6N: Wooden Spoon Nominations

[Chewitt13]

I sort of laugh about the concussion rules, easiest way to sort it out?? Reduce the subs, if a player had to play 80 mins then they couldn't bulk up to the size and power they currently are, props at international level train to play 40-50 minutes, they can then get away with being 120-130 kilos, we do all of this to ourselves, it's a collision sport now, driven by money to be faster, stronger with more action, unfortunately I don't think we are far away from the first major incident on the international stage

I played every week for 15 years until my knee gave out, played a fairly high level and I wouldnt take my son to minis until he is old enough to make his own informed choice to play

My daughter on the other hand..... psycho

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[sweets]

I thought Itoje was a little unlucky.
One offside was given when the ball was already out, and he was also penalised for a deliberate knock on when he knocked it down from the scrum half's hands.
But by then the ref was already looking out for him, so he should have known and been less "in the ref's face" by then.
The scoreline flattered Wales, because England went chasing the game at the end and forced situations they shouldn't have, and wouldn't if they were in the match.
Which is why the 2 tries that weren't (and niether were tries) made all the difference.
England are still unable to think their way through a tough match. They are one-trick ponies, despite all the "experience" in the team, and while there are still like that, they do not really deserve to win much. Which is a shame.

[Robsmck]

The after match interview of AWJ was a disgrace. He was asked about the "obvious errors" that led to the first 2 tries for Wales. Shocking, but then typically BBC bias from commentators and pundits.
For the first try the England huddle had broken, players drifting to each wing, when the ref blew for time on and the game was restarted.
The second try was not a knock on. True the defender did not have full control, but he did not knock the ball forward onto another player or the deck. It came off his foot BACKWARDS and was then knocked towards the try line by the English tackler.
Simples really.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[ryanb741]

First try was 100000% not a try and was also unsportsmanlike behaviour IMHO. 2nd try nobody can tell me he didn't lose control of the ball.

Wales deserved the win, no doubt but England got some bad decisions. Still, England had plenty of lucky decisions in the past (particularly with Farrell not getting red carded in previous games) so what goes around comes around.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[theoriginaldigger]

The after match interview of AWJ was a disgrace. He was asked about the "obvious errors" that led to the first 2 tries for Wales. Shocking, but then typically BBC bias from commentators and pundits.
For the first try the England huddle had broken, players drifting to each wing, when the ref blew for time on and the game was restarted.
The second try was not a knock on. True the defender did not have full control, but he did not knock the ball forward onto another player or the deck. It came off his foot BACKWARDS and was then knocked towards the try line by the English tackler.
Simples really.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Except that regarding Liam Williams try Nigel Owens says it was a knock-on (and not that my opinion is worth anything I agree).

I’m a Welshman but there’s still chwarae teg.

[theoriginaldigger]

Which is why the 2 tries that weren't (and niether were tries) made all the difference.

They were both awarded so they were tries but actually I half agree - Liam Williams try should have been disallowed there definitely was a knock on (Rees-Zammit did not recover the ball) but the Josh Adams try categorically was a try, can England feel mightily aggrieved ? absolutely but it was a try.

[Ruggertech]

They were both awarded so they were tries but actually I half agree - Liam Williams try should have been disallowed there definitely was a knock on (Rees-Zammit did not recover the ball) but the Josh Adams try categorically was a try, can England feel mightily aggrieved ? absolutely but it was a try.

This ^. Yes, regarding Josh Adams try Nigel Owen's said the ref should have allowed England more time to reset but there is no rule stating that has to happen, so a try it is, in theory and reality.
This in fact was a perfect example of Englands general lack of concentration, awareness, and naivety. Wales played the same move, in the same position with the same two players (Biggar and Adams) two years ago with the same result. Why were England not looking out for this? Also England had already reset their right hand defence when the move started, but the left were still having a chinwag under the posts when Biggar was holding the ball eying up the left hand corner and Adams was hovering. Their defence coach must have been screaming at them.
The William's try was from a knock on yes, I believe I said "dubious at best" in a previous post, but that was being very generous. So it was no try in theory, but a try in reality as it was awarded and nothing will ever change that.

[RustyBin5]

Every 6 nations team gets bad ref decisions. Focusing on the referee is deflecting from the real issues.

No on field leadership
Poor discipline and penalty count
Line out not great

[sweets]

Look at the footage again. The ref clearly blows his whistle, and AFTER THAT he raises his wrist with his other hand over his watch and says TIME ON.
So he has re-started play before the clock.
That is wrong. Plain and simple.
He instructed Farrell to talk to his men, taking the time off, then gave no warning at all of the restart.
Appalling refereeing, he was flustered and restarted it totally incorrectly, then did not have the grace to correct his mistake.

As others, including Farrell and Jones have said, the refereeing was not necessarily the difference between what happened and the performance they wanted to put in. And I think both deserve credit for saying that at the time.
But those are two of the biggest glaring ref mistakes we have seen in a rugby international for quite a while.
Rugby has generally done very well by comparison to say, footie, in terms of reffing standards, consistency and use of the TV ref. This was not its finest hour

[Ruggertech]

Look at the footage again. The ref clearly blows his whistle, and AFTER THAT he raises his wrist with his other hand over his watch and says TIME ON.
So he has re-started play before the clock.
That is wrong. Plain and simple.

No, its not wrong. The clock is restarted by the TMO when the referee says TIME ON. The clock we see on our televisions is for us, the spectators and is not the official match timing, although it does follow it as closely as possible.

[sweets]

No, its not wrong. The clock is restarted by the TMO when the referee says TIME ON. The clock we see on our televisions is for us, the spectators and is not the official match timing, although it does follow it as closely as possible.

I am not talking about the match clock, per se, I am talking about the ref's mistaken method of restarting without warning.
Listen to the ref and watch him at the restart. He blows his whistle to restart play, and after that he raises both hands, one over the wrist of the other and he says TIME ON.
That is the wrong order in which to ref. He has allowed the Welsh team to restart play before he has even restarted the clock.
The ref should aways restart the clock (by saying Time on to the TMO) before he allows play to restart.
What he does offers England even less warning of what is about to happen than if he did it properly.

[Ruggertech]

When he says Time On, the clock and game restarts.

[Saint-Just]

Guys, this is irrelevant. We are not discussing football.
If the ref made mistakes, they will be looked into and on his match report.
The result stands. England lost. They have 2 more games to save what can be saved from their 6N.

[Ruggertech]

The result stands. England lost.

Agreed.

[Robsmck]

First try was 100000% not a try and was also unsportsmanlike behaviour IMHO. 2nd try nobody can tell me he didn't lose control of the ball.

Wales deserved the win, no doubt but England got some bad decisions. Still, England had plenty of lucky decisions in the past (particularly with Farrell not getting red carded in previous games) so what goes around comes around.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

For the first try we will nevwr agree. For the second try he did not have control of the ball, but there is no requirement for him to so do. He did not knock it forward. Knocking forward leads to the other side being awarded a scrum. Loosing control only results in a scrum to the other side of it is knocked forward. That is why a player often turns his back towards the opposing goal line when fielding a high kick, so that if he looses control and drops the ball it should go backwards, not forwards, so the opposition will not get a scrum. In the case of the second try it wasn't knocked forward. Dropped backwards.
Again, simples.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[jwg663]

Re the 'knock-on':

Can someone introduce 'momentum' into the argument? That'll ensure the thread progresses nicely...

[Ruggertech]

Re the 'knock-on':

Can someone introduce 'momentum' into the argument? That'll ensure the thread progresses nicely...

As you wish.... ;)

[Andyg]

The after match interview of AWJ was a disgrace. He was asked about the "obvious errors" that led to the first 2 tries for Wales. Shocking, but then typically BBC bias from commentators and pundits.
For the first try the England huddle had broken, players drifting to each wing, when the ref blew for time on and the game was restarted.
The second try was not a knock on. True the defender did not have full control, but he did not knock the ball forward onto another player or the deck. It came off his foot BACKWARDS and was then knocked towards the try line by the English tackler.
Simples really.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

it was 22 seconds from the time the ref told Farrell to talk to his players, to the point at which the kick was made. The only reason why one English player broke the huddle was that they instinctively saw a threat. Not sure what “talk” Farrell was expected to give in about 22 seconds, given he had to return to huddle, get their attention and relay the information - notwithstanding the Water Carriers were still on the pitch at the time.

As for the second try, so you are right and Nigel Owens is wrong. The winger never caught the ball nor had it under control when he dropped it. It was a knock on. The fact it didn’t hit the ground before hitting the England player is irrelevant. This might help youhttps://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

[Andyg]

Guys, this is irrelevant. We are not discussing football.
If the ref made mistakes, they will be looked into and on his match report.
The result stands. England lost. They have 2 more games to save what can be saved from their 6N.

Agreed. However just imagine the reaction had the Welsh, French, Scots had been on the other end of the decisions.

One thing is certain is that Pascel will not officiate another England game. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...tries-against/

[Yoda]

I am constantly surprised by how England can give games away. They have the best players and could probably field a B team that should win the Triple Crown if not the 6N! There is a distinct lack of leadership on and off the field IMO and they don't seem very adaptable to the situation. Wales didn't play particularly well but seem to have the rub of the green and take their chances. I thought the first try was a bit harsh but you can't blame Wales for that. The second was not technically a knock on (or knock forward) and just one of those freak occurrences.

As for the Wooden spoon, sadly Italy had that wrapped up before they even started.

[Robsmck]

it was 22 seconds from the time the ref told Farrell to talk to his players, to the point at which the kick was made. The only reason why one English player broke the huddle was that they instinctively saw a threat. Not sure what “talk” Farrell was expected to give in about 22 seconds, given he had to return to huddle, get their attention and relay the information - notwithstanding the Water Carriers were still on the pitch at the time.

As for the second try, so you are right and Nigel Owens is wrong. The winger never caught the ball nor had it under control when he dropped it. It was a knock on. The fact it didn’t hit the ground before hitting the England player is irrelevant. This might help youhttps://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

As you say, he dropped the ball, it didn't go forward, it travelled downwards, then was knocked backwards from his calf, IIRC. So no knock on.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Robsmck]

But despite all the debate, as others have said, I am constantly amazed how that England team which is dripping with individual talent, does not walk the 6 nations every year. I can't think offhand of any starting player from sat who wiyls not walk into that place in most of not any of the other 6 nations teams.
A sporting puzzle to me. Answers to Mr Jones please

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[subseastu]

Regards the "knock on" try. I was lead to believe its a knock on if it leaves the players hands, hits the ground and moves forward. This time didn't it leave the players hands and hit his lower leg / foot before hitting the ground so is basically a kick?

[Saint-Just]

I am not sure I would pick any current English players for the French team, but I am obviously biased. I would have had Dallaglio, Johnno, Wilkinson without any problem but that was almost 20 years ago.

[Berty234]

It was a knock on. The player never had control after it left his hand forward.

If he had deliberately kicked the ball after initially dropping it (before it hit the ground) then that would have been play on as he would be in control when applying the foot.

Here, the ball hit his leg a yard or two forward from where he dropped it with no intention to play the ball with the foot.

He lost control, never regained it, and the ball went forward. That’s a knock on.

As for the first try, that was shocking game management from the referee. He should have waited.

Both tries were travesties. I was livid.

[Robsmck]

See nobody is whining about the "obvious mistake" of Henderson's try against Italy not being given.
Just sayin like.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Saint-Just]

It was a knock on. The player never had control after it left his hand forward.

If he had deliberately kicked the ball after initially dropping it (before it hit the ground) then that would have been play on as he would be in control when applying the foot.

Here, the ball hit his leg a yard or two forward from where he dropped it with no intention to play the ball with the foot.

He lost control, never regained it, and the ball went forward. That’s a knock on.

As for the first try, that was shocking game management from the referee. He should have waited.

Both tries were travesties. I was livid.

Law 12 states:
A knock-on occurs 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Please show me where the part about "being in control" comes in, as well as what happens when it touches the leg before touching the ground, regardless of intention.

Now can we please move on?

[Berty234]

Law 12 states:
A knock-on occurs 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Please show me where the part about "being in control" comes in, as well as what happens when it touches the leg before touching the ground, regardless of intention.

Now can we please move on?

I think it’s there in the “loses possession” and interpretation of that law. Nigel Owens explains it better than I can here:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...knock-19932005

Anyway, it’s only a game :)

[sweets]

The intersting thing was that LR-Z hit the ball forward with one hand before knocking it dow with the other, as he tried to catch it. Without the first touch it is not a knock on.

It was most telling that neither he, nor Williams celebrated at all. They knew it was a knock on.

As stated, none of this changes the result, but there's no harm in discussing it

[ryanb741]

But despite all the debate, as others have said, I am constantly amazed how that England team which is dripping with individual talent, does not walk the 6 nations every year. I can't think offhand of any starting player from sat who wiyls not walk into that place in most of not any of the other 6 nations teams.
A sporting puzzle to me. Answers to Mr Jones please

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

A lack of game time for major players in the England team (none of the Saracens players have had any game time). Other teams have had some outrageous talent that would have walked into the England side and make up 2 England players (Brian O Driscoll (the past I know), Tadgh Furlong, Conor Murray, Stuart Hogg, Alun Wynn Jones, Justin Tipuric all would have walked into the England team). England have the best facilities and if you picked the best 100 players from each nation England would walk it as they have more strength in depth due to population size. But pick the best 15 plus replacements and it is much tighter as each nation has some amazing players.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Saint-Just]

Nigel Owens is by far my favourite ref and I entirely agree with his analysis regarding the first try. I cannot find anything in the rule to substantiate his views on the second. I can perfectly accept that it is how HE would have refereed, and that would be fine as well as it’s all about the ref being consistent both on the pitch and with his pre-match instructions.

[PhilT]

Agreed. However just imagine the reaction had the Welsh, French, Scots had been on the other end of the decisions.

No reaction at all, as there wouldn’t have been any mention of it in the media.

[Andyg]

As you say, he dropped the ball, it didn't go forward, it travelled downwards, then was knocked backwards from his calf, IIRC. So no knock on.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

unfortunately you didn’t read the link I provided did you.

[Andyg]

Nigel Owens is by far my favourite ref and I entirely agree with his analysis regarding the first try. I cannot find anything in the rule to substantiate his views on the second. I can perfectly accept that it is how HE would have refereed, and that would be fine as well as it’s all about the ref being consistent both on the pitch and with his pre-match instructions.

See Wales Today on-line. But you seen to have overlooked the fact the ref himself admitted he got it wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

No reaction at all, as there wouldn’t have been any mention of it in the media.

Lolz

[Robsmck]

unfortunately you didn’t read the link I provided did you.

I actually did.

[Berty234]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...es-rugby-union

I’d have demoted the guy to the D2 french league until 2022, but then I’m English ;)

[Robsmck]

Here's a thing. How many posters who think the first Welsh try should not have been allowed agree with the disallowed goal on the Brighton v WBA game? Just curious

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Chewitt13]

I've often wondered this, what's the difference between what happened for the second try and Somone attempting a grubber kick? In my eyes none . The ball is dropped ( mostly forward ) and the last contact with the body is with the foot

Never seen this as a knock on, same with a drop kick, the mechanics are the same

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[jwg663]

Kicking from hand (punt, grubber or drop) requires a deliberate action to present the ball to the foot: you must have control of the ball first. LRZ was never in control of the ball.

[Ruggertech]

I've often wondered this, what's the difference between what happened for the second try and Somone attempting a grubber kick? In my eyes none . The ball is dropped ( mostly forward ) and the last contact with the body is with the foot

Never seen this as a knock on, same with a drop kick, the mechanics are the same

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Another one is the charge down. A deliberate attempt to knock the ball forward with no attempt to catch it. Yet a deliberate knock on is a card offence.

[Andyg]

I've often wondered this, what's the difference between what happened for the second try and Somone attempting a grubber kick? In my eyes none . The ball is dropped ( mostly forward ) and the last contact with the body is with the foot

Never seen this as a knock on, same with a drop kick, the mechanics are the same

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Because you have to be in control of the ball. The exception is when the ball is loose and a player attempts a fly hack.

[Chewitt13]

But if you check the rules of the game, it doesn't mention being in control, people have said it but it's not actually written down, I actually checked the world rugby rulebook

It's Law 11, and it's particularly vague


Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Sinnlover]

Under previous laws a knock on was any loss of control (many moons ago). If you fumbled the ball but didn't drop it it was classed a knock on.
As I understand the laws now require the ball to touch the ground or another player without striking the foot for it to be a knock on.
MOST refs would have given it as a knock on but as an Englishman I have to say I don't not think it was a knock on looking at replays.

[lughugger]

But despite all the debate, as others have said, I am constantly amazed how that England team which is dripping with individual talent, does not walk the 6 nations every year. I can't think offhand of any starting player from sat who wiyls not walk into that place in most of not any of the other 6 nations teams.
A sporting puzzle to me. Answers to Mr Jones please

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Oh, that’s very simple. It’s easy to defend size and power. It’s not so easy to defend intelligent attacking lines and variety. England have one set and not the other. And that’s down to selection and coaching.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[RustyBin5]

Under previous laws a knock on was any loss of control (many moons ago). If you fumbled the ball but didn't drop it it was classed a knock on.
As I understand the laws now require the ball to touch the ground or another player without striking the foot for it to be a knock on.
MOST refs would have given it as a knock on but as an Englishman I have to say I don't not think it was a knock on looking at replays.

I think even if it hits the foot the ref still has to be convinced it was a deliberate attempt at a kick. If he feels it is just a fumble that hits your foot on the way to the deck then he will (should) still call it a knock on.

[lughugger]

Law 12 states:
A knock-on occurs 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Please show me where the part about "being in control" comes in, as well as what happens when it touches the leg before touching the ground, regardless of intention.

Now can we please move on?

The player (Zamit) hit the ball forward with his hand or arm and the ball touched another (English) player before the original player caught it.

Knock on by your definition and Gauzere’s own admission according to planetrugby.com


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Robsmck]

Oh, that’s very simple. It’s easy to defend size and power. It’s not so easy to defend intelligent attacking lines and variety. England have one set and not the other. And that’s down to selection and coaching.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

And perhaps a lack of solid on field leadership/captaincy.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Sinnlover]

I think even if it hits the foot the ref still has to be convinced it was a deliberate attempt at a kick. If he feels it is just a fumble that hits your foot on the way to the deck then he will (should) still call it a knock on.

Nope, if you fumble and the ball hits your leg or foot before the deck it is not a knock on.

[RustyBin5]

By definition if you fumble you have lost control of the ball. Fairly sure even if hitting the leg or foot before the ground it’s still gonna be called for a knock on.

[RustyBin5]

Nope, if you fumble and the ball hits your leg or foot before the deck it is not a knock on.

listen to the referee at 24 seconds in this clip to illustrate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0HTxRkm2UE