Sun 22 Oct: International: England v Tonga (at Totally Wicked Stadium, St Helens) KO 2.30pm

[phiggins]

21 minutes ago, dkw said:

That's because it was, it has been all season, it will be next season. Just a very odd decision. 

It was odd that the VR didn't even check the fact a player had run behind his own man. He was just happy that the defenders had run into the lead runner. Don't know if the rules allow for an attacking player to be taking out of the game by a poor defensive read?

[unapologetic pedant]

13 hours ago, Rovers13 said:

I just think a lot of it is planned and playing to obstruct now a days 

A more permissive application of the obstruction rule helps open the game up. The last 20 years have demonstrated that video refs will find problems if they are told to look for them. Those calls then feed back into on-field refereeing. And the game is more one-dimensional as a consequence.

There have been multiple instances in RUWC games I've seen that would have been deemed obstruction in League. It doesn't even occur to RU to think of those types of plays as obstruction. We shouldn't either. RL can't afford to keep finding ways to narrow the game down.

[Dunbar]

4 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

But in fairness it meant I didn't have a pint so overall a good thing!

I never thought I would live to hear such a thing.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, Leonard said:

On the way back from the GF - there were loads of people in NFL tops getting the train down for a game.

That was depressing for me - when RL is a far better product.

Yep, I guess it's not the on field product but more the whole razzmatazz around the game and the brand...although we could do more especially the GF.... 

[Damien]

3 hours ago, SUPERSTUD said:

Bit late apologies. In the past I could never make my mind up about Mikey Lewis. He struck me as being one of those type of players that an opponent would always like to crack. However he melted me when I observed him provide his live interview on the beeb. Now that is what I call passion. He would have been thinking about the endless hours that his parents/family had previously put in transporting him and encouraging him no doubt. Not to mention his previous career set backs! Well done young man you did them all proud. Apologies for me thinking that you were a little so and so.

 

 

 

That's always been one of the key traits of a good scrum half!

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

Just watched the tries on England RL on Facebook and that ball from Welsby looks even better on television than it did live. Looking forward to watching the full match on a bigger screen 

The main camera angle does it full justice, as is the case with most plays in real time. Thankfully, the BBC seem to understand this.

Unlike Sky, whose frustrating habit of needlessly cutting to low camera angles at pivotal moments ruined the men's GF try and the Tara-Jane Stanley try in the women's GF. These angles are best kept for replays.

[RBKnight]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's always been one of the key traits of a good scrum half!

To quote @Gav Wilson on Twitter, he's a "lovable sh%thouse"  - a proper throwback

We won't have a word said against him in York!

[dkw]

25 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's always been one of the key traits of a good scrum half!

My mate who was a scrum half reckoned if he finished a game without seriously annoying at least half the opposition then he hadnt done his job right.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

On point 2 - let's accept it's a bad defensive read from Smith (I disagree personally but let's park that), does this negate illegal play (crossing) because the ball was absolutely caught inside the lead runner? 

I don't think I've ever seen crossing ignored and blamed on the defence is why I ask. 

How close to the ball-carrier does a dummy runner have to be for "crossing" to be deemed obstruction? I would say 2 or 3 metres. Anything more and it's a poor defensive read.

Reinterpreting the obstruction rule as the "possibly running behind your own player" rule too often produces the awful sight of ball-carriers giving up and throwing themselves to the ground.

Got to stop making players risk-averse if we want a more open creative game.

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

How close to the ball-carrier does a dummy runner have to be for "crossing" to be deemed obstruction? I would say 2 or 3 metres. Anything more and it's a poor defensive read.

Reinterpreting the obstruction rule as the "possibly running behind your own player" rule too often produces the awful sight of ball-carriers giving up and throwing themselves to the ground.

Got to stop making players risk-averse if we want a more open creative game.

Yes, that's something that you hear the video ref refer to, the amount of depth, this one firmly fell into that 2 or 3 metres camp, I agree that's reasonable. 

For me, an important thing to look at is the lines that are beibg blocked. The route to the fullback was actively blocked by the dummy runner. King went out of his way to the dummy runner so I think it's right that he can be held responsible for that collision, however Smith doesn't deviate from his defensive position, he is in a natural defensive position yet his path to the ball carriers is blocked, that's why I think this is a problem. 

[bobbruce]

8 hours ago, phiggins said:

But in the case of the first Tonga try, the Tonga player doesn't run into the defensive line, never even gets ahead of the passer. but the two defenders go to him instead. It's just poor defence, that shouldn't be rewarded with a penalty. 

The trouble with saying any contact should be a penalty, is the same problem we have with any attempts to change or clarify the rules in that players will take the mickey and just decieve the ref to try and win penalties.

I totally agree on King that’s just a bad read but that’s smiths line to carry on defending he shouldn’t be hampered there. If as you say the lead runner is always on side then I’d agree with you it’s play on but that’s not how I saw it at the time. 

[bobbruce]

6 hours ago, Farmduck said:

I've watched it on half-speed a few times and, as happens so often, there's a half-frame we don't see where he catches the ball. It's very close. He seems to be directly behind the lead runner with no ball then 6 inches outside the runner with the ball.

At this point he just caught the ball and I would say he is outside the lead runner by a couple of inches maybe.

That only matters if he goes through the line without taking anyone out which he didn’t. 

[bobbruce]

55 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yes, that's something that you hear the video ref refer to, the amount of depth, this one firmly fell into that 2 or 3 metres camp, I agree that's reasonable. 

For me, an important thing to look at is the lines that are beibg blocked. The route to the fullback was actively blocked by the dummy runner. King went out of his way to the dummy runner so I think it's right that he can be held responsible for that collision, however Smith doesn't deviate from his defensive position, he is in a natural defensive position yet his path to the ball carriers is blocked, that's why I think this is a problem. 

Absolutely spot on. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I never thought I would live to hear such a thing.

Trying to cut down...it saved me from myself....

I still don't understand why only one bar/concession was open in our end (South stand) ....it was nearly full!

[SUPERSTUD]

4 hours ago, Damien said:

That's always been one of the key traits of a good scrum half!

Absolutely agree. Alex Murphy from years gone by.

[SUPERSTUD]

4 hours ago, RBKnight said:

To quote @Gav Wilson on Twitter, he's a "lovable sh%thouse"  - a proper throwback

We won't have a word said against him in York!

That interview definitely got me. 

[north yorks trinity]

16 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

A more permissive application of the obstruction rule helps open the game up. The last 20 years have demonstrated that video refs will find problems if they are told to look for them. Those calls then feed back into on-field refereeing. And the game is more one-dimensional as a consequence.

There have been multiple instances in RUWC games I've seen that would have been deemed obstruction in League. It doesn't even occur to RU to think of those types of plays as obstruction. We shouldn't either. RL can't afford to keep finding ways to narrow the game down.

I agree but we can't give carte blanche to dummy runners either otherwise we'd have American football style blockers. The problem with any rule, however we choose to interpret it, there will be a fine line somewhere between what's OK and what's not. 

But like you I would prefer the benefit of the doubt to favour a creative attack.

[north yorks trinity]

18 hours ago, bobbruce said:

I totally agree on King that’s just a bad read but that’s smiths line to carry on defending he shouldn’t be hampered there. If as you say the lead runner is always on side then I’d agree with you it’s play on but that’s not how I saw it at the time. 

But the lead runner is, by definition, offside the moment they move in front of the ball carrier. The relevant question is whether they are interfering with play.

Edited October 24, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[phiggins]

15 hours ago, bobbruce said:

That only matters if he goes through the line without taking anyone out which he didn’t. 

Imo, Smith and King move up to the lead runner while he is still in an onside position, i.e. before the ball has been passed to the full back, and while he is still level or behind the half back. When that collision happens, the Tonga player is just as entitled to be there as the defenders, who have both moved towards him. He can't run through the defensive line because 2 defenders have moved up and got hold of him.

The defensive line itself is a mess, with Burgess and Clark stood close together in front of the half back, and then a massive gap before Smith and King bunch together on the second rower, with Johnstone then on his own on the wing and Welsby neither here nor there at the back. Wane should focus more on that than the ref.

 

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

Imo, Smith and King move up to the lead runner while he is still in an onside position, i.e. before the ball has been passed to the full back, and while he is still level or behind the half back. When that collision happens, the Tonga player is just as entitled to be there as the defenders, who have both moved towards him. He can't run through the defensive line because 2 defenders have moved up and got hold of him.

The defensive line itself is a mess, with Burgess and Clark stood close together in front of the half back, and then a massive gap before Smith and King bunch together on the second rower, with Johnstone then on his own on the wing and Welsby neither here nor there at the back. Wane should focus more on that than the ref.

 

 

Where I disagree with this is that Smith is in a perfectly natural defending position. He hasn't deviated his position at all - King clearly has and that's why obstruction on him can be dismissed - but Smith is absolutely in a natural position, that is blocked by a Tonga player being there. That he dipped his shoulder as he is about to make contact is irrelevant, it's a natural instinct to do that. 

I also think the references to onside and offside are confusing this. This isn't about onside and offside. This is about crossing/interference.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Dave T

[phiggins]

41 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Where I disagree with this is that Smith is in a perfectly natural defending position. He hasn't deviated his position at all - King clearly has and that's why obstruction on him can be dismissed - but Smith is absolutely in a natural position, that is blocked by a Tonga player being there. That he dipped his shoulder as he is about to make contact is irrelevant, it's a natural instinct to do that. 

I also think the references to onside and offside are confusing this. This isn't about onside and offside. This is about crossing/interference.

We obviously see it differently. I don't think Smith is making a natural movement at all. He's stood still (as are the rest of the defensive line), then he steps forward and to his left to specifically tackle the runner. Unfortunately he gets it wrong. The onside / offside does come into it for me. If you're in the attacking team, and in a legitimate position to recieve a pass when the defenders push up and tackle you, what are you meant to do in that position?

Crossing is a different matter, I think the full back does run across the back of his team mate after he receives the ball, not sure whether how far behind he is makes a difference.

Just shows how difficult a job it is to referee. There won't be many decisions they have to make that is greeted with universal agreement. I'm just glad that the video ref seemed to agree with the on field decision, rather than feel obliged to go with the on field decision like we saw during the league season.

[Just Browny]

On Lewis, until this season I thought he was a touch more mouth than substance. I was wrong, he is a very good all-round player and is a threat every time with ball in hand. The sort of player we all enjoy watching.

[north yorks trinity]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

Imo, Smith and King move up to the lead runner while he is still in an onside position, i.e. before the ball has been passed to the full back...

Just a small correction in that he is offside as soon as he has moved forward of the ball carrier as per this extract from the laws of the game:

When off side 1. A player is off side except when they are in their own in-goal if the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, by one of their own team behind him.

It may be a slightly pedantic point but worth making as I don't believe it is the fact that he is offside per se that should result in a lead runner being penalised but whether he is impeding the defence unfairly, which is obviously a judgement call with a few factors reducing the subjectivity of the call e.g. inside/outside shoulder etc. So it doesn't matter if King and/or Smith move up to the lead runner after he has passed the ball carrier or not. What matters is if he deemed to be obstructing or whether the defender has made a poor read.

[north yorks trinity]

Bit of a tangent (apologies) but just wondering how all this relates to "offside within the 10".

If a lead runner goes through the line legitimately and a defender within 10 metres of them but not impeded by them goes for an intercept but knocks on is it classed as a knock on against the defender or a penalty against the attacker?

[phiggins]

12 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Just a small correction in that he is offside as soon as he has moved forward of the ball carrier as per this extract from the laws of the game:

When off side 1. A player is off side except when they are in their own in-goal if the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, by one of their own team behind him.

It may be a slightly pedantic point but worth making as I don't believe it is the fact that he is offside per se that should result in a lead runner being penalised but whether he is impeding the defence unfairly, which is obviously a judgement call with a few factors reducing the subjectivity of the call e.g. inside/outside shoulder etc. So it doesn't matter if King and/or Smith move up to the lead runner after he has passed the ball carrier or not. What matters is if he deemed to be obstructing or whether the defender has made a poor read.

My view is that the contact is initiated by the defender, not the attacker. As you say, it’s a subjective thing but in this instance, I agree with the video refs comments on it.