England v Scotland - An objective observer's report
rick boyd
ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
Since Channel Nine, Perth, decided in their gracious wisdom to screen
this game in its entirety I feel privileged to offer the viewpoint of an
objective southern hemisphere observer.
Mostly objective anyway, I mean, we all know the poms are boring and the
plucky Scots deserve every praise, but since an orgasmic Sheds will no
doubt have filed twenty ecstatic reports frothing with hyperbole and
superlatives, a bit of balance is probably called for.
Scotland started well but with an unfortunate mistake rate that
continued pretty much throughout the game. The poms were not much better
early on, but tests matches are frequently like that, aren't they? Pommy
flyhalf Grayson started the scoreboard ticking over in most un-NH
fashion with a penalty kick but some good rushes by the jock forwards
saw them almost score a try. On slow motion replay it appears to me the
ball went down fractionally before the line and was then knocked
forward, so a hairline decision by NZ referee Paddy O'Brien was correct,
although I was surprised the poms weren't pinged for a lineout
infringement that started the whole movement. Maybe O'Brien was playing
advantage but he didn't signal it.
Grayson missed a few kicks for touch, giving the Scots more possession
than they might have had but surprisingly the poms started running the
ball from quite early on. A most promising development, but without any
particular effectiveness in the first half, although both Stimpson and
Sleightholme made some good thrusts.
Then Paddy O'Brien blotted his copybook completely, with a totally
unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
superior "penalty" punishment. It was never intended for that. Granted,
the Scots were offside, and true, he did warn them, and they ignored the
warning. The proper and only response in this situation is a penalty.
There is no way in hell O'Brien could honestly say that the poms would
probably have scored a try if the jocks had been a couple of metres back
behind the goal line in an onside position when they started their
defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
morale dearly.
Grayson converted for an undeserved 10-0 lead. The Scottish lineout was
struggling, with some dreadful throw-ins by their hooker, while the poms
cleaned up 100% of their throw-ins. Both sides had difficulty retaining
possession in loose play and none of the six loose forwards on the
paddock really impressed. Gregor Townshend had one blistering run in the
first half but there was no quality support and the movement ended with
a knock on. Both sides suffered from slow passing and seemed reluctant
to offload to support players -- when there where any support players to
be found. The Scots kicked far too much, but came away with a good try
to Erickson, after Logan cleaned up a messy situation. Shepherd
converted and the jocks were close at 10-7. A bit of penalty swapping
went on for a half time score of 16-10.
So much for the first half. I thought O'Brien was a bit hasty with his
whistle, although the players certainly made few efforts to aid the
continuity of the game. Just another five nations game -- four penalty
kicks, two conversions, one opportunistic try and one God-awful penalty
try. Yawnarama.
More of the same to start the second half, two penalties to Grayson and
one to Shepherd, and the jocks were still in touch at 22-13. The poms
started to put some good attacks together, although it was mostly simple
along-the-backline stuff, with the winger kicking ahead by way of a
variation. Just when I was thinking Gomersall was kicking way too much,
big Martin Johnson emerged from a bit of a general mess near the jocks'
goaline and remembered to pass to Gomersall, who scampered in for a try.
Grayson converted.
Suddenly the poms were 29-13 clear and I just about fell out of my
armchair in surprise a couple of minutes later when they elected to tap
from a penalty in front of the posts and with good support play ran in a
try to Carling, a good reward for the old Di-hard who had a pretty good
day all round. Shortly after the jocks must have been experiencing
slight feelings of deja vu from two weeks ago, as the poms scored my
pick as try of the day with some first class multiple-phase combination
play ending up with a try to de Glanville, converted by Grayson for a
alarmingly escalated scoreline of 41-13.
But poms will be poms and this moment of glory was too much for Willie
and Phillie who were seen on screen walking back hand-in-hand,
touchingly sharing a few moments together. It's a wonder they didn't
stop, as the pongoland beer ad says, to pick flowers.
That was pretty much the match wrapped up and I would be less than kind
if I did not say absolutely full marks to the poms, some good backline
attacks, but more importantly, excellent support and maintenance of
possession through multiple phase play. This is encouraging stuff,
especially after the dismal showing against Argentina.
In the forwards, the poms held the edge in possession, and the jocks
stuffed up the scrums a few times, but all round there wasn't much in
it. Gregor Townshend was Scotland's only backs player of note as usual.
Both Gomersall and Grayson performed competently for England but Carling
was my player of the day. Sleightholme, Stimpson and even Underwood had
their moments in a fairly positive performance for England's backs.
As for the ref, well, a pretty average game I thought, too much whistle
and that simply stupid penalty try. I wouldn't be surprised if there was
a lot of moaning from the NH supporters, all too keen to get some
revenge for the criticisms handed out about NH referees.
I now look forward with great expectation to the England-France game,
which Channel Nine have generously agreed to screen here as well.
But what the hell happened in Cardiff? Not another New Dawn down the
tubes Nigel? Don't those bloody micks know when to roll over and die?
Why oh why didn't they do the job properly in the quarter finals of the
world cup in 1991?
- Rick Boyd
Terry Fitzpatrick
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
>
>(snip)
>
>Then Paddy O'Brien blotted his copybook completely, with a totally
>unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
>superior "penalty" punishment. It was never intended for that. Granted,
>the Scots were offside, and true, he did warn them, and they ignored the
>warning. The proper and only response in this situation is a penalty.
>There is no way in hell O'Brien could honestly say that the poms would
>probably have scored a try if the jocks had been a couple of metres back
>behind the goal line in an onside position when they started their
>defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
>no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
>morale dearly.
Oh dear, Rick. You must have been out getting a tinny from the fridge
when the penalty try was given. As noted elsewhere, there were three
penalisable (does this word exist?) offenses, one of which was allowed
to go as advantage was played. Maybe the penalty try was given for the
second offense when Gomersall was tackled by a couple of offside
Scots.
>
>Grayson converted for an undeserved 10-0 lead. The Scottish lineout was
>struggling, with some dreadful throw-ins by their hooker, while the poms
>cleaned up 100% of their throw-ins. Both sides had difficulty retaining
>possession in loose play and none of the six loose forwards on the
>paddock really impressed. Gregor Townshend had one blistering run in the
>first half but there was no quality support and the movement ended with
>a knock on. Both sides suffered from slow passing and seemed reluctant
>to offload to support players -- when there where any support players to
>be found. The Scots kicked far too much, but came away with a good try
>to Erickson, after Logan cleaned up a messy situation. Shepherd
>converted and the jocks were close at 10-7. A bit of penalty swapping
>went on for a half time score of 16-10.
>
>So much for the first half. I thought O'Brien was a bit hasty with his
>whistle, although the players certainly made few efforts to aid the
>continuity of the game.
Hah, here we have the epitome of SH objectivity. An NH ref. is
whistle-happy when looking after an SH match and so destroys
continuity. A whistle-happy SH ref who spoils an NH match is not to
blame, it is really the fault of the NH players who do not aid
continuity. Do I detect the slightest lack of reciprocity in this
"objective" view or am I imagining it?
>Just another five nations game -- four penalty
>kicks, two conversions, one opportunistic try and one God-awful penalty
>try. Yawnarama.
Two tries more than the RWC 95 final, and since your only criterion
for an enjoyable game is the try count, surely this was a real
cracking match in comparison to that.
>
>More of the same to start the second half, two penalties to Grayson and
>one to Shepherd, and the jocks were still in touch at 22-13. The poms
>started to put some good attacks together, although it was mostly simple
>along-the-backline stuff, with the winger kicking ahead by way of a
>variation. Just when I was thinking Gomersall was kicking way too much,
>big Martin Johnson emerged from a bit of a general mess
The correct term is a ruck. General mess is what a winger, unused to
this finer aspect of rugby play, would call it :-)
>near the jocks' goaline and remembered to pass to Gomersall, who scampered
>in for a try. Grayson converted.
>
>Suddenly the poms were 29-13 clear and I just about fell out of my
>armchair in surprise a couple of minutes later when they elected to tap
>from a penalty in front of the posts and with good support play ran in a
>try to Carling, a good reward for the old Di-hard who had a pretty good
>day all round. Shortly after the jocks must have been experiencing
>slight feelings of deja vu from two weeks ago, as the poms scored my
>pick as try of the day with some first class multiple-phase combination
>play ending up with a try to de Glanville, converted by Grayson for a
>alarmingly escalated scoreline of 41-13.
>
>But poms will be poms and this moment of glory was too much for Willie
>and Phillie who were seen on screen walking back hand-in-hand,
>touchingly sharing a few moments together.
I was looking for a reason to get this joke in so now is as good as
anywhere (and it was told to me by a NZer). A kiwi and an aussie were
out in a car when the drove past a ewe with it's head stuck in some
railings. The kiwi pulled the car up and started foaming at the mouth
admiring the little beauty so unfortunately trapped. He couldn't
control himself, so he got out and had his way with the ewe (language
moderated for minors). When he got back in the car, he smiled at the
aussie and said "why don't you get out and have a piece of that,
mate?". The aussie looked unsure at first, but soon overcame his
bashfulness and jumped out of the car and stuck his head between the
railings.
>It's a wonder they didn't
>stop, as the pongoland beer ad says, to pick flowers.
>
>That was pretty much the match wrapped up and I would be less than kind
>if I did not say absolutely full marks to the poms, some good backline
>attacks, but more importantly, excellent support and maintenance of
>possession through multiple phase play. This is encouraging stuff,
>especially after the dismal showing against Argentina.
>
>In the forwards, the poms held the edge in possession, and the jocks
>stuffed up the scrums a few times,
Not as often as England gave the ball away by getting held up in mauls
though. Something that they really must stop. That turned over a hell
of a lot of good possession throughout the match.
>but all round there wasn't much in
>it. Gregor Townshend was Scotland's only backs player of note as usual.
Apart from the odd break, I didn't see anything that merits the sort
of accolades that get heaped on him. I appreciate that it was a bit of
an off day, but he did not have a good match.
>Both Gomersall and Grayson performed competently for England but Carling
>was my player of the day. Sleightholme, Stimpson and even Underwood had
>their moments in a fairly positive performance for England's backs.
I agree with this except for the bit about Underwood.
>
>As for the ref, well, a pretty average game I thought, too much whistle
>and that simply stupid penalty try. I wouldn't be surprised if there was
>a lot of moaning from the NH supporters, all too keen to get some
>revenge for the criticisms handed out about NH referees.
No revenge, Rick. It was just an honour for us to be able to see these
refereeing wonders from the SH at first hand. OK, so now we've
experienced it and if that's your best, you're welcome to them. Give
me Bevan any day.
>
>I now look forward with great expectation to the England-France game,
>which Channel Nine have generously agreed to screen here as well.
>
>But what the hell happened in Cardiff? Not another New Dawn down the
>tubes Nigel? Don't those bloody micks know when to roll over and die?
>Why oh why didn't they do the job properly in the quarter finals of the
>world cup in 1991?
>
Don't mock the afflicted, Rick. (Leave that job to Sheds).
Regards
Terry
Steve Howie
Terry Fitzpatrick <te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:Oh dear, Rick. You must have been out getting a tinny from the fridge
:when the penalty try was given. As noted elsewhere, there were three
:penalisable (does this word exist?) offenses, one of which was allowed
:to go as advantage was played. Maybe the penalty try was given for the
:second offense when Gomersall was tackled by a couple of offside
:Scots.
Oh Dear, Terry. Read the law book. "A penalty try shall be awarded when,
in the opinion of the referee, a try would *probably* have been scored".
Not so in this case. The ref. made up an excuse to award the penalty try
:I was looking for a reason to get this joke in so now is as good as
:anywhere (and it was told to me by a NZer). A kiwi and an aussie were
:out in a car when the drove past a ewe with it's head stuck in some
:railings. The kiwi pulled the car up and started foaming at the mouth
:admiring the little beauty so unfortunately trapped. He couldn't
:control himself, so he got out and had his way with the ewe (language
:moderated for minors). When he got back in the car, he smiled at the
:aussie and said "why don't you get out and have a piece of that,
:mate?". The aussie looked unsure at first, but soon overcame his
:bashfulness and jumped out of the car and stuck his head between the
:railings.
hehe :)
:Not as often as England gave the ball away by getting held up in mauls
:though. Something that they really must stop. That turned over a hell
:of a lot of good possession throughout the match.
Indeed they did
Scotty
=======================================================
Steve Howie email: sho...@uoguelph.ca
Netnews and Listserv Admin fax: (519) 763-6143
University of Guelph phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556
If it's not Scottish its CRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP
=======================================================
Kevin Kelly
rick boyd wrote:
> ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
> unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
> defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
> no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
> morale dearly.
If it cost their morale dearly, then surely it had some influence on the
outcome of the game. Bear in mind that Scotland were within three points
until midway through the second half, and they had the wind.
> But poms will be poms and this moment of glory was too much for Willie
> and Phillie who were seen on screen walking back hand-in-hand,
> touchingly sharing a few moments together. It's a wonder they didn't
> stop, as the pongoland beer ad says, to pick flowers.
Quite !
>
> As for the ref, well, a pretty average game I thought, too much whistle
> and that simply stupid penalty try. I wouldn't be surprised if there was
> a lot of moaning from the NH supporters, all too keen to get some
> revenge for the criticisms handed out about NH referees.
Just so as not to disappoint you I thought he was Crap !
KK
Terry Fitzpatrick
Steve Howie <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Terry Fitzpatrick <te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:Oh dear, Rick. You must have been out getting a tinny from the fridge
>:when the penalty try was given. As noted elsewhere, there were three
>:penalisable (does this word exist?) offenses, one of which was allowed
>:to go as advantage was played. Maybe the penalty try was given for the
>:second offense when Gomersall was tackled by a couple of offside
>:Scots.
>
>Oh Dear, Terry. Read the law book. "A penalty try shall be awarded when,
>in the opinion of the referee, a try would *probably* have been scored".
>
I would have to dig out one of my old programmes to find the exact
reference, but I am sure I read something not long into the season
where at a meeting between referees and coaches, they thrashed out the
circumstances under which a penalty try would be awarded, and what it
came down to was second offense gets a warning, third offense a
penalty try is awarded. I'll try to check up on that to make sure it's
not just my memory playing tricks. Does anyone else have any
recollection of this? If that is right then IMHO the penalty try was
awarded for a third offense.
>(snip)
Regards
Terry
Dead man walking
>Grayson converted for an undeserved 10-0 lead. The Scottish lineout was
>struggling, with some dreadful throw-ins by their hooker, while the poms
>cleaned up 100% of their throw-ins. Both sides had difficulty retaining
In the first half I think they had 1 throw in - so yes they won 100% of their
own. It seemed a definite Scottish tactic to run the ball from everywhere, with
a 50-50 chance of second phase, rather than boot the ball upfield and into
touch so giving England possession at the lineout. I'm sure Reed, Weir et al.
are happy at this vote of confidence in them.
Again one of the re-starts was short - leading to a scrum, English ball and try.
What the hell was Townsend doing on the dropouts. Another vote of confidence
in his forwards: "You're not going to win the ball so I'm going to try a little
kick through so we can get possesion" - bollocks. Once when he did that they
went
*back* 5 meters.
In all I thought Townsend's game was a bit desperate, as if he knew that Scot-
land would lose *except* by some amazing bit of his skill.
Oh well.
Re:Wales v Ireland.
Woudl someone please tell Neil Jenkins that if he has No 15 on his back he
should play full-back, not an extra fly-half. At times he was woefully out of
position, and whilst it's a good idea to come into the line *at times* to do it
*all* the time is just not on...especially when the opposition get the ball and
boot it downfield into a big open space.
What was James on? A couple of times, inside his own 22, he chooses to run the
ball - and gets ooh 5 yards outside the 22 when he had Jenkins the boot there
to knock it 50 yds downfield.
summary:
Eng. 7/10 - get a number 8 and a replacement for Underpants (gusscott ;-^)
otherwise not bad.
Scot. 3/10 - good in parts - very few though. Pity Andy Nicol was injured
in the A-game. Major changes?
Wales 5/10 - Fell to pieces a bit - Evans really can be proud of his play
but few others. More team work needed.
Ire 6/10 - Great improvement - team work, movement, fast game. Bit too
'helter skelter' and not enough Stamina. The pack may
well suffer vs Eng.
TTFN.
John Morgan
>Don't mock the afflicted, Rick. (Leave that job to Sheds).
Jesus, talk about the blind leading the blind...
John
--
"I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always
agree with them." -- George Bush
Ben Clegg
In article <32f80948...@news.demon.co.uk>, te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk
(Terry Fitzpatrick) wrote:
<<Stuff deleted>>
>I would have to dig out one of my old programmes to find the exact
>reference, but I am sure I read something not long into the season
>where at a meeting between referees and coaches, they thrashed out the
>circumstances under which a penalty try would be awarded, and what it
>came down to was second offense gets a warning, third offense a
>penalty try is awarded. I'll try to check up on that to make sure it's
>not just my memory playing tricks. Does anyone else have any
>recollection of this? If that is right then IMHO the penalty try was
>awarded for a third offense.
This is the rough formula that they agreed upon in English club rugby I
believe, to try to make the "repeated offending" penalty tries seem less
arbitrary. It was basically because referees (as well as many observers)
were beginning to look at situations in which cynical attempts to prevent
the opposition from having the opportunity to create try scoring
situations were not being adequately deterred. This basically resulted in
applying the logic of "but for the repeated offences, the team would
probably have scored, hence a penalty try".
I don't think the laws as written really cover it (although they do permit
repeated offences to be punished, ultimately via a sending off), but it is
often possible to fit the laws to your desired interpretation (since the
laws do not convey information about the intention of the law, therefore
we are left with interpretation of what is actually there).
Cheers,
Ben
=====================================================================
| Ben Clegg |
| mailto:be...@oregon.uoregon.edu |
| WWW: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~benc |
=====================================================================
John Daly
>
>But what the hell happened in Cardiff? Not another New Dawn down the
>tubes Nigel? Don't those bloody micks know when to roll over and die?
It really gets to me - this constant air of surprise expressed at the
Cardiff result. That's the sixth win in the last seven outings at
Cardiff (the other one drawn). It's also Ireland's fouth consecutive
win against Wales. Why so much surprise? Just because we weren't
talking about a new dawn after a reasonable performance against
France?
Cheers,
John Daly
Ian Diddams
rick boyd wrote:
>
> Then Paddy O'Brien blotted his copybook completely, with a totally
> unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
> superior "penalty" punishment. It was never intended for that. Granted,
> the Scots were offside, and true, he did warn them, and they ignored the
> warning. The proper and only response in this situation is a penalty.
> There is no way in hell O'Brien could honestly say that the poms would
> probably have scored a try if the jocks had been a couple of metres back
> behind the goal line in an onside position when they started their
> defensive movement.
Sorry Rick, you may be a club mate but I have to totally disagree here.
When Gomersall took the tap penalty after the scrummage infringement in
the corner, he was tackled by Scots in an iffside position ie not back
ten yards/behind the goal line. At that moment there was not one Scot
behind the goal line and thus in a position to stop Gomersall from
scoring. As such, a probable try was thwarted by illegal means, and
that is a penalty try.
The fact that O'Brien played advantage (why?) and then came out with
this twaddle about two/three repeat infringements is evidence to me that
he, and I suspect many other refs, are actually using this ridiculous
several-strikes-and-you-are-out interpretation to AVOID having to give
penalty tries.
I agree that this "new" interpretation is ridiculous; I agree that it is
less than probable that De Glanville would have scored/Rodber would have
been in support to score. But the fact remains that O'Brien did NOT
award the penalty try that should have been given, and then awarded the
one that should not have.
As for constant infringement, it would seem to me that the logical
solution is some form of dismissal (sin bin?), or at least a formal
yellow card scenrio, witn two strikes and you're off. Or a general
warning that the next infringer is off (still pretty dodgy if you ask
me).
Didds.
Disclaimer : The views expressed above do not necessarily relect those
of PCSI, Cirrus Logic, or Rockwell.
Remove final "*" from email address
rick boyd
Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Oh dear, Rick. You must have been out getting a tinny from the
> fridge when the penalty try was given. As noted elsewhere, there
> were three penalisable (does this word exist?) offenses, one of
> which was allowed to go as advantage was played. Maybe the penalty
> try was given for the second offense when Gomersall was tackled by
> a couple of offside Scots.
Sorry, Tel, you've lost me with this one. What are you saying? The
penalty try was given for the second offence? It doesn't matter if there
were 19 offences in a row, the penalty try can only be given when a try
probably would have been scored but for the offence. The try is not a
superior punishment -- it is a reward for placing the ball over the try
line. The penalty try is awarded when the ball would probably have been
placed over the tryline but for the offence. I saw nothing in the
instance in question where this applied. It was just another backline
attack and just another offside defence. It should have been a penalty
kick.
> Hah, here we have the epitome of SH objectivity. An NH ref.
> is whistle-happy when looking after an SH match and so
> destroys continuity. A whistle-happy SH ref who spoils an NH match
> is not to blame, it is really the fault of the NH players who do
> not aid continuity. Do I detect the slightest lack of reciprocity
> in this "objective" view or am I imagining it?
You're imagining it. Didn't I just say there was too much whistle?
Didn't I just say the penalty try was crap? Doesn't this sound like
criticism to you? I wasn't particularly impressed by O'Brien's display,
but his job was made harder by the number of mistakes the players in
this game made. Objective opinion, I think.
>
> Two tries more than the RWC 95 final, and since your only
> criterion for an enjoyable game is the try count, surely this was
>a real cracking match in comparison to that.
You won't find me holding up the World Cup 95 final as an example of a
great game. One team of very average triers doing nothing against one
team of stunned mullets suffering from emissions at both ends doing
nothing, and the result a lottery of drop kicks. A crap game -- the
worst Five Nations game I've ever seen looked breath-takingly
scintillating by comparison.
> The correct term is a ruck. General mess is what a winger, unused
> to this finer aspect of rugby play, would call it :-)
What would a prop know about rucks? They're never fast enough to get to
one. :-)
> I was looking for a reason to get this joke in so now is as good
> as anywhere (and it was told to me by a NZer). A kiwi and an
> aussie were out in a car when the drove past a ewe with it's head
> stuck in some railings. The kiwi pulled the car up and started
> foaming at the mouth admiring the little beauty so
> unfortunately trapped. He couldn't control himself, so he got out
> and had his way with the ewe (language moderated for minors). When
> he got back in the car, he smiled at the aussie and said "why don't
> you get out and have a piece of that, mate?". The aussie looked
> unsure at first, but soon overcame his bashfulness and jumped out
> of the car and stuck his head between the railings.
Love it. But then the Aussies are usually f***ed once we get hold of
them.
Then there was the Kiwi who was marooned on a desert island. Not far up
the beach he sees a plump young ewe. The weeks go by and the ewe is
starting to look pretty attractive. One day in desperation he goes for a
walk and tries to sneak up on the ewe. Out jumps a huge fierce Alsatian
and chases him away. The months pass and the Kiwi gets more and more
desperate, but every time he approaches the sheep the Alsation chases
him off. One day he spots a gorgeous, nubile young blonde in the ocean,
clinging to a piece of wreckage. He bravely swims out and carries her
ashore. "Oh thank you," gasps this vision of loveliness, naked but for a
few scraps of wet cloth, "You saved my life -- I'll do anything you
want." "Anything?" asks the Kiwi. "Anything at all," she gasps, her
astonishing tits heaving. "Good," says the Kiwi, "Take this bloody
Alsation for a walk will you?"
> I agree with this except for the bit about Underwood.
Strike me pink. My life is suddenly worthwhile. :-)
> No revenge, Rick. It was just an honour for us to be able to see
> these refereeing wonders from the SH at first hand. OK, so now
> we've experienced it and if that's your best, you're welcome to
> them. Give me Bevan any day.
He's yours. Please keep him.
> Don't mock the afflicted, Rick. (Leave that job to Sheds).
Sorry.
- Rick
Uncle Dave
John Daly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:42:05 +0800, rick boyd
> <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >tubes Nigel? Don't those bloody micks know when to roll over and die?
>
> Cardiff result. That's the sixth win in the last seven outings at
> Cardiff (the other one drawn). It's also Ireland's fouth consecutive
> win against Wales. Why so much surprise? Just because we weren't
> talking about a new dawn after a reasonable performance against
> France?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Daly
John has good reason to feel aggrieved. Although no result
is a foregone conclusion, this one was always going to be
very tight given the recent form of the two sides. I went
for Ireland to shade it because there was more promise in
their performance against France than in Wales's against
Scotland. In the former there was real fight, skill and
determination on show - Brian Ashton's arrival seemed to
spark something. OTOH, taking a slightly cynical viewpoint,
Wales's win could be seen as an aberration relying to no
small part on the luck of the bounce although it was one
of Wales' most promising 5N performances for years as the
luck at least had some sort of base this time.
Sorry, but that's the way for the form book crumbles. And
Ireland's record at Cardiff ought to have rung alarm bells
in the Welsh supporters' ears. Unhappy truth is that teams
go to Cardiff nowadays expecting to win and we're some way
off that particular ghost being laid to rest. I realise
I'm only English and therefore my opinion is worth rather
less than a dragon's fart, but it seems to me that the best
thing Wales fans could do is stop expecting more than their
team can give and settle down to the long hard slog to make
it back to the top.
BTW, I got (privately) flamed for suggesting that Wales
are no longer one of rugby's top nations in a recent
posting. This - and the euphoria surrounding the win
against the Scots - shows just how out of touch with
reality Welsh supporters have become. It's not that
long ago when I would be over the moon at any England
win because there were so few of them but things came
good. Wales will be back and hopefully now they have the
management attitude that to get there will take hard work
and sticking with a plan and not running around like
headless chickens changing the team wholesale every time they
lose. Their supporters would do well to do the same.
In the meantime, full marks to Ireland for doing what was
expected of them...
UD
P.S. You might say it's easy enough for me to talk but in the 25
years I've followed the 5N it's only in a very few that England have
been the equal or better of Wales...
Terry Fitzpatrick
>I wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, Rick. You must have been out getting a tinny from the
>> fridge when the penalty try was given. As noted elsewhere, there
>> were three penalisable (does this word exist?) offenses, one of
>> which was allowed to go as advantage was played. Maybe the penalty
>> try was given for the second offense when Gomersall was tackled by
>> a couple of offside Scots.
>
>Sorry, Tel, you've lost me with this one. What are you saying? The
>penalty try was given for the second offence? It doesn't matter if there
>were 19 offences in a row, the penalty try can only be given when a try
>probably would have been scored but for the offence. The try is not a
>superior punishment -- it is a reward for placing the ball over the try
>line.
I have posted this elsewhere, but my recollection was of an earlier
guideline given to referees in England (don't know about Wales,
Scotland, Ireland) trying to formulate when a penalty try was
appropriate and it came down, rather simplistically it appeared, to an
offense count. The other point was that the penalty try was given
after a string of offenses and not just one. I still do not think it
was a good decision either, I am probably just trying to rationalise
the irrational (is that the same as playing devil's advocate?).
>The penalty try is awarded when the ball would probably have been
>placed over the tryline but for the offence. I saw nothing in the
>instance in question where this applied. It was just another backline
>attack and just another offside defence. It should have been a penalty
>kick.
>
"Probably have been" is very subjective and is always open to debate /
disagreement / reasoned argument / insults / etc., I would love to
have an answer as to how to make it more objective. Until then, we
will continue to have apparent inconsistencies due to different
perceptions of what was probable. For instance, if the whole of the
back line was offside and therefore could not legally stop the move
and so took no part in that play, there would have been a huge hole
for anyone to run through (even Underwood) and a try would certainly
have been scored! Is that not a reasonable description of what
happened on Saturday?
Regards
Terry
Steve Howie
Ian Diddams <di...@aol.com*> wrote:
:Sorry Rick, you may be a club mate but I have to totally disagree here.
:When Gomersall took the tap penalty after the scrummage infringement in
:the corner, he was tackled by Scots in an iffside position ie not back
:ten yards/behind the goal line. At that moment there was not one Scot
:behind the goal line and thus in a position to stop Gomersall from
:scoring. As such, a probable try was thwarted by illegal means, and
:that is a penalty try.
Sorry, Didds - but I totally disagree here. There were at least two other
Scottish players lining up the "long-haired greasy poof from Bedford
School" (Who *did* say that, anyway? :)). There was no way a try was on.
:The fact that O'Brien played advantage (why?) and then came out with
:this twaddle about two/three repeat infringements is evidence to me that
:he, and I suspect many other refs, are actually using this ridiculous
:several-strikes-and-you-are-out interpretation to AVOID having to give
:penalty tries.
:I agree that this "new" interpretation is ridiculous; I agree that it is
Totally agree
:less than probable that De Glanville would have scored/Rodber would have
:been in support to score. But the fact remains that O'Brien did NOT
:award the penalty try that should have been given, and then awarded the
:one that should not have.
:As for constant infringement, it would seem to me that the logical
:solution is some form of dismissal (sin bin?), or at least a formal
As currently stated in the laws.
:yellow card scenrio, witn two strikes and you're off. Or a general
:warning that the next infringer is off (still pretty dodgy if you ask
:me).
And that is exactly how the law states it. The punishment is already in
place. O'Brien just seemed to forget about the rule.
Daryl Johnson
Uncle Dave (uncle...@compuserve.com) wrote:
(snip)
::> Sorry, but that's the way for the form book crumbles. And
::> Ireland's record at Cardiff ought to have rung alarm bells
::> in the Welsh supporters' ears. Unhappy truth is that teams
::> go to Cardiff nowadays expecting to win and we're some way
::> off that particular ghost being laid to rest. I realise
Yup. Hate to be a Welshman agreeing with you but it often seems to me that
there are too many in Wales (not the players though) who think that Wales
should be the cream of the crop by right. They are too willing to overlook
all the factors that count towards actually being the cream of the crop.
::> BTW, I got (privately) flamed for suggesting that Wales
That's a shame. If you comment in public then you get supported or flamed
in public. Private flaming is just sneaky!
::> are no longer one of rugby's top nations in a recent
::> posting. This - and the euphoria surrounding the win
::> against the Scots - shows just how out of touch with
::> reality Welsh supporters have become. It's not that
Again yes. One win and everyone and his brother/sister is talking about new
bloody dawns. It's infuriating.
::> long ago when I would be over the moon at any England
::> win because there were so few of them but things came
::> good. Wales will be back and hopefully now they have the
::> management attitude that to get there will take hard work
::> and sticking with a plan and not running around like
::> headless chickens changing the team wholesale every time they
::> lose. Their supporters would do well to do the same.
You heard it here first folks - it's his own opinion too ;-)
--
*-------------------------------------------------------*
Daryl Johnson
Just because I'm Welsh it doesn't make me a bard person.
*-------------------------------------------------------*
Steve Howie
Terry Fitzpatrick <te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:"Probably have been" is very subjective and is always open to debate /
:disagreement / reasoned argument / insults / etc., I would love to
:have an answer as to how to make it more objective. Until then, we
:will continue to have apparent inconsistencies due to different
:perceptions of what was probable. For instance, if the whole of the
:back line was offside and therefore could not legally stop the move
:and so took no part in that play, there would have been a huge hole
:for anyone to run through (even Underwood) and a try would certainly
:have been scored! Is that not a reasonable description of what
:happened on Saturday?
I hate to keep harping on about this, Terry, but even with the offside
Scottish backs there were others waiting behind in an on-side position, or
just slightly off to the side. I know awarding a penalty try is a very
subjective thing, but there is no possible way the English backs could
have scored there.
Referees can't rewrite the laws to suit themselves, regardless of 'local'
dispensations or whatever crap they call it. Either O'Brien suddenly got
blurred vision in one and had problems seeing out of the other, or he has
supreme confidence in the abilities of the English backs to pull a Jonah
Lomu and cast aside bodies attempting to tackle them. I don't think either
case is true. He just fucked up - plain and simple.
Paul Dutton
>>Don't mock the afflicted, Rick. (Leave that job to Sheds).
>Jesus, talk about the blind leading the blind...
In the land of the blind the One-Eyed man is King.
rick boyd
Steve Howie wrote:
>
> Ian Diddams <di...@aol.com*> wrote:
>
>> Sorry Rick, you may be a club mate but I have to totally
>> in an iffside position ie not back ten yards/behind the goal line.
>> At that moment there was not one Scot behind the goal line and
>> thus in a position to stop Gomersall from scoring. As such,
>> a probable try was thwarted by illegal means, and that is a
>> penalty try.
>
> Sorry, Didds - but I totally disagree here.
Didds old chap, it is my unhappy task to tell you you have firmly
grasped the wrong end of the stick with this one. Steve is right and you
are wrong. The proper punishment for offside is a penalty. The laws say
that the penalty try should be awarded where, but for an offence, a try
would probably have been scored. In this circumstance it was most
IMprobable that a try would have been scored even if all the Scots backs
had been onside. This is the correct way to look at applying this law.
The possibility of an English try was not significantly changed by the
position, onside or offside, of the Scottish backs. The probable result
in this and most other normal attacking situations, as we have all seen
9 million times, is a defender tackles an attacker, and no try is
scored.
The situation you are talking about would come into consideration if,
for instance, an attacker was facing one defender, the defender came
from an offside position to tackle the attacker, and the referee decided
the tackle could not have occurred but for the offside position (or in
other words the tackle would not have have been possible had the player
been onside), and a try would certainly have resulted.
As I'm sure you can now see, this is not the case in the England/Scotand
game.
I understand that you props never actually find yourseves in attacking
positions with ball in hand and tryline in sight, so obviously you have
never had to face this conundrum before. :-)
Kia Kaha!
- Rick Boyd
rick boyd
John Daly wrote:
> It really gets to me - this constant air of surprise expressed at
> the Cardiff result. That's the sixth win in the last seven outings
> at Cardiff (the other one drawn). It's also Ireland's fouth
> consecutive win against Wales. Why so much surprise? Just because
> we weren't talking about a new dawn after a reasonable
> performance againstFrance?
I dunno Johnno, me old Jedi impersonator, I'm not convinced about these
venue hoodoos. I mean, do the Irish really play better in Cardiff? Do
they really have the Welsh worked out? Or is it just the way things have
happened? The expectations for this year's Scotland/Ireland game were
based more on the results against Italy, as far as I was concerned
anyway, a more recent indicator of form than Five Nations results from
four years ago. And the recent creditable performance of Wales against
Scotland, and I'm not talking about scoring some fairly fortunate tries,
but about some quality personnel in the team and good backing up and
support play.
The only variable as far as I was concerned was simply Ireland's
notorious ability to rise to the challenge like men possessed by the
spirit of Chuchulain (sp?) for no apparent reason other than they want
to. I recall the Ireland tour to New Zealand a few years back. First
test, the Irish are hell on wheels, and the All Blacks struggled to
grind out a torrid and fairly close win. Two weeks later the Irish are
away having a picnic with the leprechauns and the All Blacks put 50
points on them. Who can understand the workings of the celtic mind?
- Rick Boyd
Gareth Davies
Rick boyd wrote:
>
> ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
>
> Scotland started well but with an unfortunate mistake rate that
> continued pretty much throughout the game. The poms were not much better
> early on, but tests matches are frequently like that, aren't they?
<snip>
>
>
> Then Paddy O'Brien blotted his copybook completely, with a totally
> unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
> superior "penalty" punishment. It was never intended for that. Granted,
> the Scots were offside, and true, he did warn them, and they ignored the
> warning. The proper and only response in this situation is a penalty.
> There is no way in hell O'Brien could honestly say that the poms would
> probably have scored a try if the jocks had been a couple of metres back
> behind the goal line in an onside position when they started their
> defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
> no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
> morale dearly.
Either you assume
(i) That if they weren't infringing then the offending players would
have been defending legally from a legal standpoint, (your assumption,
hence no penalty try) OR
(ii) You assume that the offending players would otherwise have been out
of the game, leaving the way clear for the try to be scored, (O'Brien's
assumption) FWIW I think that O'brien didn't have control of the game
early enough and felt the need to get that control by slapping someone
down hard, but the offence was committed. My own gripe is that players
are taking taps from nowhere near the mark, and often without properly
touching the ball in their rush to 'buy' a penalty try.
<snip>
gareth davies FOP
Tom Weston
In article <32F942...@worksafe.wa.gov.au>,
>John Daly wrote:
[...a complaint some people considering Wales as favourites for W v. I]
and rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> replied:
>
>I dunno Johnno, me old Jedi impersonator, I'm not convinced about these
>venue hoodoos. I mean, do the Irish really play better in Cardiff? Do
>they really have the Welsh worked out? Or is it just the way things have
>happened?
You've hit the nail on the head here, IMO. Ireland are far more
streetwise than Wales in the 5N. Recent form suggests Wales and
Ireland are fairly evenly matched, but Ireland can raise their
game for key matches and are very good at spotting and exploiting
Welsh weaknesses.
Ireland lose two warm-up games (Samoa & Italy) and every one writes
them off, but, when it comes to the Welsh game they play to their
strengths - that is a spoiling game - grab some opportunist tries
and get ahead. Wales, in front of a very critical home crowd, fall
to pieces, and only get there game together in the second half, by
which time it's too late. All credit to the Irish.
The converse is, of course, Wales good form over the last
few years (apart from the most recent) in Dublin.
Tom
--
Tom Weston http://hawk.thchem.ox.ac.uk/~tom/
thch...@ermine.ox.ac.uk
Lisa Smith
In article <5d9gel$i...@pcsi.pcsi.cirrus.com>, Ian Diddams
<di...@aol.com*> writes
>
> he was tackled by Scots in an iffside position ie not back
>ten yards/behind the goal line.
>
I aint half glad you explained what an 'iffside' position was:-)
--
Lisa
William A. T. Clark
Actually "iffside" is now vernacular for a marginal offside. The decision
is somewhat "iffy", hence the term "iffside".
Hope this helps.
William Clark
John Daly
>John Daly wrote:
>> It really gets to me - this constant air of surprise expressed at
>> the Cardiff result. That's the sixth win in the last seven outings
>> at Cardiff (the other one drawn). It's also Ireland's fouth
>> consecutive win against Wales. Why so much surprise? Just because
>> we weren't talking about a new dawn after a reasonable
>> performance againstFrance?
>
>I dunno Johnno, me old Jedi impersonator, I'm not convinced about these
>venue hoodoos. I mean, do the Irish really play better in Cardiff? Do
>they really have the Welsh worked out? Or is it just the way things have
>happened? The expectations for this year's Scotland/Ireland game were
>based more on the results against Italy, as far as I was concerned
>anyway, a more recent indicator of form than Five Nations results from
>four years ago. And the recent creditable performance of Wales against
>Scotland, and I'm not talking about scoring some fairly fortunate tries,
>but about some quality personnel in the team and good backing up and
>support play.
>
Leaving aside the venue business and the four consecutive wins , I
would have thought that the respective performances against Australia
were a far better guide than the Italians. Did you see the Ireland Vs
France match BTW. Wales had a good win in Murrayfield, but anyone who
saw both games in their entirety would have noticed that the Dublin
game was played at a much quicker pace than the Edinburgh one. And,
yes, Ireland *could* have won it. Ireland always struggle against
(supposed) lesser nations. The mindset needs to change in that regard.
You might also have noticed that I was complaining about this "Wales
ought to win handily" attitude *before* the match. Not just being wise
after the event :-)
Cheers,
John 'outraged' Daly
Steve Howie
Lisa Smith <csd@cablecare> wrote:
:In article <5d9gel$i...@pcsi.pcsi.cirrus.com>, Ian Diddams
:<di...@aol.com*> writes
:>
:> he was tackled by Scots in an iffside position ie not back
:>ten yards/behind the goal line.
:>
:I aint half glad you explained what an 'iffside' position was:-)
Didds: Sure you're not from Sewith Iffrica originally? :)
Rob Lord
Kevin Kelly wrote:
>
> rick boyd wrote:
> > ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
> > unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
> > defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
> > no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
> > morale dearly.
>
> outcome of the game. Bear in mind that Scotland were within three points
> until midway through the second half, and they had the wind.
>
>
> > and Phillie who were seen on screen walking back hand-in-hand,
> > touchingly sharing a few moments together. It's a wonder they didn't
> > stop, as the pongoland beer ad says, to pick flowers.
>
>
> >
> > As for the ref, well, a pretty average game I thought, too much whistle
> > and that simply stupid penalty try. I wouldn't be surprised if there was
> > a lot of moaning from the NH supporters, all too keen to get some
> > revenge for the criticisms handed out about NH referees.
>
>
>Ref was within his rights to award a penalty try if he felt a
defenders infringement stopped a probable try. If the infringement was
the Scottish defenders not being back the required distance when England
took the quick tap, the penalty try should have been awarded immediately
since there would be no greater advantage than a try awarded under the
black dot. To play advantage from this incident made no sense.
Cheers, Rob
Ian Diddams
rick boyd wrote:
> The proper punishment for offside is a penalty. The laws say
> that the penalty try should be awarded where, but for an offence, a try
> would probably have been scored.
And if a probable try is prevented by someone offside? Penalty _try_.
> In this circumstance it was most
> IMprobable that a try would have been scored even if all the Scots backs
> had been onside. This is the correct way to look at applying this law.
But they weren't onside at Gomersall's tap - I will check the video
tonight (we've had my mum staying and it wasn't diplomatic to make her
watch rugby when she's looked after the kids all day!!) after Steve's
suggestion that there may have been on-side defence - so why it is
improbable that he would have scored? Save infringement by offside
players.
> The situation you are talking about would come into consideration if,
> for instance, an attacker was facing one defender, the defender came
> from an offside position to tackle the attacker, and the referee decided
> the tackle could not have occurred but for the offside position (or in
> other words the tackle would not have have been possible had the player
> been onside), and a try would certainly have resulted.
Well, in this interpretation you are saying (I think!) that IF the
offside tackler hadn't have been offside, but in fact on-side, then a
tackle could have been effected and no penalty try could be awarded.
This effectively _gives_ defending players two bites of the cherry -
tackle if you is, and tackle if you ain't. I would say that an off-side
player is effectively out of the game and as such can have no effect on
it until on-side; thus the off-side tacklers (in Gomersall's case) were
not in a legal position to affect the game and as such had no right to
interfere with a clear run to the line and a score. Hence, my claim for
a penalty try.
With your interpretation, players could stand offside all afternoon,
close down the oppo and prevent all those lovely flowing tries you
crave, and argue to the ref that "but IF I'd been onside he probably
wouldn't have scored anyway....". Hardly an interpretation to promote
open rugby, given that it basically ensures any atatcks would only be
worth three points via a "boring" boot, rather than 5 via swivelling
hips, speeding backs and gracefull touch-downs. Which scenario would
you prefer Rick?
> As I'm sure you can now see, this is not the case in the
> England/Scotand game.
Sorry, still disagree, but I promise I'll check the video
_very_carefully tonight; take it as a token of my esteem for both
yourself and Steve that I accept you may be right concerning the onside
tacklers :-)
> I understand that you props never actually find yourseves in attacking
> positions with ball in hand and tryline in sight, so obviously you
> have never had to face this conundrum before. :-)
Bog off Rick... :-)
> Kia Kaha!
And kia kaha to you too. Mine's a Resch's down the Alexandria. Cuz.
Hoo hoo.
rick boyd
Gareth Davies wrote:
> Can't say I agree with this Rick. There's two ways of looking at
> it.
> Either you assume
> (i) That if they weren't infringing then the offending players
> would have been defending legally from a legal standpoint,
> (your assumption, hence no penalty try) OR
> (ii) You assume that the offending players would otherwise have
> been out of the game, leaving the way clear for the try to be
> scored, (O'Brien's assumption) FWIW I think that O'brien didn't
> have control of the game early enough and felt the need to get
> that control by slapping someone down hard, but the offence
> was committed. My own gripe is that players are taking taps
> from nowhere near the mark, and often without properly
> touching the ball in their rush to 'buy' a penalty try.
Which just shows what an idiotic idea it is to regard the try as a
penalty device of any sort. Perhaps they should have called the penalty
try a "differential try" or something, to remove from thickhead
referees' brains the idea that the try had any function as a punishment.
I believe O'Brien was operating under the British "innovation", or
"retrovation" as i prefer to think of it, that after three warnings you
award a penalty try. I doubt that O'Brien was under any illusion about
the situations where a penalty try would properly be awarded. He would
have looked at the Scottish backs and thought (a) the Scottish defenders
are offside, but if they were all onside there is no greater likelihood
of a try occurring. Result: penalty; or (b) the Scottish defenders are
offside, and if they were all onside they would not be able to get to
the attackers in time to make a tackle. Result: penalty try.
See? It's simple really.
Think what is going through the Scottish defenders minds. "Oh dear, I am
offside. If I make a tackle now I will be acting illegally. I'll just
step aside and let Will Carling score under the posts." Ha! Some chance.
They make the tackle and cop the penalty.
Just because the defending players are acting illegally, they are not
"out of the game". They are acting in a certain way, and there is a
prescribed punishment to deal with that. If a try was probable had they
been acting legally, that is different. But I'm sure you will agree, had
they been acting legally, a try was not probable. Possible, obviously,
but not probable.
- Rick Boyd
Steve Howie
Ian Diddams <di...@aol.com*> wrote:
:rick boyd wrote:
:> The proper punishment for offside is a penalty. The laws say
:> that the penalty try should be awarded where, but for an offence, a try
:> would probably have been scored.
:And if a probable try is prevented by someone offside? Penalty _try_.
That is correct if the ref thought a try was *probably*. But the try
wasn't "probable", so it should have been a penalty. Repeated offsides are
already accomodated in the rulebook - it's a penalty offence, and the
player can be sent off after repeated warnings. A penalty try can only be
awarded if a try *probably* would have been scored. It wasn't a *probable*
try or even close to it. Rick is correct in this case.
This "English innovation" some people have mentioned is completely
ludicrous. Let the IFRB set rules, not individual unions.
:With your interpretation, players could stand offside all afternoon,
:close down the oppo and prevent all those lovely flowing tries you
:crave, and argue to the ref that "but IF I'd been onside he probably
:wouldn't have scored anyway....". Hardly an interpretation to promote
:open rugby, given that it basically ensures any atatcks would only be
:worth three points via a "boring" boot, rather than 5 via swivelling
:hips, speeding backs and gracefull touch-downs. Which scenario would
:you prefer Rick?
Yes it would be boring, but the ref would be obliged to send the player(s)
off for repeated infringements. The ref probably was not firm enough
warning the Scots.
He should have said "next one offside is being sent off" He is perfectly
entitled to do that.
:> As I'm sure you can now see, this is not the case in the
:> England/Scotand game.
:Sorry, still disagree, but I promise I'll check the video
:_very_carefully tonight; take it as a token of my esteem for both
:yourself and Steve that I accept you may be right concerning the onside
:tacklers :-)
You have to also bear in mind that the penalties were take close to the
goal line, so the 10 yard law does not apply. Players on the goal line in
this situation would be onside. This may have further confused the ref.
Steve Howie
Brian <brian...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:As the lone voice of reason I have to agree with you Didds. When the
:tap was taken 7m out there was not a single Scottish player behind the
:try line thus they were all offside and a try would probably have been
:scored as there was noone who could leagally tackle him. Why the ref
:played on is also beyond me.
Nonsense. A try was NOT on. The referee should have warned the Scots about
repeated infringements, then sent repeat offenders off. That is the only
decision he could render under the circumstances. There's a big difference
between a scrum being deliberatelty collapsed when the ball is held at the
number 8's feet and being slowly marched forward, and some butter-fingered
English backs who still have to get through a bunch of defenders, offside
or not. The laws must be applied properly in a situation such as this and
ou buddy O'brien fucked up, plain and simple.
Paul Dutton
>rick boyd wrote:
>> ENGLAND-SCOTLAND - An Objective Observer's Report
>> Then Paddy O'Brien blotted his copybook completely, with a totally
>> unnecessary penalty try. How I hate the use of tries as some sort of
><snip>
>> defensive movement. A completely ludicrous decision which probably had
>> no influence on the outcome of the game, but may have cost the Scots'
>> morale dearly.
>If it cost their morale dearly, then surely it had some influence on the
>outcome of the game. Bear in mind that Scotland were within three points
>until midway through the second half, and they had the wind.
You bet they did. Right up their Kilts.
Terry Fitzpatrick
Steve Howie <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Brian <brian...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>:As the lone voice of reason I have to agree with you Didds. When the
>:tap was taken 7m out there was not a single Scottish player behind the
>:try line thus they were all offside and a try would probably have been
>:scored as there was noone who could leagally tackle him. Why the ref
>:played on is also beyond me.
>
>Nonsense. A try was NOT on. The referee should have warned the Scots about
>repeated infringements, then sent repeat offenders off. That is the only
>decision he could render under the circumstances. There's a big difference
>between a scrum being deliberatelty collapsed when the ball is held at the
>number 8's feet and being slowly marched forward, and some butter-fingered
>English backs who still have to get through a bunch of defenders, offside
>or not. The laws must be applied properly in a situation such as this and
>ou buddy O'brien fucked up, plain and simple.
>
Steve, you just refuse to see the point, don't you. If all of the
Scottish players were offside when the tap was taken and so were not
allowed to tackle Gomersall, Gomersall would definitely have scored.
What would have happened if the Scots were back behind the line is
immaterial, they weren't so they shouldn't have tackled Gomersall and
since they were all offside it would have left no-one in a legal
position to tackle him. Ergo a penalty try was absolutely the correct
decision. Sadly, O'Brien copped out and then made amends on the next
offense.
Regards
Terry
rick boyd
Steve Howie wrote:
> That is correct if the ref thought a try was *probable*. But the
> try wasn't "probable", so it should have been a penalty.
> Repeated offsides are already accomodated in the rulebook - it's
> a penalty offence, and the player can be sent off after
> repeated warnings. A penalty try can only be awarded if a
> try *probably* would have been scored. It wasn't a
> *probable* try or even close to it. Rick is correct in this case.
>
> This "English innovation" some people have mentioned is
> completely ludicrous. Let the IFRB set rules, not individual unions.
Thanks Steve. I couldn't agree more.
Didds wrote:
>
>> With your interpretation, players could stand offside all
>> afternoon, close down the oppo and prevent all those lovely
>> flowing tries you crave, and argue to the ref that "but IF I'd
>> been onside he probably wouldn't have scored anyway....".
>> Hardly an interpretation to promote open rugby, given that
>> it basically ensures any atatcks would only be worth three points
>> via a "boring" boot, rather than 5 via swivelling hips, speeding
>> backs and gracefull touch-downs. Which scenario would you
>> prefer Rick?
I'd be quite happy to have the defending backs standing offside at every
attack. After they had conceded fifteen or eighteen points in penalties
they might get the message, assisted by their captain's boot making
repeated contact with their arses, and stand onside. The period of
boring penalty kicking would be compensated for by the flowing,
attacking rugby that followed when they grew tired of the opposition
scoreboard steadily ticking over.
>> Sorry, still disagree, but I promise I'll check the video >> verycarefully tonight; take it as a token of my esteem for
>> both yourself and Steve that I accept you may be right concerning
>> he onside tacklers :-)
Thanks Didds, flattery will get you everywhere. But whether or not all
the backs were offside doesn't really alter the principle of the thing.
The penalty try would only apply if being onside meant that the Scots
backs were not physically capable of preventing the try. This was
clearly not the case. I fear we may never agree but I am absolutely
certain this is the way referees would interpret the law. Good ones,
anyway.
- Rick Boyd
Steve Howie
Terry Fitzpatrick <te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:Steve, you just refuse to see the point, don't you. If all of the
:Scottish players were offside when the tap was taken and so were not
:allowed to tackle Gomersall, Gomersall would definitely have scored.
:What would have happened if the Scots were back behind the line is
:immaterial, they weren't so they shouldn't have tackled Gomersall and
:since they were all offside it would have left no-one in a legal
:position to tackle him. Ergo a penalty try was absolutely the correct
:decision. Sadly, O'Brien copped out and then made amends on the next
Terry,
I'm refusing to see your "point" because it's completely wrong.
Even if they all were offside ( which they weren't), what's to say a
flanker from the Scottish pack couldn't have tackled the long-haired
greasy poof? Gommersall had *lots* of work to do to get to the try line.
Are you telling me the entire Scottish team was offside when the tap was
taken?? You *cannot* award penalty tries just because there was a *vague
potential* to have a try scored. You award penalty tries for blatant
things like fullbacks doing a late charge on wingers who have chipped
ahead close to the line with no-one else covering. You award penalty tries
for a defending team collapses a scrum when the opposition are marching
the scrum over the line with the ball at the number 8's feet. These are
incidents where a try *probably* would have been scored. Having a
scrum-half take on a whole team, some of whom were offide, does not strike
me as being a situation where a try *probably* would have been scored. If
the backs are offside, then award a penalty kick, and if necessary send
them off but don't make up the goddam rules.
Having the referee predict tries being scored before they happen is a new
concept on me. The decision was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Steve Howie
Brian <brian...@bigfootX.com> wrote:
:Steve Howie <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
:>Brian <brian...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:>
:>:As the lone voice of reason I have to agree with you Didds. When the
:>:tap was taken 7m out there was not a single Scottish player behind the
:>:try line thus they were all offside and a try would probably have been
:>:scored as there was noone who could leagally tackle him. Why the ref
:>:played on is also beyond me.
:>
:>Nonsense. A try was NOT on. The referee should have warned the Scots about
:>repeated infringements, then sent repeat offenders off. That is the only
:>decision he could render under the circumstances. There's a big difference
:>between a scrum being deliberatelty collapsed when the ball is held at the
:>number 8's feet and being slowly marched forward, and some butter-fingered
:>English backs who still have to get through a bunch of defenders, offside
:>or not. The laws must be applied properly in a situation such as this and
:>ou buddy O'brien fucked up, plain and simple.
:The award of the penalty try had nothing to do with repeated
:infringement or scrum collapsing. It was for the whole of the
:Scottish side being offside at a free kick, thus unable to *legally*
So award a Penalty *kick* as specified in the rules.
:tackle the player with the ball (Gomersall) and by foul play stopping
:a *probable* try. The fact O'Brien played on is purely academic. he
It was not a *probable* try. Not even close.
:could simply argue he was playing advantage. There is nothing that
:says a penalty try must be awarded immediately!
I know that. The ref should not have considered a penalty try in the first
place. He fucked up.
Ian Diddams
rick boyd wrote:
> Think what is going through the Scottish defenders minds. "Oh dear, I am
> offside. If I make a tackle now I will be acting illegally. I'll just
> step aside and let Will Carling score under the posts." Ha! Some chance.
> They make the tackle and cop the penalty.
Which is _exactly_ why offside tackles should be penalised with a
penalty try if there are no other defenders onside that could have
effected a tackle. To merely penalise offside players with a penalty
time after time after time, especially when refs have shown they are
unlikely to send players off for repeated infringements, and especially
right at the end of a game "because there are only a few minutes left",
is sending a message to players everywhere that killing attacks by
persistant offside is a legitimate tactic. C'mon Rick - what do you
want to see, tries or penalties?
Ian Diddams
rick boyd wrote:
> The proper punishment for offside is a penalty. The laws say
> that the penalty try should be awarded where, but for an offence, a try
> would probably have been scored.
>
Didds wrote :
> And if a probable try is prevented by someone offside? Penalty _try_.
>
Steve wrote :
> That is correct if the ref thought a try was *probably*. But the try
> wasn't "probable", so it should have been a penalty. Repeated offsides > are already accomodated in the rulebook - it's a penalty offence, and
> the player can be sent off after repeated warnings. A penalty try can > only be awarded if a try *probably* would have been scored. It wasn't > a *probable* try or even close to it. Rick is correct in this case.
Gomersall had a better than probable chance of scoring from the tapped
free kick. See below.
> This "English innovation" some people have mentioned is completely
> ludicrous. Let the IFRB set rules, not individual unions.
Totally and 100% agree.
Didds then wrote :
> With your interpretation, players could stand offside all afternoon,
> close down the oppo and prevent all those lovely flowing tries you
> crave, and argue to the ref that "but IF I'd been onside he probably
> wouldn't have scored anyway....". Hardly an interpretation to promote
> open rugby, given that it basically ensures any atatcks would only be
> worth three points via a "boring" boot, rather than 5 via swivelling
> hips, speeding backs and gracefull touch-downs. Which scenario would
> you prefer Rick?
Steve replied :
> Yes it would be boring, but the ref would be obliged to send the
> player(s) off for repeated infringements. The ref probably was not
> firm enough warning the Scots.
> He should have said "next one offside is being sent off" He is
> perfectly entitled to do that.
That he is. And how many times have you ever seen a referee enforce
this rule? I'll tell you how many times _I've_ seen it. None. I've
even played in games where the ref has threatened it, and then failed to
act. I agree that dismissal is the _real_ deterrent, but referees don't
apply it. And until they do, a valid deterent is required, which is
not, I will agree, this stupid three-strikes interpretation, but should
rather be a stricter interpretation on what players should be in a
position to partake in the game. It is a player's choice whether to
stay onside or off, unless he has been beaten to his onside position by
superior play (cf Smith's appalling professional tackle on Gomersall in
the first half when retreating from the _previous_ ruck to the one
England had just recycled quick ball from).
Didds then promised :
> Sorry, still disagree, but I promise I'll check the video
> _very_carefully tonight; take it as a token of my esteem for both
> yourself and Steve that I accept you may be right concerning the
> onside tacklers :-)
I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position. Taking Rick's
interpretation (ie they _could_ have been onside but weren't) then it's
a penalty. But it sends a poor signal to defenders if they know they
can defend from offside positions and risk nothing more than three
points.
> You have to also bear in mind that the penalties were take close to
> the goal line, so the 10 yard law does not apply. Players on the goal
> line in
> this situation would be onside.
Correct. And having checked the video not one defender was behind the
line - every Scot in that corner was in front of the line and thus
offside. I'm not saying this all because I'm necessarily English
(believe it or not!) but more because like everyone here (I hope!) I'm
getting rather tired of good work by teams being ruined by callous and
determined abuse of offside lines, and referees that fail to implement
the powers they have available.
Steve Howie
:> Think what is going through the Scottish defenders minds. "Oh dear, I am
:> offside. If I make a tackle now I will be acting illegally. I'll just
:> step aside and let Will Carling score under the posts." Ha! Some chance.
:> They make the tackle and cop the penalty.
:Which is _exactly_ why offside tackles should be penalised with a
:penalty try if there are no other defenders onside that could have
:effected a tackle. To merely penalise offside players with a penalty
:time after time after time, especially when refs have shown they are
The ref has no option in this case.
:unlikely to send players off for repeated infringements, and especially
Then the ref should look for another line of work if that's the case.
:right at the end of a game "because there are only a few minutes left",
:is sending a message to players everywhere that killing attacks by
:persistant offside is a legitimate tactic. C'mon Rick - what do you
:want to see, tries or penalties?
Given what you've just said, I'd like to see the refs. applying the laws!
To coin the old chestnut - "If you think the law is an ass, then change
it".
I'd love to see tries too, but would you like them to be penalty tries???
Daryl Johnson
Ian Diddams (di...@aol.com*) wrote:
(snip)
::>effected a tackle. To merely penalise offside players with a penalty
::>time after time after time, especially when refs have shown they are
::>unlikely to send players off for repeated infringements, and especially
But whose fault is that Diddz? The Laws are pretty clear on the topic.
Let's just suppose for a moment that a handful of players get sent off in
some high profile games, *that* sends a pretty powerful message to the
players what is and isn't acceptable. Much more effective I'd guess than a
penalty try in dubious circumstances.
BTW I say dubious because of the heated debate this has aroused in the ng
and the press. We can't *all* be right with such opposed views.
--
*---------------------------------------------------*
Daryl Johnson
From Scotland - Where copper wire was invented by
two Scotsmen fighting over a penny
*---------------------------------------------------*
Terry Fitzpatrick
Steve Howie <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>(snip)
>I'd love to see tries too, but would you like them to be penalty tries???
>
No, I prefer to see more of the stuff the England inflicted on
Scotland towards the end of the match. But you need to break down the
defence and overcome the repeated offside offenses before you can get
to that position. If penalty tries are part of the means by which this
comes about, then the ends justify the means.
Regards
Terry
Terry Fitzpatrick
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>Steve Howie wrote:
>
>> That is correct if the ref thought a try was *probable*. But the
>> try wasn't "probable", so it should have been a penalty.
>> Repeated offsides are already accomodated in the rulebook - it's
>> a penalty offence, and the player can be sent off after
>> repeated warnings. A penalty try can only be awarded if a
>> try *probably* would have been scored. It wasn't a
>> *probable* try or even close to it. Rick is correct in this case.
>>
>> This "English innovation" some people have mentioned is
>> completely ludicrous. Let the IFRB set rules, not individual unions.
>
>Thanks Steve. I couldn't agree more.
>
>Didds wrote:
>>
>>> With your interpretation, players could stand offside all
>>> afternoon, close down the oppo and prevent all those lovely
>>> flowing tries you crave, and argue to the ref that "but IF I'd
>>> been onside he probably wouldn't have scored anyway....".
>>> Hardly an interpretation to promote open rugby, given that
>>> it basically ensures any atatcks would only be worth three points
>>> via a "boring" boot, rather than 5 via swivelling hips, speeding
>>> backs and gracefull touch-downs. Which scenario would you
>>> prefer Rick?
>
>I'd be quite happy to have the defending backs standing offside at every
>attack. After they had conceded fifteen or eighteen points in penalties
>they might get the message, assisted by their captain's boot making
>repeated contact with their arses, and stand onside. The period of
>boring penalty kicking would be compensated for by the flowing,
>attacking rugby that followed when they grew tired of the opposition
>scoreboard steadily ticking over.
>
I don't believe I am reading this. Do you often suffer from these
violent mood swings, Rick. The scoreboard ticking over by penalties is
what (you claim) happens when England play, but now you're saying
you're happy to see this happen? But is this not boring for you?
>>> Sorry, still disagree, but I promise I'll check the video >> verycarefully tonight; take it as a token of my esteem for
>>> both yourself and Steve that I accept you may be right concerning
>>> he onside tacklers :-)
>
>Thanks Didds, flattery will get you everywhere. But whether or not all
>the backs were offside doesn't really alter the principle of the thing.
>The penalty try would only apply if being onside meant that the Scots
>backs were not physically capable of preventing the try. This was
>clearly not the case.
But to physically stop the try, the players have to get back on-side.
Stopping, turning to go back a couple of yards and then preparing
yourself to stop the opposition is something that does not disrupt the
defence or give the opposition a big advantage then, is it? If they
had been onside, a try may not have been probable, but they weren't
and that is the point.
>I fear we may never agree
No, I fear you are right. But IMNSHO, we are right and you are not :-)
>but I am absolutely
>certain this is the way referees would interpret the law. Good ones,
>anyway.
>
O'Brien represents the cream of NZ refs, doesn't he? Maybe he was
still jet-lagged. Or maybe the English bookies got to him and spiked
his morning tea - hey now, I haven't heard a good conspiracy theory
put forward yet on this subject yet.
Regards
Terry
Terry Fitzpatrick
Steve Howie <sho...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Terry Fitzpatrick <te...@tfitzp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:Steve, you just refuse to see the point, don't you. If all of the
>:Scottish players were offside when the tap was taken and so were not
>:allowed to tackle Gomersall, Gomersall would definitely have scored.
>:What would have happened if the Scots were back behind the line is
>:immaterial, they weren't so they shouldn't have tackled Gomersall and
>:since they were all offside it would have left no-one in a legal
>:position to tackle him. Ergo a penalty try was absolutely the correct
>:decision. Sadly, O'Brien copped out and then made amends on the next
>
>Terry,
>
>I'm refusing to see your "point" because it's completely wrong.
>
>Even if they all were offside ( which they weren't), what's to say a
>flanker from the Scottish pack couldn't have tackled the long-haired
>greasy poof?
Very objective observation this one.
>Gommersall had *lots* of work to do to get to the try line.
>Are you telling me the entire Scottish team was offside when the tap was
>taken??
Yes. Go watch the video. Well not the entire team. Outside centre and
the right winger may have been onside 20-30 m away.
>You *cannot* award penalty tries just because there was a *vague
>potential* to have a try scored. You award penalty tries for blatant
>things like fullbacks doing a late charge on wingers who have chipped
>ahead close to the line with no-one else covering. You award penalty tries
>for a defending team collapses a scrum when the opposition are marching
>the scrum over the line with the ball at the number 8's feet. These are
>incidents where a try *probably* would have been scored. Having a
>scrum-half take on a whole team, some of whom were offide, does not strike
************
correction, almost all of whom
>me as being a situation where a try *probably* would have been scored. If
>the backs are offside, then award a penalty kick, and if necessary send
>them off but don't make up the goddam rules.
>
>Having the referee predict tries being scored before they happen is a new
>concept on me. The decision was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wasn't, wasn't, wasn't :-)
Let me put in the next 6 responses for both of us to save a little
time.
Steve Howie said:
>It definitely wasn't a try.
Terry Fitzpatrick replied:
>It wasn't.
Steve Howie replied:
>Was.
Terry Fitzpatrick replied:
>Wasn't.
Steve Howie replied:
>Was.
Terry Fitzpatrick replied:
>Wasn't.
Steve Howie replied:
>Was.
Oops, was that more than six? Got a bit carried away in the heat of
the intellectual debate. ;-)
Regards
Terry
rick boyd
Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> Steve, you just refuse to see the point, don't you. If all of
>> the Scottish players were offside when the tap was taken and so
>> were not allowed to tackle Gomersall, Gomersall would definitely
>> have scored.
Steve Howie wrote:
>
> I'm refusing to see your "point" because it's completely wrong.
Stone the crows, we're not making much headway here, are we Steve? Talk
about missing the point.
Terry, try this for size. It is an offence under the laws of rugby for a
player to make a tackle from an offside position. The punishment is a
penalty, if the offside position given him no advantage in being
physically able to make the tackle. If the offside position is the SOLE
reason he was physically able to reach that player and make that tackle,
then that is a penalty try. Comprende? It is NOT a penalty try just
because he made a tackle from an offside position.
Strewth!
- Rick Boyd
Ian Diddams
Steve Howie wrote:
>
> <di...@aol.com*> writes
> he was tackled by Scots in an iffside position ie not back
> ten yards/behind the goal line.
>
Absolutely not old boy. Please pass the kaffir.. I mean the coffee.
(oops)
Ian Diddams
>
> Then the ref should look for another line of work if that's the case.
Which is apparently what they seem to have done with this ridiculous
three-strikes interpretation....
> :C'mon Rick - what do you
> :want to see, tries or penalties?
>
> Given what you've just said, I'd like to see the refs. applying the laws!
You and me both Steve!
> To coin the old chestnut - "If you think the law is an ass, then change
> it".
Well, I feel the laws DO offer solutions already, but referees for
whatever reasons appear not to be prepared to implement those laws.
> I'd love to see tries too, but would you like them to be penalty tries???
I'd much prefer to see players dotting the ball down than histronics by
referees running towards the goal, but the fact remains that if teams
will not be punished for illegally preventing tries, by a suitable
"penalty", then there is no compunction for those teams to play within
the laws and "permit" potential try scoring attacks. I am rapidly
beginning to think that all those that have slated England's "boring"
style in the past would have been happier on that Saturday for them to
continue stuffing the ball up their jumper all afternoon such that the
possible try scoring opportunities never arose. Obviously they would
have been happier for England to have won 27-13 kicking penalties all
afternoon having been awarded them for naughty Scots tackling players
whilst offside, because that is the right thing to do.
Ian Diddams
rick boyd wrote:
> I'd be quite happy to have the defending backs standing offside at every
> attack. After they had conceded fifteen or eighteen points in penalties
> they might get the message, assisted by their captain's boot making
> repeated contact with their arses, and stand onside.
All assuming of course that the opposing kicker(s) have a reasonable
day, and that the penalties occur in places that are kickable. Three
points still sounds better than seven, and that is if the kick(s) will
go over.
> The period of
> boring penalty kicking would be compensated for by the flowing,
> attacking rugby that followed when they grew tired of the opposition
> scoreboard steadily ticking over.
Unless the offside are a general tactic and not just wayward
individuals, and three points is still cheaper than five.
> Thanks Didds, flattery will get you everywhere. But whether or not all
> the backs were offside doesn't really alter the principle of the thing.
> The penalty try would only apply if being onside meant that the Scots
> backs were not physically capable of preventing the try. This was
> clearly not the case.
But my whole case is that Gomersall should have been awarded a penalty
try from his tapped free kick. I have always accepted that the
three-strikes interpretation is crap, and that referees should dismiss
players that constantly infringe; unfortunately refs don't appear to be
prepared to do this. My arguments above were spawned from your
assertion that penalty tries should never be awarded for mere offside -
a situation that can only encourage negative tactics.
> I fear we may never agree but I am absolutely
> certain this is the way referees would interpret the law. Good ones,
> anyway.
And god knows we see few of those these days. Our particular whistle
blower last Saturday obviously styled himself on O'Brien - very harsh on
offside and killing the ball, but no advantage when it counted; he
stopped two definite tries and called us back for penalties twice.
Bloody public school nonce.
Ian Diddams
Steve Howie wrote:
>
> Brian <brian...@bigfootX.com> wrote:
> :tackle the player with the ball (Gomersall) and by foul play stopping
> :a *probable* try. The fact O'Brien played on is purely academic. he
>
> It was not a *probable* try. Not even close.
Why not Steve? I'm sure Gomersall is capable of running less than ten
yards and falling down over the line. There was no legitimate defense
there to stop him, only offside ones.
I fail to see why this was not a probable try. Offside players
generally accept they are effectively out of play and run around with
their hands in the air... until they want to stop someone scoring a try
that is, and destry the culmination of several pieces of good work.
Oh, how stupid of me. People on this newsgroup want England to kick the
ball to touch and then stuff it up their jumpers rather than let
Sleightholme run with it, then chip it into space forcing desperate
defense to concede a 5 metre scrum.
If England were boring still, no-one would complain would they. Except
that they were boring of course.
Ian Diddams
Steve Howie wrote:
>
> Even if they all were offside ( which they weren't),
which they were. The BBCs coverage shows no Scots players behind the
goal line in that corner and therefore onside when Gomersall tapped and
went.
> what's to say a
> flanker from the Scottish pack couldn't have tackled the long-haired
> greasy poof? Gommersall had *lots* of work to do to get to the try line.
Who? A flanker that was standing in an offside position? Which is the
crux of this whole argument I believe.
> Are you telling me the entire Scottish team was offside when the tap was
> taken??
Maybe not the whole Scottish team, but it is *improbable* that another
defender would reach Gomersall from say fifteen or twenty yards away
before he himself had run less than ten. The BBC coverage only shows
the corner that the event occured in, but there is no defender in camera
in an onside position, and the camera view would have included about
fifteen yards in from the touch flag.
> You *cannot* award penalty tries just because there was a *vague
> potential* to have a try scored.... Having a
> scrum-half take on a whole team, some of whom were offide, does not strike
> me as being a situation where a try *probably* would have been scored.
In the scenario we are discussing, Gomersall did not have to take on a
whole team. He had to beat probably 9 players (one pack + Redpath),
possibly 10 ( + a winger?) all of whom were offside. Going by the BBCs
view of the incident the next nearest defender wasn't even in shot.
Consequently, there was no-one in a legal position to prevent Gomersall
from running less than ten yards and falling over. Why should offside
players be permitted to partake in the game and influence it?
>If
> the backs are offside, then award a penalty kick, and if necessary send
> them off but don't make up the goddam rules.
And in your interpretation, give all and sundry carte blanche to prevent
the opposition from scoring five points and rather give away the
possibility that they might kick three... or miss the kick and score
nothing. Pretty negative concept if you ask me.
> Having the referee predict tries being scored before they happen is a new
> concept on me. The decision was wrong, wrong, wrong.
There was no more prediction involved here than in any other penalty
try.
George Nimmo
In article <5dsg6u$b...@pcsi.pcsi.cirrus.com>, Ian Diddams
<di...@aol.com*> writes
invisible "penalty try line" across the pitch ten metres in front of the
actual, tangible try line. Commit any offence (it needn't be a penalty,
an indirect free-kick will do) less than ten metres away from your own
try line and, unless the defenders are behind that try-line, the
attackers have a free run in to the line...or get a penalty try if
stopped by an offside player. At least, I think this is the inevitable
conclusion. It sounds logical, yet a bit harsh.
Whilst I'm here, did anyone else think Rodber's pass to Carling for
Carling's try was forward?
--
George Nimmo
rick boyd
Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >
> I don't believe I am reading this. Do you often suffer from
> these violent mood swings, Rick. The scoreboard ticking over
> by penalties is what (you claim) happens when England play, but
> now you're saying you're happy to see this happen? But is this
> not boring for you?
I didn't say it wouldn't be boring, but if the opposition want to give
away eighteen points in easy penalty kicks you'd be a fool not to take
them. When they've learnt the error of their ways, THEN you can get on
with the exciting stuff.
> But to physically stop the try, the players have to get back
> on-side.
You're confusing physically with legally here Terry. The Scots were
physically quite capable of tackling from an offside position -- which
they did. Legally they weren't, and should have been penalised. But what
the referee should have asked himself is, would they have been
physically able to make that tackle if they had been onside. If the
answer was no, a penalty try should have been the result, because there
was no possible way the tackle could have been made except for the
illegal, offside positioning of the defenders. But if the answer was
yes, as it was in this case, then the proper punishment should have been
a penalty kick, because the defenders were breaking the offside law. The
fact that they were preventing the try by acting illegally is not enough
by itself to give a penalty try.
> Stopping, turning to go back a couple of yards and then
> preparing yourself to stop the opposition is something that does
> not disrupt the defence or give the opposition a big advantage then,
> is it? If they had been onside, a try may not have been probable,
> but they weren't and that is the point.
No, Terry, it is NOT the point. The point is that this was an attacking
move with a full set of defenders and a full set of attackers and a try
was NOT the probable result. This is what the referee must consider
before he goes to ask himself whether there are any offences taking
place. He has no way of knowing whether or not a try would have been
scored, and you'd be a brave man to say a try would probably have been
scored. The offside position of the defenders was not the deciding
factor in stopping the try being scored.
> No, I fear you are right. But IMNSHO, we are right and you are not :-)
A pity there are not some English referees on this newsgroup. I am sure
the SH interpretation would be as I have decribed, Mr O'Brien's
aberration notwithstanding. I am sure he was acting under the repeated
offences warrants a penalty try scenario. I wonder if the knowledgeable
Mr Clegg would care to weigh in with an opinion?
- Rick Boyd
Jon Thackray
I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position. Taking Rick's
interpretation (ie they _could_ have been onside but weren't) then it's
a penalty. But it sends a poor signal to defenders if they know they
can defend from offside positions and risk nothing more than three
points.
Actually, I think there was one Scot onside. The entire pack and scrum
half were offside for Gomarsall's tap, but I think the Scots left wing
was onside. Whether he would have been abel to influence events
sufficiently to prevent Gamarsall scoring is something I doubt. I
agree that those Scots involved in stopping Gomarsall scoring were all
offside, havng just broken from the scrum and being therefore in front
of the try line.
--
Dr. Jon Thackray jo...@harlqn.co.uk 44 1223 872522 (voice)
Harlequin Ltd. 44 1223 873873 (fax)
Barrington Hall
Barrington
Cambridge CB2 5RG
England
Terry Fitzpatrick
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>(snip)
OK, so let's look at another case. Team A are awarded a penalty 10m
from the try line as a result of the last defender from Team B not
releasing the ball on the ground. The offending player is busy
retreating but the other 14 players are still making their way back
but are still behind the penalty mark. Team A's winger taps and runs
and is flattened by players from Team B coming from behind him but
with an open line beckoning. What is the decision? If the Team B had
all 15 players onside, Team A's poncey little winger would have stood
no chance of scoring against 13 real men and two wingers. So, should
it have been another penalty allowing Team B to regroup completely or
should it have been a penalty try.
[hint, it should have been a penalty try. So now try to explain to me
the difference between the above and Gomersall being brought down when
the entire Scottish team were offside when he too the penalty]
Regards
Terry
Guy Glover
> I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
> kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
> Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
> the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position. Taking Rick's
> interpretation (ie they _could_ have been onside but weren't) then it's
> a penalty. But it sends a poor signal to defenders if they know they
> can defend from offside positions and risk nothing more than three
> points.
>
Acording to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
Guy
Kevin Eagar
Guy Glover wrote:
> > I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
> > kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
> > Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
> > the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position.
Correct!
It was confirmed to the Referees' Newsgroup that Paddy O'Brien gave the
Penalty Try
for the offside players at the tapkick immediately tackling Gormersall.
This is refereed in this situation as not just simply "offside", but as
a deliberate
"Professional Foul"; hence a Penalty Try.
In NZ the offending player/s most probably would have been in the Sinbin
as well!
The Referees' Newsgroup was of the opinion that the Penalty Try should
have been
awarded immediately, rather than attempt to play advantage which didn't
occur, due
to further offside play by the Scottish backs!
> According to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
> line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
> even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
No, you are wrong.
10m back from the mark, or to the goalline if given between 5 & 10m out.
Cheers,
Kevin Eagar.
************========================
************========================
************==ALLOCATIONS==OFFICER==
************========================
====================================
POTOMAC=RUGBY=REFEREES=WASHINGTON=DC
====================================
Guy Glover
>
> > According to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
> > line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
> > even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
>
> No, you are wrong.
> 10m back from the mark, or to the goalline if given between 5 & 10m out.
Yep, you are right, I've checked the laws. I was confused by to the
Off-side law (24) that states " A player can be off-side in hin
In-goal." (note iii)
Oddly the penalty kick 10m rule is not an off-side offence, it is
covered by Law 27 "Penalty Kick" and that specifically says "....ten
metres from the mark, or thier own goal line if nearer to the mark".
(para 2a).
Sorry for any confusion.
Guy
Ian Diddams
George Nimmo wrote:
> I find this intriguing. For what this does, in effect, is to create an
> invisible "penalty try line" across the pitch ten metres in front of the
> actual, tangible try line.
Ahhh... only at a free-kick/penalty. And when there is no defense in
an onside position. Which is the scenario that has been discussed here.
Otherwise, George's summation is invalid.
Commit any offence (it needn't be a penalty,
> an indirect free-kick will do) less than ten metres away from your own
> try line and, unless the defenders are behind that try-line, the
> attackers have a free run in to the line...or get a penalty try if
> stopped by an offside player. At least, I think this is the inevitable
> conclusion. It sounds logical, yet a bit harsh.
In the interests of preventing negative play by players that are to all
intents and purposes out-of-play (otherwise why have offside in the
first place) I feel it is logical; I would agree that is possibly harsh,
but once players get the message then its no harsher than many other
laws.
As for the question of whether players in an offside position are really
still in play ie have a right to influence it, why do such players
otherwise run around with their hands in the air when in offside
positions? Permission to have a wazz??
> Whilst I'm here, did anyone else think Rodber's pass to Carling for
> Carling's try was forward?
I have to say that from our vantage point at Twickers, I did wonder if
it was forward, but the tv angles were inconclusive when I looked on the
video. There has been little question over the pass's validity, but if
it _was_ forward and O'Brien "allowed" it because he knew he may have
stuffed up earlier with Sleightholme (which, incidentally, I didn't
think knocked on in the move - at worst it hit his chest, and I believe
it always went backwards) then he is doubly wrong - two wrongs don't
make a right.
The Laird
I do not care to get into the argument about
whether a penalty try should have been awarded
or not in the England v Scotland game.
I just think there are too many penalty tries
awarded nowadays. It spoils the game as a
spectacle.
People want to see _real_ tries, not this ersatz
stuff.
Oh, and is offside "foul play " ?
It's an infringement of the rules, certainly,
but not the most heinous.
OK, FWIW I think the ref should have given a
penalty against Scotland, which would have
given England the option of an easy three
points or going for the try.
An automatic seven points was a bit steep
IMHO.
--
****************************************************
"Lang may yer lum reek." (May your chimney smoke for a long time).
Japanese Rugby Page in English
http://www.dhs.kyutech.ac.jp/~ruxton/jprugby.html
Guy Glover
Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> Just to offer my view...
>
> It seems to me the major difference in interpretation is how you consider
> the offside players:
>
> 1/ Offside player, he vanishes and doesn't exist any more.
> 2/ Offside player, but he could have retired-further/stayed-back and been
> onside.
>
> The people arguing for the penalty try seem to assume 1/
> ie. The forwards infront of Gommersall are offside so penalty, they don't
> exist so easy try would have been scored - penalty try!
>
> All the Scottish backs offside so penalty, they doesn't exist so easy
> 6 to 0 overlap - penalty try!
>
> They people arguing against the penalty try seem to assume 2/
> ie. The forwards infront of Gommersall are offside so penalty, but if they
> had bothered to retire another 2 meters they would still have stopped
> him - NO penalty try!
>
> All the Scottish backs offside so penalty, but if they had stayed
> onside, 6 to 6 defense so no probable try - NO penalty try!
Hummm, surely the point is that in order to put themselves on-side all
the defense would have to have run over thier own goal line before they
could interfere with play. Hardly a great defensive force!!
> The ref just can't assume offside players vanish, he has to consider
> what contribution they could have made if they had stayed onside and
> then whether a try would have been scored BUT for them gaining an
> advantage of being offside.
He does not have to assume they vanish, he just has to consider what is
likely to have happened if they had obeyed the laws.
In the case of a quick penalty the laws say they must run back (or be
put on-side by one of thier on-side team mates running past them).
Apply this to your 20m scrum example using that approach - If the
forwards had obeyed the law they would have remained on-side and been
able to defend.
Guy
rick boyd
It's really quite easy Tel old chap. The above example would of course
have been a penalty try because all of team B were offside, had been
offside since the stoppage of play, had made no attempt to get onside,
and had no business taking part in play at all.
This is quite different from the Scotland/England game, where the Scots
had been onside, but moved into an offside position, at which point the
referee should have awarded a penalty.
Hasn't it struck you as funny that referees all over the world don't
immediately dole out penalty tries at every occasion where the defenders
are offside anywhere close to the goal line? Would you care to explain
why these circumstances are different to the Scotland/England game? Or
is it just that O'Brien is a shining visionary and all the other refs in
the world are idiots?
I have no doubt this will not change your opinion and I really think we
might as well give this one a rest before everyone else gets bored with
it.
It may already be too late.
- Rick Boyd
Jon Thackray
> I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
> kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
> Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
> the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position. Taking Rick's
> interpretation (ie they _could_ have been onside but weren't) then it's
> a penalty. But it sends a poor signal to defenders if they know they
> can defend from offside positions and risk nothing more than three
> points.
>
Acording to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
No. They can`t be offside if they`re behind their try line. This
doesn`t allow them to perform forward passes, knock ons or be in front
of the kicker though. In the case in point, the whole pack and scrum
half were offside, because the scrum from which they had broken was a
five metre scrum, and they hadn`t retreated behind the try line.
Jon Thackray
I think this one is easy to explain. His reason for awarding the
penalty try was wrong, I doubt anyone is arguing that. The question is
whether or not he shold have awarded a penalty try at some point or
other, and in particular, when Gomarsall was tackled after taking the
tap penalty. The curucial point is, where there any Scots who could
legally have tackled Gomarsall at that point. The answer is almost
certainly no, with the possible exception of the left wing, who I
don`t think was near enough to influence matters. So, we are left with
the conclusion that but for illegal interference, Gomarsall would have
scored a try. This is Didds argument, as I understand it, and I think
it`s correct. What the Scottish forwards might have been able to do
had they been onside is irrelevant, as they weren`t onside. If we
change the situation slightly to allow a couple of Scottish backs to
have been in position to tackle Gomarsall, then the correct decision
would be penalty. But there were no such backs, and so, but for
illegal interference, a try would probably have been scored. This, as
I understand it, is the requirement for the award of a penalty try. I
am quite happy to admit that few such penalty tries have ever been
awarded, and I think the reason is that referees, possibly under
instruction from their unions, have been told not to make such awards.
The fact is, that given the situation here, where the team defending a
five yard scrum is peanlised and the attacking scrum half has the ball
almost immediately, defending a try is very hard as you move into a
situation where all 15 of the attackers are onside and 9 or possibly
more of the defenders are offside.
I have no doubt this will not change your opinion and I really think we
might as well give this one a rest before everyone else gets bored with
it.
It may already be too late.
It may be, but I think we will see more such occurrences in the
future, so I don`t think this one is going away.
Terry Fitzpatrick
rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>(snip incisive and beautifully argued case)
I read that last bit to late to prevent me writing the rest and I'll
be buggered if I'm going to delete it. But I am quite happy to call it
a day knowing that the right decision was made, albeit a tad harsh.
>
>It's really quite easy Tel old chap. The above example would of course
>have been a penalty try because all of team B were offside, had been
>offside since the stoppage of play, had made no attempt to get onside,
>and had no business taking part in play at all.
Ah ha, so you agree that it was a penalty try. You see Rick, me old
cock-sparrow, when Gommers took the tap penalty the whole of the
Scottish side were offside when he took it. Read the last four words
of that sentence again and let it sink in. OK, so they had no business
flattening him (setting aside the accusation of his being a cocky
bastard that deserve flattening on every possible occasion) and voila,
a penalty try must follow. We do seem to be recycling this argument
rather quickly, don't we - just like a good pack in fact.
>
>This is quite different from the Scotland/England game, where the Scots
>had been onside, but moved into an offside position, at which point the
>referee should have awarded a penalty.
That was the second offense when, no advantage having accrued from the
first offense, the ref gave the penalty try.
>
>Hasn't it struck you as funny that referees all over the world don't
>immediately dole out penalty tries at every occasion where the defenders
>are offside anywhere close to the goal line? Would you care to explain
>why these circumstances are different to the Scotland/England game? Or
>is it just that O'Brien is a shining visionary and all the other refs in
>the world are idiots?
>
>I have no doubt this will not change your opinion and I really think we
>might as well give this one a rest before everyone else gets bored with
>it.
>
Regards
Terry
David Plastow
In article <JONT.97Fe...@dedekind.harlqn.co.uk>, Jon Thackray
<jo...@harlequin.co.uk> writes
>In article <33097A...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> rick boyd
><bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> writes:
>
> Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > OK, so let's look at another case. Team A are awarded a penalty
> > 10m from the try line as a result of the last defender from Team B
> > not releasing the ball on the ground. The offending player is
> > busy retreating but the other 14 players are still making their
> > way back but are still behind the penalty mark. Team A's winger
> > taps and runs and is flattened by players from Team B coming
> > from behind him but with an open line beckoning. What is the
> > decision? If the Team B had all 15 players onside, Team A's
> > poncey little winger would have stood no chance of scoring against
> > 13 real men and two wingers. So, should it have been another
> > penalty allowing Team B to regroup completely or should it have
> > been a penalty try.
> >
> > [hint, it should have been a penalty try. So now try to explain to
> > me the difference between the above and Gomersall being brought
> > down when the entire Scottish team were offside when he too
> > the penalty]
> >
>
> have been a penalty try because all of team B were offside, had been
> offside since the stoppage of play, had made no attempt to get onside,
> and had no business taking part in play at all.
>
> had been onside, but moved into an offside position, at which point the
> referee should have awarded a penalty.
>
> immediately dole out penalty tries at every occasion where the defenders
> are offside anywhere close to the goal line? Would you care to explain
> why these circumstances are different to the Scotland/England game? Or
> is it just that O'Brien is a shining visionary and all the other refs in
> the world are idiots?
>
> might as well give this one a rest before everyone else gets bored with
> it.
>
>
>It may be, but I think we will see more such occurrences in the
>future, so I don`t think this one is going away.
>--
>
>Dr. Jon Thackray jo...@harlqn.co.uk 44 1223 872522 (voice)
>Harlequin Ltd. 44 1223 873873 (fax)
>Barrington Hall
>Barrington
>Cambridge CB2 5RG
>England
I feel I must agree with Rick. (wonders will never cease :-))
I am totally bored with the discussion of what after all was only one
man's subjective decision (and I am a Scot). Surely a better topic of
discussion would be which law changes are required to ensure that
decisions such as these are at least understandable to the majority of
rugby enthusiasts.
By the way, don't ask me!!!
--
David Plastow
Iain Mackenzie
In article <3305BB...@IBM.NET>, Guy Glover <GLO...@IBM.NET> wrote:
>> I checked the video very carefully. When Gomersall took the tapped free
>> kick, there were _no_ Scots behind the try line and thus on-side. Every
>> Scot that was involved in stopping Gomersall from scoring, and was in
>> the ensuing maul/ruck was in an offside position. Taking Rick's
>> interpretation (ie they _could_ have been onside but weren't) then it's
>> a penalty. But it sends a poor signal to defenders if they know they
>> can defend from offside positions and risk nothing more than three
>> points.
>>
>
doubtful however as to whether it would be try or not though.
Cheers.
Iain
>Acording to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
>line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
>even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
>
>
>Guy
>
>
Ian Diddams
Fergus Henderson wrote:
>
> And an example that shows that the "doesn't exist" view is crap is:
>
> Defensive scrum in own 22. All 7 opposition backs rush up offside - all
> 7 therefore don't exist! Easy 7 to 0 overlap run in from own 22, backs
> outpacing any stray forwards - penalty try?!
Although at this point the offside players haven't actually prevented
the "attacking" players from doing anything....
>
> Quickest player takes quick tap penalty in own 22. Nobody is back 10m
> but somebody tackles him - penalty 10 m forward OK. But as all the
> offside defenders don't exist he would have ran the length to score
> - penalty try?!
Except that players that hadn't tackled him could become onside by
retreating behind the offside line, from where they could chase the
runner and possibly tackle him... over a distance of seventy or eighty
yards _that_ is a possibility. In the Scotland - England game, it is
very unlikely IMO that the offside players would have retreated behind
the goal line in enough time to effect a tackle on Gomersall before he
had covered the same distance as themselves. The key point here being
that in fergus' example, the distance to the try line is far greater
than the distance other players have to cover to become onside, wheras
in the Gomersall scenario, the two distances are the same.
However, I applaud Fergus for attempting to bring some lucidity to the
debate!!
Didds.
Benjamin Morgan
Honestly all this fuss over a pretty clear incident. There was only one
man on the field that day who thought it was a penalty try and that
sadly was the ref. It wa a ludicrous decision it should never have been
anything but a penalty. End of story, hopefully it won't ever happen
again.
Ben M
John Daly
Will this thread ever die? :-))
Terry Fitzpatrick
ta...@central.susx.ac.uk (Benjamin Morgan) wrote:
Yes, it's only on closer analysis that we discover that, as often is
the case, the man on the spot was absolutely correct. End of story.
Regards
Terry
Seddon Keyter
Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> rick boyd <bo...@worksafe.wa.gov.au> wrote:
>
> >Terry Fitzpatrick wrote:
> >>(snip incisive and beautifully argued case)
>
this game was played , as well as what the final out come was ! Was this
the British team to play in South Africa in March ?
Cheers
"BOKKE"
Ian Diddams
David Plastow wrote:
> I am totally bored with the discussion of what after all was only one
> man's subjective decision (and I am a Scot). Surely a better topic of
> discussion would be which law changes are required to ensure that
> decisions such as these are at least understandable to the majority of
> rugby enthusiasts.
Well I think the bottom line here, as mentioned previously in this
thread, is that law changes are _not_ required, as the laws quite
adequately deal with situations such as occurred in the England -
Scotland game; namely there is provision for awards of penalty tries,
and there is provision for dismissal of players guilty of persistent
off-side, foul play, etc etc etc etc
For the latter, however, IMO it appears referees are just not prepared
to use the laws, whilst regading the former perhaps some worldwide
clarification from the IRB (or this ng? :-) as to what circumstances
would likely be penalisable by a penalty try would be more in order.
As for boredom, for something far more interesting from myself and Rick
(at least) I suggest you all tune into Uncle Dave's Rugby Page at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/uncle_dave/rugby.htm
where there is no mention of penalty tries, cheating South Africans or
medication.
Terry Fitzpatrick
Seddon Keyter <skeyt...@ispi.net> wrote:
>I recently joined this news group , and Iam wondering when and where
>this game was played , as well as what the final out come was ! Was this
>the British team to play in South Africa in March ?
>Cheers
>"BOKKE"
Ah, Seddon, where do I start. The match was England-Scotland which
England very fortunately won by a record margin thanks to the "dodgy"
penalty try awarded by a NZ referee (this being the subject of this
somewhat interminable thread). The interesting feature of the thread
is a NZ'er slagging off an NZ ref and arguing in favour of penalties
being given when a PT was the correct decision, and the English
(purveyors of all that is dull in Rugby according to everyone but us)
applauding the open attacking play adopted by the England side.
The final outcome was England 41-13 Scotland (didn't I say it was a
lucky result :-) ). It was played at Murrayfield on 1 Feb.
The England team is not the Lions, they are a British Isles select
side (though some people might suggest that the Lions side should be
built around this England pack at the very least).
Welcome to rsru.
Regards
Terry
Seddon Keyter
indulge me further . I have been reading about the incident with Kobus
Wiese who apparently cracked someone up side the head ! What's this all
about ? Iam a SA'n in the states and the rugby coverage is not to great
here , anyway I'am trying to catch up on all the going's on since the WC
which is the last time i saw SA play ! Many thanks again
Guy Glover
Jon Thackray wrote:
> Acording to my interpretation of the laws, jut being over their own try
> line would not automatically put them on-side, they have to be back 10m
> even if that means being 5 m behind the try line. Am I right?
>
> No. They can`t be offside if they`re behind their try line.
It is possible to be offside when behind your own try line.
The confusion arises here because it was not strictly an off-side
offence.
The 10m rule for penalties is not part of the off-side law and states
10m or thegola line whichever is nearer.
Guy
Ian Diddams
Guy Glover wrote:
> It is possible to be offside when behind your own try line.
???? No offside in-goal???? What about in front of a kicker in-goal
(yes, it would have to be a very short kick!!)
> The confusion arises here because it was not strictly an off-side
> offence.
> The 10m rule for penalties is not part of the off-side law and states
> 10m or thegola line whichever is nearer.
True... but semantics. The result is the same.
Nicholas Bradshaw
Ian Diddams wrote:
>
> Guy Glover wrote:
>
> > It is possible to be offside when behind your own try line.
>
> ???? No offside in-goal???? What about in front of a kicker in-goal
> (yes, it would have to be a very short kick!!)
Erm. He didn't say *no* offside as far as I can see. I think he said
what you're saying.
> > The confusion arises here because it was not strictly an off-side
> > offence.
> > The 10m rule for penalties is not part of the off-side law and
> > states
> > 10m or thegola line whichever is nearer.
>
> True... but semantics. The result is the same.
Well no. Because if not retreating from a penalty *were* an offside
offence then because -- we all agree -- you *can* be offside in goal,
the defenders would have to retreat 10. Even if this took them well
behind the try-line. But I think everyone agrees on this point.
Could we argue something more controversial again like the
posts-and-ground rule?
--
Nick Bradshaw - IRIDIA,ULB