Champions Cup 2019/20

bilston

aloooof wrote: »

There's an argument he may not get in the Lions squad, tbh. The likes of Dan Biggar and George Ford might be in with a shout. Even aside from that, is he back in the Scotland fold after the fallout with Townsend?

Yeah he is back in the Scotland squad for the upcoming matches.

Digifriendly

Nigel Owens full explanation here -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-unprecedented-move-amid-19129844

Very difficult to criticize him as he has analysed the 2 controversial decisions in minute detail.

AbusesToilets

Digifriendly wrote: »

Nigel Owens full explanation here -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-unprecedented-move-amid-19129844

Very difficult to criticize him as he has analysed the 2 controversial decisions in minute detail.

Not sure I'd agree with that assessment. If the ball isn't over the try line then surely the try line specific rules shouldn't apply? In which case the Exeter player would be entering thru the side.

razorblunt

Digifriendly wrote: »

Nigel Owens full explanation here -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/nigel-owens-unprecedented-move-amid-19129844

Very difficult to criticize him as he has analysed the 2 controversial decisions in minute detail.

Simon Thomas tweeted his opinion on that, was corrected using the Laws of the game and yet still went on to write the article. That's pretty stupid.
Makes a change for him lamenting there's no Anglo-Welsh league yet or his Top 10 (this time with pictures!) players who played for Wales that the letter 's' in their name.

Dave_The_Sheep

It's an odd look for Owens to be explaining himself like this.

Yeah_Right

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

It's an odd look for Owens to be explaining himself like this.

I like it though. I'd like to see more refs explain controversial or puzzling decisions post match. Not asking for press conferences but simply a statement of what they saw or how they came to a particular decision. The Aussie guy who reffed the Bledisloe at the weekend (his name escapes me) made a comment during the week about something he missed while running the line the previous week. From what I have read and heard, everyone appreciated the honesty and accepted that sometimes mistakes are made.

Compare that to the ****show in the Premier League about the decisions in the Liverpool v Everton match.

Buer

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I like it though. I'd like to see more refs explain controversial or puzzling decisions post match. Not asking for press conferences but simply a statement of what they saw or how they came to a particular decision..

Sometimes they simply have a deal.

Paul Smeenus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree with that assessment. If the ball isn't over the try line then surely the try line specific rules shouldn't apply? In which case the Exeter player would be entering thru the side.

Why? Is that based on anything in the laws, or a vague feeling?

limerickabroad

Jeez, as a very casual rugby fan (I watch half a dozen games a year, really enjoyed the final on Saturday ), I have to say that Nigel Owens' explanation there is like a nuclear physics tutorial. Are the rules of rugby that complicated?

sydthebeat

limerickabroad wrote: »

Jeez, as a very casual rugby fan (I watch half a dozen games a year, really enjoyed the final on Saturday ), I have to say that Nigel Owens' explanation there is like a nuclear physics tutorial. Are the rules of rugby that complicated?

it can be broken down quite simply

1. players on the ground cannot touch the ball
2. no player on their feet over the ball therefore its not a ruck, its open play, anyone can go for it
3. the try line is the offside line that was created by the tackle. SHC never came past the tryline to get his hands on the ball
4. player on the ground didnt release... penalty

limerickabroad

sydthebeat wrote: »

it can be broken down quite simply

1. players on the ground cannot touch the ball
2. no player on their feet over the ball therefore its not a ruck, its open play, anyone can go for it
3. the try line is the offside line that was created by the tackle. SHC never came past the tryline to get his hands on the ball
4. player on the ground didnt release... penalty

Thank you - that helps a lot. I still think that rugby's rule book needs to be simplified if it is to appeal more broadly to a wide audience, but that's another debate!

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

it can be broken down quite simply

1. players on the ground cannot touch the ball
2. no player on their feet over the ball therefore its not a ruck, its open play, anyone can go for it
3. the try line is the offside line that was created by the tackle. SHC never came past the tryline to get his hands on the ball
4. player on the ground didnt release... penalty

Saying it's not a ruck no one's on their feet, after allowing folks to go off their feet all game at rucks, is classic Owens. It also ignores the split second time frame for clearers coming in and the Exeter player latching on.

How often does a ref call hands off for anything other than a player jackaling? That seems to me Owens shaping an explanation to cover up his mistake.

Paul Smeenus

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Saying it's not a ruck no one's on their feet, after allowing folks to go off their feet all game at rucks, is classic Owens. It also ignores the split second time frame for clearers coming in and the Exeter player latching on.

How often does a ref call hands off for anything other than a player jackaling? That seems to me Owens shaping an explanation to cover up his mistake.

I don't buy it. You might not agree with his judgement, but the actual logic is fair enough, surely. he has definitely gotten more erratic with his judgements, but there's no mistaken in what he's saying here.

AbusesToilets

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

I don't buy it. You might not agree with his judgement, but the actual logic is fair enough, surely. he has definitely gotten more erratic with his judgements, but there's no mistaken in what he's saying here.

https://twitter.com/Smallclone_/status/1317745165721915392?s=20

His explanation doesn't make any sense. It's clearly a ruck, there are players in contact over the ball. Exeter 20 dives straight off his feet, a penalty before anything else. The tackle process hasn't even completed, with the Exeter tackler still holding onto the Racing carrier, who also impedes Racing 21 from getting to the ball. The ball is clearly not over the line, so the offsides line should still exist. Instead the Exter 21 comes in from the side, and grabs onto the ball we, right in front of Owens.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's clearly a ruck, there are players in contact over the ball.

all off their feet before 21 gets his hands on the ball.
no ruck

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The tackle process hasn't even completed, with the Exeter tackler still holding onto the Racing carrier, who also impedes Racing 21 from getting to the ball.

Youre adding potential infringements now, which can be done at any ruck.. but anyway .... Exeter 19 tackles player to the ground and rolls immediately (or at a speed to Owens satisfaction) towards the tram lines, which is what he is supposed to do. he cannot suddenly dissolve into nothing. Its not his fault that Racing 21 comes in to clean from that direction.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The ball is clearly not over the line, so the offsides line should still exist. Instead the Exter 21 comes in from the side, and grabs onto the ball we, right in front of Owens.

The offside line DOES exist.

its exists as the try line, which you seem to have trouble understanding.
If you freeze frame it you see that SHCs leading foot is on the tryline and he never actually cross it before he gains possession.... so he can never be, and never is, in an offside position... when hes within his own try area.

Side entry simply cannot exist in that situation.

The ball never actually crosses the plane of the try line so it cant be considered held up either.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

all off their feet before 21 gets his hands on the ball.
no ruck



Youre adding potential infringements now, which can be done at any ruck.. but anyway .... Exeter 19 tackles player to the ground and rolls immediately (or at a speed to Owens satisfaction) towards the tram lines, which is what he is supposed to do. he cannot suddenly dissolve into nothing. Its not his fault that Racing 21 comes in to clean from that direction.



The offside line DOES exist.

its exists as the try line, which you seem to have trouble understanding.
If you freeze frame it you see that SHCs leading foot is on the tryline and he never actually cross it before he gains possession.... so he can never be, and never is, in an offside position... when hes within his own try area.

Side entry simply cannot exist in that situation.

The ball never actually crosses the plane of the try line so it cant be considered held up either.

They're off their feet from clearing out the Exeter 20, who dived on top of the Racing carrier, which would make it a ruck imo. There's also another Exeter player, ( Slade?), who shoulders into the racing players before Exeter 21 latched onto the ball.

If the offside line exists, then 21 is clearly joining from the side. Exeter 20 also impedes Machenaud from competing for the ball. If Owens claims he's calling Hands off for the Racing player to release on the deck, then presumably he should also be looking at Exeter 20 to release as the tackler.

sydthebeat

2 questions abusesToilets

1. do you accept that the try line is the offside line ?
2. do you accept that SHC never crosses his tryline ?

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

2 questions abusesToilets

1. do you accept that the try line is the offside line ?
2. do you accept that SHC never crosses his tryline ?

Yes and yes. Does that mean he can come in from the side?

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes and yes. Does that mean he can come in from the side?

no.

it actually means its impossible for him to come in at the side

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

no.

it actually means its impossible for him to come in at the side

If the tryline is considered the offside line, would he not have to come from behind that to be entering the ruck legally?

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If the tryline is considered the offside line, would he not have to come from behind that to be entering the ruck legally?

No.

once he doesnt cross the tryline, hes on side everywhere

and it wasnt a ruck, so he could use his hands

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

No.

once he doesnt cross the tryline, hes on side everywhere

and it wasnt a ruck, so he could use his hands

It was clearer a ruck,.Owens is full of **** on that.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It was clearer a ruck,.Owens is full of **** on that.

was the ball on the ground?

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

was the ball on the ground?

Tackle completed, players competing for the ball. That's a ruck to me

Digifriendly

This is like ping pong. Can a referee come in and adjudicate. Penalty to Exeter or penalty to Racing?

sydthebeat

Digifriendly wrote: »

This is like ping pong. Can a referee come in and adjudicate. Penalty to Exeter or penalty to Racing?

A ref already did

Thrashssacre

Apologies if this has been answered but with 2 legged qf's next year and one legged semi finals are the semi finals in a neutral venue or does the highest ranked team just get home advantage?