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

irishbucsfan

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.

It was advantageous pre-2009 when teams got away with murder in possession and they could close out games with ease if they were in the lead with minutes remaining. Like Munster closing out the 2008 H Cup Final

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

I just meant : Why, under the same rule, you  can waste a few second to avoid the opposition to kick for lineout, but you can't do the same to prevent a restart.

How can you waste time before the penalty kick? Once the whistle has gone for the penalty, the penalty taker has the ball. Where's the time wasting?

Edit: FT obviously has it phrased better than me.

No the whole minute to take a conversion is legal
the difference is
Try scored 78:55 conversion goes through at 79:55. Under what Judges said (against what happened in this Scotland Vs Wales), the ref HAS TO order the restart
and the situation of yesterday : Niyi had hand on the ball at 79:55 BUT as the ref doesn't know exactly when his assistant will say "time is yours" he has no reason to blow fast AND say "time's off" to force Wasps players to release the ball and allow Carty to boot to touch in the next remaining 2 seconds.
Yesterday was very limit, but let's imagine the same at 79:50, would count the time to move the players away from the ruck and the time when a guys cynically keep the ball just a wee a bit as it VERY OFTEN happens when pen is allowed to the opposite... then 10 sec has spent, ref gets angry and says "time's off" just before his assistant says "time is over".  And kick to the corner will be played.
So it's all in the ref hand to say "time's off" quick enough or not, because as soon as the assistant says it's over, he's bound to his annoucement.
That's unfair diff between restart and late pen, and between late pen/very late pen (depending on the ref "time's off" reaction)

former total

connachta wrote: »

No the whole minute to take a conversion is legal
the difference is
Try scored 78:55 conversion goes through at 79:55. Under what Judges said (against what happened in this Scotland Vs Wales), the ref HAS TO order the restart
and the situation of yesterday : Niyi had hand on the ball at 79:55 BUT as the ref doesn't know exactly when his assistant will say "time is yours" he has no reason to blow fast AND say "time's off" to force Wasps players to release the ball and allow Carty to boot to touch in the next remaining 2 seconds.
Yesterday was very limit, but let's imagine the same at 79:50, would count the time to move the players away from the ruck and the time when a guys cynically keep the ball just a wee a bit as it VERY OFTEN happens when pen is allowed to the opposite... then 10 sec has spent, ref gets angry and says "time's off" just before his assistant says "time is over".  And kick to the corner will be played.
So it's all in the ref hand to say "time's off" quick enough or not, because as soon as the assistant says it's over, he's bound to his annoucement.
That's unfair diff between restart and late pen, and between late pen/very late pen (depending on the ref "time's off" reaction)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here.

typhoony

the only way it could have been legit is if the referee had at the very moment Niyi had his hands on the ball signaled for penalty and at the same time called time-off. this is not what happened and the lineout should not have been allowed

connachta

Wasps

typhoony wrote: »

the only way it could have been legit is if the referee had at the very moment Niyi had his hands on the ball signaled for penalty and at the same time called time-off. this is not what happened and the lineout should not have been allowed

Exactly and IT SHOULD in theory. Which is why the deciding moment to judge if time was off or not should be the whistle blown not the kick. Would be fair and avoid cynical ball retention for a few sec.

connachta

Wasps

Rugby is played like handball or basket-ball with the logic of "real time", it would suit this logic and not rely on the ref willing (or awareness) to stop the clock when he still can

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

Exactly and IT SHOULD in theory. Which is why the deciding moment to judge if time was off or not should be the whistle blown not the kick. Would be fair and avoid cynical ball retention for a few sec.

There shouldn't be time off for a penalty. The penalty should be taken as soon as practicable after it is awarded. A quick tap can be taken while the referee has his hand in the air providing it's taken from the spot indicated. I have never seen a referee signal time off after awarding a penalty. One does not follow from the other.

The ball being retained or kicked away by the opposition after a penalty is awarded, is grounds for ten metres more or in some cases a yellow card.

connachta

Wasps

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

Exactly and IT SHOULD in theory. Which is why the deciding moment to judge if time was off or not should be the whistle blown not the kick. Would be fair and avoid cynical ball retention for a few sec.

There shouldn't be time off for a penalty. The penalty should be taken as soon as practicable after it is awarded. A quick tap can be taken while the referee has his hand in the air providing it's taken from the spot indicated. I have never seen a referee signal time off after awarding a penalty. One does not follow from the other.

The ball being retained or kicked away by the opposition after a penalty is awarded, is grounds for ten metres more or in some cases a yellow card.

And a "time-off call"

Dog Botherer

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There shouldn't be time off for a penalty. The penalty should be taken as soon as practicable after it is awarded. A quick tap can be taken while the referee has his hand in the air providing it's taken from the spot indicated. I have never seen a referee signal time off after awarding a penalty. One does not follow from the other.

The ball being retained or kicked away by the opposition after a penalty is awarded, is grounds for ten metres more or in some cases a yellow card.

I've seen refs stop the clock after penalties for foul play so the TMO can review it. Or maybe he's just stopping play before awarding a penalty? Not sure about that, bit of a grey area.

CMOTDibbler

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.

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.