RugbyRebels

Maybe they're beginning to remember how to do it...

I had some friends visiting tonight. I've asked if they'd fancy coming to every game.

Of course, it was a pretty depleted Leinster outfit; but that's often been enough for them in the past. Os were dominant from the start and actually turned chances into points at a steady rate. Leinster seemed oddly passive in the collisions and Os broke the gainline seemingly at will.

The only fly in the ointment was yet another exasperating TMO call. I'm not sure even Barry Daly's mum thought he'd scored - but the TMO did. FFS...

Just seen an explanation of the Daly try. Apparently there's a new law stating that a player needn't be infield in order to ground a loose ball in the dead-ball area. I'm not sure what problem that change solves, but at least last night's TMO decision makes sense now.

Sourdust wrote:Just seen an explanation of the Daly try. Apparently there's a new law stating that a player needn't be infield in order to ground a loose ball in the dead-ball area. I'm not sure what problem that change solves, but at least last night's TMO decision makes sense now.

Strange law, doesn't seem consistent with other laws.

But anyway, it's great to see the Ospreys playing with ambition AND accuracy. Maybe the caretaker coach is getting to grips with things. Or maybe they feel they have little to lose, they have to go out there and make it happen. AWJ was playing like a man possessed (continuing from the French game), but them a lot of them had a good or very good games, Tipuric (obviously, M.O.M.), Dan Evans, Beck, Dirksen, the whole front row, Watkin and Beard when they came on.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Just seen an explanation of the Daly try. Apparently there's a new law stating that a player needn't be infield in order to ground a loose ball in the dead-ball area. I'm not sure what problem that change solves, but at least last night's TMO decision makes sense now.

Strange law, doesn't seem consistent with other laws.

But anyway, it's great to see the Ospreys playing with ambition AND accuracy. Maybe the caretaker coach is getting to grips with things. Or maybe they feel they have little to lose, they have to go out there and make it happen. AWJ was playing like a man possessed (continuing from the French game), but them a lot of them had a good or very good games, Tipuric (obviously, M.O.M.), Dan Evans, Beck, Dirksen, the whole front row, Watkin and Beard when they came on.

I suppose it could be off the back of the not touching the ball in the in-goal area with one foot out of play to make the ball go dead, that's the only thing I can think of.

Excellent display from the Os on the weekend, they look a different proposition when all their players are available that's for sure.

Another one that appears to have recently changed is the definition of "in touch". As I always understood the laws - and certainly as I observed in long-standing practice - the ball could not be in touch if it was free in the air, regardless of how far beyond the vertical plane of the touchline it went. To be in touch, the ball had to touch the ground - or an object/player connected to the ground - out of bounds. Effectively, the entire atmosphere of planet Earth was in play, but only the part of the surface bounded by the pitch. We often saw players exploit this by leaping in the air well beyond the touchline, to knock an arial ball back onto the pitch. But starting a few years ago, these instances now seem to be regularly judged "in touch" because the ball has broken the plane of touch, despite returning to play without being grounded. Is this a law change, or a clarification / directive, or just a fashionable mistake?

Sourdust wrote:Another one that appears to have recently changed is the definition of "in touch". As I always understood the laws - and certainly as I observed in long-standing practice - the ball could not be in touch if it was free in the air, regardless of how far beyond the vertical plane of the touchline it went. To be in touch, the ball had to touch the ground - or an object/player connected to the ground - out of bounds. Effectively, the entire atmosphere of planet Earth was in play, but only the part of the surface bounded by the pitch. We often saw players exploit this by leaping in the air well beyond the touchline, to knock an arial ball back onto the pitch. But starting a few years ago, these instances now seem to be regularly judged "in touch" because the ball has broken the plane of touch, despite returning to play without being grounded. Is this a law change, or a clarification / directive, or just a fashionable mistake?

Aye, I was under the same impression and I don’t recall the law changing.

Sandydragon wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Another one that appears to have recently changed is the definition of "in touch". As I always understood the laws - and certainly as I observed in long-standing practice - the ball could not be in touch if it was free in the air, regardless of how far beyond the vertical plane of the touchline it went. To be in touch, the ball had to touch the ground - or an object/player connected to the ground - out of bounds. Effectively, the entire atmosphere of planet Earth was in play, but only the part of the surface bounded by the pitch. We often saw players exploit this by leaping in the air well beyond the touchline, to knock an arial ball back onto the pitch. But starting a few years ago, these instances now seem to be regularly judged "in touch" because the ball has broken the plane of touch, despite returning to play without being grounded. Is this a law change, or a clarification / directive, or just a fashionable mistake?

Aye, I was under the same impression and I don’t recall the law changing.

I think the new interpretation or law is a mistake. The rule used to be clear cut and clear from replays. Now it's basically impossible to check (until rugby starts using Hawkeye).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Another one that appears to have recently changed is the definition of "in touch". As I always understood the laws - and certainly as I observed in long-standing practice - the ball could not be in touch if it was free in the air, regardless of how far beyond the vertical plane of the touchline it went. To be in touch, the ball had to touch the ground - or an object/player connected to the ground - out of bounds. Effectively, the entire atmosphere of planet Earth was in play, but only the part of the surface bounded by the pitch. We often saw players exploit this by leaping in the air well beyond the touchline, to knock an arial ball back onto the pitch. But starting a few years ago, these instances now seem to be regularly judged "in touch" because the ball has broken the plane of touch, despite returning to play without being grounded. Is this a law change, or a clarification / directive, or just a fashionable mistake?

Aye, I was under the same impression and I don’t recall the law changing.

I think the new interpretation or law is a mistake. The rule used to be clear cut and clear from replays. Now it's basically impossible to check (until rugby starts using Hawkeye).

If a player has th skill to catch th ball and rin turn it to play in that manner, then unless it’s a mile forward the ref should give the benefit of the doubt IMO.

And another good one. Have they rediscovered their mojo??

Son of Mathonwy wrote:And another good one. Have they rediscovered their mojo??

Yeah - too late, again.

45% possession & territory, completed 30 fewer passes, made 50 more tackles; won 5 tries to 1.

Imagine what could be achieved with a balanced, hardened back row.

Oh, and if anyone was watching, Biggar made at least two tries with killer passes. But he did kick it a few times too, and I'm sure everyone noticed that.

Not so good tonight. Except at the death Ulster couldn't break down the Ospreys, but the Os couldn't break out. Except for that one brilliant try disallowed by the Irish TMO for some highly debatable supposed foul play by AWJ. It's really not acceptable for a team to have home advantage AND all four officials from their union.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Not so good tonight. Except at the death Ulster couldn't break down the Ospreys, but the Os couldn't break out. Except for that one brilliant try disallowed by the Irish TMO for some highly debatable supposed foul play by AWJ. It's really not acceptable for a team to have home advantage AND all four officials from their union.

They deserved something from that game, their defence was superb.

That's that for the Ospreys' season, well beaten by Ulster. But at least they had a good 2018, even if that didn't save their season. If they can continue on this course they won't need to win any play off to get into the Champions Cup.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:That's that for the Ospreys' season, well beaten by Ulster. But at least they had a good 2018, even if that didn't save their season. If they can continue on this course they won't need to win any play off to get into the Champions Cup.

I've lost count of the number of recent seasons where I thought "If the Blues can carry on next season how they ended this one, they'll qualify".

Ironically the year they do finally get back in, they had a typically rubbish start to the season.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Not so good tonight. Except at the death Ulster couldn't break down the Ospreys, but the Os couldn't break out. Except for that one brilliant try disallowed by the Irish TMO for some highly debatable supposed foul play by AWJ. It's really not acceptable for a team to have home advantage AND all four officials from their union.

That is utterly disgraceful. The integrity of the officials must be above question, but when you get a circumstance like that it just fuels speculation.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Not so good tonight. Except at the death Ulster couldn't break down the Ospreys, but the Os couldn't break out. Except for that one brilliant try disallowed by the Irish TMO for some highly debatable supposed foul play by AWJ. It's really not acceptable for a team to have home advantage AND all four officials from their union.

That is utterly disgraceful. The integrity of the officials must be above question, but when you get a circumstance like that it just fuels speculation.

I don't remember the exacts but Frank Murphy reffed Glasgow v Connacht. I'm sure you're aware that It's not that long ago that Frank surpassed 100 caps as a player for Connacht. Not that hard to swap him and his counterpart down the M8 for a bit more impartiality.

I agree. It's a joke.