The 'very open scenario' that will worry Jack Nowell fans at Exeter

In the past there was a period where you could dive full stretch and get a finger tip to it to stop the pass. You were obviously not trying to catch the ball, you were deliberatly trying to knock it down (this is where the name oringally came from, and why it’s still used in situations where you’re obviously not trying to know it down). This started to creep into all facets of the game, as players used it in more situations that stopping a desperate overlap, and they had to come down with a more hardline approach.

So yes, I’d probably be with you, that ones that look like this (especially where in this case Le Garrec lost the ball forward) are allowed, but only as long as there was still a line, just have it somewhere much further down the other end of the spectrum.

Maua and his family have always been a bright light in our community, and they deserve everything they’ve earned. Maua continues to be a nightmare at friendly gatherings for his peers, as “You should be more like Maua” from parents, will echo throughout the function. Not only for his immense rugby success, but his amazing manners and kind heart. This is undoubtedly thanks to the work of his parents and extended family.

Keep it up Maua! Always supporting you and your family, now bring it home for us🏆

Anywhere else on the field you would just stick out a hand to stop it but there it would have been a penalty try yellow card.

Are you talking about a scenario like last week where Dmac fired the ball into Theo hoping he wouldn’t be able to catch it? If Theo had knocked on you’d hope he wouldn’t be penalized. Or are you talking say like a South African play where a player might get isolated and thinks he’ll be turned over, so just deliberately knocks it on instead so his team can win the scrum? How I just defined his actions there are what the law is constituting as the reason for a yellow card, foul.

You are not carded for deliberately knocking the ball on, that is only a normal penalty infringement. You are actually committing a foul when it’s also rulled you deliberately denied the ball to the opposition (something the refs consider you to be doing when theres an overlap or you’re pressed on your line). So yes, the call in that instance would go against the attacking team, not the defending one I’d believe.

That’s why everyone was always amazed that the All black would when with 40% possession, its just that ABs finished off the tries quickly, you can look at it like they only needed to make half the amount of linebreaks this game before they could score.

So do you look at say ABs where better last week because they made twice as many linebreaks, and scored 7 tries and blew a few more, or do you say ABs were better this week because they were able to score twice as easily and because there tries stuck so well, they didn’t need to score again before it counted?

Certainly states wise, and therefore on the park to a very large degree as well, they didn’t dominate game two as much as they dominated game one.

But none of them are individuals that are a) any sort of quality coach/analyst of the game (NPC the highest), or b) seem to consume stupids amount of rugby for the love of it like people in a similar profession in other top leagues. Johnson is probably the only one I would say comes close to that but is a pure fan, I don’t think he has any pro knowledge.

To be fair to them, the best in say soccer or american football would get paid a hundred times what these guys do, but it’s so hard in those markets that all panelists have to be students of the game just to get a shot. And in the case of Beaver, he is like the Ian Smith of cricket, he’s a knowledgable gu, enough to lead people down the wrong track (they would believe him), but they’re both very obvious in their more parochial opinions that you know to take what Beavers saying with a grain of salt. Wilson, Marshall, and even Mils go off like they think theyre the bees knees,

Admittedly things are changing globably, i’ve glimpsed enough football shows to know the Britsih media are happy, and the fans too soaking it up, getting the most high profile ex players on a show as the best way to increase ratings.

I certainly want the elite commentators in our game, the ones that get the All Black gigs, to have more of an understanding than anybody. Thats the type which are former coachs and whos understanding and insight into the game continues to expand even if theyre no longer prepared to commit to the demands of performing the role of coaching the All Blacks etc. That means for instance the likes of when Henry used to be used for broadcasts. These currents ones are pathetically budget by comparison, not that I’m complaining, I don’t need them.

But it’s a ruling that can also be upgraded to a foul, and by association, a yellow card, when it’s it was also deliberately trying to deny the ball to another player. For instance, that is why they are just given penalties up the field, because the player has just made a bad decision (one where he had no reasonable chance) and he doesn’t really care if the pass had gone to hand for his opponents or not (he was just thinking about being a hero etc).

So the way the refs have been asked to apply the law is to basically just determine whether there was an overlap (and not to try and guess what the player was actually thinking) or not, as to whether it’s a penalty or a YC.

This is the part Barrett doesn’t like, he’s essentially saying “but I had no idea whether they were likely to score or not (whether there was an unmarked man), so how can you tell me I was deliberately trying to prevent it going to someone, it could have been a blind pass to no one”.

It’s WR trying to make it clear cut for fans and refs, if at the players expense.

But yes, also you must think it entirely possible given both were foul plays that they could both go to the bench. Much the same as we see regularly when even though the play scores a try, they have started sending the player off still.

And while I agree Narawa didn’t knock it on, I think the ball did go forward, just off the shoulder. As his hands were up in the air, above the ball, basically like a basketball hope over his right shoulder, I guess you’re right in that if it did make contact with his hands it would have had to be deflected backwards onto his shoulder etc. Looking at the replay, Le Garrec clearly lost control of the ball forward too, but because Barrett was deemed to have committed a deliberate act, that overrides the knockon from 9.

I just don’t understand how they can consider it a deliberate attempt to block a pass when he actually lost the ball forward!

Have to be careful he doesn't get too good. They'll get a bad reputation for nicking Dutch players!

But to answer your question, yes of course France would have been allowed to play on (essentially) at that point and you can pick whatever offence you like (sometimes you chose the first offence because it’s say an easier kick than the last offence, ofc France would have wanted any PT offered). It doesn’t always eventuate like that though, in the Lions v AUNZ game the ref (georgian guy) played advantage on a chip kick and blew the whistle when the first guy missed the bouncing ball but the second bounce went right into another guy who broke away down the field (but the ref stopped play too quickly instead of allowing play to continue to see how things went).