The Nigel Owens verdict on the big calls that upset a nation
After what was arguably one of the best weekends of Rugby World Cup action fans have seen, there were a number of incidents that have since been dissected.
Referee Nigel Owens has addressed some of the biggest calls, perhaps leaving a few more questions than answers at times, but hopefully clearing up a few of the big issues.
France in particular were unhappy following their epic contest with South Africa, and Owens has looked directly at two of the main talking points.
The Eben Etzebeth intercept attempt
In the 7th minute of the match, with France already 7-0 up and dominating, they surged forward and looked to have an overlap out wide. Etzebeth leaped to intercept and knocked the ball down with one hand. The crowd felt it was a knock on, but the officials said it went backwards or at least, laterally, out his hand.
Owen's explains why the game played on.
"He is very, very lucky. He goes with one hand out. There is no way he's going to catch the ball, so what he tries to do, he tries to knock the ball backwards, which is legal! As long as you knock the ball backwards. If he had made contact with that ball and that ball had gone forward, then it would be a deliberate knock on and a pretty certain yellow card as well.
"When you look at the footage, there's a lot of debate about this. Some of you saying, 'well I think it's gone forward', some of you saying 'no I think it's gone backwards'. It really is a very very difficult one. It's impossible to see 100%, to put your house on it, has it gone forward or has it gone back.
"So the referee looks at this, and I have to say, I tend to agree with the referee here because it's very difficult to say that's its gone forward or gone back, so the referees view (and the TMOs view) is, the ball went backwards - or certainly didn't go clearly forward - and therefore we have a play on.
"But remember, he's very, very lucky. If that goes forward, it's a pretty certain penalty and yellow card."
The Kwagga Smith penalty win
Owens gave his explanation for why Smith was not penalised when he won a crucial breakdown turnover in the 68th minute.
"Some of you have been debating. 'What about the penalties, hands on ground, legal or not?' Okay.. Nothing in law says that you can't put your hands on the ground. So we can't say that any player that puts his hand on the ground is committing an offence, because it doesn't say that in the law. So the way that the referees will deal with this, is the law of the contact tackle area. So if you come in to jackal the ball, what the jackler must do? He must release the ball carrier before he regathers on the ball, or if he's not in contact with the ball carrier, when he comes in, he must maintain his own body weight.
"So what he can't do, is put his hands away or beyond the ball to support his body weight and then come on to the ball to gather. Now if he comes in and tries to go for the ball but in doing so because of the speed, his hands touches the ground around the ball, but that is not keeping his weight up - which means he's supporting his own bodyweight - then we won't necessarily penalise the hand touching the ground. We'd only penalise it if the hands are too far or he's using the ground to support his bodyweight.
"So that's what the referee decides. The referee needs to decide, was that hand supporting the bodyweight before he goes onto the ball and if so, it will be a penalty. If he feels well, he just touched the ground around the ball, it's not supporting his bodyweight, then we'd have a play on."
Pollard landed the 52m penalty to give South Africa a 29-25 lead.
You can watch the full video below (territory dependant).
Etzebeth and Smith will both be in action again on Saturday, when South Africa take on England in the semi-final of this year's Rugby World Cup.
Latest Comments
Why are there so many? Is it to keep the tv people happy, or to try and engage more fans with clubs that would otherwise not survive?
Go to commentsSo I'm going to propose a format, and let me first say 2 things. One, I know why it would never work, why many if not most of the parties involved would not want it. Two, I'm not even sure I'd want it. I'm just going to put it out there, and you all can tell me why it's awful and I'm an idiot.
So, there are 40 teams across the 3 top tier leagues of Europe & Africa. Merge all 3 leagues into a 3 tiered competition with pro/rel, plus a cup competition. Here's how it'd work.
For the league set up, you'd have a top division and second division each with 16 teams. You'd then have a third division of 8 teams. Both Divisions 1 and 2 operate kind of like the URC now in that they are split into 4 groups of 4. In each division, the 4 group winners would play in the playoffs, and the 4 group losers would play in a reverse playoff. In the reverse playoff the two losers of round 1 would then play each other. The loser of that would be automatically relegated, and the winner would play the playoff runner up of the division below for to either stay up, or also be relegated.
Divisions 1 & 2 would each play an 18 match schedule while Division 3 would play a 14 match schedule. Part of the downside of being in Division 3. However, television money would be split equally among all 40 clubs to protect Division 3 clubs from going belly up. Each tier would also have a progressively higher salary cap.
Aside from the league, there'd also be a cup competition. All 40 clubs, regardless of division, would be divided into 8 groups of 5. Each team plays each of their group mates once, for 2 home matches, 2 away matches. Each group winner, plus the next 8 best teams regardless of group, advance to the round of 16 to start knockouts.
This means, every club between the league and cup competitions, would play a minimum of 18 matches (division 3) per season, and a maximum of 28 (if you won the double).
I understand frankly, why many parties involved would be opposed to this, most strongly of course, the French, who really don't need to tinker with their domestic set up at all. Again, I'm not even sure I'd like it in reality. Just a thought I had, wanted to put out there.
Go to comments