1 ref decision from 80 plus mins and blame only that point though.

Well on 80 mins an accidental offside was deemed offside because Joubert following the TMO usage rules correctly is pretty much a game changer. Technically he did the right thing, but he ran from the pitch for a reason.

My point is the laws have to be used with commons sense, so wether Davies was or was not offside the idea that there is only one correct view is foolish.

Oh right. Yeah technically he got the process correct but the decision overall (whether you count that as the TMP, ref or both) was wrong. There is only one technically correct decision in 99.9% of cases, including this one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh right. Yeah technically he got the process correct but the decision overall (whether you count that as the TMP, ref or both) was wrong. There is only one technically correct decision in 99.9% of cases, including this one.

Is there? Are you saying the laws have just a 0.1% subjectivity? IR that why refs are so consistent between levels, countries of training and hemispheres?

LordDowlais wrote:Gareth Davies's try, yes he was offside. It should not have been allowed. But, Scotland got away with an awful lot on Saturday as well.

So I would suggest, instead of moaning and looking for excuses, lets talk about how Scotland did not have the ability to pull away when they were on top.

I don't think there is anything wrong with saying it shouldn't of been a try. Its not moaning. The problem is the ref had a TMO, watched it... it was obvious to everyone and yet he still gave a try. That is worse than not using a TMO at all.

Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

Gooseberry wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There were probably quite a few (I don't know the official number), but I know some on here had been because they commented. What are you saying is a higher profile game? I don't think Wales are always the victims, I do happen to find a lot of English are obsessed with Wales though. The knit-picking is surely embarrassing for all of you.

KNit picking

Thanks.

fa0019 wrote:Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

That's just Scotland all over though, you have been like this for years, if anything, Wales allowed you to look decent because of our useless tactics of kicking the ball away all the time.

When we actually stopped kicking it, after about 55 mins, there was only one side in it, Scotland will do well to beat Italy and not finish with the wooded spoon this year.

doctornickolas wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you're seeing what you want to see doc.

Not at all. I think you have an agenda to fill. Roberts clearly plays the ball backwards and immediately the Scottish player gets the same. There is no knock on. That part is not even being debated by anyone. It's after that that is open for debate.

Players are 'offside' at every box kick. They certainly do have an agenda.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

That's just Scotland all over though, you have been like this for years, if anything, Wales allowed you to look decent because of our useless tactics of kicking the ball away all the time.

When we actually stopped kicking it, after about 55 mins, there was only one side in it, Scotland will do well to beat Italy and not finish with the wooded spoon this year.

bit of a problem I agree. Always the bridesmaid. In reality I don't think the quality is there and teams know that they have just enough to win matches. Warburton would never have gone for the scrum had Scotland been better when 16-16 (I think). Against NZ, SA you would take the 3 everytime.

I think Scotland will beat Italy and France and will have a good crack at Ireland actually.

fa0019 wrote:It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

Anyone notice that after a Wales win posters come on and point out what the ref did for Wales? All subjective in reality, but if it's 'helped Wales' then it's gospel. It's funny.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh right. Yeah technically he got the process correct but the decision overall (whether you count that as the TMP, ref or both) was wrong. There is only one technically correct decision in 99.9% of cases, including this one.

Is there? Are you saying the laws have just a 0.1% subjectivity? IR that why refs are so consistent between levels, countries of training and hemispheres?

0.1% where 2 incidents which constitute a foul etc happen at the same time. Inconsistency between refs are generally because they ain't following the laws correctly, see the recent maul topic in the club section here.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

Anyone notice that after a Wales win posters come on and point out what the ref did for Wales? All subjective in reality, but if it's 'helped Wales' then it's gospel. It's funny.

It doesn't help when certain 'Welsh' posters do exactly the same to the English or Irish threads, compounds the problem, and makes it a bit retaliatory.

I find it difficult to discuss English rugby despite being from London because i'm a Welshy who hates all things England!

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

Anyone notice that after a Wales win posters come on and point out what the ref did for Wales? All subjective in reality, but if it's 'helped Wales' then it's gospel. It's funny.

An obvious error by the ref when viewed by the TMO and criticised by those in the press almost uniformly isn't really subjective though.  I thought he had a poor game myself but look Scotland were lucky too at times... I thought Hogg would have been carded had he not gone off. He slid into a welsh player with his feet up and could have seriously injured him, very dangerous and perhaps ended his 6N. Served him right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh right. Yeah technically he got the process correct but the decision overall (whether you count that as the TMP, ref or both) was wrong. There is only one technically correct decision in 99.9% of cases, including this one.

Is there? Are you saying the laws have just a 0.1% subjectivity? IR that why refs are so consistent between levels, countries of training and hemispheres?

0.1% where 2 incidents which constitute a foul etc happen at the same time. Inconsistency between refs are generally because they ain't following the laws correctly, see the recent maul topic in the club section here.

So every ref who has ever made a mistake is to blame? Not the over complication and subjective nature of the rulebook (yes I called it a rulebook!)?

If every ref understands the laws incorrectly what does that tell you about the laws?

You're a ref yourself ain't you Fanster? But yes ultimately the laws are there in black and white, the blame is put upon several things, I'm just saying there is a definite line between a technically correct decision and getting it wrong. the argument of whether and how the ref uses his or her own judgment is separate to that point.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

That's just Scotland all over though, you have been like this for years, if anything, Wales allowed you to look decent because of our useless tactics of kicking the ball away all the time.

When we actually stopped kicking it, after about 55 mins, there was only one side in it, Scotland will do well to beat Italy and not finish with the wooded spoon this year.

They weren't useless tactics. They worked well and had us on the ropes. I've the bad feeling that unless we change our tactics then better teams will do it wand execute it better.

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

That's just Scotland all over though, you have been like this for years, if anything, Wales allowed you to look decent because of our useless tactics of kicking the ball away all the time.

When we actually stopped kicking it, after about 55 mins, there was only one side in it, Scotland will do well to beat Italy and not finish with the wooded spoon this year.

They weren't useless tactics. They worked well and had us on the ropes. I've the bad feeling that unless we change our tactics then better teams will do it wand execute it better.

They kicked to the wrong guy though. Kicked to Seymour and he was comfortable with anything sent down his channel. When they started kicking to Jackson it was improved but it did take them a while to notice a) Seymour was having one of those days and b) hes already known to be quite proficient anyhow in that dept.

LordDowlais wrote:Gareth Davies's try, yes he was offside. It should not have been allowed. But, Scotland got away with an awful lot on Saturday as well.

So I would suggest, instead of moaning and looking for excuses, lets talk about how Scotland did not have the ability to pull away when they were on top.

Not sure people are moaning - rather than responding to the title of this thread. If someone creates a thread stating a decision was right when it was clearly wrong Im not sure what was expected?

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

Anyone notice that after a Wales win posters come on and point out what the ref did for Wales? All subjective in reality, but if it's 'helped Wales' then it's gospel. It's funny.

An obvious error by the ref when viewed by the TMO and criticised by those in the press almost uniformly isn't really subjective though.  I thought he had a poor game myself but look Scotland were lucky too at times... I thought Hogg would have been carded had he not gone off. He slid into a welsh player with his feet up and could have seriously injured him, very dangerous and perhaps ended his 6N. Served him right.

I wasn't specifically referring to just that, you wrote a whole lot more of thing Wales apparently did. We hear it after every Wales game from rival fans. We especially hear it after this fixture. Even last year when Biggar was taken out by Russell, Wales were somehow at fault.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:It was easily offside. Where roberts ends up is inconsequential to where he was when he touched the ball. Gareth Davies was offside. Surprised they didn't ping JD2 too for being offside but Biggars kick didn't go down his channel so whilst he was chasing he wasn't directly involved.

Did it change the match... perhaps but probably not. The bad thing was the ref was very poor, he viewed it and gave it. He should be pinged for that too.

Another thing I thought was loco was his views on the mauls. One point AWJ had both feet off the ground and was reaching out and pulled down a Scottish maul... thats completely illegal right? Maul collapsed and Wales got the put in, right in front of the ref. It was so obvious so how didn't he see it.
The scrums were very odd though. You could see Wales always driving in on the angle. The birds eye view camera showed it clear as day. Everyone does it yes but I'm surprised how obvious it was and yet they didn't get pinged for it once (probably the luxury of a birds eye view... perhaps refs should get google glasses??).

Scotland probably didn't quite deserve the win though... if you can't secure your own lineouts then whilst they competed well and took their chances it wasn't quite enough.

Anyone notice that after a Wales win posters come on and point out what the ref did for Wales? All subjective in reality, but if it's 'helped Wales' then it's gospel. It's funny.

An obvious error by the ref when viewed by the TMO and criticised by those in the press almost uniformly isn't really subjective though.  I thought he had a poor game myself but look Scotland were lucky too at times... I thought Hogg would have been carded had he not gone off. He slid into a welsh player with his feet up and could have seriously injured him, very dangerous and perhaps ended his 6N. Served him right.

I wasn't specifically referring to just that, you wrote a whole lot more of thing Wales apparently did. We hear it after every Wales game from rival fans. We especially hear it after this fixture. Even last year when Biggar was taken out by Russell, Wales were somehow at fault.

Mikey I did say Scotland were guilty of it too in probability but we didn't get the eye in the sky viewpoint then. My reasoning was that its an obvious issue and that its easily corrected by technology such as google glasses so why not use it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're a ref yourself ain't you Fanster? But yes ultimately the laws are there in black and white

Maybe they are (I'm not so sure), but then the refs get directives to ignore them. For the most simple example, look at the forward pass law.

Where they are still getting it wrong in a lot of cases. I accept it's a hard job and impossible to get it all right but for me no matter what there is a right and wrong judgment to be made. Doesn't mean we should expect every decision to be right.

No idea why this is still being discussed, there is no fuzziness over what should have been the correct decision, the referee and his TMO got it very very wrong.

The forward pass one is difficult though. As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view). The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish. We'd have no game at all. Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No idea why this is still being discussed, there is no fuzziness over what should have been the correct decision, the referee and his TMO got it very very wrong.

Very wrong?! Doesn't make sense!

Griff wrote:The forward pass one is difficult though.  As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view).  The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish.  We'd have no game at all.  Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

The law is towards the dead ball line. If momentum takes it there it should be a forward pass but that's not how it's applied. I agree with what you say though. But regardless it's not as simple as the laws being there in black and white, even for the simplest example. If you're going to add directives why are they not stated in the laws?

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Scotland didn't quite have what it takes but there is a lot of positives, going to cardiff is tough for most sides and Scotland still aren't there yet. It was a missed opportunity but if you can't secure your own set piece victory should never be seen as if it was cruelly snatched from them. I think come 12 months this Scotland side will be very decent indeed but in the end getting close defeats a lot of the time but not getting over the line will eat away at you and the coach.

That's just Scotland all over though, you have been like this for years, if anything, Wales allowed you to look decent because of our useless tactics of kicking the ball away all the time.

When we actually stopped kicking it, after about 55 mins, there was only one side in it, Scotland will do well to beat Italy and not finish with the wooded spoon this year.

They weren't useless tactics. They worked well and had us on the ropes. I've the bad feeling that unless we change our tactics then better teams will do it wand execute it better.

They kicked to the wrong guy though. Kicked to Seymour and he was comfortable with anything sent down his channel. When they started kicking to Jackson it was improved but it did take them a while to notice a) Seymour was having one of those days and b) hes already known to be quite proficient anyhow in that dept.

Still pretty good, it's not often I've seen a team pin us back with such proficiency - except for Australia and NZ I guess.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:The forward pass one is difficult though.  As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view).  The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish.  We'd have no game at all.  Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

The law is towards the dead ball line. If momentum takes it there it should be a forward pass but that's not how it's applied. I agree with what you say though. But regardless it's not as simple as the laws being there in black and white, even for the simplest example. If you're going to add directives why are they not stated in the laws?

It is as simple as a right or wrong decision in a forward pass. If a new directive is applied consistently, which it isn't it changes the goalposts but not whether any decision is correct or not. ie it can't be a forward AND a flat pass. There is a hard judgement to be made but the outcome is still right or wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:The forward pass one is difficult though.  As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view).  The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish.  We'd have no game at all.  Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

The law is towards the dead ball line. If momentum takes it there it should be a forward pass but that's not how it's applied. I agree with what you say though. But regardless it's not as simple as the laws being there in black and white, even for the simplest example. If you're going to add directives why are they not stated in the laws?

But we wouldn't have a game. The players themselves are running towards the dead ball line. Even if you pass it backwards the ball will still travel forward. So they either ignore that and introduce a directive like the hands things (I assumed it was a directive), or they whistle every time someone passes while running. Only the scrum half would be OK, passing back or flat from the scrums and rucks with no momentum! We'd have to score all points from 1st phase! Maybe that's why/how rugby league developed?!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:The forward pass one is difficult though.  As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view).  The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish.  We'd have no game at all.  Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

The law is towards the dead ball line. If momentum takes it there it should be a forward pass but that's not how it's applied. I agree with what you say though. But regardless it's not as simple as the laws being there in black and white, even for the simplest example. If you're going to add directives why are they not stated in the laws?

It is as simple as a right or wrong decision in a forward pass. If a new directive is applied consistently, which it isn't it changes the goalposts but not whether any decision is correct or not. ie it can't be a forward AND a flat pass. There is a hard judgement to be made but the outcome is still right or wrong.

At the borderline there's an atoms difference between flat and forwards so it's impossible to tell the difference.

There are very many decisions where there may or may not be infringements but it's not possible for a human to see, or tell which offense comes first.

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:No idea why this is still being discussed, there is no fuzziness over what should have been the correct decision, the referee and his TMO got it very very wrong.

Very wrong?!  Doesn't make sense!

Makes perfect sense, if the ref hadn't gone to the TMO I don't think anyone has an issue with the decision but the moment he did and they still got it wrong makes it a terrible decision.

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:The forward pass one is difficult though.  As has been discussed to death elsewhere, if you're running forward and throw the ball in a backwards direction, it still a forward pass (from a physics point of view).  The ball will still travel forward. To get around it we'd need to play 'Walking Rugby', which would be rubbish.  We'd have no game at all.  Therefore, the 'hands aiming backward' directive came in, which is great as that at least accounts for the player attempting to pass it backwards, even if momentum takes it forward.

The law is towards the dead ball line. If momentum takes it there it should be a forward pass but that's not how it's applied. I agree with what you say though. But regardless it's not as simple as the laws being there in black and white, even for the simplest example. If you're going to add directives why are they not stated in the laws?

It is as simple as a right or wrong decision in a forward pass. If a new directive is applied consistently, which it isn't it changes the goalposts but not whether any decision is correct or not. ie it can't be a forward AND a flat pass. There is a hard judgement to be made but the outcome is still right or wrong.

At the borderline there's an atoms difference between flat and forwards so it's impossible to tell the difference.

There are very many decisions where there may or may not be infringements but it's not possible for a human to see, or tell which offense comes first.

If it's that close give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. To be really pedantic even if you get down to that degree there will still be a correct and incorrect decision.

The impact it had on the overall game is debatable Ad infintum, and thus utterly pointless.

Clancy is an incompetent moron who got decisions wrong all over the park on Saturday for both sides.

This decision was wrong and I will not debate it further. Wales played well enough to win the match. End of story.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If it's that close give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. To be really pedantic even if you get down to that degree there will still be a correct and incorrect decision.

So now you need to know laws and directives, when to give benefit of the doubt, which order the offences came in (even though it's probably impossible to get a FOV to see all at once), whether they had an impact on play etc. And there's still the same gap between when you 'should' give benefit of the doubt and not. The fact is in some instances even with replays a 'correct' decision is impossible for humans to distinguish. You're going on balance of probabilities and experience. Not simply correct/incorrect.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The second Roberts touched the ball, Davis was offside.

That's not true. If Davies made only backwards movement without interfering with play he's not offside.

Scottrf wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The second Roberts touched the ball, Davis was offside.

That's not true. If Davies made only backwards movement without interfering with play he's not offside.

He caught the ball and scored a try.... what would you describe that as if not "interfering"?

No there is always a correct and incorrect bar that rare occurance where 2 fouls are committed at exactly the same time. We can dissect those decisions at length with replays and reviews and see what the correct decision should have been, the refs can't for every decision, and even on review can get it wrong like this decision.

For me there's the issue of whether the officials are right, but then also the understanding that they will get things wrong.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The second Roberts touched the ball, Davis was offside.

That's not true. If Davies made only backwards movement without interfering with play he's not offside.

He caught the ball and scored a try.... what would you describe that as if not "interfering"?

I didn't. If is conditional. But it's that action that makes him offside, not being in a forward position in the second it's touched.

it wasnt a try.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/gareth-davies-wonder-try-wales-10889858

yet another game changing descision going against scotland.