**2017 Lions tour to New Zealand**
- Thread starter dl8860
- Start date
Caporegime
Absolutely glued to this game. Enthralling.
Soldato
15 all with 75 seconds to go 
Soldato
NZ so close at the end but pushed into touch, series ends a draw. Great effort.
Caporegime
WOW! Drawn series fair result overall imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,850
Luck lucky Lions. I think Kieran Reid has ever right to be properly miffed.
Really unsatisfactory feeling at the end for me. Not elated, for dodging a bullet.
Really unsatisfactory feeling at the end for me. Not elated, for dodging a bullet.
A strange feeling at the end, but a brilliant tour all in all. Makes me happy that everyone that wrote the Lions off can go and do one.
Reid should be thanking his lucky star.
Taking a man out in the air, in any way whatsoever, should be a penalty and immediate yellow/red card.
It's dangerous pure and simple.
The fact Reid almost had his back to Williams, by twisting in the air, should have zero impact, he took out Williams who landed flat on his face and was dazed for a few seconds.
Rules need changing urgently to clarify situations like that.
Also rules need changing that in any series like this there is always a winner of every match, extra time, sudden death, penalty kick off, whatever is needed to always end with a winner.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,850
I'm surprised at the in the air comment because no one commentating or the referees thought that was an unfair compete. I don't remember the commentary even suggesting he was lucky.
The rules about jumping are quite difficult but if we reached the worst case position where no one can compete with the jumper without a penalty or yellow card and the jumper has no responsibility for their own safety the game would be disfigured horribly.
The Famauina (sp?) is another example a tackler has lined up a runner who then jumps just prior to the tackle and the defender is penalised. But if the rule more unambiguously reinforced that decision everyone would jump to catch the ball in front of the tackle line. For guys like Sinkler who move at pace and are big and heavy the advantage into contact would be massive.
This is where we rely on common sense from the refs. That touchstone is not what it was. The number of high tackle penalties and cards where the attacker is head first head low is getting silly. It's reaching the point where you can't tackle people and moving the advantage too heavily in the tacklers favour and the outcome of games is being decided not on foul or stupid play but micro second adjustments in body angle going into the tackle. Luckily this nonsense isn't blighting the amateur game yet.
The rules about jumping are quite difficult but if we reached the worst case position where no one can compete with the jumper without a penalty or yellow card and the jumper has no responsibility for their own safety the game would be disfigured horribly.
The Famauina (sp?) is another example a tackler has lined up a runner who then jumps just prior to the tackle and the defender is penalised. But if the rule more unambiguously reinforced that decision everyone would jump to catch the ball in front of the tackle line. For guys like Sinkler who move at pace and are big and heavy the advantage into contact would be massive.
This is where we rely on common sense from the refs. That touchstone is not what it was. The number of high tackle penalties and cards where the attacker is head first head low is getting silly. It's reaching the point where you can't tackle people and moving the advantage too heavily in the tacklers favour and the outcome of games is being decided not on foul or stupid play but micro second adjustments in body angle going into the tackle. Luckily this nonsense isn't blighting the amateur game yet.
Read was completely legitimately competing for the ball in the air in my opinion
Referee's immediate first thought was that it was an illegal challenge on the player while in the air, as he asked the TMO to check that first before then going on to check on the possible offside.
I am all for competing while in the air, BUT and it is a HUGE but the incoming player MUST be seen to be going for the ball in such a way as to attempt to catch it.
The law says :
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
A Fair challenge is with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball.
Williams had both hands out up in front ready to catch the ball.
Read was jumping in the air with his back to the ball (almost) and only one hand out, that is not enough of an attempt to catch it in my view.
It is too much of a get out clause for the player to stick one hand out and say he is going for the ball when it was blindly obvious to all around with any common sense his ONLY intention was to clear the other player out, and he had zero chance or intention of catching the ball.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,850
Except Reid was trying to slap the ball back not catch. An entirely legitimate play that the ABs had tried to use several times an succeeded at least twice with. The Ref initially blew for offside penalty but checked the compete at the Lions behest. Hence why Reid was so put out that the initial penalty was downgraded to a scrum despite clear evidence Owens caught then dropped the ball. It's always a tough penalty they routinely happen at kick off but the law is clear.
Exactly the law is clear,
The law says :
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position
Most of the a time one handed slap/tip, does still have the player in a position "to catch the ball" should they wish to, that is fair enough, you have to take the whole move in context, and in this case there was zero way Read had any chance of catching the ball, therefore it's a penalty instantly in my book, as it was not a "fair challenge" as Read was never in a "realistic position to catch the ball"
I ref a lot of matches and i stick to the letter of the law, it's a pity international ref's can't as well.
Just because they might have got away with it previously, or if they do it routinely in NZ rugby, does not make it an entirely legitimate play.
The law says :
Challenging players in the air - Law 10.4(i)
Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position
Most of the a time one handed slap/tip, does still have the player in a position "to catch the ball" should they wish to, that is fair enough, you have to take the whole move in context, and in this case there was zero way Read had any chance of catching the ball, therefore it's a penalty instantly in my book, as it was not a "fair challenge" as Read was never in a "realistic position to catch the ball"
I ref a lot of matches and i stick to the letter of the law, it's a pity international ref's can't as well.
Just because they might have got away with it previously, or if they do it routinely in NZ rugby, does not make it an entirely legitimate play.
I thought Reid was entitled to go up for that ball tbh. Looked like he was going for it with every chance of slapping back.
The Sinkler tackle was a bit different and the right call. Not something you'd see too often thankfully. He jumped to catch a poor pass which the AB defender wasn't expecting. Just unlucky really. If Sinkler had the ball and then jumped it'd be a pen to the ABs.
Odd result at the end. Would have been just awful for the series to be decided on someone's reflex to catch a ball that literally landed in their arm as running back. Always thought those reflex catch penalties where the ball bounces/rebounds like a bullet are a little harsh with a free kick being more appropriate. Sure give a pen if obviously having a go at it in an effort to stop the other team collecting it and gaining an advantage of a dropped ball.
The Sinkler tackle was a bit different and the right call. Not something you'd see too often thankfully. He jumped to catch a poor pass which the AB defender wasn't expecting. Just unlucky really. If Sinkler had the ball and then jumped it'd be a pen to the ABs.
Odd result at the end. Would have been just awful for the series to be decided on someone's reflex to catch a ball that literally landed in their arm as running back. Always thought those reflex catch penalties where the ball bounces/rebounds like a bullet are a little harsh with a free kick being more appropriate. Sure give a pen if obviously having a go at it in an effort to stop the other team collecting it and gaining an advantage of a dropped ball.
Last edited:
Agreed washout, it's classified as offside, for which the sanction is a penalty, but there does exist 'accidental offside', such as non-deliberate crossing, which I think this case is very similar to.
Agreed Read was totally entitled to go up for the ball, not disputing that at all.
However I say again, the way that Read went up, while turning/twisting in the air so he is almost with his back to the ball, with only one hand stretched out towards the ball, meant that he WAS NOT in a "a realistic position to catch the ball", no way on earth even he could catch and hold that ball with one hand in the air.
Had he got near he would only have been able to tap the ball back, and that IS NOT catching the ball which is what the law says you have to be in a position to do.
Had Read been in a position where he was up in the air with two hands out where he could have caught the ball should he have wanted to, and been able to, then fine not an issue, he could have chose not to catch, but slap/pass the ball back, all entirely within the law.
However on Saturday he only had one hand up, so he had no intention of catching the ball.
In my eyes that's a penalty all day long every day.
OK but it's a marginal thing, and something that although maybe not to the letter of the law, is generally accepted as being OK. So IMO not worth making the mountain out of a molehill that you are. Plenty of other decisions e.g. Warburton not getting done for swinging arm on Retallick, mean that as Lions supporters we have no reason to feel hard done by due to ref decisions.
Hmm, think maybe then the wording of the law is either off or perhaps they need to ban slapping back if it leads to lots of players trying to make genuine catches on their backs. Not sure that's needed and just common sense applied. After all a player may start off fully intending to catch it, realise they've misjudged and gone for the next best thing.