What did you think ofthe Reffing

[Flat-top]

Nice trolling FT

But not many bites

Who me? A troll? I don't know what you mean

PS. Be sure to catch some of the web streaming of the ARC starting soon. I'd be interested to hear your take on the "Stellenbosch Laws" and how you think the NH unions will think on them after their trial in Scotland.

Certainly hope to see them in use but a little concerned that so many changes at one go may make it difficult to see exactly which changes if any are responsible for any improvement. I think allowing the use of hands at the breakdown will allow the ref to concentrate on what is important and the change to the lineout will speed up the game which must be good provided they stamp out the gamesmanship that allows teams to delay the throw by having key players go down pretending to be injured to slow play. Also think they need to go further with the use of touch judges, if they are going to be there then they need to be more proactive, even if it means they enter the field when necessary to effectively provide two refs for instance when there are repeated scrum infringements, it is becoming increasingly annoying that refs are guessing which team is at fault when he could utilise a touch-judge to police the blind side.

[chook]

... and the change to the lineout will speed up the game which must be good provided they stamp out the gamesmanship that allows teams to delay the throw by having key players go down pretending to be injured to slow play.

Damn straight FT, nothing is more frustrating than seeing Nathan bloody Sharpe going down 'injured' before every second lineout and he still thinks he is a bloody winger trapped in slow, tall, ponderous body.

Ref was good. TMO and TJ calls very odd. As for the TMO 'try', is there a similar rule in rugby as there is in League where there is a benefit of the doubt call? I would think that would be the only way that Woodcocks try could be adjudicated on.

[Flamethrower]

A benefit of the doubt call for tries is a joke. Why not apply it to the rest of the game? Ritchie is never offside and never kills the ball. Hookers never throw the ball "not straight". The Tahs used to win games.

[chook]

You are right, Tahs are used to winning games, although I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[shasta]

I'm pretty sure benefit of the doubt does not apply in Rugby. In the circumstance of Woodcock's try a Rugby League TMO would be unlikely rule "benefit of the doubt". It's more likely he'd refer it back as "Ref's call". RL referees will often refer decisions to the TMO with the rider "I've got an opinion if it's inconclusive".

[no.8]

The ref was crap, McCaw cheated.
Collins tackle on Smith was high.
Mortlock's tackle on Howlett was on the shoulder.
It wasn't a try!
We we're robbed off a 1 point loss, not 14 point drubbing.

Rant, Rant, Rant.....

[hopep]

Its OK No. 8 ...
take a depth breath ...
stay calm ...
and put that sharp object down, slowly.

[Happy]

first half was ok .. i think a certain wallaby player who threw the ball away in touch at half time might be receiving a bit of hate mail right now!

[no.8]

Its OK No. 8 ...
take a depth breath ...
stay calm ...
and put that sharp object down, slowly.

Bloody Kiwi's!

[The Jackal]

I think the ref was a bit off in some of his judgement BUT he also made some good calls.

Yes, that Mortlock tackle shoudn't have been given. It was wrong on the TJ. It shouldn't have been given.

What shouldn't also have been given was the first penalty awarded to the Wallabies from a scrum. The Ref was only feeling sorry for Dunning & Sherperdson.

[JediKnight]

And Smith was lucky not to be yellow-carded for his stupid offence when he grabbed the NZ player's arm as he was about to play the ball. A similar offence that the Wallabies got away with in the 1st half when it was given as a NZ knock-on.