SCB45 says...

Typical Ireland: Blame the ref or change the laws

Posted 15:42 21st June 2012

sandal says...

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the laws -- and the players on the field all appeared to know what the laws were -- Nigel Owens got the decision right. And not just because the ball was touched in flight.

Carter was forced on to his right foot for his drop goal attempt because of Weepu's ropey pass. Weepu's pass was poor because Owens interfered with Weepu in the execution. So Owens probably should have awarded New Zealand a scrum anyway because he interfered with the play.

Why is it that referees from the northern hemisphere are increasingly coming between All Black halfbacks and their first receiver? One NH ref did it several times in one game last year, and Wayne Barnes is a regular offender. Have they no feel for the game?

I mean, Carter was set for the drop kick. So what, in god's name, made Owens run between Weepu and Carter just as Weepu passed? The man is an idiot.

Posted 10:12 21st June 2012

jamesliveinhope says...

@euskadi - well presented points but I think a little charitable to Kiss, this reads as a man who is trying to come to terms with losing a game in circumstances outside of his control as a coach. Ireland did everything right in their defence of the first DG attempt it was just bad luck.

Its a bit like driving into a parked car and trying to suggest that it was the parked car owners fault for not being close enough to the kerb. I seem to remember it being called "cognitive dissonance".

With regard to intent, the laws of the game give certainty, referees have enough trouble managing their interpretation of the law without having to build in a psychological assessment of the player's intent. 2 actual cases where there is a law in that regard relate to the knock-on and the throw into touch. Allain Rolland showed in France v England earlier this year what a pigs ear a ref can make of that type of call if he has to decide whether it was deliberate or not.

Posted 08:57 21st June 2012

chuckpaki says...

Master Kiss should have been told about the rule Melkdave before taking it to print and sounding like a goose he is a leagie from Australia .

and with that say no more durrrrrrrr

Posted 07:49 21st June 2012

jonesy2 says...

so the NH boys seem to enjoy coming down and making fools of themselves on and off the pitch. incredible hilarity.

Posted 06:58 21st June 2012

theGadflY says...

@bothhands

the '40'pointer mentality had cost NZ three RWCs.that arrogence should hv cost them the last RWC too,but they survived thnx to the ref.knwing al this u ppl r stil so arrognt.i bet u were probably thinkin of 40 points last week too,a dream nearly became a nightmare.and definitely the next couple of world cups wil be nightmares for NZ if this mentality persists.

Posted 04:30 21st June 2012

Euskadi says...

I think the rule is fine, everyone knows that a charged or partially charged kick means everyone is onside. If after the defender touches the ball and the ball flies dead on the full or rolls dead then still 5 meter scrum attackers. Effectively the last person to touch the ball (in any situation) is adjudged to have played it so the next play is determined by that action or inaction. I kinda get where Kiss is coming from but the fact is that O'Brien tried to defend (block) it, he was successful in doing so by virtue of the ball not going through the posts. The Irish nine then ran the ball dead, he didn't have to, he could have run it or kicked for touch and NZ would not have got a scrum and opportunity to attack from 5m again. There is nothing wrong with the rule.

I think where Kiss is coming from would be more to do with unintentional touch of the ball. Often when an attacker is getting bundled into touch they try to keep the ball in play by flicking it back infield, sometimes the ball hits an opponent and goes into touch. Result the original attacker gets the throw into the lineout, not really fair if you consider that the defender didn't purposely play at the ball. That I think could be looked at by the IRB.

Further to this, I have a question regarding rule:

11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS

(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside

I was always of the opinion that intentionally or not if the ball touches an opponent then everyone is onside. I've seen this happen time and time again, the call from the ref is usually "touched" and then everyone is onside. No question about intent just play on.

Posted 21:47 20th June 2012

new_j4a says...

@all, Is the whole Irish team or just the coach confused about the difference between a drop kick and a tackle? We may have stumbled on a major contributing factor in NH weakness.

Posted 18:18 20th June 2012

new_j4a says...

@markpat says..."so the rule says..." its the Law (not a rule)

"I'm definitely hoping you aren't a referee!" I am no longer active but I do keep up with the changing Laws. You should too as a player or even as a spectator.

If you want an explanation of the Law, see the post from @jontheref.

Posted 18:02 20th June 2012

scrumdog says...

Cant wait for the third test...Irish pack will eat them alive.....don't think Kiwi backrow has much to offer..Read out, McCaw slow and fumbling (use by date has gone by), Kaino and Thorn gone..Thompson pretty much useless at Test level as a starter. Front five under serious examination against an Irish side with players in their 51st week of rugby...with the Boks and Pumas up soon..some new talent needs to be unearthed in the AB's forwards. Ireland to chuck this monkey off its back!!

Posted 17:55 20th June 2012