Wallabies tweet: Hooper to head home Thursday, misses Wales game

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).

Your inability to see this is also expected.

The law says the sanction is a scrum. But the ref can do whatever he/she wants, including a penalty of course.

You have a nice little interpretation guideline for refs, about intent and cynicism. You should send Andrew Brace a helpful note to suggest it.

Rassie took the bet that he would get the scrum. Good call.