NIGEL OWENS: Owen Farrell needs to stop the chat to the referee

Wow, I just read Nigel Owens article in the Mail on Sunday, and I must say he is very critical of Owen Farrell and he is also saying that if he were reffing on Saturday he would have disallowed two of England's tries.

The interesting one was Johnny May's try as Nigel Owens think that he illegally jumped to avoid the tackle which is against the rules, I personally thought the same at the time, but on reflection I then saw it as more of a jump to score a try.

He was also on scrum V tonight where he was speaking of the crocodile rolls in the game, and said that referees himself included do not really ref the breakdown properly, and perhaps there is scope there to ref this tactic out of the game. If you want to read it here it is:-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-9257545/NIGEL-OWENS-Owen-Farrell-needs-stop-chat-referee-never-did-me.html

A very interesting read, and I would like to hear the point of view of some of the English members on here.

Also, he has agreed that the red card for Scotland was 100% the correct decision.

He confirms that there is an unwritten directive on jumping to avoid a tackle. That is the player made contact first and then May had jumped it would be fine. And that refs ignore written rules. Big issues there for me as the law book is there for a reason. If someone like Kaplan is saying theres no law against it then players and coaches are likely to think the same. How on earth can you even prepare for scenarios no one but a small group of men and women are even aware of.

And hes a sensitive soul on Twitter.

Farrell needs to stop the cheap shots..
That chest on chest thing was not necessary and likely to get a yellow which can cost tries and games.

I don't think you could argue against May diving for the line. He's not trying to land on his feet.

I'd also argue that the jumping in the tackle thing is primarily a safety issue. That was not a problem in that incident.

Still ref's gotta ref even when retired, (and especially when they have a column to fill).

It is an interesting one - as if the Italian had actually made contact and tackled him, would it have been - tackling in the air -

Makes it almost impossible to stop someone if the jump up over the tackler -

More like American Football :-)

What is the difference between a jump and a dive aka Ashton? Most wingers are taught to dive over the line in the corner if they believe that a tackler may drive them into touch. The whole point of changing the laws to allow contact with the flag, was with this in mind. Players diving or jumping to stop their feet going into touch in the corner. To hit the flag you have to be in the air, to be in the air you have to have jumped or dived.

Owens, as nice a bloke as he is, is just looking to sell column inches.

I believe that the laws are about jumping into a tackle not out of one or to avoid one. Jumping into a tackle is inherently dangerous, for both players. It would also make an ass of the laws as every tackle would be deemed illegal. It is jumping into contact that was outlawed, not jumping away from it.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Farrell needs to stop the cheap shots..
That chest on chest thing was not necessary and likely to get a yellow which can cost tries and games.

It was very aussie rules, you get a lot of that sort of stuff in AFL.

R!skysports wrote:It is an interesting one - as if the Italian had actually made contact and tackled him, would it have been  - tackling in the air -

Makes it almost impossible to stop someone if the jump up over the tackler -

More like American Football :-)

No, this came up in the Ireland match yesterday and the Pearce was quite clear that jumping into contact doesn't constitute tackling in the air.

You're allowed to tackle or attempt to tackle when someone is diving for the line. You're allowed to jump when receiving a pass. TBH it's not clear at all what is and isn't included in the directive because its not available to view and Owens refuses to answer and gets annoyed at being perceived a liar.

I tongue in cheek mentioned that he would clarify on Walesonlne but it does seem to be him trying to raise interest and get him media roles. A sporting version of Piers Morgan.

Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

There are different ways of reading what happened, but if LRZ did the same to beat England I suspect Jiffy would probably drop dead with a smile on his face

lostinwales wrote:

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

There are different ways of reading what happened, but if LRZ did the same to beat England I suspect Jiffy would probably drop dead with a smile on his face

Maybe... but I'm not sure... What I am sure about, is if LRZ did the same thing to beat England, this site would explode from all the posts claiming it illegal and should be penalised.

lostinwales wrote:

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

There are different ways of reading what happened, but if LRZ did the same to beat England I suspect Jiffy would probably drop dead with a smile on his face

And they wouldn't be able to close the lid of the coffin!

And anyway I think you'll probably find that a significant proportion of all 'dives' would be classified as jumps in your reckoning.

Does Nigel need reminding he is not referee any more?
he is just like the rest of us arm chair pundits, we like to think we know better than the man with the whistle on the field at the time.

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

Can you just quote the law please so we can double check that? With a link.

majesticimperialman wrote:Does Nigel need reminding he is not referee any more?
he is just like the rest of us arm chair pundits, we like to think we know better than the man with the whistle on the field at the time.

Hes still a ref.

majesticimperialman wrote:Does Nigel need reminding he is not  referee any more?
he is just like the rest of us arm chair pundits, we like to think we know better than the man with the whistle on the field at the time.

Agreed... but there are the few who DO KNOW better than the man with the whistle... And I'd say Nige is one of them, in this case.

May's try was touch and go I think from now on it might set a precedent either those sort of tries are allowed or they will review it and make sure tries like that are all disallowed. It looked like a jump out of the tackle to me. As for Farrell he is captain at least what is Biggars excuse?

whatahitson wrote:May's try was touch and go I think from now on it might set a precedent either those sort of tries are allowed or they will review it and make sure tries like that are all disallowed. It looked like a jump out of the tackle to me. As for Farrell he is captain at least what is Biggars excuse?

Strange comment. You don't see tries like that very often if ever. They are not a thing.

We might see a few attempted copies now, but arguing over allowing them or not is almost certainly a waste of time.

The whole chat reminds me of the way people get so up in arms over drop goals when they are both hard to pull off and, these days, very rare.

As was mentioned in a rugby podcast if the passer throws a pass higher and the runner jumps to catch it can they be tackled until they land as they are jumping to catch the ball, rather then just jumping with the ball.

If they can't be tackled then it would allow the player to jump past the rushing defence or if the defender stays back then they have more room.

On the chat from Owen, Nigel was fond of the chats with players and the banter with people who weren't captain. When refs become more approachable the players approach more. What a surprise.

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

So every time Biggar jumps to catch the ball from a kick he should be penalised? I could live with that.

No9 wrote:Quite straight forward...

In a dive, the player's body/head will be horizontal to the legs/feet.

In a jump, the players legs/feet will be below the players body/head.

Therefore May JUMPED and didn't dive. Therefore, under the letter of the law, he could not be tackled, and hence made the play unfair contest and no try should have been awarded, but a penalty to Italy...

The only way you can see this differently is through rose coloured lenses..

Tell that to Tom Daly.

Apart from which at the point of touch down, the head, body and legs were pretty much in the same plane, the legs or one of them slightly below the head. It was just a sideways version of a half pike and I am not a betting man, but I suspect the laws do not define what a dive is or what types are permissible.

Just listening to the Brian Moore podcast, him and Ben Ryan saying that refs have got to get back to refereeing the law book and not the ones that arent. The overall point is that we dont know what works and doesn't if a random selection of laws are ignored or implemented. The example was more on scrums etc but still applies to the May dive.

What I want to know is how can a player hold on to the ball carriers legs while lying on the ground. If he is off his feet how can he still be involved with play? Ball carrier still standing but cant go anywhere and not in a position to defend or prepare himself for another tackle.

Its really frustrating as if the ball carrier was off his feet he has to let go, but the tackler did not bring him to ground but can still hold on to his legs? I think thats very dangerous and really contradicts the off your feet, out of the game view that most of the laws are based on.

Hes still in the act of completing the tackle.

After contemplating this for a few days, does anyone think the our Nige has played a blinder here ? He is Welsh after all. In two weeks time, the spotlight is very much going to be on Farrell, and Johnny Mays acrobatics.

Owen Farrell in particular will need to be squeaky clean.

Farrell just needs to continue playing to laws.

An interesting point made was that as a current ref even if hes not an international one should he be commenting on another professional? Possibly not but hes raising his media profile.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hes still in the act of completing the tackle.

Even though he is off his feet? Is there no time limit?

AWJ is always shouting at the Ref when he is lying his ageing frame over the ball and pretending he is trapped and can't move.

Wonder why Nigel didn't raise that?

Nige has to pay the bills somehow, can't imagine talking Poopie in the WOL is very lucrative

TightHEAD wrote:AWJ is always shouting at the Ref when he is lying his ageing frame over the ball and pretending he is trapped and can't move.

Wonder why Nigel didn't raise that?

To be fair Nigel won't have been exposed to AWJ's instructions in internationals

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hes still in the act of completing the tackle.

Even though he is off his feet? Is there no time limit?

Nope. He can't attempt to make a tackle while on the floor but a tackle isnt complete until the carrier is down too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

MichaelT wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hes still in the act of completing the tackle.

Even though he is off his feet? Is there no time limit?

Nope. He can't attempt to make a tackle while on the floor but a tackle isnt complete until the carrier is down too.

If thats the explanation fair enough, thanks. Don't agree with it but nevermind.

BamBam wrote:Nige has to pay the bills somehow, can't imagine talking Poopie in the WOL is very lucrative

His column is not in WOL.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Nige has to pay the bills somehow, can't imagine talking Poopie in the WOL is very lucrative

His column is not in WOL.

Oh he writes for the Mail instead, explains a lot

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Nige has to pay the bills somehow, can't imagine talking Poopie in the WOL is very lucrative

His column is not in WOL.

Oh he writes for the Mail instead, explains a lot

And the Telegraph.

Shouldn't he be busy farming?

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Nige has to pay the bills somehow, can't imagine talking Poopie in the WOL is very lucrative

His column is not in WOL.

Oh he writes for the Mail instead, explains a lot

And the Telegraph.

Explains even more

Some of Nigel Owens come backs on twitter have been hilarious.

If a dive goes above the defending player rather than underneath and lands the ball on the grass with his hand as first contact with the ground, I simply can't see that as a jump, which normally results on landing with your feet. The Italian defender should have stayed on his feet and May would have had to try something different.
It is not going to be a common issue as not all wingers can perform spectacular acrobatics, although would be quite something too see that hefty Scottish winger have a go....

Nigel Owens is clearly missing his annual 6N profile, whilst out the way on his farm.

Just to add a little extra debate to the topic, there was a time on here where everyone used to complain about Shane Williams using this as a tactic, I cannot remember people being so pragmatic back then.

He retired from internationals in 2011 so you couldn't have had to put up with it for long. Given Kaplan retired in 2013 the secret directive was brought in after that so Williams would not have been prevented by it.

It could have been the old BBC 606 mind.

It probably only happened in your head LD. Or the WOL comment section. Same place really

Harsh Bam.