2020 6 Nations - Ireland vs Wales match thread

penybont exile

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Do you think it was a try? from my point of view he wasnt in control of the ball.....

Parkes .... no try ..... ditto VDF

prawnsambo

penybont exile wrote: »

Parkes .... no try ..... ditto VDF

We've had these before. Notably Leinster v Connacht a couple of years ago, George Clancy with a similar call. If the ref says he saw a try scored and wants to check if everything was good up to that point and nothing to disallow it can be shown, then it's a try.

penybont exile

prawnsambo wrote: »

We've had these before. Notably Leinster v Connacht a couple of years ago, George Clancy with a similar call. If the ref says he saw a try scored and wants to check if everything was good up to that point and nothing to disallow it can be shown, then it's a try.

I don't even think he even saw a try scored. He saw a grounding which was before the line. This was lost in translation with Pearce .... suddenly that grounding was over the line and the wrong question was asked of the TMO ..... sometimes you get em sometimes not .....

prawnsambo

penybont exile wrote: »

I don't even think he even saw a try scored. He saw a grounding which was before the line. This was lost in translation with Pearce .... suddenly that grounding was over the line and the wrong question was asked of the TMO ..... sometimes you get em sometimes not .....

No. He was clear that he saw the ball grounded. He was asking the TMO to look at the grounding.

penybont exile

prawnsambo wrote: »

No. He was clear that he saw the ball grounded. He was asking the TMO to look at the grounding.

Beg to differ .. he said to Pearce he didn't know what happened ......

.....this is from my one viewing of the incident.

Anyway immaterial now ..... swings & roundabouts...... hopefully we get a roundabout at Twickers .....

prawnsambo

penybont exile wrote: »

Beg to differ .. he said to Pearce he didn't know what happened ......

.....this is from my one viewing of the incident.

Anyway immaterial now ..... swings & roundabouts...... hopefully we get a roundabout at Twickers .....

I had the same argument on twitter with another Welsh chap. So I watched it again, a few times. He didn't know what happened is correct. Up to the point that he saw the ball grounded. Hence the question to the TMO.

Refs know when to ask "any reason" or "try, yes or no". It's not like they toss a coin. There are clear reasons for asking either question. The first if they want to be sure there's no infringement leading up to the ball being grounded and the second if there might be an issue with the grounding itself.

Anyway, good luck for the next one.

molloyjh

I do think an argument could easily be made that they messed up the VDF try process, but I also think a try was scored.

Poite said he saw the ball grounded over the line, but didnt know how it got there. Pearse agreed. They then decided to do with an on field decision of try on that basis & then referred it to TMO.

So the big question is whether they were right to make that on field call. They saw a ball grounded but admit they had no idea how it got there. So surely they should have referred it up based on a simple try yes or no? Was there a directive recently that refs had to make an on field decision before referring it though, or am I I that up?

Once up to the TMO we saw VDF landed short and reached out to place the ball (which he can legally do). We did not see the act of grounding, nor did we see a knock on when he fell short initially. So we know he initially landed short. We know he reached to place the ball. We know that Poite saw him in possession with the ball grounded on or beyond the line. We do not know whether he lost possession in the act of grounding though.

So a try, yes or no would have led to no try, scrum 5 to Ireland because it wasn't a clear and obvious try. Thayt said I think he did score a try so I think the right decision was reached, if incorrectly so. Either way, we'd have ended up with a prime attacking platform in the worst case scenario and the way we were going at that stage I reckon we'd have scored off that. Other than the first scrum, we were pretty clinical off set peice in the Welsh 22.

sydthebeat

^

You can't do "try, yes or no" anymore...

The referee has to give an on field decision.

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

^

You can't do "try, yes or no" anymore...

The referee has to give an on field decision.

Thought so. That kind of tied their hands somewhat then, so it was probably handled correctly with the correct outcome.

jacothelad

penybont exile wrote: »

Parkes .... no try ..... ditto VDF

Ditto Tipuric.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

I do think an argument could easily be made that they messed up the VDF try process, but I also think a try was scored.

Poite said he saw the ball grounded over the line, but didnt know how it got there. Pearse agreed. They then decided to do with an on field decision of try on that basis & then referred it to TMO.

So the big question is whether they were right to make that on field call. They saw a ball grounded but admit they had no idea how it got there. So surely they should have referred it up based on a simple try yes or no? Was there a directive recently that refs had to make an on field decision before referring it though, or am I I that up?

Once up to the TMO we saw VDF landed short and reached out to place the ball (which he can legally do). We did not see the act of grounding, nor did we see a knock on when he fell short initially. So we know he initially landed short. We know he reached to place the ball. We know that Poite saw him in possession with the ball grounded on or beyond the line. We do not know whether he lost possession in the act of grounding though.

So a try, yes or no would have led to no try, scrum 5 to Ireland because it wasn't a clear and obvious try. Thayt said I think he did score a try so I think the right decision was reached, if incorrectly so. Either way, we'd have ended up with a prime attacking platform in the worst case scenario and the way we were going at that stage I reckon we'd have scored off that. Other than the first scrum, we were pretty clinical off set peice in the Welsh 22.

Can he legally reach out? I know that in the case of a tackle, he can legally reach out, but this is a collapsed maul, which requires momentum over the line in order to score the try (at least in my understanding).

I'm pretty sure I remember the ref and TMO referring to the fact that it wasn't a tackle ball when they were deliberating as well.

prawnsambo

Basil3 wrote: »

Can he legally reach out? I know that in the case of a tackle, he can legally reach out, but this is a collapsed maul, which requires momentum over the line in order to score the try (at least in my understanding).

I'm pretty sure I remember the ref and TMO referring to the fact that it wasn't a tackle ball when they were deliberating as well.

A maul ends when the ball is on the ground. Maybe that's what they were trying to figure out.

accensi0n

Stuart hogg is starting this weekend, what's that all about? Practice not having a howler moment? Or just some contractual thing with Exeter?

Shefwedfan

accensi0n wrote: »

Stuart hogg is starting this weekend, what's that all about? Practice not having a howler? Or just some contractual thing with Exeter?

Exeter flogging him to death!!!

wavehopper1

accensi0n wrote: »

Stuart hogg is starting this weekend, what's that all about? Practice not having a howler moment? Or just some contractual thing with Exeter?

I don't see a problem for a player in the back three? I think we (IRFU) are the most conservative with player minutes, and I don't have a problem with that either. But there must be a material difference on the impact of games on different positions.