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?

POC blocked then pulled - didn't get checked, would have disallowed try

Hartley blocked - got checked and was deemed ok

Ireland got lucky, those are the breaks. Thankfully it didn't have a major outcome on the overall result.

u should stick to forward pass vs forward momentum.

as you clearly do not understand the obstruction laws. i made this clear to you at the time of the event when you only quoted a fraction of an expert referees testimony, the rest of which made it as clear as daylight that Hartley would never be penalised for walking back towards his own line under the current laws. Moore, had he understood the laws better, would have know he had to attempt to make the tackle because Hartley was going the opposite direction to Farrell and therefore cannot be described as obstructing unless there was a deliberate movement, which there clearly was not.

GloriousEmpire wrote: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.

what the ref said is irrelevant.

because what he meant was "there was not enough obstruction for it to be considered obstruction as defined by the laws of rugby"

communication between ref and TMO is not like reading from the bible. they are discussing something in common parlance in order to understand whether the laws have been broken.

because "obstruction" is absolutely permitted in certain situations, most especially when it is the fault of the defender for creating the contact.

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote: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.

what the ref said is irrelevant.

because what he meant was "there was not enough obstruction for it to be considered obstruction as defined by the laws of rugby"

communication between ref and TMO is not like reading from the bible. they are discussing something in common parlance in order to understand whether the laws have been broken.

Beg to differ. To my mind it's a clear obstruction. Seen many equivalents called. Can't do anything about it now though. Ref made a call at the time. Benefits of playing at home.

quinsforever wrote:because "obstruction" is absolutely permitted in certain situations, most especially when it is the fault of the defender for creating the contact.

Erm, no it isn't. Except perhaps in the special circumstance of England at twickenham you mean??

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Refereeing/level3papers/J_Leckie_MP.pdf

last paragraph..."In a possible obstruction scenario, who has initiated
contact? If it is the attacker, then obstruction has occurred, and if it is the defender,
then obstruction has not occurred. "

Still think it was obstruction. I think Hartley's at fault.

quinsforever wrote:http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Refereeing/level3papers/J_Leckie_MP.pdf

last paragraph..."In a possible obstruction scenario, who has initiated
contact? If it is the attacker, then obstruction has occurred, and if it is the defender,
then obstruction has not occurred. "

That's not the law quins, that's someone's opinion.

Point is Hartley blatantly creates the obstruction whilst feigning nonchalance - and there's a reason he didn't pick up a bafta last year.

You win some and lose some. Aus and Ireland. Wouldn't have wanted either as an obstruction personally and I doubt if the ref had gone to the TMO POC's would have been given. There's worse that goes on unpunished.

Fairly funny to see an English fan suggesting stricter application of breakdown laws however, at this point in time, I have to say...

Were you English or Kiwi at that point GE, I forget.

The opinion side is to whether you feel Hartley was in a position which blocked the opposition players established trajectory or if he moved into a position which blocked it.
He can legally position himself to cause an obstruction to any player who then wants to come on a given line, but cant place himself there if the players already going or actively block the player.
But in open play whether defender or attacker you dont have to actively move out of opposition players way unless you put yourself in that space whilst they were trying to pass through it, if they choose to run into you thats there problem. Otherwise there would be players chasing each other all over the park trying to get obstructed.
To penalise the referee has to be certain that the player moved into anothers established trajectory and obstructed them in a way that had a material effect on the play.
So the question is which do you think happened there? I guess we already know the answer depending on how English or anti-English you are.

There's a similar situation against NZ where Robshaw is ahead of a ruck and he blocks the NZ defense and actually plays at the ball. Vastly more obvious, however the referee rules that as he didn't succeed in touching it there was no foul. Probably an utterly wrong call, and in the same category of "odd things that happen at twickenham".

 

Gloriousempire why do you have to have a moan about absolutely everything? Seems that you are obsessed with refereeing decisions made.

You need to remove the bitterness. Keep to the more intelligent posts. We know you are capable of sensible posts yet you seem to enjoy being a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

England doesn't get any preferential treatment from refs at Twickernam, only a idiot would think so.

It's not bitterness, I'm merely pointing out that the decision is reasonable consistent. In terms of home advantage you get that sort of thing, especially when a huge vocal crowd is demanding a try is awarded. It's natural.

GE, if you weren't so consistent in bemoaning decisions that went in favour of England and dismissing those that didn't then your 'arguments' might hold more weight.

As it is you've got a reputation that makes people just think 'meh' to your every comment.

I like some of your posting, and it can be interesting and thought-provoking, but wading through all the wind-up stuff can be quite draining.

Please guys let's not get into personal stuff.

It's not 'personal' mate. I'm just pointing out why your posts aren't always well-received.

Well said Cyril. Gloriousempire if you were a bit more balanced instead of coming across as bitter/critical you would get less criticism.

Debating is fine but you seem to enjoy inflaming posters, more frequently than any poster.

E.g. trying to cause an England-Ireland argument.

Things went for and against England and Ireland during the match. I would not say either side should feel they were hugely hard done by.

As I said earlier I thought Sexton's mistake at the kickoff was more decisive than any other decision throughout the match. That was Sexton's error. Not the ref, not England,not the other Irish players.

I usually ignore everything by GE because of his constant deliberate attempts to sow discord and argument. So exactly what Cyril says. I find GEs protestations of innocence ridiculous

Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

GunsGerms wrote:Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

You managed to get that ticket you were looking for then Guns?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Refereeing/level3papers/J_Leckie_MP.pdf

last paragraph..."In a possible obstruction scenario, who has initiated
contact? If it is the attacker, then obstruction has occurred, and if it is the defender,
then obstruction has not occurred. "

That's not the law quins, that's someone's opinion.

Point is Hartley blatantly creates the obstruction whilst feigning nonchalance - and there's a reason he didn't pick up a bafta last year.

amusingly, this is actually the article that YOU quoted after the Eng v Aus game to back up your interpretation of obstruction. Yet as i pointed out at the time you failed to read all the way to the end and the author's conclusion....

want me to provide the link to your post

GunsGerms wrote:Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

Owen Farrell's friend, not Owen. Unfortunately for Owen he is going to get the criticism, the blame and the punishment if there is one.

Classic GE. you have to laugh.

GunsGerms wrote:Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

Hmmm. What's that got to do with a forward pass?

englandglory4ever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

Hmmm. What's that got to do with a forward pass?

non-story. if farrell gave the ticket to a friend/family member who then sold it (most likely) then its nothing to do with farrell, as he obviously couldnt sit in the seat himself

i would think the guy in trouble would be the irishman with his wife when she learns how much he spent on the tx!

're the Hartley non-block. Any player is allowed to stand wherever they like unless they need to return to an onside position. There is no rule which says they must get out of someone's way. GE knows he's wrong about this incident but continuously wums on the subject. Unless of course he simply doesn't know the law which is highly likely.

quinsforever wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Aparently Owen Farrell is in a spot of trouble after a ticket allocated to him ended up being sold to an Irish fan for €534.

Tut tut Owen.

Hmmm. What's that got to do with a forward pass?

non-story. if farrell gave the ticket to a friend/family member who then sold it (most likely) then its nothing to do with farrell, as he obviously couldnt sit in the seat himself

i would think the guy in trouble would be the irishman with his wife when she learns how much he spent on the tx!

Actually an Irish woman bought it.

Its surely the players responsibility to ensure RFU tickets arent scalped on tout sites.

quinsforever to be honest I think the Irishman will at least be pleased he got a special bit of memorabilia - a ticket allocated for Owen Farrell. Perhaps one day he'll get Owen to sign the ticket.  Probably more annoyed that Ireland lost than anything.

Egg on Owen Farrell's face again?

GunsGerms wrote:Egg on Owen Farrell's face again?

Again?

I got a ticket from a Scottish player once (I was actually about 3 people down from who it was given to, a business which sponsored him). I'm not entirely sure he should have got in trouble if I'd decided to sell it.

Come on he often makes himself look a little stupid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got a ticket from a Scottish player once (I was actually about 3 people down from who it was given to, a business which sponsored him). I'm not entirely sure he should have got in trouble if I'd decided to sell it.

Did you play €530 for it?

No I was given it. If I'd chosen to sell it on I wouldn't expect the player to get in trouble though. The point I'm making is when a player passes a ticket on to someone/a company a lot of times it will be passed down a line of people.

I'm also not stupid enough to pay 500 Euros for a rugby ticket!

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got a ticket from a Scottish player once (I was actually about 3 people down from who it was given to, a business which sponsored him). I'm not entirely sure he should have got in trouble if I'd decided to sell it.

Did you play €530 for it?

think you missed the point. 7.5 was GIVEN the ticket by the player's sponsor. if 7.5 has then gone and sold the ticket should the scots player be in trouble? clearly not.

guns you are really reaching here. we do not live in the nanny state. farrell isnt responsible for what other people do. what's he supposed to do, run off the pitch and say "hey you're not who i gave my ticket to"?

You say it's stupid to pay 500 Euros for a rugby ticket. I don't think you are if you feel it is that important that you watch the match.

no 7 &1/2 if it's still linked to the player then it is them who will get in trouble.

Let's be honest if this was not linked to an international rugby player it would not be newsworthy.

In a way I think it's good because it means the RFU can look to crackdown on ticket touts and it shows that it is still a problem.

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got a ticket from a Scottish player once (I was actually about 3 people down from who it was given to, a business which sponsored him). I'm not entirely sure he should have got in trouble if I'd decided to sell it.

Did you play €530 for it?

think you missed the point. 7.5 was GIVEN the ticket by the player's sponsor. if 7.5 has then gone and sold the ticket should the scots player be in trouble? clearly not.

guns you are really reaching here. we do not live in the nanny state. farrell isnt responsible for what other people do. what's he supposed to do,  run off the pitch and say "hey you're not who i gave my ticket to"?

You do in some ways live in a nanny state and Im not sure that the RFU shares your blasé stance given that they are investgating it.

this is all BS. if a sponsor gives away tickets to favoured customers that ticket has precisely the same monetary value, and is serving a financial/business purpose.

as long as the player doesnt directly receive the money, who cares what the intermediary does with the ticket.

Fair enough beshocked, I don't have the available cash to spend shall we say (and I don't like touts), I'd just watch it on tv. The only way you can control and ensure you do have control is to stop giving tickets to players and just sell them.

GunsGerms wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got a ticket from a Scottish player once (I was actually about 3 people down from who it was given to, a business which sponsored him). I'm not entirely sure he should have got in trouble if I'd decided to sell it.

Did you play €530 for it?

think you missed the point. 7.5 was GIVEN the ticket by the player's sponsor. if 7.5 has then gone and sold the ticket should the scots player be in trouble? clearly not.

guns you are really reaching here. we do not live in the nanny state. farrell isnt responsible for what other people do. what's he supposed to do,  run off the pitch and say "hey you're not who i gave my ticket to"?

You do in some ways live in a nanny state and Im not sure that the RFU shares your blasé stance given that they are investgating it.

you are of course right about this. but i'm not sure the RFU needs to try to pretend to be government, law enforcement and jury all rolled into one.

as long as the player doesnt get the money who gives a cr1p what happens to the ticket

englandglory4ever wrote:'re the Hartley non-block. Any player is allowed to stand wherever they like unless they need to return to an onside position. There is no rule which says they must get out of someone's way. GE knows he's wrong about this incident but continuously wums on the subject. Unless of course he simply doesn't know the law which is highly likely.

In my opinion he deliberately adops a blocking line. He runs into the players path on purpose and then drops a bit of a shoulder. I would've called the obstruction as in my opinion it's blatant.

I believe the referee ruled that he did so, but that he was sufficiently far from play for it to have no material effect.

I, as do others, disagree that suspected materiality should've been considered and if so, that his estimation was incorrect.

I don't see how that's a WUM, unless you are wound up by other opinions contrary to your own. Unless of course yu are getting wound up because deep down you know I'm right?

TJ wrote:  So exactly what Cyril says.  I find GEs protestations of innocence ridiculous

   

Let's not get personal, debate the issue not the poster.

Ohhh... its the silly season I suppose.
The dog latitudes midway between 6N weekends, over 7 days before European hostilities can resume.
No wind to fill anybody's sails.
  
All we can do is try to puff a little breath into our own limp sails.

Or - "dont feed the trolls" :-)