Was Sexton's Pass Really Forward?

First topic message reminder :

Ireland's second most promising move of the second half came in the form of a long cut out pass from sexton, almost in the form of one of Quade cooper's wonder deliveries.

The crowd hissed. Joubert dallied a second and then called the pass forward.

But did he fall Into the frame of reference trap?

On the same day we saw Steve Walsh question and then allow a magnificent Scottish try from what enflandglory4ever likes to call a "momentum pass".

Should Joubert have allowed play to continue and then checked with the tmo? Did he react to the crowd?

NO - the law remains does it travel towards the goal line very simple. However for replay purposes they look at the direction of the hands as one indicator and it has to be a clear and obvious forward pass to be disallowed.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If Joubert is a homer why did he ignore the high tackle after 6 min with May bearing down on the try line? He missed stuff, all refs do.

He didnt miss it. He decided it wasnt a penalty. He could have given a penalty for it IMO but was that a key decision as it was so early in the game?

How do you know he didn't miss it but just decided it wasn't a penalty?  How could it not be a penalty?  Tackling a player around the head is a clear high tackle warranting a penalty.

As for it being a key decision, well as it was foul play that stopped a probably try (i.e. May would have scored if not slowed down by the illegal challenge) then it should have been a penalty try - that sounds pretty key to me - I can 't see how it being so early in the game makes it any less key, in fact it could have been even more key as it could have affected the Irish confidence etc.

Calling him a homer implies you think Ireland were hard done by, but given they got away with the above and obstruction for their try I think it's more likely that he just missed things on both sides rather than being a homer.  In fact on the balance of what he missed I would say these two incidents were more significant than most.

It must have been before you joined the forum as a bright eyed fresh faced England fan GE!

No TJ, it's down as thrown towards the oppositions by line not travels forward. But yes it does need to be clear and obvious.

watching it right now it was mildly forward. There wasnt enough space for DK to have done too much even had he caught it.

TJ wrote:NO - the law remains does it travel towards the goal line very simple.  However for replay purposes they look at the direction of the hands as one indicator and it has to be a clear and obvious forward pass to be disallowed.

So Sexton's went backwards, so how was it called forward? Did the test not apply?

Oh yeah. If you've seen something in a match and recount it on here GE won't accept it unless you have a"clip". Like we all have the TV rights to every match that's ever been televised. Doh! But of course it's perfectly acceptable for him to make a point without a "clip".

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I know it physically went forward with regard to the pitch, but the pass itself looked flat to me on a couple of re-watches.

Interesting that all three on field officials missed the hand in the scrum from England with 5 on the clock too. I'm trying to remember who the ref was that spotted the same infringement from France in the All Blacks test in Paris.  Both matches might've been decided by the same action, and the call or lack thereof.

We must find a way to get consistency and ensure outcomes are satisfactorily meritorious.

That was a far more important decision, or lack of, than the forward pass, it was a poor miss. Could I just confirm you see the key decisions like this:

- Sexton's pass was flat
- England hand in the scrum should have been penalised
- Lawes and Farrell should have been binned
- POM tackle on May wasn't high
- POC didn't obstruct Launchbury before Ireland's try
- Best shouldn't have been carded.

That about right?

Personally I thought the pass might've been forward. Undeniably it was a crucial call though!

Hand in the scrum was a crucial mistake.

A draw would change the whole complexion of the tournament.

OK, thanks

This really is a stupid post. Of course it was forward. Sexton was running diagonally across the pitch and passed it forward. It was clear and obvious.

Heaf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If Joubert is a homer why did he ignore the high tackle after 6 min with May bearing down on the try line? He missed stuff, all refs do.

He didnt miss it. He decided it wasnt a penalty. He could have given a penalty for it IMO but was that a key decision as it was so early in the game?

How do you know he didn't miss it but just decided it wasn't a penalty?  How could it not be a penalty?  Tackling a player around the head is a clear high tackle warranting a penalty.

As for it being a key decision, well as it was foul play that stopped a probably try (i.e. May would have scored if not slowed down by the illegal challenge) then it should have been a penalty try - that sounds pretty key to me - I can 't see how it being so early in the game makes it any less key, in fact it could have been even more key as it could have affected the Irish confidence etc.

Calling him a homer implies you think Ireland were hard done by, but given they got away with the above and obstruction for their try I think it's more likely that he just missed things on both sides rather than being a homer.  In fact on the balance of what he missed I would say these two incidents were more significant than most.

Once again for possibly the fifth or sixth time now I dont feel hard done by because every match the Ireland team will review a referee and have an exact idea what to expect and how to deal with it. They will have known that Joubert is a homer (82% of all Joubert games are won by the home team) and the match is in Twickers and put a game plan together to take the ref out of the game by being ahead going into the final quarter.

To answer your question I dont know if Joubert saw POMs high tackle but because it was done in open play and not at the bottom of a ruck it is very unlikely that he and the linesman could both have missed it. Hence I conclude that must have thought it unworthy of a booking thought I am not presenting that as a fact. Equally evidently they figured that Farrell's late shoulder charge did not warrent a yellow card either. Fair enough so far.

The thing that annoyed me though but once again I accept is part of having home advantage with certain referees was that there were a number of infringements in the final minutes of the game that Joubert choose to ignore. Its possible he was unsighted but certainly for the second example unlikely.

Example 1
Firstly, Ireland chasing the game with the final scrum of the game and a new front row we drive the England scrum back on their own put in. Wood (number 6) seeing the scrum going backwards and knowing they were losing the ball uses his hand to knock the ball backwards to his 8. Rather than getting a penalty that would have tied the game Ireland are awarded a scrum.

Example 2
Secondly, in an ensuing maul again close to the England line, Ireland form a good maul. Attwood slides from the back of the England maul to the back of the Ireland maul to the Ireland ball carrier and wraps himself around him. He does this right in front of Joubert. Penalty offense. As a result a new maul forms. Morgan breaks from the old maul and forms the new maul from the Irish side of the maul and wraps up Irish ball from both sides. Again in front of Joubert again a penalty offense.

Whether you think it is sour grapes or not these were three quite clear cut penalty offenses in the dying minutes of the game where the referee choose not to penalise the home team. If the game way played in Landsdowne I feel we would have been more likely to get the call in that case.

Nothwithstanding the obvious disapointment as an Irish fan in the context of the 80 minutes I think England were good value for their win. They were very well organised in defense as expected and very competitive at the breakdown. More impressively and perhaps worringly their backs as GE rightly pointed out have started to look quite cohesive which is impressive given that Ireland have the best defense in the tournament so far.

GunsGerms wrote:

Heaf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If Joubert is a homer why did he ignore the high tackle after 6 min with May bearing down on the try line? He missed stuff, all refs do.

He didnt miss it. He decided it wasnt a penalty. He could have given a penalty for it IMO but was that a key decision as it was so early in the game?

How do you know he didn't miss it but just decided it wasn't a penalty?  How could it not be a penalty?  Tackling a player around the head is a clear high tackle warranting a penalty.

As for it being a key decision, well as it was foul play that stopped a probably try (i.e. May would have scored if not slowed down by the illegal challenge) then it should have been a penalty try - that sounds pretty key to me - I can 't see how it being so early in the game makes it any less key, in fact it could have been even more key as it could have affected the Irish confidence etc.

Calling him a homer implies you think Ireland were hard done by, but given they got away with the above and obstruction for their try I think it's more likely that he just missed things on both sides rather than being a homer.  In fact on the balance of what he missed I would say these two incidents were more significant than most.

Once again for possibly the fifth or sixth time now I dont feel hard done by because every match the Ireland team will review a referee and have an exact idea what to expect and how to deal with it. They will have known that Joubert is a homer (82% of all Joubert games are won by the home team) and the match is in Twickers and put a game plan together to take the ref out of the game by being ahead going into the final quarter.

To answer your question I dont know if Joubert saw POMs high tackle but because it was done in open play and not at the bottom of a ruck it is very unlikely that he and the linesman could both have missed it. Hence I conclude that must have thought it unworthy of a booking thought I am not presenting that as a fact. Equally evidently they figured that Farrell's late shoulder charge did not warrent a yellow card either. Fair enough so far.

The thing that annoyed me though but once again I accept is part of having home advantage with certain referees was that there were a number of infringements in the final minutes of the game that Joubert choose to ignore. Its possible he was unsighted but certainly for the second example unlikely.

Example 1
Firstly, Ireland chasing the game with the final scrum of the game and a new front row we drive the England scrum back on their own put in. Wood (number 6) seeing the scrum going backwards and knowing they were losing the ball uses his hand to knock the ball backwards to his 8. Rather than getting a penalty that would have tied the game Ireland are awarded a scrum.

Example 2
Secondly, in an ensuing maul again close to the England line, Ireland form a good maul. Attwood slides from the back of the England maul to the back of the Ireland maul to the Ireland ball carrier and wraps himself around him. He does this right in front of Joubert. Penalty offense. As a result a new maul forms. Morgan breaks from the old maul and forms the new maul from the Irish side of the maul and wraps up Irish ball from both sides. Again in front of Joubert again a penalty offense.

Whether you think it is sour grapes or not these were three quite clear cut penalty offenses in the dying minutes of the game where the referee choose not to penalise the home team. If the game way played in Landsdowne I feel we would have been more likely to get the call in that case.

Nothwithstanding the obvious disapointment as an Irish fan in the context of the 80 minutes I think England were good value for their win. They were very well organised in defense as expected and very competitive at the breakdown. More impressively and perhaps worringly their backs as GE rightly pointed out have started to look quite cohesive which is impressive given that Ireland have the best defense in the tournament so far.

So you're saying Joubert chose to ignore pens at the end (or pen as you admit he may not have seen one) and he's a homer. But when he doesn't give a pen for a high tackle that's fair enough. Sorry it must be disappointing given how confident you were of beating England but Joubert wasn't biased during the match.

I can't believe some posters are complaining about some of Jouberts decisions yet fail to mention POC holding back Launchbury for Ireland's try.

That was a blatant offence that allowed Ireland to score, Launchbury was going to fill the gap that Kearney ran in to.

By my maths Guns that's 7pts removed due to the POC offence and 6 pts added for the 2 England offences.

You'd have lost 13-9.

It's ok. Next time Joubert is a homer for Nz, Ireland or Wales we know what to expect. They will all win their games because Joubert will be clearly biased towards them.

Yes I am saying that Joubert is a homer. Whats the big deal? Why do you find that so hard to fathom?

Yes I was very confident that Ireland would win and they certainly on 52 minutes had put themselves in the position to do so as I thought they would. I think their performance proved they are good enough however, their execution let them down in the final quarter. Particularly Sexton. His poor restart was the catalyst for the England revival and the reason Ireland didnt win. I have never claimed otherwise.

However, if Joubert wasnt a homer we may have got a legitimate penalty in the end to tie the game which on balance would have been a fair result. Joe Schmidt pointed out the scrum penalty and maul penalty in his post match interview too so it was obvious from where he was sitting too.

Once again though Ireland knew this would be the case going into the game so for me the main reason the lost was their execution let them down. Too many mistakes.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't believe some posters are complaining about some of Jouberts decisions yet fail to mention POC holding back Launchbury for Ireland's try.

That was a blatant offence that allowed Ireland to score, Launchbury was going to fill the gap that Kearney ran in to.

By my maths Guns that's 7pts removed due to the POC offence and 6 pts added for the 2 England offences.

You'd have lost 13-9.

Sorry not in a million years was that a penalty. Way way too marginal.

As I have already pointed out Farrell scored a similar try v Australia in Nov with a more blatant obstruction that was reviewed by the TMO and deemed not to be a penalty. Dont remember one England fan complaining them and I also agreed that it was not a penalty offense.

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't believe some posters are complaining about some of Jouberts decisions yet fail to mention POC holding back Launchbury for Ireland's try.

That was a blatant offence that allowed Ireland to score, Launchbury was going to fill the gap that Kearney ran in to.

By my maths Guns that's 7pts removed due to the POC offence and 6 pts added for the 2 England offences.

You'd have lost 13-9.

Sorry not in a million years was that a penalty. Way way too marginal.

Totally disagree, there was nothing marginal in it. POC pulled Launchbury back, it's not in question. Launchbury was heading for the gap Kearney ran through, if spotted it was a pen.

This is the point.....things get missed for both sides. Only thing that matters is the result.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't believe some posters are complaining about some of Jouberts decisions yet fail to mention POC holding back Launchbury for Ireland's try.

That was a blatant offence that allowed Ireland to score, Launchbury was going to fill the gap that Kearney ran in to.

By my maths Guns that's 7pts removed due to the POC offence and 6 pts added for the 2 England offences.

You'd have lost 13-9.

Sorry not in a million years was that a penalty. Way way too marginal.

Totally disagree, there was nothing marginal in it. POC pulled Launchbury back, it's not in question. Launchbury was heading for the gap Kearney ran through, if spotted it was a pen.

This is the point.....things get missed for both sides. Only thing that matters is the result.

So Farrell's try v Australia in Nov should not have been allowed?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't believe some posters are complaining about some of Jouberts decisions yet fail to mention POC holding back Launchbury for Ireland's try.

That was a blatant offence that allowed Ireland to score, Launchbury was going to fill the gap that Kearney ran in to.

By my maths Guns that's 7pts removed due to the POC offence and 6 pts added for the 2 England offences.

You'd have lost 13-9.

Sorry not in a million years was that a penalty. Way way too marginal.

Totally disagree, there was nothing marginal in it. POC pulled Launchbury back, it's not in question. Launchbury was heading for the gap Kearney ran through, if spotted it was a pen.

This is the point.....things get missed for both sides. Only thing that matters is the result.

..unless you lose ...in which case....

Clearly a blocking offence by poc. No team of England's standing would leave a hole that big beside a ruck. Not even Ireland. Clearly a foul which should have been penalised. Those sort of cutback moves are common in any game. But the illegal blocks aren't.

Possibly not no, there was certainly a case. At least it was flagged and decided on though.

If the POC pull had been spotted the try would not have stood. A pull can't be circumstantial, it's a pull.

Swings and roundabouts.

He's a homer if you ignore the mistakes against England and focus on the ones against Ireland. Otherwise he was fair to both sides!

Law 12: Knock-on or throw forward. Definition: A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. Forward means towards the opposing team's dead ball line."*

GG you conveniently forget or overlook the fact that Farrell's try against Australia was called back and reviewed by the TMO. The block by poc was missed completely. It should've been reviewed at the very least.

englandglory4ever wrote:GG you conveniently forget or overlook the fact that Farrell's try against Australia was called back and reviewed by the TMO. The block by poc was missed completely. It should've been reviewed at the very least.

Nope, I said it was reviewed by the TMO. Whats your point?

I would say the most decisive play by Sexton and Ireland was messing up the kick off which allowed England the field position to score their try.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's a homer if you ignore the mistakes against England and focus on the ones against Ireland. Otherwise he was fair to both sides!

Nope I said that the high tackle could have been a penalty. It was the penalty ops in the dying minutes that grated.

beshocked wrote:I would say the most decisive play by Sexton and Ireland was messing up the kick off which allowed England the field position to score their try.

100% agree.

englandglory4ever wrote:Clearly a blocking offence by poc. No team of England's standing would leave a hole that big beside a ruck. Not even Ireland. Clearly a foul which should have been penalised. Those sort of cutback moves are common in any game. But the illegal blocks aren't.

It wasnt a block. You are entitled to stand your ground. Launchbury went around POC in the end. There was a marginal pull on the jersey but inconsequential and too marginal to warrent a penalty.

I am being consistent on this one as I repeatedly said that Farrell's try v Oz was fair enough.

If anybody has a case for bad calls this weekend it's the French, they got nothing all game

It wasn't a marginal pull Guns, it was a pull that stopped Launchbury making the gap

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a marginal pull Guns, it was a pull that stopped Launchbury making the gap

Do you think Farrell's try should have been awarded v Oz?

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a marginal pull Guns, it was a pull that stopped Launchbury making the gap

Do you think Farrell's try should have been awarded v Oz?

Yes. No pulling and (unlike the POC case ) the refs had a good look at the vid.

Agree Sgt Pooly. France got nothing. The YC for Picamoles and the Warburton "try" were calls that I say were certainly very debatable.

Plus it seemed as if the Welsh were allowed to knock the ball out of the hands of the French on at least more than one occasion.

gregortree wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a marginal pull Guns, it was a pull that stopped Launchbury making the gap

Do you think Farrell's try should have been awarded v Oz?

Yes. No pulling and (unlike the POC case ) the refs had a good look at the vid.

Thats laughable. There was a block which is the same if not worse than a pull. Also Moore was closer to the gap that Farrell went through and Hartley was ahead of the play so obstruction was more clear cut. If Farrell's try was legitimate, which I think it was then Kearney's was even more legitimate.

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's a homer if you ignore the mistakes against England and focus on the ones against Ireland. Otherwise he was fair to both sides!

Nope I said that the high tackle could have been a penalty. It was the penalty ops in the dying minutes that grated.

You were annoyed by a penalty that could have been given in the last few min. I was annoyed a penalty at least wasn't given for a clearer foul when a winger was about to score. Why is 1 worse than the other? Becuase it was in the last 5 instead of the 1st 5? Because 1 was for Ireland and the other against?

I'd agree the 'foul' on Launchbury was marginal; something you would expect a homer ref to give though.

Ireland spent a fair bit of time obstructing and/or pinning English players down off the ball without getting pinged. Not bitter tho'. What goes around comes around. The ref clearly wasn't a homer (missed May high-tackle and obstruction for Kearney try for example), but he did seem a bit lax on obstructions and off-sides. I guess he wanted the game to flow, and did a pretty good job.

Everybody complains about whistle happy refs ruining the game. Then when you get a (mostly very) disciplined performance from two good teams with lots and lots of running rugby (even if it doesnt lead to many tries) people come along and want more whistle blowing!

Its like the yellow card issue - yellow cards come out for blatant serious stuff or repeat offenses. There were no repeat offenses as such and so the marginal calls were against a card that might have ruined the game. Farrell - right call on a warning. If there had been consistent niggle running up to that point then a card might have helped calm everyone down.

I think the Irish are just upset that they didnt lose to Wales via a dodgy decision this year

Johnny May's two middle fingers on his ball carrying hand were quite heavily taped together. I wonder how much that effected his grip when reaching for the try line? Small margins.

POCs little tug on Launchbury had no impact on the try being scored, as the young Englishman was never going to get to Kearney. As such it could have been described as a daft thing to do, because if the ref had seen it he would have penalised him and cancelled out what really should have been a perfectly legitimate try.

The difference between that and the Hartley/Farrell incident in the AIs is that playing a man off the ball is illegal irrespective of whether it impacts on the play (see the penalty given against Nowell for the shove on Murray) - whereas being in front of the ball carrier is not automatically an obstruction.

Funnily enough I reckon the "non-obstruction" had far more impact on the play than the tug.

Fair play to Guns he's got the commitment and vision of GloriousEmpire when it comes to the 'reasons' behind England winning.

It takes a certain amount of staying power.

Chapeau, sir!

Sexton's pass was obviously forward - as was the one to Brown for England's try. It is high time the farce of hand direction is removed from having any bearing on the calling of a forward pass.

Cyril wrote:Fair play to Guns he's got the commitment and vision of GloriousEmpire when it comes to the 'reasons' behind England winning.

It takes a certain amount of staying power.

Chapeau, sir!

Why would I water down my opinion just because its unpopular? Would you? I doubt it.

Anyway I never claimed the ref was the "reason" England won.

Claiming wrong decisions against Ireland show a homer ref while ignoring any good fortune you got yourselves hardly praises England. You're detracting from it by subtlely saying if the ref was fair you would have won. Sorry but the best team on the day won, just, but that's what counts.

GunsGerms wrote:Johnny May's two middle fingers on his ball carrying hand were quite heavily taped together. I wonder how much that effected his grip when reaching for the try line? Small margins.

Bomber didn't want to run the risk of him making 'hand' gestures at the ref. For example Picamoles has been dropped for ref gesticulation following his yellow.

Was I alone in thinking Picamoles was hard done by? I thought he was doing pretty much the same as everyone else had been all game long and that he was getting some stamping to his hands. I thought he deserved the penalty his way to be consistent with the rest of the match.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Was I alone in thinking Picamoles was hard done by? I thought he was doing pretty much the same as everyone else had been all game long and that he was getting some stamping to his hands. I thought he deserved the penalty his way to be consistent with the rest of the match.

I'm guessing by his reaction Picamoles thought he was hard done by too.

Picamoles was very unlucky, but he was nullified by Welsh tactics, and they targetted winding him up throughout, didn't someone pat him on the head and he reacted.

Sorry he got yellow carded but well happy he's been dropped!!!

Had there been a warning given that the next one would be carded? Who knows.

Wales do seem to have nicked the old English way of dealing with France dont they.

GunsGerms wrote:

gregortree wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It wasn't a marginal pull Guns, it was a pull that stopped Launchbury making the gap

Do you think Farrell's try should have been awarded v Oz?

Yes. No pulling and (unlike the POC case ) the refs had a good look at the vid.

Thats laughable. There was a block which is the same if not worse than a pull. Also Moore was closer to the gap that Farrell went through and Hartley was ahead of the play so obstruction was more clear cut. If Farrell's try was legitimate, which I think it was then Kearney's was even more legitimate.

there was no block. hartley was walking back towards the english line and Moore ran into him and tried to make a meal out of it. according to the rules that is 100% NOT obstruction, as Hartley neither intentionally blocked, nor was moving forwards clearing a path for Farrell. If you think otherwise then you dont understand the rules in that particular instance.

POC could have gotten pinged for holding onto a player while POC was in an offside position (past the ruck). Which would have been very stupid, as i dont think Launchbury was going to get to the gap. But if the ref had seen it, he would have blown.

Rubbish. Hartley knew exactly what he was doing. The ref said there was obstruction but "not enough obstruction" which is of course contrary to the laws which say only that if there is any obstruction it's a foul.