Conncht vs Wasps Sat 17th 17:30, Sportsground, SkySports

Zzippy

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm not sure how keeping the ball in the ruck for up to five seconds is any advantage really. Quick ball is the key to unlocking defences. There's nothing pees me off more than the scrum half faffing about at the base while the defence line up in perfect marching order.

When you're leading with very little time left, keeping the ball in the ruck wastes more time and frustrates the opponents. Raynal was allowing considerably more than 5 seconds too. The sealing off was just as frustrating, and should have been penalised earlier, so the timing controversy is moot IMO.

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

And a "time-off call"

No. There is only need for a time off call if the referee wants to look at something or talk to the captains or there's an injury. There's no time off for giving a penalty or another ten metres or giving a yellow card if he doesn't need to see replays or go to the TMO. It's all part of game time.

This is in the rules?

irishbucsfan

connachta wrote: »

This is in the rules?

Yes

CMOTDibbler

Zzippy wrote: »

When you're leading with very little time left, keeping the ball in the ruck wastes more time and frustrates the opponents. Raynal was allowing considerably more than 5 seconds too. The sealing off was just as frustrating, and should have been penalised earlier, so the timing controversy is moot IMO.

That's not what I was referring to, it was this:

Zzippy wrote: »

Personally I thought Wasps were sealing off the last few rucks to retain possession and prevent any contest for the ball, a la Munster circa 2006, when that was actually permitted. Raynal could have given a penalty a lot earlier for one of those offences, and he was also allowing Wasps keep the ball in the ruck an inordinately long time - in fact they were at that for much of the game. Karma.

Can't see how that would be an advantage.

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

This is in the rules?

No I just made it up right there.

Because I'm just that good. :cool:

connachta

Wasps

irishbucsfan wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

This is in the rules?

Yes

5.4 Time lost You're right (even if  "captain part" doesn't seem to be mentioned)
So the new rules is VERY welcomed
 it stops cynical play when the 10-more-meters rule is not relevant, and the risk of a yellow is thiner than the risk to let the opposion go for lineout and maul...

former total

I'm confused by all this. What exactly is your point, connachta?

connachta

Wasps

My point is they are right,  no "time's off" call possible if a team keeps the ball to let the clock becoming red.
That's a shame in this specific situation, and the new rule has probably been created to correct that

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

5.4 Time lost You're right (even if "captain part" doesn't seem to be mentioned)
So the new rules is VERY welcomed
it stops cynical play when the 10-more-meters rule is not relevant, and the risk of a yellow is thiner than the risk to let the opposion go for lineout and maul...

It's often done though. In theory, somebody could score a sneaky try while the referee is talking to the captains, so a time-off is allowed and also for a captain to talk to their players under referee instruction. I think Peter Stringer scored a sneaky one during one such period.

I don't think you're really understanding the situation. It's very rare for an opposition when penalised are going to be in a position to waste time to the point where the kick to the line isn't possible.

The referee always has the option to stop the clock if he feels that this is happening. It only takes a couple of seconds to kick to touch, so once the kick has happened, the lineout can proceed no matter what the clock says. That's already in the rules.

But what you're really doing here is trying to blame Wasps for the fact that the kick went out in overtime. So that you can still claim the moral high ground. N'est ce pas?

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

5.4 Time lost You're right (even if  "captain part" doesn't seem to be mentioned)
So the new rules is VERY welcomed
it stops cynical play when the 10-more-meters rule is not relevant, and the risk of a yellow is thiner than the risk to let the opposion go for lineout and maul...

It's often done though. In theory, somebody could score a sneaky try while the referee is talking to the captains, so a time-off is allowed and also for a captain to talk to their players under referee instruction. I think Peter Stringer scored a sneaky one during one such period.

I don't think you're really understanding the situation. It's very rare for an opposition when penalised are going to be in a position to waste time to the point where the kick to the line isn't possible.

The referee always has the option to stop the clock if he feels that this is happening. According to the rule he has not, not for this reason anyway It only takes a couple of seconds to kick to touch, so once the kick has happened, the lineout can proceed no matter what the clock says. That's already in the rules.

But what you're really doing here is trying to blame Wasps for the fact that the kick went out in overtime. So that you can still claim the moral high ground. N'est ce pas?

I think you don't get what I mean at all. I didn't blame Wasps at any point
What I try to understand is : what  happens if the situation have taken place at 79:55 and not 79:59. If Wasps have had kept the ball barely 5 sec after the pen blowing. 1) the ref is in theory litteraly not allowed to say "time's off" and can't let the kick to touch happen.

You could just stop blaming and shaming too

connachta

Wasps

2) That's why the new rule emerged

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

You could just stop blaming and shaming too

You could start by reading the laws of the game correctly. The refereee can call time off to talk to the other officials. So if an opposition player held on to the ball to run down the clock, the ref could call a time off to ask the TMO to look at the infringement. He could call a time off to talk to the captain. He doesn't need the exact reason to stop the clock.

connachta wrote: »

I think you don't get what I mean at all. I didn't blame Wasps at any point
What I try to understand is : what happens if the situation have taken place at 79:55 and not 79:59. If Wasps have had kept the ball barely 5 sec after the pen blowing. 1) the ref is in theory litteraly not allowed to say "time's off" and can't let the kick to touch happen.

I wish you'd quote properly
And yes he can call time off. As I said. But it's a nonsense discussion because there are so many remedies to the situation you describe.

connachta wrote: »

My point is they are right, no "time's off" call possible if a team keeps the ball to let the clock becoming red.
That's a shame in this specific situation, and the new rule has probably been created to correct that

The new interpretation of the rule is to allow a team the option of the kick to touch where before, the referee would have to adjudicate in advance the possibility of their being time to kick to touch and complete a lineout in normal time.

Do you not recall captains asking the ref if there's time for a lineout? And in some cases being told no. So they have to quick tap, kick for goals or take a scrum. Because the kick to touch is dead ball and it remains dead until it is thrown in again.

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

You could just stop blaming and shaming too

You could start by reading the laws of the game correctly. The refereee can call time off to talk to the other officials. So if an opposition player held on to the ball to run down the clock, the ref could call a time off to ask the TMO to look at the infringement. He could call a time off to talk to the captain. He doesn't need the exact reason to stop the clock.

That's a bias you found as I did of course. It means the ref has to bend the rules and/or pretend he has to consult TMO/Assistant for an infrigement he already knows.  That's stupid. The rule is insufficient here, I still think that's one of the reason for the new law, or at least a secondary benefit

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

That's a bias you found as I did of course. It means the ref has to bend the rules and/or pretend he has to consult TMO/Assistant for an infrigement he already knows. That's stupid. The rule is insufficient here, I still think that's one of the reason for the new law, or at least a secondary benefit

Please quote the exact 'new' law you're referriing to. Because you linked to an interpretation that referred to restarts after a kick at goals. And you're talking exclusively about penalty kicks to touch.

Edit: And it's not bending the rules. If a player cynically holds on to the ball to prevent the other team getting a try to win the game, that's a potential yellow card. Players have been YC'd for throwing the ball away to prevent quick taps or quick throw ins.

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

That's a bias you found as I did of course. It means the ref has to bend the rules and/or pretend he has to consult TMO/Assistant for an infrigement he already knows.  That's stupid. The rule is insufficient here, I still think that's one of the reason for the new law, or at least a secondary benefit

Please quote the exact 'new' law you're referriing to. Because you linked to an interpretation that referred to restarts after a kick at goals. And you're talking exclusively about penalty kicks to touch.

The point is if a team does cynical play to waste time, can they prevent the lineout and maul.
If you read the current rule literally, they could.
Of course if it's too long-too obvious it won't be tolerated. But if the clock indicates 79:55 it could well happen. The ref can only give a yellow or bend the rule

BeardySi

Wasps

On a side note, will this new law also apply at 40 mins or is it specifically for the end of the match?

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

The point is if a team does cynical play to waste time, can they prevent the lineout and maul.
If you read the current rule literally, they could.
Of course if it's too long-too obvious it won't be tolerated. But if the clock indicates 79:55 it could well happen. The ref can only give a yellow or bend the rule

The point is you're not answering my question. What exactly is the rule you're referring to?

FACECUTTR

Wasps

Thread is getting a bit silly now.

connachta

Wasps

Teams in this year’s Super Rugby competition will have the opportunity to kick for touch after the full-time siren and take a lineout

If it is as simple as that quote from the guardian, it solves the problem. Whether it's 79:35, 79:50 or 80, when a pen is blown it will be a lineout. Fair

connachta

Wasps

FACECUTTR wrote: »

Thread is getting a bit silly now.

I just realised refs can't stop the clock in case of ball retention, or even to give a card, in theory. Crazy.

former total

connachta wrote: »

I just realised refs can't stop the clock in case of ball retention, or even to give a card, in theory. Crazy.

Yeeeesh

They can and do stop the clock to issue a card.

connachta

Wasps

former total wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

I just realised refs can't stop the clock in case of ball retention, or even to give a card, in theory. Crazy.

Yeeeesh

They can and do stop the clock to issue a card.

I know they do but according to what law? Quote it please

connachta

Wasps

connachta wrote: »

former total wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

I just realised refs can't stop the clock in case of ball retention, or even to give a card, in theory. Crazy.

Yeeeesh

They can and do stop the clock to issue a card.

I know they do but according to what law? Quote it please

Precision : Besides the call TMO/assistant. A regular straight yellow

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

I know they do but according to what law? Quote it please

You've some neck asking people to quote laws when you haven't, despite repeated requests.

Law 5: Time.

former total

connachta wrote: »

I know they do but according to what law? Quote it please

Why??? Jesus man.

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

Why??? Jesus man.

Because he was asked the same thing and couldn't so he's trying to deflect. Pretty childish really.

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

I know they do but according to what law? Quote it please

You've some neck asking people to quote laws when you haven't, despite repeated requests.

Law 5: Time.

5.4 Time lost
Time lost may be due to the following:
(a)
Injury. The referee may stop play for not more than one minute so that an injured player can be treated, or for any other permitted delay.
The referee may allow play to continue while a medically trained person treats an injured player in the playing area or the player may go to the touchline for treatment.
If a player is seriously injured and needs to be removed from the field of play, the referee has the discretion to allow the necessary time to have the injured player removed from the field-of-play.
(b)
Replacing players’ clothing. When the ball is dead, the referee allows time for a player to replace or repair a badly torn jersey, shorts or boots. Time is allowed for a player to re-tie a boot-lace.
(c)
Replacement and substitution of players. Time is allowed when a player is replaced or substituted.
(d)
Referee consulting with assistant referee(s) or other officials. Time is allowed for consultations between referee and assistant referees or other officials.
5.4 Time lost
Time lost may be due to the following:
(a)
Injury. The referee may stop play for not more than one minute so that an injured player can be treated, or for any other permitted delay.
The referee may allow play to continue while a medically trained person treats an injured player in the playing area or the player may go to the touchline for treatment.
If a player is seriously injured and needs to be removed from the field of play, the referee has the discretion to allow the necessary time to have the injured player removed from the field-of-play.
(b)
Replacing players’ clothing. When the ball is dead, the referee allows time for a player to replace or repair a badly torn jersey, shorts or boots. Time is allowed for a player to re-tie a boot-lace.
(c)
Replacement and substitution of players. Time is allowed when a player is replaced or substituted.
(d)
Referee consulting with assistant referee(s) or other officials. Time is allowed for consultations between referee and assistant referees or other officials.
5.4 Time lost
Time lost may be due to the following:
(a)
Injury. The referee may stop play for not more than one minute so that an injured player can be treated, or for any other permitted delay.
The referee may allow play to continue while a medically trained person treats an injured player in the playing area or the player may go to the touchline for treatment.
If a player is seriously injured and needs to be removed from the field of play, the referee has the discretion to allow the necessary time to have the injured player removed from the field-of-play.
(b)
Replacing players’ clothing. When the ball is dead, the referee allows time for a player to replace or repair a badly torn jersey, shorts or boots. Time is allowed for a player to re-tie a boot-lace.
(c)
Replacement and substitution of players. Time is allowed when a player is replaced or substituted.
(d)
Referee consulting with assistant referee(s) or other officials. Time is allowed for consultations between referee and assistant referees or other officials.

connachta

Wasps

Childish? Let's see if you adult mind can find where we can stop the clock for yellow card or ball retention in the law.
I was answering to Total Former.

connachta

Wasps

Childish? Let's see if you adult mind can find where we can stop the clock for yellow card or ball retention in the law.
I was answering to Total Former.

connachta

Wasps

Sorry for double posts my internet connexion isn't up to it.
Have to go see your solution tomorrow

Zzippy

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's not what I was referring to, it was this:


Can't see how that would be an advantage.

A team that has been doing a lot of defending can be fairly wrecked, once they get their hands on the ball retaining possession and running down the clock a bit gives them a chance to get some respite. Connacht had a lot of possession and moved Wasps around the pitch a huge amount, it was understandable Wasps would use a bit of nous and slow the play down once they got it back. They had periods where they quickened up the play and attacked well alright, but they also slowed the play down as much as they could when they needed to. Not a bad tactic when you're playing a team that tire you out so much. Wasps were gassed by the end and hanging on...

wp_rathead

Oh gaaaaawd

CMOTDibbler

Zzippy wrote: »

A team that has been doing a lot of defending can be fairly wrecked, once they get their hands on the ball retaining possession and running down the clock a bit gives them a chance to get some respite. Connacht had a lot of possession and moved Wasps around the pitch a huge amount, it was understandable Wasps would use a bit of nous and slow the play down once they got it back. They had periods where they quickened up the play and attacked well alright, but they also slowed the play down as much as they could when they needed to. Not a bad tactic when you're playing a team that tire you out so much. Wasps were gassed by the end and hanging on...

It's no real advantage though. Taking a breather is of little help if you're just running into the same defensive wall over and over again. And Wasps had the most possession in the second half, so it hardly stacks up that they were gassed to the extent you seem to be implying.

But my real question is whether they were actually breaking five seconds all the time as you suggest. That's five seconds from the point the ball is playable by the SH, not five seconds from the time the ruck is formed. That's actually a long time. Was the ref calling on them to use it all those times?

Bazzo

Wasps

Just watched the match back. Lads knocking the ball on in contact absolutely killed us, so many times someone made a great break and gained 20m of territory, then got tackled and knocked the ball on. Fair enough it might have been a bit cold but it was bone dry so not really good enough there.

Garces was giving teams ages to clear out without pinging them for holding on, Launchbury and Wasps in general did excellently to actually manage to rip the ball to turn it over instead of waiting for a penalty to be given. When SOB came on he was very lazily and obviously putting his hands on the ground beyond the ball, any other ref would be pinging him for that so he needs to cut it out(though he carried, tackled and rucked well).

Marmion is an animal. His half back play was great but besides that his first 3 tackles were: Tackled Simpson and caused him to knock on, tackled Launchbury and stopped him dead after he made a break, tackled a rampaging Nathan Hughes on the way to the try line and managed to make him drop the ball(unfortunately it went backwards). Hughes and Launchbury are twice his size.

Overall thought the result was just about fair, but definitely a lot of work ons for us.

connachta

Wasps

Perfectly said
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/pro12/pat-lam-refuses-to-attribute-connacht-s-win-to-referee-s-call-1.2912021
Connacht overcome Wasps in Saturday’s Champions Cup fixture not by a controversial referee’s decision, but by taking the chance and working hard, says coach Pat Lam. “That decision did not win us the game. We had a maul earlier in the game and we thought we had got over the line, but we didn’t. It’s never guaranteed.
“The main thing is, it has nothing to do with us. John [Muldoon] asked the question. He asked can we kick to the corner, the referee said yes, so we kicked to the corner and scored the try. If he’d said no, we’d have a quick tap and go for the try – nothing at all to do with us, we played the call.”
Lam had sympathy for assistant referee Mathieu Raynal, who replaced referee Jerome Garces late in the game due to an injury. “To be fair to the ref, there is so much in transition from one World Cup to the next when rules are being looked at. Some teams are playing some rules, but everyone is discussing it, there’s all sorts of transition, so I can easily understand it.”
However Lam says the controversy did not detract from Connacht’s win which now puts them level on 13 points with Wasps and Toulouse with two rounds remaining.
“We play what is in front of us. If it had been Wasps, and they kicked to the corner, we’d have to defend it; if they had tapped, we’d still have to defend it. There was no guarantee from that lineout, but it gave us a chance, and ultimately the work of Seán O’Brien, Rory Parata, Niyi Adeolokun in getting the turnover gave us the chance to have a go, whatever the chance it was going to be. We still had to work hard to do it, and that was the best part about it.”