SA v Eng

Just watched the end of the SA Eng game. Officiating across the board is confusing this weekend. First in the NZ Jap Game. Japans first try should of never been awarded. Jordie was illegally interferred with. You cant push a player ova. If he is running towards the ball. Than Jap 2nds try Was held up for over 5 seconds. Apparently that was a legitimate try as well. Than end of this game. Owen Farrell Clearly committed an illegal Shoulder Charge. No Arms, no attempt at wrapping his arms around the defender. Shoulder connects with SA right shoulder. I Fail to see how the ref can justify he even attempted to wrap his arms. As it is Pollard missed a penalty kick 10 mins early. That would of given SA a 14-12 win. But the officiating needs better transparency.

Luke

His words were...

I feel he made enough of an attempt to wrap.

In isolation anyone would call that a penalty. But, at the end of a match when the call will likely change the outcome in favour of the visiting team, these refs cower away and make blatant crowd pleasing decisions.

Reffing remains my biggest gripe with rugby.

I did not watch the Japan game - but the last incident in that SA game was a mistake by the ref.   Both the TV ref and the ref got it wrong - it was a shoulder charge - not a tackle.    

I did not watch the Japan game - but the last incident in that SA game was a mistake by the ref.   Both the TV ref and the ref got it wrong - it was a shoulder charge - not a tackle.    

I did not watch the Japan game - but the last incident in that SA game was a mistake by the ref.   Both the TV ref and the ref got it wrong - it was a shoulder charge - not a tackle.    

I just want to understand exactly why the word "attempt" is used.

Firstly, how you discern what was attempted?

And then also, where does the degree of attempt negate what actually happened?

It's nonsense.

Here...

Player jumps to catch a high ball. Opposition player jumps too late and knocks him out of the air. The height different between the two at moment of contact is 30cm.

The late jumping player will be carded regardless. Even though his "attempted" jump would have seen him be both as high up as the catcher and also put him in a position to catch the ball. A perfect attempt.

But here your "attempt" means nothing. It's the outcome that determines the sanction.

Yesterday, no part of Farrel, aside from his shoulder made contact with Esterhuizen. The ref deemed that his "attempt" to wrap negated any wrong doing...despite the outcome being an obvious shoulder charge or a no arms tackle.

I'm not picking on the Ab's here...just using DMac as an example due to his size.

Let's say Duane hits Dmac with the exact same tackle. 

Which ref in all of world rugby would not card him for it? Zero. 

And that's exactly the point. 

Decisions are not supposed to be made around arbitrary factors. "Attempts" might influence degrees of sanction but the event itself determines the necessity for sanction.

Who the home team is, what time in the game it is, what the situation of the game is and what size the players are should make no difference.

Yesterday, Gardner allowed all of those factors to influence him and it smacks of dire incompetence.

If a ref does not know how to referee a basic a foul such as a no arms tackle then one has to wonder what he is doing on the field.

I don't like gray areas like those. Attempting? He either did or didn't . It's like calling intent. Don't call intentions, call the action. It's really very simple if one thinks logically. 

I just want to understand exactly why the word "attempt" is used.

Firstly, how you discern what was attempted?

And then also, where does the degree of attempt negate what actually happened?

It is plain: same stuff as when SA rugby claim they attempt to bring rugby to the SA populations.

"I don't like gray areas like those. Attempting? He either did or didn't. It's like calling intent. Don't call intentions, call the action. It's really very simple if one thinks logically."

Exactly Aug

Bump