rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4
 
Re: Wasps match thread
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:30
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Quote:
Man from LA
How the TMO didn't notify the ref about Hughes forearm is beyond me. The standard of refereeing this weekend has been abysmal.

Because it wasnt a forearm

Was a dangerous swinging arm

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Bazzo (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:36
But in fairness Marler should have seen red for his forearm smash to the head? It was not to his shoulder as the ref suggested. The guy was holding his leg, but you just cant do that.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
thomh (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:38
Quote:
Bazzo
But in fairness Marler should have seen red for his forearm smash to the head? It was not to his shoulder as the ref suggested. The guy was holding his leg, but you just cant do that.

Marler could also have seen red for a second yellow if his collapsed maul before the Bassett try hadn't been forgotten.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:39
Marler punched the arm on his leg BUT his arm/elbow followed through on the head area. I could understand a red (it was stupid).

 
Re: Wasps match thread
RleQuin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:46
Does anyone still believe in JK or the team after that debacle?
RleQ

 
Re: Wasps match thread
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:50
I believe we have a good squad, I also believe they are underachieving. Jk was a cheap appointment and as a result we get good games and bad games.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Roaming Quin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:51
Agree

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:54
Quote:
Bazzo
But in fairness Marler should have seen red for his forearm smash to the head? It was not to his shoulder as the ref suggested. The guy was holding his leg, but you just cant do that.

And the Wasps player should have been given a yellow. But Marler could easily have got a red for that.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 18:55
Quote:
RleQuin
Does anyone still believe in JK or the team after that debacle?
RleQ

Yes.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
ArchQuin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:06
There are always the believers who are satisfied with mediocrity - some of us supporters want to win and get upset and frustrated when we don't - others are not that concerned and therefore don't criticise in the same way - life I suppose !

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:22
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
RleQuin
Does anyone still believe in JK or the team after that debacle?
RleQ

Yes.

The team I understand. They are good players.

But I genuinely don’t understand how anyone has any faith in JK and co at the moment.

 
Re: Wasdps match thread
RleQuin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:10
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
RleQuin
Does anyone still believe in JK or the team after that debacle?
RleQ

Yes.

I feel sorry for you.
We make the same mistakes every week, the breakdown was laughable today (again) - there is never anyone quick enough in support.
The line out is a joke - do we have a hooker in the club who can throw in straight?
And as for Marler - when will he learn? Never I suspect.
Still, I expect to hear and see the same old rubbish spouted from various players and coaches about why we lost and just how much hurt we are now carrying forward.
RleQ

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Hymenoptera (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:15
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...

All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

 
Re: Wasdps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:16
Quote:
RleQuin
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
RleQuin
Does anyone still believe in JK or the team after that debacle?
RleQ

Yes.

I feel sorry for you.
We make the same mistakes every week, the breakdown was laughable today (again) - there is never anyone quick enough in support.
The line out is a joke - do we have a hooker in the club who can throw in straight?
And as for Marler - when will he learn? Never I suspect.
Still, I expect to hear and see the same old rubbish spouted from various players and coaches about why we lost and just how much hurt we are now carrying forward.
RleQ

Sympathy not necessary.

We were very poor today, compounded by a very bad ref. But we didn't deserve to win.

We don't make the same mistakes every week - some weeks we are very good. We were bossed at the breakdown today but not always legally; a better ref would have made us have more of a chance. We have a hooker who missed one lineout in two games prior to this. Marler reacted to another player who should also have been penalised but wasn't. None of this is irreparable, and on another day the ref could have been poor for Wasps instead.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:18
Quote:
ArchQuin
There are always the believers who are satisfied with mediocrity - some of us supporters want to win and get upset and frustrated when we don't - others are not that concerned and therefore don't criticise in the same way - life I suppose !

There will always be those who leap on the team and/or management after a loss, regardless of how we play. Some of those are less vocal when we win.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:18
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

JK is the easiest person to blame, and because he's the man in charge he can be blamed for everything - discipline, defence, attack, player errors, dropping balls, forward passes etc.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:23
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

I suppose it's fair you gloat after such a one-sided thrashing, but while Joe is prone to doing daft things he's not a Lion for nothing and he's been outstanding this season.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
ArchQuin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:23
You can't blame the man at the top for everything but he still carries the can if things go well and badly - that is the job - everyone knows that !

 
Re: Wasps match thread
HonkyTonk (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:34
The line out was fine when Gray was on. What happened after we caught it was crap!!!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
thomh (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 19:43
Quote:
ArchQuin
You can't blame the man at the top for everything but he still carries the can if things go well and badly - that is the job - everyone knows that !

Yes I always find the "it's not the coach who did x" argument a bit of a straw-man. No-one is suggesting that any one individual error is the fault of the management. That doesn't mean they don't bear any responsibility for the sum of them.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
22 October, 2017 20:07
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

JK is the easiest person to blame, and because he's the man in charge he can be blamed for everything - discipline, defence, attack, player errors, dropping balls, forward passes etc.

A culture of mediocrity, complacency and failure is riven through his custody of the club as top man. He's the boss, he sets the tone, he gets the bullet.

 
Re: Wasdps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 20:28
Quote:
Quinky Kin

Sympathy not necessary.

We were very poor today, compounded by a very bad ref. But we didn't deserve to win.

We don't make the same mistakes every week - some weeks we are very good. We were bossed at the breakdown today but not always legally; a better ref would have made us have more of a chance. We have a hooker who missed one lineout in two games prior to this. Marler reacted to another player who should also have been penalised but wasn't. None of this is irreparable, and on another day the ref could have been poor for Wasps instead.

If none of it is irreparable why don’t we repair it?

We lost by 31 points and you’re still saying it’s because of the ref?

Come on QK. Get at least a small part of a grip.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 20:32
Quote:
Battering Ram Winger
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

JK is the easiest person to blame, and because he's the man in charge he can be blamed for everything - discipline, defence, attack, player errors, dropping balls, forward passes etc.

A culture of mediocrity, complacency and failure is riven through his custody of the club as top man. He's the boss, he sets the tone, he gets the bullet.

Give him a chance, he's not yet had a season and a half and he got us our best league position in 3 or 4 seasons at his first go.

 
Re: Wasdps match thread
Marlovian (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:07
Quote:
Quinky Kin

Marler reacted to another player who should also have been penalised but wasn't.

Such sweet irony!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:31
Few things to take away from that game...

1- We don't have a plan b when up against a fast defence
2- Smith is still doing a fine job (mistakes, yes, but what a player doing so well after baptism of fire)
3- That referee let Wasps get away with absolute murder at the breakdown! (Not why we lost, but still significant)
4- We just don't have enough fire power or size. You compare an Ashley Johnson carry with a Dave Ward carry and the difference is embarrassing. Or even a Launchbury carry with a Matthews carry.
5- Hughes is a nasty piece of work. (Should definitely cop a ban for the Smith headshot. Referee and TMO, bless them, more concerned with a nothing tussle between Walker and Gopperth!)

Side note, but Gopperth trying to get Walker a yellow card after being awarded the penalty was particularly disappointing. Though I know players try anything to get an advantage, thought he was better than that.

Aside from that, well done to Wasps. Whatever my complaints above, they were by far the better team and played very well to make sure they got a BPW.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:43
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:46
Quote:
thomh
Quote:
Jammy Git
Why? He got the Brown decision right, Walker was asking for trouble by tipping a player, and Quins are the architects of their own downfall right now.

Definitely should have been a penalty try so that decision actually went in their favour

No, it must be certain. If there is a chance a covering player (Visser here) *could* have made a tackle, then it is not a penalty try.

This is one of the rare cases in which the law isn't all-out in favour of the attacking side.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:50
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Man from LA
How the TMO didn't notify the ref about Hughes forearm is beyond me. The standard of refereeing this weekend has been abysmal.

Quirk of the laws. All that was made irrelevant by Charlie Walker's foul play, eradicating what happened afterwards. That's SUPPOSED to not overrule serious foul play, but I'm not particularly keen on spending any more time watching the TMO and ref bore us to death

That's not quite right. Walker's incident doesn't have any effect on whether or not the referee can penalise Hughes afterwards. He can.

He didn't see it and the TMO didn't speak up, otherwise I'm sure he would have and according to the laws, it would have been a red card for Hughes.

I'm positive he'll be cited but going on recent ban-times he'll probably get a chocolate bar and a free taxi home.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:37
I'm not sure he'll be cited. It was a bit soft. I can't see it as a red card (let's face it - if that's red, then Walker and Marler both get reds too)



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:54
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

No player can support their body weight at 45 degrees. The way referees are taught is... if you were to pause time and remove their arms, would they fall fowards? If so, penalty.

The answer to that questions in relation to many (not all) of the steals the referee let go tonight is unequivocally, 'yes'.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:58
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

Disagree 100% David Blaine couldn't do what Hughes did there.

Identical to about 99% of Dave Ward's turnovers :|

annoyed he didn't play any advantage for us on the second lineout penalty at the end of the half there.

Hughes only had one hand on the ball...

For some of it. So?

You're actually only allowed to have one crack at the ball as a stealer. If you slip off or have to steady yourself and go again... you can't. If you do and you slow down oppo ball from doing so, it's a penalty.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:00
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Man from LA
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Man from LA
How the TMO didn't notify the ref about Hughes forearm is beyond me. The standard of refereeing this weekend has been abysmal.

Quirk of the laws. All that was made irrelevant by Charlie Walker's foul play, eradicating what happened afterwards. That's SUPPOSED to not overrule serious foul play, but I'm not particularly keen on spending any more time watching the TMO and ref bore us to death

I get your point but the rules aren't allowed to be waived because they bore you. If it's a forearm to the head, potentially deliberate, the TMO has a duty to flag it up.

Well no the point is that Walker's foul play made everything else irrelevant, and the TMO didn't judge the arm enough of a problem to require sanction. Given that Walker didn't get carded for Gopperth landing on his head I think we should probably not complain too much.

That's not true, Jammy. It also wasn't that the TMO didn't judge it a problem - he didn't judge it at all! Had it been seen/passed on to ref, then it absolutely would have been penalised and Quins pen, regardless of Walker.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quins4life (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:46
[twitter.com]

Im sorry this is a red card clear as day. No provocation and no need, swinging to the head. Would have changed the game. They wouldn't have scored their 3rd try and we would have played against 14 men for the rest of the game if they officiated properly.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:02
Quote:
Jammy Git
Hughes had 2 hands on it at one point, survives the cleanout with one hand, then gets another hand on it. But hey, the problem is obviously the ref, not Robshaw lacking support and the cleanout not doing the job...

Hughes can't do that. Two attempts at the ball is not allowed.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
thomh (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:47
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. From the laws:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:04
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
HonkyTonk
Gray off, shame, he was doing ok. Re the walker/hughes incidents. If the tmo saw both, can they give a pen against walker but then reverse it for Hughes???

Yes they can.

No, only if it's retaliation, IIRC.

Again, not true at all, Jammy!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:08
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
zandini
Wish we had 15 players who give it as much as dave ward.

And I wish Dave Ward could tackle or throw accurately. Can't complain about his attitude, but he's just not good enough to demand a starting shirt at hooker or openside sad smiley

This is a dismal performance against a weakened Wasps team who've given us every chance of getting back in the game and who've made heaps of mistakes of their own.

Sadly agree!!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 21:59
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
HonkyTonk
Gray off, shame, he was doing ok. Re the walker/hughes incidents. If the tmo saw both, can they give a pen against walker but then reverse it for Hughes???

Yes they can.

No, only if it's retaliation, IIRC.

Again, not true at all, Jammy!

No, that one is true. They cannot give a penalty to Quins in that situation. They can give some sanction against Hughes, but the game must restart from where the first offence was. Penalties can be reversed for retaliation but that is not the same thing as being able to give a penalty for retrospectively looking at what happened when play progressed after an offence - otherwise you're effectively saying that play is allowed to continue despite a penalisable offence.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:00
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Hughes had 2 hands on it at one point, survives the cleanout with one hand, then gets another hand on it. But hey, the problem is obviously the ref, not Robshaw lacking support and the cleanout not doing the job...

Hughes can't do that. Two attempts at the ball is not allowed.

He always has at least one hand on the ball. It's never "two attempts". I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:03
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

No player can support their body weight at 45 degrees. The way referees are taught is... if you were to pause time and remove their arms, would they fall fowards? If so, penalty.

The answer to that questions in relation to many (not all) of the steals the referee let go tonight is unequivocally, 'yes'.

Yes, that's how refs are taught, but players are able to steal the ball at worse angles than just 45 degrees. We're not talking about fat old amateurs here, we're talking about very flexible elite sportsmen. I'm pretty sure these can all touch their toes smiling smiley

Hughes manages to keep his balance with one hand trying to dig the ball out and people trying to knock him off his feet. It's a reasonably clear situation compared to many turnovers we see every weekend.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:18
Quote:
ArchQuin
You can't blame the man at the top for everything but he still carries the can if things go well and badly - that is the job - everyone knows that !
Agree. When a business fails it is the CEO that goes first. (Obviously not refering to Ellis as he's not a rugby coach).

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:24
Quote:
Jammy Git
I'm not sure he'll be cited. It was a bit soft. I can't see it as a red card (let's face it - if that's red, then Walker and Marler both get reds too)

If I could write the laws myself then there is no way I'd call it a red, but by the current laws it is!

Would like to see the Marler one again but if contact on the head the yes, would be a red too.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:11
It was a big contact to the top of the head, so yeah.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:32
Quote:
Jammy Git
I'm not sure he'll be cited. It was a bit soft.

Probably won't be cited. It's not liked he flicked water at anyone!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:32
Quote:
thomh
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. From the laws:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

Absolutely correct, Thomh. I take it back! Missed that new law amendment trial.

 
Re: Wasdps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:35
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin

We were very poor today, compounded by a very bad ref. But we didn't deserve to win.


We lost by 31 points and you’re still saying it’s because of the ref?

Come on QK. Get at least a small part of a grip.

Can't quite see how you extrapolate your assumption from what I've said. Possibly it's you who lacks a grip.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:39
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
HonkyTonk
Gray off, shame, he was doing ok. Re the walker/hughes incidents. If the tmo saw both, can they give a pen against walker but then reverse it for Hughes???

Yes they can.

No, only if it's retaliation, IIRC.

Again, not true at all, Jammy!

No, that one is true. They cannot give a penalty to Quins in that situation. They can give some sanction against Hughes, but the game must restart from where the first offence was. Penalties can be reversed for retaliation but that is not the same thing as being able to give a penalty for retrospectively looking at what happened when play progressed after an offence - otherwise you're effectively saying that play is allowed to continue despite a penalisable offence.

No, that's not true. At the point the Hughes swinging arm happened, play was still going on anyway. Regardless, even if it hadn't been, he can still penalise Hughes after a previous incident.

All law doesn't just stop applying to everything else because one penalisable offence has happened.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:43
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Hughes had 2 hands on it at one point, survives the cleanout with one hand, then gets another hand on it. But hey, the problem is obviously the ref, not Robshaw lacking support and the cleanout not doing the job...

Hughes can't do that. Two attempts at the ball is not allowed.

He always has at least one hand on the ball. It's never "two attempts". I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

I'm trying to achieve the goal of spreading a few correct rugby laws through a forum. It was quite clearly two attempts. Not only that, he fell to his knees at the same time.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:33
Here's how it works:

Walker committed an act of foul play. Quins retained possession. Later, Hughes potentially also commits an act of foul play.

Quins cannot get a penalty for Hughes' offence. Quins committed an offence, sanctioned by the ref. He cannot then effectively "play on" and then give Quins a penalty for Hughes' later offence. That's not how the law works.

If it was serious enough for Hughes to get carded, he could still card Hughes. But the restart would still be the penalty against Walker.

The only thing that breaks this is retaliation offences, presumably because they're considered to be immediately consecutive to the original offence so there's nothing to worry about re: play continuing, who had possession, etc.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:48
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

No player can support their body weight at 45 degrees. The way referees are taught is... if you were to pause time and remove their arms, would they fall fowards? If so, penalty.

The answer to that questions in relation to many (not all) of the steals the referee let go tonight is unequivocally, 'yes'.

Yes, that's how refs are taught, but players are able to steal the ball at worse angles than just 45 degrees. We're not talking about fat old amateurs here, we're talking about very flexible elite sportsmen. I'm pretty sure these can all touch their toes smiling smiley

Hughes manages to keep his balance with one hand trying to dig the ball out and people trying to knock him off his feet. It's a reasonably clear situation compared to many turnovers we see every weekend.

Players do often steal the ball at worse angles that 45 degrees, but never legally. It's impossible!

Fat old amateurs don't come into it, as it has nothing to do with fitness or flexibilty, more to do with physics!

A player could have the flexibility to bend to a more acute degree than 45 but physics says they still won't be able to stay on their feet without using their arms. Remembering that players don't keep their legs at 90 degrees to the turf when pilfering - because they would get poleaxed!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:34
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Hughes had 2 hands on it at one point, survives the cleanout with one hand, then gets another hand on it. But hey, the problem is obviously the ref, not Robshaw lacking support and the cleanout not doing the job...

Hughes can't do that. Two attempts at the ball is not allowed.

He always has at least one hand on the ball. It's never "two attempts". I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

I'm trying to achieve the goal of spreading a few correct rugby laws through a forum. It was quite clearly two attempts. Not only that, he fell to his knees at the same time.

You're going to have to prove how it was "quite clearly two attempts" if he never lets go of the ball. Additionally, I disagree that he fell to his knees, based on the replay they showed at the end of the game when talking about his performance. I'm happy to be proven wrong on that one with another recording.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:35
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

No player can support their body weight at 45 degrees. The way referees are taught is... if you were to pause time and remove their arms, would they fall fowards? If so, penalty.

The answer to that questions in relation to many (not all) of the steals the referee let go tonight is unequivocally, 'yes'.

Yes, that's how refs are taught, but players are able to steal the ball at worse angles than just 45 degrees. We're not talking about fat old amateurs here, we're talking about very flexible elite sportsmen. I'm pretty sure these can all touch their toes smiling smiley

Hughes manages to keep his balance with one hand trying to dig the ball out and people trying to knock him off his feet. It's a reasonably clear situation compared to many turnovers we see every weekend.

Players do often steal the ball at worse angles that 45 degrees, but never legally. It's impossible!

Fat old amateurs don't come into it, as it has nothing to do with fitness or flexibilty, more to do with physics!

A player could have the flexibility to bend to a more acute degree than 45 but physics says they still won't be able to stay on their feet without using their arms. Remembering that players don't keep their legs at 90 degrees to the turf when pilfering - because they would get poleaxed!

No, they have knees instead.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:36
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. From the laws:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

Absolutely correct, Thomh. I take it back! Missed that new law amendment trial.

It's not a new law amendment trial - it's been the law for years.



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:55
Quote:
Jammy Git
Here's how it works:
Walker committed an act of foul play. Quins retained possession. Later, Hughes potentially also commits an act of foul play.

Quins cannot get a penalty for Hughes' offence. Quins committed an offence, sanctioned by the ref. He cannot then effectively "play on" and then give Quins a penalty for Hughes' later offence. That's not how the law works.

If it was serious enough for Hughes to get carded, he could still card Hughes. But the restart would still be the penalty against Walker.

The only thing that breaks this is retaliation offences, presumably because they're considered to be immediately consecutive to the original offence so there's nothing to worry about re: play continuing, who had possession, etc.

That's just not true. I understand the logic behind why you would think it would be, but it's not.

You don't ignore foul play because the period of play in which it occurred has become irrelevant.

You also cannot card Hughes in that instance without a penalty awarded to Quins.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:43
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Here's how it works:
Walker committed an act of foul play. Quins retained possession. Later, Hughes potentially also commits an act of foul play.

Quins cannot get a penalty for Hughes' offence. Quins committed an offence, sanctioned by the ref. He cannot then effectively "play on" and then give Quins a penalty for Hughes' later offence. That's not how the law works.

If it was serious enough for Hughes to get carded, he could still card Hughes. But the restart would still be the penalty against Walker.

The only thing that breaks this is retaliation offences, presumably because they're considered to be immediately consecutive to the original offence so there's nothing to worry about re: play continuing, who had possession, etc.

That's just not true. I understand the logic behind why you would think it would be, but it's not.

You don't ignore foul play because the period of play in which it occurred has become irrelevant.

You're not reading what I'm saying. You cannot award a team a penalty after a passage of play they 100% cannot be allowed to have had because of their own foul play. In the same way that if Quins had knocked on, a later knock-on by Hughes doesn't wipe that initial knock-on out. As you cannot play advantage in this situation, play must restart at the initial penalty.

If the foul play is serious enough to warrant a card, then a card can still be produced. But refs cannot ignore the other offence.

Quote:
You also cannot card Hughes in that instance without a penalty awarded to Quins.

Sure you can.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:58
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. From the laws:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

Absolutely correct, Thomh. I take it back! Missed that new law amendment trial.

It's not a new law amendment trial - it's been the law for years.

It says 'LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL' next to it in the law book but perhaps this occurs to the 2 pointer being automatically applied.

Referees are obviously told to be very stringent when applying that law as you don't see them given often unless it's 99% sure they would score!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/10/2017 23:28 by QuincyJones.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 23:01
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Virtually every player can support their own bodyweight at that angle. The real problem was the lack of support and the failed cleanout.

No player can support their body weight at 45 degrees. The way referees are taught is... if you were to pause time and remove their arms, would they fall fowards? If so, penalty.

The answer to that questions in relation to many (not all) of the steals the referee let go tonight is unequivocally, 'yes'.

Yes, that's how refs are taught, but players are able to steal the ball at worse angles than just 45 degrees. We're not talking about fat old amateurs here, we're talking about very flexible elite sportsmen. I'm pretty sure these can all touch their toes smiling smiley

Hughes manages to keep his balance with one hand trying to dig the ball out and people trying to knock him off his feet. It's a reasonably clear situation compared to many turnovers we see every weekend.

Players do often steal the ball at worse angles that 45 degrees, but never legally. It's impossible!

Fat old amateurs don't come into it, as it has nothing to do with fitness or flexibilty, more to do with physics!

A player could have the flexibility to bend to a more acute degree than 45 but physics says they still won't be able to stay on their feet without using their arms. Remembering that players don't keep their legs at 90 degrees to the turf when pilfering - because they would get poleaxed!

No, they have knees instead.

That, they do. I'm assuming you accept that their hips don't stay directly above their ankles.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:49
Correct. Humans are flexible - we can bend at the waist, at the knees, and, this is fairly crucial, maintain balance by not putting both of our feet in the same place smiling smiley


Btw, in the interests of the other discussion, having seen this view of Hughes I'm happy to say it's more serious than I thought: [twitter.com]



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 23:06
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
Here's how it works:
Walker committed an act of foul play. Quins retained possession. Later, Hughes potentially also commits an act of foul play.

Quins cannot get a penalty for Hughes' offence. Quins committed an offence, sanctioned by the ref. He cannot then effectively "play on" and then give Quins a penalty for Hughes' later offence. That's not how the law works.

If it was serious enough for Hughes to get carded, he could still card Hughes. But the restart would still be the penalty against Walker.

The only thing that breaks this is retaliation offences, presumably because they're considered to be immediately consecutive to the original offence so there's nothing to worry about re: play continuing, who had possession, etc.

That's just not true. I understand the logic behind why you would think it would be, but it's not.

You don't ignore foul play because the period of play in which it occurred has become irrelevant.

You're not reading what I'm saying. You cannot award a team a penalty after a passage of play they 100% cannot be allowed to have had because of their own foul play. In the same way that if Quins had knocked on, a later knock-on by Hughes doesn't wipe that initial knock-on out. As you cannot play advantage in this situation, play must restart at the initial penalty.

If the foul play is serious enough to warrant a card, then a card can still be produced. But refs cannot ignore the other offence.

Quote:
You also cannot card Hughes in that instance without a penalty awarded to Quins.

Sure you can.

I disagree. Calling it a night, work in the morning!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 22:52
Ditto! Will grab a copy of the game if I have time tomorrow night, see if I can't put a gif together of the turnover.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 23:14
Quote:
Jammy Git
Correct. Humans are flexible - we can bend at the waist, at the knees, and, this is fairly crucial, maintain balance by not putting both of our feet in the same place smiling smiley

Btw, in the interests of the other discussion, having seen this view of Hughes I'm happy to say it's more serious than I thought: [twitter.com]

Haha, that is fairly crucial! But I'm sure you'll also be able to agree that players generally keep both feet level, parallel to the try line, when attempting a steal, instead of one foot in front of the other.

This gives them stability from a side impact, however, if you removed their arms, it would have no bearing on whether or not they fell forwards!

If the hips are above their ankles, they are vulnerable, but would not fall forwards. Players bend their knees but, crucially, their hips are never above their ankles - always further forward. Meaning if you put the head below the hips, no matter how fit, flexible, or fat they are... they will fall over forwards without using their arms!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
22 October, 2017 23:17
Quote:
Jammy Git
Ditto! Will grab a copy of the game if I have time tomorrow night, see if I can't put a gif together of the turnover.

Will look forward to having a look if you find it!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
T-Bone (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 10:10
Quote:
Jammy Git
Correct. Humans are flexible - we can bend at the waist, at the knees, and, this is fairly crucial, maintain balance by not putting both of our feet in the same place smiling smiley

Btw, in the interests of the other discussion, having seen this view of Hughes I'm happy to say it's more serious than I thought: [twitter.com]

Not seen the game, so can't comment on most of the above, including Marler and Walker's foul play, but that tackle is horrific. How was that not picked up?

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 12:02
Quote:
T-Bone
Quote:
Jammy Git
Correct. Humans are flexible - we can bend at the waist, at the knees, and, this is fairly crucial, maintain balance by not putting both of our feet in the same place smiling smiley

Btw, in the interests of the other discussion, having seen this view of Hughes I'm happy to say it's more serious than I thought: [twitter.com]

Not seen the game, so can't comment on most of the above, including Marler and Walker's foul play, but that tackle is horrific. How was that not picked up?

Sadly I won't be surprised if it's not cited.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 12:04
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
T-Bone
Quote:
Jammy Git
Correct. Humans are flexible - we can bend at the waist, at the knees, and, this is fairly crucial, maintain balance by not putting both of our feet in the same place smiling smiley

Btw, in the interests of the other discussion, having seen this view of Hughes I'm happy to say it's more serious than I thought: [twitter.com]

Not seen the game, so can't comment on most of the above, including Marler and Walker's foul play, but that tackle is horrific. How was that not picked up?

Sadly I won't be surprised if it's not cited.
my thoughts exactly.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 12:10
It's been picked up by the papers so I would be mildly surprised!



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
InbetweenWasp (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 12:29
Quote:
QuincyJones
5- Hughes is a nasty piece of work. (Should definitely cop a ban for the Smith headshot. Referee and TMO, bless them, more concerned with a nothing tussle between Walker and Gopperth!)

I haven't had a chance to watch the game back after schlepping back down the M40 last night, so haven't seen the incident but doesn't sound great and a few of our posters suggesting there may be trouble ahead for Hughes. But very much an isolated incident, he's absolutely not a nasty piece of work. Big, physical, sure. Dirty, absolutely not.

Quote:
QuincyJones
Side note, but Gopperth trying to get Walker a yellow card after being awarded the penalty was particularly disappointing. Though I know players try anything to get an advantage, thought he was better than that.

Same caveat as above, but again a few of ours suggesting Gopps did the opposite and insisted to the Ref it wasn't worthy of a card and just a penalty. Seems pretty fair and balanced to me if correct - difficult to argue that it shouldn't have been that result.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Hymenoptera (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 14:38
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

I suppose it's fair you gloat after such a one-sided thrashing, but while Joe is prone to doing daft things he's not a Lion for nothing and he's been outstanding this season.

Was a question, not a gloat, get over yourself dude.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Mayor West (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 15:39
That clip to me looks like a clear swinging arm to the head, almost a punch. Why would you tackle somebody like that. Smith is a target like many fly halfs but you can do it within the laws. If Sinck or Joe had done that imarine the fallout. Incidentally, has there been the same outcry about Leowe's gouging citing as Sinck's not gouging one?

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 16:01
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Is it really JK thats the issue, he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler...
All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs....

I suppose it's fair you gloat after such a one-sided thrashing, but while Joe is prone to doing daft things he's not a Lion for nothing and he's been outstanding this season.

Was a question, not a gloat, get over yourself dude.

A question?

"All this venom at the ref yet Marler cost you 10 mins when you are down on props already...the guys a plank that smiles and laughs after being yellowed, ..his game is made up of 40% rugby and 60% digs...."

where's the question there? It's just the dull ramblings of someone looking to put the boot in but just making himself look a bit dim instead.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
T-Bone (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 16:27
Quote:
Mayor West
That clip to me looks like a clear swinging arm to the head, almost a punch. Why would you tackle somebody like that. Smith is a target like many fly halfs but you can do it within the laws. If Sinck or Joe had done that imarine the fallout. Incidentally, has there been the same outcry about Leowe's gouging citing as Sinck's not gouging one?

Missed this. Got a link?

 
Re: Wasps match thread
GP2110 (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 16:37
Jammy - the question is in the part of the comment that you chose not to quote:

"Is it really JK thats the issue
[u][/u], he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler.."

I think the point is that the players were responsible for those errors...

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 18:40
Quote:
GP2110
Jammy - the question is in the part of the comment that you chose not to quote:

"Is it really JK thats the issue
[u][/u], he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler.."

I think the point is that the players were responsible for those errors...

But that's not what I was replying to, which was the extended sniping about Marler. That wasn't a question.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:06
OK, so I've grabbed a copy of the game and snipped the Hughes turnover.

Here it is: [gfycat.com]

1) Hughes isn't off his feet until after he's stolen the ball, and has a stable base. His right hand brushes the floor, but given it is immediately grabbed it's clear he's not using it to support his bodyweight.
2) Robshaw holds on for a long time on the floor
3) Hughes is always using his left hand to get at the ball
4) Marler, on the floor, wraps up Hughes and prevents the ball being played

2) and 4) are clear penalties. Hughes' technique was spot-on. There may be a split second after the ball comes loose where Hughes loses contact with it - honestly, I can't tell! - I'd have kicked my TV in frustration if the roles were reversed and Quins hadn't won a penalty for that.

The problem was Joe's awful cleanout and Hughes' strength.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Hymenoptera (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:08
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
GP2110
Jammy - the question is in the part of the comment that you chose not to quote:

"Is it really JK thats the issue
[u][/u], he didn't miss Hughes down the left, or the tackle on Bassett, or the yellow card for Marler.."

I think the point is that the players were responsible for those errors...

But that's not what I was replying to, which was the extended sniping about Marler. That wasn't a question.

A question struggles to be 5 lines long...sorry for that..and Marler was referred to in the question..so..

Regardless, it wasn't a gloat, losing 5 on the bounce is nothing to gloat about, ...so like i said, get over yourself.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?