Rugby World Cup 2019 Japan The hunt for Webb Ellis

England vs Australia QF it's looking like

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is it even 'marginal' there?

Ah here, take Tipuric as your marker for onside there and draw a line down perpendicular from the touchline. That is NEVER going to be given as offside

I don’t think Poite saw anything wrong with the fend. I think the TMO talked him into the pen imo

Davies was definitely onside. Brilliant stuff from him.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd say you're pretty much 100% percent wrong here, from where I was watching

And not directed at you specifically but I think whining about players being offside has quickly become the most annoying part of the sport for me. If not that, then just complaining about referees in general (although decisions on tackles in this tournament have been all over the place and deserved criticism).

For what its worth, the fend decision is not new at all. We had a player (Ryan Caldwell was it?) binned for almost the same thing on tour once. It has never been legal to fend to the face. However in that situation, I think I'd have preferred just a warning rather than a penalty, but neither decision is wrong there.

There's a pretty good reason why people whine about it so much, it's barely enforced at times. Rucks, tackles, lineouts, scrums and passes get far more attention yet being regularly offside can affect a game far more.

penybont exile wrote: »

... the reason the fend was illegal was because he led with the forearm ..... into Patchell's upper body & throat ...... simple as! If JS had been on the receiving end I suspect you'd have a different opinion! He could easily have got a yellow for it .....these incidents hardly ever used to get picked up but with cameras everywhere & eagle eyed TMO's they are likely to become more common.

As for Davies being offside .... I would imagine the TMO took a look and saw nothing in it.

Some begrudging comments on here .... as per usual.

TMOs have missed a whole host of citing offences so I wouldn't be holding them up as paragons of anything. Wales were efficient, Australia were sloppy. Neither was in any way brilliant but Wales nailed their points.

is_that_so wrote: »

Communicating and doing something about it are two different things. I think it's an area they are blind to personally and and only some will look at it. I am hoping the new kicking rule might

If a referee was to act every time they saw infringement of the laws there would never not be players being penalised.
Its not that theyre blind to it. All too often people watching on tv or at games see someone straying offside but they will be completely immaterial to play so officials just wont sanction them as there is no reason to. They will talk/warn them to be careful but isnt need to do more.
The 50-20 kicking law wont change too much

is_that_so wrote: »

Communicating and doing something about it are two different things. I think it's an area they are blind to personally and and only some will look at it.

What do you think is more likely: Every single elite referee in the world is either blind to or ignoring the same thing, or they are all actively reaching the same conclusion as to how that area of the game should be enforced?

Even if a team is 2/3 feet offside on every single phase, the difference is absolutely negligible in the greater scheme things. It's totally irrelevant unless players are gaining a real material benefit from being offside, which they'll get either by jumping early or by standing clearly out of the line. If both teams are a couple of feet offside on most phases, no one cares except fans shouting because its the bit of the game they notice*. Not from standing a couple of feet ahead of the back foot, which is totally irrelevant in the game unless you're on your own goal line. I find the whole reaction to it very annoying.

*Especially the very annoying subset who seem to shout it to prove they're paying attention at matches, you know the sort.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What do you think is more likely: Every single elite referee in the world is either blind to or ignoring the same thing, or they are all actively reaching the same conclusion as to how that area of the game should be enforced?

Even if a team is 2/3 feet offside on every single phase, the difference is absolutely negligible in the greater scheme things. It's totally irrelevant unless players are gaining a real material benefit from being offside, which they'll get either by jumping early or by standing clearly out of the line. Not from standing a couple of feet ahead of the back foot, which is totally irrelevant in the game unless you're on your own goal line.

Well given how well the elite refs have done so far in this tournament I'm going with the former! There's always an advantage even if it's just in terms of pressure even though it may have less effect the lower down in standard you go. For elite teams it is all about fine margins they can get legally or illegally. What's the point of having it if it's just going to be intermittently policed?

Basil3 wrote: »

TBF, the average Irish fan is very anti-Wales when it comes to rugby. One thing I've never understood since living here. Have been given several different reasons, but none really make much sense.

Wales definitely had the benefit of some 50/50 calls in the match, but I wouldn't say there was any howlers in their favour. Probably the biggest one for me was Kepu's offside penalty for going early and immediately retreating, having absolutely no bearing on the play. Such a weird time to enforce offside.

I live not far from the Welsh border and I can assure it's quite mutual

Basil3 wrote: »

TBF, the average Irish fan is very anti-Wales when it comes to rugby. One thing I've never understood since living here. Have been given several different reasons, but none really make much sense.

Wales definitely had the benefit of some 50/50 calls in the match, but I wouldn't say there was any howlers in their favour. Probably the biggest one for me was Kepu's offside penalty for going early and immediately retreating, having absolutely no bearing on the play. Such a weird time to enforce offside.

Ah here, it's very much requited

Former Former wrote: »

www.twitter.com/SouthTerracer/status/1178318057204269056/photo/1

Hah, that attempted line is classic.

He was onside though.

kuang1 wrote: »

I've enjoyed trips to Cardiff a lot more than Edinburgh for example.
The Welsh are better craic and aren't carrying any chips on their shoulders. Good losers, good winners I've always found.

Not so sure about that.

penybont exile wrote: »

... the reason the fend was illegal was because he led with the forearm ..... into Patchell's upper body & throat ...... simple as! If JS had been on the receiving end I suspect you'd have a different opinion! He could easily have got a yellow for it .....these incidents hardly ever used to get picked up but with cameras everywhere & eagle eyed TMO's they

Just on this 'leading with the forearm' thing and not to disrupt the riveting conversation about intra-national hatred or whatever, but Poite disposed of that quickly by saying (quite correctly) that he was holding the ball to his chest at the point of initial impact. Now you can call that leading with the forearm, but you'd be effectively telling players to enter the tackle with the ball held somewhere else other than to the chest.

The penalty was given for what he did afterwards, which was to then push away with the forearm culminating with him pushing at his throat.

prawnsambo wrote: »

According to Michael Corcoran, the Yokohama stadium is like a sauna. The roof is closed and the temperature is 32° with humidity at 65%. Scotland play Samoa there this morning.

Thought game is in Kobe?

Samoans with two players suspended already. Dangerous feckers!