RWC 2015 - We Wuz Robbed Thread

[LondonTiger]

Feel cheated by the red?
Reckon the TMO got it wrong?
How about the ARs?
And of course not forgetting the cheating buggers in red/white/blue/black/green (delete as appropriate).


Lost and it was not fair? then come on here and rant.

[Biltong]

I will be honest and say I am worried about referee interpretations in a couple of areas.

Scrums, the referees seem to guess a lot, and some of them once they have made up their mind will nail one team every time.

Breakdowns, there will be controversy no doubt.

Mauls, illegal "swimming" , faking a maul pull down, changing lanes, obstruction.

[lostinwales]

What I feel concerned with is something that has cropped up here before which is that the increased scrutiny on attacking plays (Hawkeye) is not going to be replicated with increased scrutiny on defense.

In other words its going to get harder and harder to score trys

[TightHEAD]

I just hope the Ref for the Eng v Wales game keeps and eye on Gethin's scrummaging.

[RubyGuby]

Allain Rollaind

[SecretFly]

I'm not worried about a blessed thing. The ref will shaft us and that's that. Go out and enjoy the game until the red is delivered then onto this page for the Splash Down of Bile!

[SecretFly]

What I feel concerned with is something that has cropped up here before which is that the increased scrutiny on attacking plays (Hawkeye) is not going to be replicated with increased scrutiny on defense.

In other words its going to get harder and harder to score trys

Well.............. its Union; they've always been hard to come by in a fair dark-arts game...

Seriously though, I think we're going overboard on this desire to see more and more tries.  It all gets too Leaguey for me when it's pop, pop, pop like that fateful SuperSaturday.  Grand for a game or two but would I keep watching if defence was only a name used in the media but never seen on a field?  I don't think so.

[lostinwales]

What I feel concerned with is something that has cropped up here before which is that the increased scrutiny on attacking plays (Hawkeye) is not going to be replicated with increased scrutiny on defense.

In other words its going to get harder and harder to score trys

Well.............. its Union; they've always been hard to come by in a fair dark-arts game...

Seriously though, I think we're going overboard on this desire to see more and more tries.  It all gets too Leaguey for me when it's pop, pop, pop like that fateful SuperSaturday.  Grand for a game or two but would I keep watching if defence was only a name used in the media but never seen on a field?  I don't think so.

True enough but you want to see a balance. You want to see the best attacking stuff rewarded by 7 points instead of 3, even if most of the scoring is measured in 3's

[TJ]

We have already been robbed - and we havn't even played a game yet! bastids!

[whocares]

Ireland + Nige O'wens => nuff said

[Poorfour]

Personally, I think the refs did pretty well over the weekend, albeit some delivering a more flowing game than others.

My main concern is the rolling maul from the lineout. I am not happy that teams are seemingly allowed to set the maul before an opponent has even made contact (as long as the ball is at the front) and then the opponent can be penalised for tackling the ball carrier.

[TrailApe]

I am not happy that teams are seemingly allowed to set the maul before an opponent has even made contact (as long as the ball is at the front) and then the opponent can be penalised for tackling the ball carrier.

Must admit that particular incident had me confused.

No opposition bound - no maul?

The ref shouted 'it's ok, the ball carrier is at the front'

so when the Urugayan euroquian South American player scragged the ball carrier he was penalised for collapsing the maul. I thought that was absolutely pants!

Who's interpretation was right? - an experienced international ref or me (I'll not list my failings and lack of refereeing experience - don't have the time).

[Biltong]

Oh, we waz robbed, by that plonker of a coach of ours

[R!skysports]

I have to say, I feel that not one decision has gone for us so far. Not one!


It is totally unfair and really is getting my goat

One Bloooming decision that is all I ask -

[funnyExiledScot]

I have to say, I feel that not one decision has gone for us so far. Not one!


It is totally unfair and really is getting my goat

One Bloooming decision that is all I ask -

Agreed - I blame Clownshoes.

[Poorfour]

I am not happy that teams are seemingly allowed to set the maul before an opponent has even made contact (as long as the ball is at the front) and then the opponent can be penalised for tackling the ball carrier.

Must admit that particular incident had me confused.

No opposition bound - no maul?

The ref shouted 'it's ok, the ball carrier is at the front'

so when the Urugayan euroquian South American player scragged the ball carrier he was penalised for collapsing the maul. I thought that was absolutely pants!

Who's interpretation was right? - an experienced international ref or me (I'll not list my failings and lack of refereeing experience - don't have the time).

Well, the Laws are pretty clear:

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

Conclusion: There was no Uruguayan player in contact with a Welsh player. A maul was not formed. The ball carrier was therefore available to tackle

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

Conclusion: Team mates were bound onto either side of the Welsh player. Penalty to Uruguay

[funnyExiledScot]

Agreed. It's pretty simply really. What teams are doing more of is grabbing opposition players and effectively creating the maul - particularly off lineouts. It takes a brave team to back off and then send in a lone tackler to chop down the ball carrier, but it isn't a daft tactic. With any luck the team trying to create the maul will have shifted the ball to the back in which case you should gain a penalty for obstruction.

[Poorfour]

Agreed. It's pretty simply really. What teams are doing more of is grabbing opposition players and effectively creating the maul - particularly off lineouts. It takes a brave team to back off and then send in a lone tackler to chop down the ball carrier, but it isn't a daft tactic. With any luck the team trying to create the maul will have shifted the ball to the back in which case you should gain a penalty for obstruction.

Only as long as the ref knows the rules. I think it was Poite on Sunday, who's normally pretty good on technical things, so I am wondering if World Rugby is telling them something different from what the Laws say.

[LondonTiger]

Only as long as the ref knows the rules. I think it was Poite on Sunday, who's normally pretty good on technical things, so I am wondering if World Rugby is telling them something different from what the Laws say.

Would not be the first time.

[funnyExiledScot]

Agreed. It's pretty simply really. What teams are doing more of is grabbing opposition players and effectively creating the maul - particularly off lineouts. It takes a brave team to back off and then send in a lone tackler to chop down the ball carrier, but it isn't a daft tactic. With any luck the team trying to create the maul will have shifted the ball to the back in which case you should gain a penalty for obstruction.

Only as long as the ref knows the rules. I think it was Poite on Sunday, who's normally pretty good on technical things, so I am wondering if World Rugby is telling them something different from what the Laws say.

Agreed on Poite - I usually like his interpretations. I'm all for the rolling mauls being policed correctly. Scotland are dreadful at defending them!

[Sponsored content]