Rugby - Hands Off Green!

[finbar]

He was first choice. And he bosses the lineouts. They have back-ups galore on tour but they will miss him. The re-re-construction must put a question mark over his long term future, too. I've only seen a grainy, stop-start video of the Latham try. Looked good. Love to see it in a proper replay.

[Solly]

I wouldn't mind seeing that Noon give league a go if he can work on his sidestep and go forward.

[finbar]

Originally posted by finbar
He was first choice. And he bosses the lineouts. They have back-ups galore on tour but they will miss him. The re-re-construction must put a question mark over his long term future, too. I've only seen a grainy, stop-start video of the Latham try. Looked good. Love to see it in a proper replay.

I take back the bit about them having back-ups galore on tour. It seems H. McMenamin might be joining D. Vickerman back home. Shame. Anyway, they've called up a replacement. Never heard of him, either.

[Havak]

Does that mean it will be Sharpe and Chisolm as first choice?

Another young centre has been called up by England (Johnston from Sarries). Excellent news as Tigers play Sarries this weekend (and they normally lose very few players to call ups).

Seriously you can see Brian Ashtons influence in the selections already with these youngster being given a chance.

[finbar]

Yes, Sharpe and Chisolm. Not my ideal starting pair.

Can Johnston play?

[Havak]

I've seen very little of him but he is apparently playing very well. I'm simply applauding the fact they are trying form players on principle.

He isn't as young as I though however - he is 28 but has gone largely unnoticed (being at Sarries can do that to you) except for A team appearances.

Toby Flood has also been named in the 30 man squad - I'd love to see him either in the ten or twelve shirt. Flood-Allen is a centre combination worth trying I think.

Italy next up for the Wallabies? That will certainly test the pack nicely.

[finbar]

I read different versions of the Wales effort. One, that the pack was better than before but blew the last scrum; two, that they were as poor as ever. The reality is that they're not going to fix it in time for the World Cup. The talent just isn't there.

[finbar]

England centre Jamie Noon should have been credited with his disallowed try against New Zealand, according to referees' boss Paddy O'Brien.

Noon's effort was ruled out as referee Joel Jutge and video ref Christophe Berdos did not see the ball grounded.

O'Brien, the International Rugby Board referees' manager, has said tries should be awarded unless there is a clear reason to disallow them.

"I have no doubt the try was legitimate," said O'Brien.

Noon looked to have crossed just four minutes into the game at Twickenham on Sunday but All Blacks centre Ma'a Nonu claimed to have held the ball up by keeping his arm underneath it.

Frenchman Jutge referred the decision but apparently asked compatriot Berdos whether he could see the ball grounded - which he could not from any of the television angles available.

"I'm not going to defend the indefensible," added O'Brien.

"When Joel referred the incident to the television match official the wrong questions were asked.

"Had I been refereeing the game without the option of going 'upstairs', my instinct would unquestionably have been to award the score."

What a bizarre load of claptrap from P. O'Brien. The ref didn't see the ball grounded, so he rightly asked the video ref. The ball has to be seen to be grounded for a try to be scored. The video ref couldn't be sure that the ball was grounded either. The rules are clear and simple. No try.

Paddy thinks the ref asked the wrong question. What should he have asked? Or does Paddy think the ref should simply have awarded the try even though he hadn't seen the ball grounded?

Paddy would (himself) have awarded the try if he hadn't had a video ref to whom to refer. So what? There was a video ref available. That's why they're available. To adjudicate when the ref needs a second opinion.

Paddy hasn't grown any brains in retirement.

[Havak]

I'm afraid you are out of date Finbar - the laws of the game itself haven't changed but when a referee refers to the TMO now he can only ask "is there any reason that I may not award this try". The full quote from Paddy would have told you that.

The TMO had to see Nonu get his hand under the ball - and he couldn't do so as the guy patently didn't manage it (in other words he fibbed the naughty boy!) - or the try is awarded. The try therefore should have been awarded under the conditions under which the TMO operates surely?

A shame really as after Carter's effort it was the next best try of the game - and along with Haymans about the only one that didn't come from an opposition mistake!

[Havak]

The Welsh pack is a pretty decent one Finbar - and the Aussies didn't get blown away.

That said I am unconvinced about McIsaac, Palu and Blake - and the latters discipline seems to be a problem.

Lets see how the Azzuri do?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I'm afraid you are out of date Finbar - the laws of the game itself haven't changed but when a referee refers to the TMO now he can only ask "is there any reason that I may not award this try". The full quote from Paddy would have told you that.

The TMO had to see Nonu get his hand under the ball - and he couldn't do so as the guy patently didn't manage it (in other words he fibbed the naughty boy!) - or the try is awarded. The try therefore should have been awarded under the conditions under which the TMO operates surely?

A shame really as after Carter's effort it was the next best try of the game - and along with Haymans about the only one that didn't come from an opposition mistake!

In that case it's a stupid law change. It creates a deliberately vague question which does nothing to clear up doubts about legitimacy. As it is, if the ref had asked the question - as it is now required to be asked - the TMO would have replied that he didn't see the player ground the ball. Same result.

The Welsh pack is a pretty decent one Finbar - and the Aussies didn't get blown away.

That said I am unconvinced about McIsaac, Palu and Blake - and the latters discipline seems to be a problem.

I'm not sure about McIsaac either. Knuckles seems to like him. Apparently there's a very gifted young hooker with the party - forget his name - whose only problem is that he can't hit the side of a barn with his throws! Other than that it's dear old B. Canon. Palu is very young with nil experience. He's one for the future. They have visions of another T. Kefu. Blake is being counted on for his size and ball-carrying. He's still got a lot to learn about scrummaging.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
4 tries (well 4 if the French TMO is ignore) matching 4 NZ tries ain't bad given what we've seen of England recently. Only player I felt wasn't worth having on the pitch was Balshaw and that decision was rather rash - his positioning and far too often in the line for no benefit (and thus hole at back) cost many points.

Better to have Van Gisbergen in FB and have him also kick the place kicks as Charlie can't.

Wouldn't have taken alot different for England to have won today, NZ got alot of luck and some daft English errors to saunter out of sight.

Such a shame Dan Carter had to play, he really is awesome.

I agree...if England had been better they would have been better.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak
I'm afraid you are out of date Finbar - the laws of the game itself haven't changed but when a referee refers to the TMO now he can only ask "is there any reason that I may not award this try". The full quote from Paddy would have told you that.

The TMO had to see Nonu get his hand under the ball - and he couldn't do so as the guy patently didn't manage it (in other words he fibbed the naughty boy!) - or the try is awarded. The try therefore should have been awarded under the conditions under which the TMO operates surely?

I didn't see the whole game but from the sounds of things I have to agree with finbar (sorry finbar).
If the TMO stated that he thought there was a hand under the ball (as he did and has since reiterated) then he has a good reason not to award a try.
The phrasing of the question itself is utterly irrelevant unless the intent is to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the try scorer (which I'm guessing it is, but if, as you say, the laws haven't changed, then it becomes nothing more than a fudge factor to bend laws without breaking them).
Given that in 90-odd percent of these sort of cases the try is scored legitimately I'm sure it probably should've been given (or at least as sure as I am that the one that was given came from a forward pass and should've been disallowed - but maybe I shouldn't have brought that up. ) but I don't see how the TMO or the ref could've done otherwise ...

[finbar]

I forgive you for agreeing with me but only because you're agreeing with me.

In other news, former ARU boss John O'Neill is finishing up as head honcho of S***** Australia. Unsurprising. The ultimate boss of S***** Australia is Frank Lowy, zillionaire and ego-maniac. They were always going to clash. If the ARU has any sense, they'd ask J. O'Neill back. For all his sins and foibles, the ARU has been a headless chook since he left.

[Havak]

As it is, if the ref had asked the question - as it is now required to be asked - the TMO would have replied that he didn't see the player ground the ball. Same result.

Not exactly – if i understand correctly then the criteria under which the TMO can be referred to has been altered so that it is not looking for positives but instead looking for negatives. He therefore no longer has to see the grounding to award a try – but he has to see some proof of non-grounding in order not to. It’s a clear move to favour the attacking side – although I doubt they would admit that so overtly.

Blake is being counted on for his size and ball-carrying. He's still got a lot to learn about scrummaging.

And he was opposing Gethin Jenkins who should have taught him a great deal.

That young hooker would be Stephen Moore (Reds)? The ARU website makes it nice and easy to browse your ‘spring tour’ squad.

I agree...if England had been better they would have been better.

But England were not bad Cal. NZ were just better. That’s sport for you.

Could be hard this weekend – looks a weaker team than for us plus as LDiCesare will tell you the French are going to make sure the officials are very tough on the ABs.

If the TMO stated that he thought there was a hand under the ball (as he did and has since reiterated) then he has a good reason not to award a try.

Quelle Surprise as mon ami across the channel would say.

Don’t get caught up about the laws – this is a change of operating criteria for TMOs apparently.

No TV angle showed a hand under the ball – and the TMO is not allowed to rule a try out based on what his imagination conjures up. That’s the new criteria – it’s a try unless you SEE evidence otherwise. He got it wrong. And as it would not materially have affected the result why defend the indefensible?

Still it is very clear that yourselves, like me, did not understand that the criteria TMOs operate under had been changed by the IRB starting this series. They’ve also trialing a ‘no tolerance’ policy as well by the way. Can’t see Georgy Gregan coping with that too well?

And no you really shouldn’t have brought up forward passes by England – at least with a straight face! Though thanks for making me laugh

In other news our coach has hit the panic button – he has made only one change for the Pumas test (a prop). This has two very real consequences – the first is that one test against the Boks will now have to be a weaker side (he cannot break his deal with the clubs) and the second is that if he now loses this Pumas test his position becomes totally untenable. So yes I am rather torn about Saturday.