Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wales vs England

Options
1…78101213…15

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,847 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    OldRio wrote: »
    Farrell did very well in that interview. Wouldn't be drawn into any of the controversy. Fair play.

    And why would he? England were all at sea against italy until the ref went on holiday against them. They're very happy to take bad reffing when it goes their way


  • Options
    #273
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    theVersatile wrote: »
    Yes he did have possession at first because by playing the ball with his hand he was "attempting to regain control of the ball" per the possession definition.
    Regain possession from a kick he didn't take? :D
    theVersatile wrote: »
    The test for a knock on is literally the definition I provided that's in the law book, not "which direction the ball last went". Yes, if it is the test, then it is backwards. But it isn't, so it's not.
    It's in the actual name: knock on or throw forward.
    theVersatile wrote: »
    Possession is literally mentioned in the wording of the definition of a knock on. It's not tying into knots - it's literally the way the rules work. You also seem to be missing the fact that the "in possession" definition includes "attempting to control the ball", which as you note is when a large amount of knock ons occur.
    You've left out two other descriptions of a knock on in order to concentrate on the 'possession' bit:
    When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or 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.
    The bolded bit is the closest to what actually happened. Except the ball went backwards before it hit the other player.


    My point here is that there is a possibility that it was the correct decision, not that it's correct per se. It's definitely not as clear cut as people like to think.


  • Options
    #274
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ref made a couple of bad decisions but no complaints in the end, Wales deserved it.

    From an England perspective if you’re being positive they have been awful but on another day could have nicked a victory.

    The negative is the style is far to robotic, discipline is so so bad and there is just a huge lack of ambition. I’ve been a big fan of Jones but it’s quite clear at this stage he needs to mix it up a bit.

    Kruis is a huge loss to the second row (in Japan now) and Underhill is definitely missed but behind that Farrell, Ford, Slade, May, Daly all look off the pace, Watson is the only one really influencing the match in a positive way.

    I hope Wales win it now, only my second least favourite team behind France :-)!!


  • Options
    #275
    ongarite
    Registered Users Posts: 8,201 ✭✭✭ongarite


    https://twitter.com/rpetty80/status/1365735086033940482?s=20


  • Options
    #276
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,281 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    They got shafted today in fairness.

    Fair degree of self shafting too


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    OldRio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Weepsie wrote: »
    And why would he? England were all at sea against italy until the ref went on hiday against them. They're very happy to take bad reffing when it goes their way

    Oh dear, what on earth has Farrell answers to do with the Italy match. If he moaned you'd be on his back. He didn't he said England have to do better.


  • Options
    #278
    CFlat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,782 ✭✭✭CFlat


    Interviewer really giving Farrell a grilling.


  • Options
    #279
    theVersatile
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭theVersatile


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Regain possession from a kick he didn't take? :D

    It's in the actual name: knock on or throw forward.

    You've left out two other descriptions of a knock on in order to concentrate on the 'possession' bit:

    The bolded bit is the closest to what actually happened. Except the ball went backwards before it hit the other player.


    My point here is that there is a possibility that it was the correct decision, not that it's correct per se. It's definitely not as clear cut as people like to think.

    I don't get your first point. (edit: maybe I do - see my reply to Paul above regarding how "bring under control) rather than gain or regain is the term I should've been using)

    Or your second - because they're two different things and you amalgamating them into one is silly. They're under the same heading in the Laws section but they are two inherently different offences per the two definitions.

    The definition I used is in the law book - hence why I used it.

    The bit you have bolded specifies the hand - it went forward off LRZs hand and he did not catch it before it hit the ground or another player, therefore its a knock on. So even by that wording, it's also a knock on.


  • Options
    #280
    Paul Smeenus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭Paul Smeenus


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Fair degree of self shafting too

    24 - 24 with 20 to go. A team with less shambolic discipline would have won from there.


  • Options
    #281
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,812 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Brewster wrote: »
    Come on. His team experienced a couple of shockers and he couldn’t afford to talk about the decisions. What do you expect him to do? Go off on a rant about referee? Let’s enjoy game and result, but let’s not criticise a player when it is not warranted!

    I think he could answer the questions truthfully, instead of trying to shut down the person posing the questions...

    In sport it’s a given that there is a requirement that participants engage with the media.. following positive results, positive performances and indeed the opposite of the two also... even IF whatever result is influenced by poor officiating, it probably wasn’t btw...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Anyway, if other people want to have a look at this, here's a handy video of it.


  • Options
    #283
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 23,814 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    CFlat wrote: »
    Interviewer really giving Farrell a grilling.

    He responded very professionally, fair dues. The ref will be reviewed officially by the team managers as happens every game.

    I wonder if his Coach will be as circumspect.


  • Options
    #284
    Scratchly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Scratchly


    Are Wales actually good or are they just the luckiest team ever? They always seem to do well but they never look like a good team.


  • Options
    #285
    RugbyLover123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭RugbyLover123


    Strumms wrote: »
    I think he could answer the questions truthfully, instead of trying to shut down the person posing the questions...

    In sport it’s a given that there is a requirement that participants engage with the media.. following positive results, positive performances and indeed the opposite of the two also... even IF whatever result is influenced by poor officiating, it probably wasn’t btw...

    Ah come off it, you can’t win. If he complains about the ref the Twitter universe and here is calling Farrell a sore loser.


  • Options
    #286
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,558 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    They got shafted today in fairness.

    Unfortunately not the first time this 6N. Italy were shafted against England 2 weeks ago.

    How fast is Rees-Zammit? Left May for dead when they were chasing that ball back late in the second. Not something you see too often.


  • Options
    #287
    Scratchly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 294 ✭✭Scratchly


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    He responded very professionally, fair dues. The ref will be reviewed officially by the team managers as happens every game.

    I wonder if his Coach will be as circumspect.

    Thought the interview was a bit much tbh. Trying to badger him into criticising the referee. He handled it well given he was obviously pissed off.


  • Options
    #288
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Scratchly wrote: »
    Are Wales actually good or are they just the luckiest team ever? They always seem to do well but they never look like a good team.

    that's quite the skill in itself.

    will be in a match for consecutive Grand Slams - hasn't been done this century.


  • Options
    #289
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,847 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    OldRio wrote: »
    Oh dear, what on earth has Farrell answers to do with the Italy match. If he moaned you'd be on his back. He didn't he said England have to do better.

    I'm just saying that he wouldn't comment on some p!ss poor decisions that went their way in an earlier match, so why would he be commenting on ones that went against them.

    If he moaned I would have no problem pointing out that he didn't mind it when they go his way.


  • Options
    #290
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    theVersatile wrote: »
    I don't get your first point.

    Or your second - because they're two different things and you amalgamating them into one is silly. They're under the same heading in the Laws section but they are two inherently different offences per the two definitions.

    The definition I used is in the law book - hence why I used it.

    The bit you have bolded specifies the hand - it went forward off LRZs hand and he did not catch it before it hit the ground or another player, therefore its a knock on. So even by that wording, it's also a knock on.
    The last thing it hit before the ground was his leg. And everyone concedes it went back off his leg. That's how the TMO and ref made their determination.


  • Options
    #291
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,018 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Scratchly wrote: »
    Are Wales actually good or are they just the luckiest team ever? They always seem to do well but they never look like a good team.

    You make your own luck

    They fully deserved to win today


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    OldRio
    Registered Users Posts: 5,918 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Weepsie wrote: »
    I'm just saying that he wouldn't comment on some p!ss poor decisions that went their way in an earlier match, so why would he be commenting on ones that went against them.

    If he moaned I would have no problem pointing out that he didn't mind it when they go his way.

    So he couldn't win either way with yourself.


  • Options
    #293
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The bbc interviewer is a pain. They aren’t going to talk about the ref.


  • Options
    #294
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,812 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    RugbyLover123 wrote: »
    Ah come off it, you can’t win. If he complains about the ref the Twitter universe and here is calling Farrell a sore loser.

    He could easily have said... “ we have questions about some pretty marginal decisions we’d like to see again, there was a feeling we might have got the wrong side of a couple “

    Instead he turned up to an interview, not willing to really be interviewed... he will I’m sure accept payment for representing his country that is a given... but he can’t engage in good faith with the media for 120 seconds after a defeat ?


  • Options
    #295
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Scratchly wrote: »
    Are Wales actually good or are they just the luckiest team ever? They always seem to do well but they never look like a good team.

    They'll win the championship in a manner that if it was filmed by Disney as a plucky underdog tale it would be endearing.

    In reality we'd have beaten them but for a moment of madness from O'Mahony and without that momentum the championship would look remarkably different.


  • Options
    #296
    Gwildor
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭Gwildor


    545208.jpeg


  • Options
    #297
    theVersatile
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭theVersatile


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    The last thing it hit before the ground was his leg. And everyone concedes it went back off his leg. That's how the TMO and ref made their determination.

    I've explained several times that either (a) through my knock on definition, that the backwards movement off the leg is irrelevant due to his loss of possession forward which is never regathered before hitting the ground (the ball hitting his leg is not an "attempt to bring the ball under control" - so he's not in possession at that stage, so he hasn't acquired possession before the ball hit the ground, so it's a knock on.

    Or (b), per your definition, it went forward off the hand, and was not caught before it hit another player or the ground. Once again, the backwards movement of the leg is irrelevant. If he flicked it back with his hand, then it would, but he didn't so it doesn't.

    And the whole basis of this discussion is determining whether the ref/TMO got it wrong. If you could just go "well the ref ruled x", then all referee decisions would be correct.

    It's not helped by you conflating the test for a knock on with that of a forward pass. I say again, they are separate offences. They have different ingredients.


  • Options
    #298
    RugbyLover123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,564 ✭✭✭RugbyLover123


    Strumms wrote: »
    He could easily have said... “ we have questions about some pretty marginal decisions we’d like to see again, there was a feeling we might have got the wrong side of a couple “

    Instead he turned up to an interview, not willing to really be interviewed... he will I’m sure accept payment for representing his country that is a given... but he can’t engage in good faith with the media for 120 seconds after a defeat ?

    He said he didn’t want to focus on the reffing decisions and wanted to focus on the things they can control. Him implying they aren’t happy with the decisions by saying what your suggesting would turn it into a media frenzy against the ref and could even see Farrell pick up a ban.

    Handled it completely fair imo.


  • Options
    #299
    thecomedian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭thecomedian


    Strumms wrote: »
    He could easily have said... “ we have questions about some pretty marginal decisions we’d like to see again, there was a feeling we might have got the wrong side of a couple “

    Instead he turned up to an interview, not willing to really be interviewed... he will I’m sure accept payment for representing his country that is a given... but he can’t engage in good faith with the media for 120 seconds after a defeat ?

    Give it a rest... he’s after playing an international rugby match and got hammered on the scoreboard. Huge decisions against them but he isn’t talking about it.
    Do you have a huge dislike of Farrell?


  • Options
    #300
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    theVersatile wrote: »
    I've explained several times that either (a) through my knock on definition, that the backwards movement off the leg is irrelevant due to his loss of possession forward which is never regathered before hitting the ground (the ball hitting his leg is not an "attempt to bring the ball under control" - so he's not in possession at that stage, so he hasn't acquired possession before the ball hit the ground, so it's a knock on.

    Or (b), per your definition, it went forward off the hand, and was not caught before it hit another player or the ground. Once again, the backwards movement of the leg is irrelevant. If he flicked it back with his hand, then it would, but he didn't so it doesn't.

    And the whole basis of this discussion is determining whether the ref/TMO got it wrong. If you could just go "well the ref ruled x", then all referee decisions would be correct.

    It's not helped by you conflating the test for a knock on with that of a forward pass. I say again, they are separate offences. They have different ingredients.
    The LAW for knock ons and forward passes are the same one. LAW 11


    Answer this: If he instead had tapped the ball back with his other hand without "regaining possession" would it be a knock on?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,236 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    VANG1 wrote: »
    Itoje is a penalty machine. Should be lion’s captain

    Itoje needs to take a few games off from international rugby, his card is marked, every referee knows that he bases his game on being on the wrong side of the offside line

    He’s lucky that he got away with it for this long, but he’s gonna have to find a way around this if he’s not going to be a liability to his team going forward


Advertisement