Wales did not lose because of that penalty

First topic message reminder :

First of all congratulations to SA. They pulled it out of the fire when it was needed.

There has been a lot on here made of that penalty. It even seems to have added fuel to a certain tub thumping posters fire about certain refs but lets be clear. Wales lost that game because they failed to take the ample opportunities that they created. James Hook missed a sitter at the end which would have won the match. Jamie Roberts knocked on a couple of feet from the line and we were back down the other end.

As much as I'd like to be able to blame the ref or anyone else, we put ourselves in the best possible position to win and failed to capitalise.

As far as I'm concerned we should be expecting to win that game. I said a couple of weeks ago that we should be expecting to beat SA and I still think we should. There won't be many better opportunities than that.

Great effort boys but must do better next time. Let's show Samoa and Fiji that we do not like to be beaten and we won't roll over like Wales teams of old

BlueNote wrote:As Tom Shanklin said, the person best placed to call it was the touch judge.

I actually think standing underneath the posts is not the best place to judge whether a kick was over or not - Possibly from behind the kicker would be better - Surely we need convincing camera angles as well - With touch judges you rarely if ever see them disagree and I would argue that whichever one made the decision the other just followed as opposed to they both "agreed". There should have been some debate between the officials here and Warburton and/or Hook should have been more vocal - There is nothing to lose by looking at the video evidence particularly in such acrucial match as it turned out.

Agreed, they missed their chance. If either of them (or preferably both) had run over to Barnes and poked him in the eyes, aside from being hugely satisfying when he continued to referee the game in much the same manner it would finally have revealed to the rest of the world that he is actually completely blind.

RubyGuby wrote:

BlueNote wrote:As Tom Shanklin said, the person best placed to call it was the touch judge.

I actually think standing underneath the posts is not the best place to judge whether a kick was over or not - Possibly from behind the kicker would be better - Surely we need convincing camera angles as well - With touch judges you rarely if ever see them disagree and I would argue that whichever one made the decision the other just followed as opposed to they both "agreed". There should have been some debate between the officials here and Warburton and/or Hook should have been more vocal - There is nothing to lose by looking at the video evidence particularly in such acrucial match as it turned out.

Why dont they just stop the entire game and review that? Both the touch judges and the referee were happy it missed, no need to review. Why debate if they were happy ... how s the conversation going to go .. do you think that missed...yes...are you sure ...yes...me too but can you ask me if im sure....you know what since we agree we had better ask the ref just incase he agrees too....hey wayne was that a miss...sure was guys whats your problem...nothing but he said it missed ...so did he...hmm this is a problem with all 3 of us agreeing better go to the TMO....hey TMO did that miss like we all think it did ....Not sure but I did see a forward pass in the build up to the try THAT YOU MISSED WAYNE BARNES
In the middle of that what are Warburton and Hook going to be shouting " hey we were in no position to see if that went over unlike the touch judges so can we have a review please, yes ref i know it says explicitly in the rules that the TMO is the only other person you can take an opinion from if youre unsure (which you arent) but please listen to us, I mean we wouldnt possibly be biassed right?"

Cameras that covered the posts convincingly? Youd really need a hawkeye tracking system for something of that nature to be of any use. Given this happens maybe once in 20 games thats theres a genuinly controversial call its an expense noones going to shoulder

I disgree about standing behind the kicker. The controversial ones are generaly the one that curl above a post where the officials have to decide if it went outside the post before or after passing over it. The best place to judge that is from pretty much directly beneath, thats why the touch judges stand there. Theres no way you can judge the depth from 50 yards away. The reason you rarely see them disagree is that ones got a far better view of their own post than the other but its very rarely unclear to either so theres no need to disagree.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:

BlueNote wrote:As Tom Shanklin said, the person best placed to call it was the touch judge.

I actually think standing underneath the posts is not the best place to judge whether a kick was over or not - Possibly from behind the kicker would be better - Surely we need convincing camera angles as well - With touch judges you rarely if ever see them disagree and I would argue that whichever one made the decision the other just followed as opposed to they both "agreed". There should have been some debate between the officials here and Warburton and/or Hook should have been more vocal - There is nothing to lose by looking at the video evidence particularly in such acrucial match as it turned out.

Why dont they just stop the entire game and review that? Both the touch judges and the referee were happy it missed, no need to review. Why debate if they were happy ... how s the conversation going to go .. do you think that missed...yes...are you sure ...yes...me too but can you ask me if im sure....you know what since we agree we had better ask the ref just incase he agrees too....hey wayne was that a miss...sure was guys whats your problem...nothing but he said it missed ...so did he...hmm this is a problem with all 3 of us agreeing better go to the TMO....hey TMO did that miss like we all think it did ....Not sure but I did see a forward pass in the build up to the try THAT YOU MISSED WAYNE BARNES
In the middle of that what are Warburton and Hook going to be shouting " hey we were in no position to see if that went over unlike the touch judges so can we have a review please, yes ref i know it says explicitly in the rules that the TMO is the only other person you can take an opinion from if youre unsure (which you arent) but please listen to us, I mean we wouldnt possibly be biassed right?"

Cameras that covered the posts convincingly? Youd really need a hawkeye tracking system for something of that nature to be of any use. Given this happens maybe once in 20 games thats theres a genuinly controversial call its an expense noones going to shoulder

I disgree about standing behind the kicker. The controversial ones are generaly the one that curl above a post where the officials have to decide if it went outside the post before or after passing over it. The best place to judge that is from pretty much directly beneath, thats why the touch judges stand there. Theres no way you can judge the depth from 50 yards away. The reason you rarely see them disagree is that ones got a far better view of their own post than the other but its very rarely unclear to either so theres no need to disagree.

Agree with Pete, they should have gone to the TMO.

Why do both need to be under the posts then ? if one stood in the middle between the posts would he not get the same view and all he needs to do is take a couple of sideways steps if he thinks it's going to be very near one post or the other,
The other touch judge could stand infield directly in-line with the posts while the ref is directly stood behind the kicker.
That would give them far more angles to decide if it went over or not.

Strange how this has never really been an issue until the weekend and certain fans now want sweeping changes made. Strange. Also strange how these same fans would be calling others whingers if they did it.

A bit like the HC semi-final in 2009 when a place kick shoot-out decided it. Apparently the laws were wrong there too.

Strange, but definitely not sour grapes. Definitely not.

SafeAsMilk Was there any need for that? we are just having a friendly debate not running anybody down or trying to cause offence,

I'm not offended, don't worry Cymroglan.

Literally nobody has asked for any sweeping changes at all. a suggestion of referring a kick to the TMO is hardly sweeping changes...

also in reference to that place kick shoot out, apparently the powers that be agreed as they've changed the laws now I believe.

There you go then. Keep complaining and things may change. A bit late for this world cup, but roll on 2015, eh?

discussing on a forum is hardly the same as trying to get laws changed. why don't you try to make something out of nothing. As it happens the right decision was made and there was no value in going to the TMO. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

mckay1402 wrote:As it happens the right decision was made and there was no value in going to the TMO. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Agreed. Okey dokey. Please continue.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Strange how this has never really been an issue until the weekend and certain fans now want sweeping changes made. Strange. Also strange how these same fans would be calling others whingers if they did it.

A bit like the HC semi-final in 2009 when a place kick shoot-out decided it. Apparently the laws were wrong there too.

Strange, but definitely not sour grapes. Definitely not.

Swings and roundabouts i believe. We got a call against ireland in the 6ns. This one goes against us (or not, depending on your view of the kick going over or not i guess).

The kickout in the HCup Semi-final was cruel, I think thats what the gripe was about, and you'd find that the fans "demanding" change there were not all Cardiff Blues supporters.

I can still see little Martin's face when he missed that kick. bless him.

Onwards and upwards lest we all want 15 error-free robots playing 15 error-free robots being refereed by a flying error-free referee accompained by his wheel-driven 2 error free touch judges.

Give it a rest treacle.

treacle

It wouldn't have mattered if it was referred to the TMO, there were only one angle and it didn't conclusively show the ball is between the uprights, so it is all academic anyway.

SafeAsMilk wrote:treacle

I think we're all agreed, its a conspiracy to stop Wales winning the world cup. Did someone mention a forward pass in the build up to a try?!

ITS HAPPENING AGAIN, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

The ball clearly at some parts of its trajectory was outside, and at other parts inside, on the line from the kicker to the post in question. The key point is which it was when it passed the sticks. The touch judge, standing by the post, ought to be well placed to judge that. The TMO would (as it seems) only have had the view from behind, which didn't give much chance of assessing that critical question. None of us can say with any confidence whether the decision was actually right or wrong.

It is a shame, from a Welsh perspective, but that is sport, and if you can't live with that, no point in being involved in it. Hopefully somewhere else in the tournament (no doubt against Namibia) we'll be on the right side of a 50/50 like that.

mckay1402 wrote:Literally nobody has asked for any sweeping changes at all. a suggestion of referring a kick to the TMO is hardly sweeping changes...

Two points for a near miss would be alright tho eh?

Bluenote:

The touch judges were not at the posts they were standing well back so they did not know, this was pointed out during the after match analysis or scrum V and can't remember which.

A good few years ago I was running the line in an Eastbournev Burgess Hill match.Had a similar decision to give which cost us the game.Still get stick from the players.
You can only call it as you see it.C'est la vie!

Lasers it's the only cure

glamorganalun wrote:Bluenote:

The touch judges were not at the posts they were standing well back so they did not know, this was pointed out during the after match analysis or scrum V and can't remember which.

It wasn't on Scrum V. Regardless of where they were (within reason) they'll still have the best view, much better than someone with a fixed 2D image.

Cymro, for warts?

http://therefzone.co.uk/blog.asp


The purpose of these articles is to offer informed comment during the tournament. Not to offer up opinions and/or discuss individual refereeing performances. It would therefore be appropriate to comment in the following way on the recent ‘ballyhoo' about a penalty kick that several commentators and pundits felt should have been awarded, whilst others have sat in the nay camp.

Dealing in objective factual analysis is key.

So....Player A takes his penalty goal kick. The ball is adjudged by both assistant referees and the referee to have narrowly missed and goes ‘dead'. Decision, 22 drop out. ......Yep that's it I'm afraid, short and sharp.

However much talk has been of the penalty having been disallowed, which cannot be the case because nothing was allowed in the first instance. The reference to using the TMO is another causing much comment. Any reference to use of the TMO is where there is doubt over an issue of a try being scored, can be awarded or in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. Law 6.A.6. (b)

None of the officials were in any doubt, therefore, no referral.

Moving away from the analysis of the situation, those who watched the match on TV (which is all of us bar those in the stadium) will have watched the same 2D camera angle that would have been available to the Television Match Official. Rugby has no hawk eye or hot spot, so with the ball higher than the posts and no software yet to call upon to ‘draw' the posts in, the TMO would have seen what we saw.

On this and in other areas, unless the regulations/laws of the game change to allow for a team/player referral, similar to NFL, cricket and tennis, the officials will adjudicate within the existing framework. In conclusion and again offered as fact, those in the UK who watched with UK commentary would have heard the commentator say, forgiving any slight paraphrase, "It (the ball) turns, but after the posts"... And this all with the benefit of a replay and in slow motion. Not easy eh.....

no point speculating, welsh fans say it was over and it MAY have cost us the match, however SA may have reacted differently so we cant focus on that, i personally feel sorry for priestland with the drop goal, but we cant say but, or what if as its all in the past