Wales International: games, squads, tournaments, chat - 2021/22

First topic message reminder :

A place to chat about everything ‘Wales’ going forward.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

First up: South Africa 6th November 2021

Wales: Johnny McNicholl; Louis Rees-Zammit, Jonathan Davies (capt), Nick Tompkins, Josh Adams; Dan Biggar, Tomos Williams; Rhys Carre, Ryan Elias, Tomas Francis, Will Rowlands, Adam Beard, Ellis Jenkins, Taine Basham, Aaron Wainwright.

Replacements: Bradley Roberts, Wyn Jones, WillGriff John, Ben Carter, Seb Davies, Gareth Davies, Gareth Anscombe, Liam Williams.

South Africa: Damian Willemse; Jesse Kriel, Lukhanyo Am, Damian de Allende, Makazole Mapimpi; Handre Pollard, Herschel Jantjies; Ox Nche, Bongi Mbonambi, Trevor Nyakane, Eben Etzebeth, Lood De Jager, Siya Kolisi (capt), Kwagga Smith, Duane Vermeulen.

Replacements: Malcolm Marx, Steven Kitshoff, Vincent Koch, Franco Mostert, Jasper Wiese, Cobus Reinach, Elton Jantjies, Frans Steyn.

I see a 62 minute video coming

tigertattie wrote:Serious question but would wales fans rather lose this to get rid of pivac or scrape a win against a 14 (and 13) man Fiji?

I’d never want my team to lose but wales are a bit all at sea right now

What an odd question.

That must be the dumbest refereeing decision I’ve seen. Fiji totally robbed in this game.

The kick and the sheer speed of zammit deserved the try I say

Sam Warburton is painful to listen to. “That’s a world class finish” Any dope could see Rhys Zammit didn’t ground that ball at all.

If you ask me is that a try, I would say no. But also think the officials followed their thought process correctly. There was no separation. Weird one.

LRZ’s pace is absolutely insane. He makes quick players look like they run in treacle.

Collapse2005 wrote:That must be the dumbest refereeing decision I’ve seen. Fiji totally robbed in this game.

They've done this to themselves. Or Sau has more accurately.

That's an arm to the face of the Fijian reserve scrum half from Tompkins.

How's that not even been reviewed? That criminal. The Fijian scrum half was clearly holding his face afterwards.

Well that was scrappy.

Fiji ran out of steam in the end. Indiscipline cost them in the end

Fiji did incredibly well with 14 men, no line out and having to go up against the ref as well. Wales in at the side of every ruck where Fiji threatened to turn the ball over.

Great performance by Fiji overall.

Bloomin’ hell, I can feel the love from the 606 community here

Wales lineout has improved massively over the last 2 games. Elias played all 80 minutes today which is a pretty good effort!

The Oracle wrote:Bloomin’ hell, I can feel the love from the 606 community here

I'm always one to favour a plucky underdog. Which is why I welcome them winning.

Anyone know why all the Welsh players were wearing white socks but apart from Alex Cuthbert?! Someone noticed it near us in the stadium. Forgot to pack him a pair?! Seemed odd. Anything mentioned in commentary?

I didn’t listen to commentary sorry, so have no idea. I quite enjoy rugby without it too.

Be interesting to see what happens next week. Clearly the backrow needs to change. Wainwright being back will be one change anyway.

Have a feeling Jon Davies may revert back to 12 next week too.

RiscaGame wrote:I didn’t listen to commentary sorry, so have no idea. I quite enjoy rugby without it too.

Be interesting to see what happens next week. Clearly the backrow needs to change. Wainwright being back will be one change anyway.

Have a feeling Jon Davies may revert back to 12 next week too.

I knew going into the game it was a risk having such a mobile and lightweight back row. Ellis Jenkins, Taine Basham and Thomas Young are all, to look at, about the same dap. Not sure of their exact heights and weights on paper but they seem very similar players. But we knew that going in - basically 3 open sides. We needed more ball carriers and ‘ballast’.

Have to say the stadium was fuller than I expected. Took my boy to his first game at the stadium and there didn’t seem to be many spare seats. Will be interested to see the official attendance. Quite a good atmosphere although the game as a bit stop start. Nicely observed remembrance Sunday stuff at the start too.

The LRZ try was an odd one - whilst I agree there is nothing in the laws about being in control we've seen plenty of those ruled out as knock-ons previously - in fact I seem to remember the Great Mr O commenting on one pretty much identical to that previously and saying it should be a knock-on as the was ball knocked forwards and not caught before hitting the ground.
The laws says to score the ball can be held in the hand then touched on the ground OR be pressed down on with hands, arms, upper body.  I'm not sure if was we saw qualified as pressing down and I thought it also meant when the ball was already on the ground - although I don't think the laws say that explicitly.  
I'm not sure about this one - something that needs clearing up by WR maybe?

I think the laws are different for a ball already on the ground to a bouncing ball. A ball on the ground does not need control or downward pressure. It just needs a touch of the hand or upper body for it to be awarded a try. A bouncing ball on the other hand needs downward pressure to ground it and control (I think). Didn’t hear the ref’s explanation as I was in the stadium but the replays showed him talking through his decision. Anyone hear what he said? The replays seemed to show the ball changing downward trajectory when LRZ got to it (that’s what people around me seems to see too), I.e. LRZ didn’t miss it through his hands. How much control he had though, I don’t know. Not much. But looked to me like his hand was on it as it contacted the ground.

The Oracle wrote:I think the laws are different for a ball already on the ground to a bouncing ball. A ball on the ground does not need control or downward pressure. It just needs a touch of the hand or upper body for it to be awarded a try. A bouncing ball on the other hand needs downward pressure to ground it and control (I think). Didn’t hear the ref’s explanation as I was in the stadium but the replays showed him talking through his decision. Anyone hear what he said? The replays seemed to show the ball changing downward trajectory when LRZ got to it (that’s what people around me seems to see too), I.e. LRZ didn’t miss it through his hands. How much control he had though, I don’t know. Not much. But looked to me like his hand was on it as it contacted the ground.

Nic Berry said on field decision was try so needed to see clear separation between player and ball to rule it out. TMO couldn't provide that so it stood. He didn't seem interested in the potential knock on.

https://youtu.be/1MaNTsgXHro

They were looking for separation of ball from arm. Try was given live so needed to see that definitively which they couldnt hence try.

Heaf wrote:The LRZ try was an odd one - whilst I agree there is nothing in the laws about being in control we've seen plenty of those ruled out as knock-ons previously - in fact I seem to remember the Great Mr O commenting on one pretty much identical to that previously and saying it should be a knock-on as the was ball knocked forwards and not caught before hitting the ground.
The laws says to score the ball can be held in the hand then touched on the ground OR be pressed down on with hands, arms, upper body.  I'm not sure if was we saw qualified as pressing down and I thought it also meant when the ball was already on the ground - although I don't think the laws say that explicitly.  
I'm not sure about this one - something that needs clearing up by WR maybe?

Boks had a similar try disallowed this year, cannot remember against who it was though

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://youtu.be/1MaNTsgXHro

They were looking for separation of ball from arm. Try was given live so needed to see that definitively which they couldnt hence try.

Yeah, that’s sort of what I was saying in terms of a ball already on the floor. But the one thing he doesn’t cover in that video is the bouncing ball, i.e. the ball is not already on the ground but has bounced up. That’s another set of rules that is not covered in that video because there is the element of control needed too along with contact on the ball. No control plus downward pressure = knock on, usually.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://youtu.be/1MaNTsgXHro

They were looking for separation of ball from arm. Try was given live so needed to see that definitively which they couldnt hence try.

Yeah, that’s sort of what I was saying in terms of a ball already on the floor. But the one thing he doesn’t cover in that video is the bouncing ball, i.e. the ball is not already on the ground but has bounced up. That’s another set of rules that is not covered in that video because there is the element of control needed too along with contact on the ball. No control plus downward pressure = knock on, usually.

Doesn't specifically but it is more lax when you don't have the ball such as here.

The more I think about it the more I think it's a knock-on (like the one Mr O talked through - wish I could remember which match).  

The laws only have 2 options: The ball can be grounded in in-goal: By (a) holding it and touching the ground with it; or. By (b) pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck.

Option (a) clearly doesn't apply here.

Option (b) I'm sure used to say "when the ball is on the ground in-goal" previously but doesn't now.  However I'm assuming that bit was removed as it was probably considered redundant as you can't press down on it unless it's on the ground.

Now if the ball had gone straight down from LRZ's arm to ground and then he'd pressed down on it (even with minimal force) then a try would have been correct under part (b).

However if the ball travelled forwards after touching his arm and then touches the ground without him 'catching' it (even if his arm was in continuous contact it's not catching it) then that's by definition a knock-on from what I can see, so a try cannot be awarded - which from memory was Mr O's conclusion in the other match that I can't recall.

So the ref was asking the wrong question - he should have asked did the ball travel forwards after touching the arm, not was it in continuous contact ...

Who is Mr O, Heaf?

What are you talking about? He literally presses the ball downwards onto the ground. The only issue for me was whether pressing it down with his wrist is allowed?

Oh, Collapse’s message has disappeared!

Pivac’s job saved by yet another red card. That was a crap game to watch.

The Oracle wrote:Who is Mr O, Heaf?

The great Nigel Owens

The Oracle wrote:What are you talking about?  He literally presses the ball downwards onto the ground.  The only issue for me was whether pressing it down with his wrist is allowed?

Sounds like you were responding to a post by Collapse that's since been deleted but anyway - yes pressing down with the wrist would be a try ... however as mentioned I believe that's only OK as long as it's 'guided' straight downwards or backwards to get to ground - if it's gone forwards after first contact with the wrist even if the contact is continuous that would be a knock-on ...

Heaf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:What are you talking about?  He literally presses the ball downwards onto the ground.  The only issue for me was whether pressing it down with his wrist is allowed?

Sounds like you were responding to a post by Collapse that's since been deleted but anyway - yes pressing down with the wrist would be a try ... however as mentioned I believe that's only OK as long as it's 'guided' straight downwards or backwards to get to ground - if it's gone forwards after first contact with the wrist even if the contact is continuous that would be a knock-on ...

That's where the clear separation comes in. If there is none there is no knock on.

Hmmm - I disagree ... you can't guide a ball to ground forwards surely as that text-book definition of knock on? Once you make contact with the ball and it goes forwards the only way it's not a knock-on is if you catch it before it touches the ground according to the laws?

I wish the Fijian 15 hadn't been as ponderous in trying to touch the ball down, then this would never have been an issue

mikey_dragon wrote:Pivac’s job saved by yet another red card. That was a crap game to watch.

Don't worry Mikey, Pivac's job is safe for a while no matter what

chris_501 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Pivac’s job saved by yet another red card. That was a crap game to watch.

Don't worry Mikey, Pivac's job is safe for a while no matter what

The No.1 apologist is back.

Heaf wrote:Hmmm - I disagree ... you can't guide a ball to ground forwards surely as that  text-book definition of knock on?  Once you make contact with the ball and it goes forwards the only way it's not a knock-on is if you catch it before it touches the ground according to the laws?

Did he actually knock it forward though? I’ve watched the replay on Twitter around 50 times and I can’t see a knock on!

2005, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2019 are all occasions when Wales have either won by a smaller margin, lost or drawn to Fiji, as well as that 2012 match v Samoa.

RiscaGame wrote:I wish the Fijian 15 hadn't been as ponderous in trying to touch the ball down, then this would never have been an issue

Not an issue for me but an interesting debate re laws  .... if this happens in the normal field of play it's surely a knock-on so why is it not a knock-on in goal?  There's nothing in the laws saying it's OK to knock-on if in-goal AFAIK?  I think the ref was wrong to say on-field decision is try as he was too far away to see properly and then to insist the TMO only look for separation as this was the wrong question.  He should have said try yes or no and checked for forward movement of the ball.  If they'd looked and said the ball was guided straight down to ground not forwards then fair enough but the ref didn't give the TMO that option.

The Oracle wrote:

Heaf wrote:Hmmm - I disagree ... you can't guide a ball to ground forwards surely as that  text-book definition of knock on?  Once you make contact with the ball and it goes forwards the only way it's not a knock-on is if you catch it before it touches the ground according to the laws?

Did he actually knock it forward though? I’ve watched the replay on Twitter around 50 times and I can’t see a knock on!

Possibly not - but that was the question they should have been looking at - not continuous contact ... ref painted the TMO into a corner on that.

Disagree! The fact he directed the ball downwards (first act) and ended up grounding the ball with the heal of his hands/wrists (allowed) means that the only thing stopping it being a try would be if there was separation at any point because then that first act would be a knock on. So for me it was the right question. The fact they couldn’t see any separation before it was grounded surely means he was in contact with the ball throughout the whole act of directing it to the ground and then grounding it. So that’s then a try and not a knock on.

Good discussion and debate though The laws have so many fine lines that it is easy to see things from different angles.

Doesn't really matter now, does it. Regardless of opinion the try stands, the match is over

Of course not. But it would be a crap message board if we didn’t discuss anything post-match though, wouldn’t it?

Heaf wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:I wish the Fijian 15 hadn't been as ponderous in trying to touch the ball down, then this would never have been an issue

Not an issue for me but an interesting debate re laws  .... if this happens in the normal field of play it's surely a knock-on so why is it not a knock-on in goal?  There's nothing in the laws saying it's OK to knock-on if in-goal AFAIK?  I think the ref was wrong to say on-field decision is try as he was too far away to see properly and then to insist the TMO only look for separation as this was the wrong question.  He should have said try yes or no and checked for forward movement of the ball.  If they'd looked and said the ball was guided straight down to ground not forwards then fair enough but the ref didn't give the TMO that option.

Like I said it doesn't matter and yes it is different in goal. You can strictly speaking ground the ball while out of play in goal and it will be a try. Elsewhere it would be in touch and a lineout. I do agree though that the question the ref asks and on field decision is important.

The Oracle wrote:Of course not. But it would be a crap message board if we didn’t discuss anything post-match though, wouldn’t it?

Right you are.

The Oracle wrote:Disagree! The fact he directed the ball downwards (first act) and ended up grounding the ball with the heal of his hands/wrists (allowed) means that the only thing stopping it being a try would be if there was separation at any point because then that first act would be a knock on. So for me it was the right question. The fact they couldn’t see any separation before it was grounded surely means he was in contact with the ball throughout the whole act of directing it to the ground and then grounding it. So that’s then a try and not a knock on.

Good discussion and debate though The laws have so many fine lines that it is easy to see things from different angles.

I see where you're coming from but still not sure ... when reading the definition of a knock-on it says ".... 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."

So IF it went forwards not straight down and he didn't catch it then it would be a knock-on by that definition as it doesn't mention separation or anything like that?  The key for me is would this be called as a knock-on in the field of play and I think it would - and if so there' nothing to say it doesn't apply in-goal.  

But as you say so many fine lines and I think there should be some directive absolutely clearing this up as I reckon different refs would all come to different conclusions some in favour of a try and some against (really wish I could find that one Nigel talked through, maybe it was on TV not online).

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:I wish the Fijian 15 hadn't been as ponderous in trying to touch the ball down, then this would never have been an issue

Not an issue for me but an interesting debate re laws  .... if this happens in the normal field of play it's surely a knock-on so why is it not a knock-on in goal?  There's nothing in the laws saying it's OK to knock-on if in-goal AFAIK?  I think the ref was wrong to say on-field decision is try as he was too far away to see properly and then to insist the TMO only look for separation as this was the wrong question.  He should have said try yes or no and checked for forward movement of the ball.  If they'd looked and said the ball was guided straight down to ground not forwards then fair enough but the ref didn't give the TMO that option.

Like I said it doesn't matter and yes it is different in goal. You can strictly speaking ground the ball while out of play in goal and it will be a try. Elsewhere it would be in touch and a lineout.  I do agree though that the question the ref asks and on field decision is important.

Yes but the example you give is specifically allowed for in the laws ... knocking the ball forwards in the act of grounding isn't?

Didn't knock the ball on as it didn't leave contact with his body, at least not clearly on the camera angles. If he'd been carrying it it would have been a knock on.

Contact with the body isn't mentioned in the knock-on definition though? You're taking as if he had possession of the ball which he didn't?