Nigel Owens is absolute class. As difficult as it is sometimes to take when his conclusions go against your team, his argumentation is always well made and easy to follow. Rugby should transcend borders and it very much feels like Nigel Owens is a ref and a rugby supporter before he's a Wales supporter.
It does seem odd that, having taken an illegal throw in, that the throw isn't reversed to the other team. Scotland got off "scot free" when in many other situations possession would have been reversed.
It's a minor foul, so the punishment is "go back and do it again properly". It's like if you get a penalty and you tap-and-go from the wrong spot, you don't lose the penalty - you have to it properly.
@@tompw3141 Funny that you mention that considering Ireland's penalty was turned into a scrum for Scotland when Healy didn't tap the ball with his foot. They didn't just let Ireland take it again.
yea like Scotland do an illegal throw somehow don't concede a penalty from it ...... they literally tried to gain an advantage from a quick throw did so ilelgally yet got to retake the lineout ? i call Bullshit on that
@@tompw3141 which is inconsistent with "if you miss the tap and pick up the ball, its against you". A perfect set of what feels like little inconsistencies in the law. Why is missing the tap not "go back and do it properly"? (or why are they all not "reversals" ?
Always refreshing to hear Nigel's input after games, puts clarity of law and ambiguity at rest - brilliant stuff Nigel! Still wish you were on the pitch though! Top man
Great video and as usual I was totally wrong 🙄 nicely done by nigel though he's a top rugby brain .The joke about Wales winning in Paris was very good too !
How ironic to have Ireland’s try disallowed for a new ball infringement when the last Six Nations match I recall seeing that occur was when Mike Phillips scored the try for Wales that beat Ireland in 2011 from exactly the same situation. The touch judge that day had a mare. Still, all water under the bridge at this stage 😉
@@gwynevans6440 absolutely right on all counts. I have actually edited my comment accordingly. I was sitting about six rows back from the touchline where the ball went out and was screaming my lungs out when I saw them take the quick throw in. I guess it has mentally scarred me ever since 😂
I opened comments to make this exact point 😂 I think these events bind to memory because of the outcome of the games, or the overall context. If Ireland had won that day, neither of us would bear the scar 😅 just like Hogg's hand, if we had scored a 4th try, we wouldn't care
@@damianhackett7083 lol, I was in the lower stand too, in that same corner but behind the posts. let's just say every Irish person I spoke to that night was happy to share their opinions on the "try"! x
Wierd to me that Scotlands line out throw resulted in a re throw for Scotland but when Cian Healy took a tap penalty but didn’t tap it it resulted in a turnover for Scotland.
"Advantage cannot be applied because the phase of play should not have started in the first place" Does sound like the logic should've applied to the Healy tap too
I think the key difference between the decisions is while Scotland executed the quick throw cleanly they technically should not have had access to the new ball and so were not deemed to be at fault themselves. I thiink the error might fall on the officials or match support staff? Cian Healy failed to execute the penalty correctly and so was deemed at fault. Whether Scotland's actions could be considered cynical doesn't seem clear-cut.
Different laws. Taking a quick throw-in with the wrong ball isn't an offence and 18.5 says the same team take a line-out; in 20.11 the sanction for not kicking the penalty a visible distance is a scrum.
AT 4:13 seconds you can clearly see that there are 2 Scottish players and 3 Irish players in the lineout, ergo the lineout is set, ergo this wasn't a "quick lineout" but rather a lineout taken quickly as Nigel explained at the start. Also, since Doris was tackled in the air, doesn't that foul play trump the technical infrigement which was called?
@7:15 There was a famous example in Lansdowne Road in 1989 between Ireland and New Zealand when the ball boy went onto to pitch to tell the Ref that the touch judge had seen an infringement - Grant Fox had scored a try in the meantime and it subsequently got disallowed.
Its interesting that Nigel did not give an opinion on whether or Williams offence was a penalty try and yellow card: it clearly was both and probably would have changed the outcome of the game. Nigel is maybe not as neutral as people think and was disappointing in that regard, he was certainly very definitive on the other contentious decisions.
He did say it was an offence, that "the next question would be a penalty try and yellow card" and even that on top of all that there would even be a call for a yellow cynical play. Hard to what more you want.
Wales still would have won on points even with the penalty try awarded. And if the red card had been given, who knows what the actual score line would have been.
@@maynardcm Wales should have been down one player for cynical play + yellow card + penalty try. They should also have L. Williams get a yellow for his charge on an opponent in the air in no position to contest the ball. That's a lot of points and players removed from the equation. Plus the pshychological aspect. Plus the times when the welsh props fell on their knees or stopped binding and used their hands in the scrum and were not penalised for it, that's a lot of things which decent refereeing would have changed.
Maurice, you are correct that Nigel's comments and decisions (or in the Williams case, lack of decision) are not always bipartisan or faultless. In the case of Hogg's potential yellow card, Nigel states that he was not supporting his own body weight. This is not proven by the video footage. Although one leg was clearly in the air, it is extremely likely that he was supporting his own body weight on the other leg. The referee may have been able to see this, while the camera could not?
How is that likely? They were meters away from their own try line. And the play would still be called back anyway. The assistant referee is right there. I don't get these conspiracy theories. Hogg is quite clearly capable of making dumb mistakes without them being part of some master plan.
Ah shure, he is Sir Nigel Owens to those of us who care about the game, and the rest of the important clear honest communications issues the World is facing at the moment.
What makes it a quick throw in and not a lineout though? That it was perceived that the lineout wasn't set? So if it can be said that a lineout was set, then that was incorrectly deemed a quick throw in?
find it very interesting that for the analysis on the italy game, owens says that all the calls were up for debate and not giving a concrete answer on what the calls should have been like he did for the other games.
a welsh win in Paris ? I love your analysis, so do your big optimism ! I see France, Ireland and Scotland winning their last game. And very well deserved grand Slam for Ireland this year, waiting for the revenge against the blues in the World Cup !
World Rugby need to look at the quick throw in law where the wrong ball is used. It seems very strange and unfair and unsporting conduct when a team violates this law and are rewarded by being given back possession of the ball. At the very least, the lineout should be reversed to the other side. As that old saying goes ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the case of the Scotland Ireland game, Ireland were punished twice, first by having a try disallowed and second when Doris was injured during taking possession of that ball and was soon subbed off
yea imo this situation was Scotland trying to gain an unfair advantage it backfired Ireland got a try then not only was it called back for wrong ball somehow that doesn't mean it's a penalty to Ireland imo that wrong ball situation ok so it's not a try to Ireland fine but then it should be a Lineout to Ireland instead of just giving the ball back to Scotland
It's a good point. The throwing-in player is free to take a chance that the officials miss the ball swap, knowing there's no danger of being punished. It's a bit of risk free cheating. When the quick throw-in was added to the laws it made sense to be lenient while everybody got used to it, but it's time to tighten it up.
You can't do this, because it brings too many variable and possibilities of bad actors into account when it comes to people outside of play touching the ball, or changing balls etc. without players noticing. Imagine someone kicking it 50 metres up the pitch into the sun and running back to take that lineout, finding the ball on the sideline but the physio or someone else has touched it and you take a quick lineout throwing it back to a teammate and then get called for a pen... it would be madness. When the ball goes out of play it has to be dependent on the officials to make sure the restart happens with the correct ball in the correct circumstances, you can't put that on players.
I thought Nigel would talk about not releasing after the tackle first before France scored the try. That is the main point which was skipped here. Also at 9:44 Herefords disagrees with your predictions lol
I'm very surprised Nigel doesn't mention that a lineout is formed when you have two players from each team and the player throwing it in. The screenshot he uses shows a lineout has actually formed and play could have continued.
Interesting point but I thought a lineout was only valid if the referee had called it as one regardless of if they had lined up. Also based on the photo in the video no gap had been formed and Ireland had more players than they would have been allowed on the line-out, so from that picture I'd have said the line-out at that point hadn't been called or set up correctly so it shouldn't have gone ahead.
Made even worse by the fact Luke Pearce actually said "lineout formed" before the throw. Homer bullshit as was seen throughout the game culminating in Pearce laughing about Ringrose being knocked out
I have a question for Nigel: would you like the idea of a law change so that if a team charges down a kick and the ball goes into touch, the team who charged the kick down get to throw in at the line out. Seems like it would encourage attacking play? Great video though! Was just thinking ‘wonder if there will be a whistle watch soon’ - searched it and here we are!
Alternatively, i would like to see a return of the Minor Point or Rouge which was when a player from a defending team carries the ball behind their own goal line and grounds the ball and where the attacking team were awarded a Point in the past (1886). Most sports do have this where the player scores an OG. If this was enacted and updated giving the attacking team 2 points and a 5 metre scrum, I think this would encourage more attacking play with kicking into these sentive areas and putting pressure on those defending at back to clear their lines quick
nah i wouldn't be infavor of that because the ball went out of play off the attacker now thankfully what you have stated is such a rare occurrence it ultimately does not matter what that specific rule is on it
Great show, as ever Nigel. I have two questions from the weekend. Why didn’t the officials look at the Malins’ try in real time? I thought it was a try but the slow mo made it seem like a knock on. And second question; to do with the Liam Williams contest in the air. As the Italian jumped upwards (vertically) and Williams jumped forwards, making contact in the air. Why wasn’t Liam Williams penalised for reckless or dangerous play?
I'd say it depends more on circumstances than the referee of the day. If the advantage is in the middle of the park, then a clean linebreak with a good shot at a try is "advantage over" straight away. If the advantage is on the defender's 5, anything less than a dropgoal/try is "no advantage". I think it's fair to allow near unlimited phases here, as long as the attackers maintain posession and continue to build pressure. Only a turnover or a major loss of territory/momentum by the attackers should let the defenders off the hook.
My problem with the Scotland line out using the wrong ball, the ref called new ball play. Would that not make it a valid play or just wrong call by the ref?.
Great explanation as always by Nigel. But could he explain the law on where penalties should be taken from. In my day it was through the mark but now it seems you go from the mark taking another 3-4 metres before you kick it. And as for not straight in a scrum, oh dear. 🤔
Two questions Nigel First, how come Wayne Barnes has officiated in three out of four Irish matches? Second, I remember Robert Jones scoring against Ireland after a quick throw in with the wrong ball. The assistant referee assured the referee that Wales had used the same ball which was a lie. Is there any sanction available against an official behaving like this. Maybe the equivalent of a red card?
Come on Nigel, please explain the difference between the precise location of a penalty kick from the kicking tee and the apparent random location of the kick from hand. Some kicks from hand can be several meters from where the offence occurred.
Ireland messed up the tap and go, so understandably the ball was given to Scotland. Messing up the lineout is on par and should also mean that you forfeit the ball.
For the record, I understand that both decisions were correct in law. I also agree that it's clearly inconsistent. There's an argument for reversing the consequences of the two events. The botched tap and go was an innocent failure-to-restart, where the quick throw-in was a deliberate attempt to con the officials.
@@westasleep Genuinely, what convinces you that it was deliberate? What advantage did Scotland hope to gain by planning to take the line out twice? I can't think of one.
Thing is that Smith is taken by Dupont and starts to be pushed, he touches the ground with his knee (and more) and regathers again ! So it's a push push by both team and the fact that Smith held the ball is ultimately an English possession. You can't penalize a team for pushing a guy who is trying and manages (congrats to him for that) to stay UP ! If penalty for England because you have to leave the guy you tackle => Ok, but if Smith is tackled he has to leave the ball and on the push France would have won it... Either way, wouldn't have changed the match.
@@gunnarulfberht1610 agreed on the result, but sequence was, ball kicked back in open play. Smith gets back, over the ball and picks up. Then Dupont makes contact and 'tackles' Smith, about 4m out. Smith goes down, knee(s) on the ground, Dupont must release, but he doesn't. Then dupont drives Smith into in goal area. If Dupont had released the Eng support would have arrived and ruck formed ~3m out. That was what Farrell tried to raise with the ref, who ignored it. I'm neutral in this match, but I just thought Nigel would have picked that up.
I saw this at the moment. It's the same thing that happens everytime on the touch line. Tackle is completed on the 5 metre line and tacklers drive the ball carrier out of bounds. No ref blows the whistle in those cases.
I think Liam Williams was lucky not to see yellow - the point that he took off from was so far away from the flight of the ball he was making a high force contact inevitable whether he got to the ball or not. Due care must be taken, and he was reckless.
The pictures didn't really do it justice but the Williams one looked a pretty clean pen from the side angle. Key thing for me is he was a good head or more lower on the contest and just hits the side. There was no contest, he was well beaten to the ball and just takes him out. These need to be pen or more for me. Penalising these is what stops the more dangerous ones.
Respectfully, I think that's wise with hindsight. For me, Williams reasonably thinks he's got a realistic shot at winning the ball _at the time he commits to the jump_. I've gone through it frame by frame, and at the moment they both leave the ground, Fusco is no more than 60/40 favorite. I'd call that fair contest. If Fusco is a slightly less athletic jumper, Williams is winning that ball, getting upended by Fusco, and we're wondering if it should be a card in the opposite direction. The only fair way i can see to legislate this kind of collission out of the game is to put the onus for safety on the kicking team - in much the same way that the onus is on defenders when it comes to tackle time. If there's a bad midair collission and it's not 100% the receiving jumper's fault, then it's automatically the chaser's fault.
I'd like to hear Nigel's take on how far away from the ball can a player be cited for obstruction. Several times I've seen a player (usually on the attacking team and usually after a ruck) run up to and grab an opposition player and hug/hold them there for a second or 2, this might be 10m or more from the ball, but it's slowing them from getting back into defensive position.
Williams not offiside because ball wasn't grounded: Rule 14: Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.
Read a few lines above. It's not about the offside line, it's that, still Rule 14: 8. Other players must : [...] c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball. Obviously not the case for Williams
I see 14.10 as establishing the "gate" for players who want to start a ruck by contesting the jackalls/guards already on scene. I think the more relevant section is 14.9: Any player who gains possession of the ball... (c) May be tackled, provided the tackler does so from the direction of their own goal line. Sanction: Penalty.
@@ekolekol4389 The tackle "event" isn't over until a ruck forms or the ball is carried/passed away from the scene. Until then, any new ball carrier "May be tackled, provided the tackler does so from the direction of their own goal line." 14.9(c)
As always Nigel, clear consise and well informed (no not you, us as a result of your video), keep up the good work, on the field, (farming!!!). Thanks again. you should still be reffing
In the build up to the England try, it seems that Farrell shoulder charges the French no 6 and then tackles him to the ground without the ball. To me this seems an obvious free kick or penalty, but it wasn't even mentioned, what am I missing?
Hi Nigel, fabulous, enlightening presentation, clear as a bell! I was expecting you to comment on the taking out of two of the attacking Italian back line by Wales. My Welsh farming rellies of no discernible herd-name would disagree but I thought it was discernably cynical and merited a double yellow card. Now that would have been a thing to behold 😅
I think the part that Farrell was querying with the ref, with the Ollivon try, wasn't the actions of the try being scored. Before the try, Dupont tackled Smith some 3-4 yards short of the tryline (Smith had got to his feet after picking up the ball and then was tackled and went back down) and Dupont, without first releasing him, pushed him back over the tryline. Now if Dupont had made a clear release and gone back in for the ball and Smith had held on then it's a penalty to France, advantage is being played and if he then wrestles Smith over the line and some French hand touches it down, it's a try. But with no clear release after the tackle the penalty should have gone to England, and it's no try. It wouldn't have made much odds to the overall score, but I can understand why Farrell questioned the decision.
I would have awarded France a penalty for Smith failing to release the ball when tackled, so advantage is played and Ollivon scores his try, as explained by Nigel
Nigel, what's the craic with the put in at a scrum. Sure l can't remember the last time l saw the scrum half fire it straight down the middle of the tunnel...
I love you Nigel, one of the best refs in the history of the game, and from the image you had on screen, I see how u think Bruno should have seen red, but what u didn't show is that contact is on the chest then rises. This is what the ref thought, and there is an angel that clearly shows this, but the TMO didn't show the ref this angle, instead just told him its direct neck contact which it wasn't. The ref was initially right and the TMO made him believe it was a red. If it wasn't for Carl Dixon, he could have been very unfairly seen red.
Legend of a man, Legend of Rugby already only a couple of years after retirement from the frontline. If "Carlsberg did 'People'" there would be no Heineken Cup as long as true, honest, great guys like Nigel Owens walk the planet. Thank the Gods Carlsberg don't do "People" and Heineken march on. I like the world of Rugby with folk like Nigel doing the guidance. I really hope he stays in the arena, it's never been more important to bring Trustworthy commentary on to the lack of Clarity around a lot of the burning issues in the modern game. It's not that there is any failure by the governance of the game, I think across the board they really are trying to get to the next level in a uniform manner, but the fact that humanity, inclusivity, Fake News etc are moving forward so rapidly The whole Sport NEED guys ordinary folk look up to.
For the Liam Williams case, I'm hearing "interpretation"? Video is clearly showing his not interested in the ball (when Italian player is), knowing that similar case has happened a few minutes before, where the evidence was not so clear... but penalty against Italy. Looks like the same rule is not applied the same way to both teams.
The assistant ref argued at the time words to the effect that as the italian was “pushing” the welsh player and not “striking” it should be yellow not red.
Hello sir, I'm one of your italian fans. Like many others I also think that you are a legend and an irreplaceable point of reference for everything concerning the correct interpretation of the laws of rugby. I kindly ask you, considering that a large part of your fans are not native english speakers and actually have difficultys in understanding your explanations - like me - if you could speak in a simpler and more articulated way, so that even we poor english speakers could enjoy your precious interpretations. Thank you a lot. PS: I apologize for my mistakes.
The French try should be disallowed because of the tackle on smith as it was a tackle and not released when he hit the ground so it should of been a penalty to England for no release
That would have meant ignoring Smith holding on to the ball. Unless the tackler is preventing release of the ball as well, I cannot recall seeing a tackler penalised when the tackled player is not releasing the ball.
@@martinbennett2228 what!!! Did you read or even think about what you just said!! Tackler has to release the player for him to place the ball so the penalty goes against the player that is not releasing not the tackled player
@@ragnarlothbrok7880 it’s not what the ref was thinking nor Nigel as they all just had a look at the try and not the penalty leading up to the line of the try and there’s a penalty called “ no clear release” or “ no release “ of a tackled player which is penalised before “holding on”
Nigel is just a joy to listen to . Very honest , fair and always sticks to his opinions. He was the best referee by a long way , I’m hoping he’s taking something to do with the training of future reds. As a football and rugby fan I can assure you the refs in rugby are miles ahead of football refs tho. I also admit the rugby player are much politer with refs than football players are.
I don't want to say that cow was shaking his head becouse you said Wales will win, but that cow was shaking his head becouse you said Wales will win. 😬
Of course the try should have counted for Ireland when my hubby and I looked at the highlights next day the ref. Or touch judge said "new ball play "before the Scots threw it in ,?????take a look yourself and tell me if I m wrong ,all the refs seem to be rigid when it comes to Ireland ,other teams get off with ,offsides ,in at the side ,moving the ball too slow, etc etc ,same times ,rules should be applied to both teams ya Ireland were penalised because the ref said new ball play ,he f Ed up and Ireland payed the price ,of missing out on a bonus point
Sorry Nigel, you showed a picture of the quick line out, Ireland were set up perfectly legal, Scotland had a load of players offside, but had two in the lineout area when they played the ball in. There's no statement of a minimum time to wait for a lineout in the laws.. still don't quite get it
I know Nigel won't probably answer this (or even read it) but let's give a shot anyway. Itally-Wales, Brex's non-try incident: Nigel claims there were "offside" lines but I don't see how is it possible. The relevant law (14.10) clearly states that the ball must be on the ground for a tackle with offside lines to form and the ball never was on the ground in that episode to begin with. Ruzza, the tackled player, immediately popped it to the incoming Brex who never was "on his feet and over the ball on the ground" as per law. Am I missing something or did Nigel get this one wrong?
I have a question for Nigel: how would you feel about a law change in which teams do not get an advantage when a ball is knocked on into their possession? In my view, gaining possession when you didn't have it before should be considered enough of an advantage. The exceptions could be, knocking it on into the in-goal area. Also if the team that knocks it on regathers the ball, you obviously still have a scrum to the opposition.
Depending on circumstances, a scrum can be worth more a lot more than "bad" posession. If your suggestion were law, canny defenders would do well to assess the situation and avoid taking posession of a knocked ball if the scrum looks a better option. We always want to incentivise players to keep playing until/unless the whistle is blown.
@@westasleep I see your point and agree that some may exploit the law, but I think it cuts both ways. If the players don't want to take possession and take the scrum then so be it, but if they do, and then it gets turned over again, there is no scrum. I think overall no advantage actually would lead to more ball in play.
AFTER THE LINE OUT BALL INCIDENT A BALL CHANGE OCCURRED NOT LONG AFTER WHEN A BALL BOY/GIRL THREW A BALL TO A PLAYER WHO THEN USED IT FOR A LINE OUT. IT WENT UNNOTICED YET IT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL BALL .. PLAY CONTINUED. ???? SO ? AM I SEEING THINGS THAT HAPPENED OR DID NOT HAPPEN ?
Why is the Scottish a quick throw in? Surely the fact they used another ball means it is not a quick throw in just an ordinary throw in and the game should have carried on.
OK the Scotland line-out law needs to change It's OK for a team to try and use a different ball with no repercussions? And if they get away with it (Wales vs Ireland for six nations title) they can catch Ireland out Where is the advantage for Ireland? Sorry, its a stupid law
What a weekend of action! What was your favourite moment from the Six Nations? Let us know below!
Quando Crowley ha gridato addosso a quell' incompetente di arbitro che avete chiamato, ktm
Nigel Owens is absolute class. As difficult as it is sometimes to take when his conclusions go against your team, his argumentation is always well made and easy to follow. Rugby should transcend borders and it very much feels like Nigel Owens is a ref and a rugby supporter before he's a Wales supporter.
Nigel Owens = best rugby referee to exist. Period. There'll never be one as good again.
It does seem odd that, having taken an illegal throw in, that the throw isn't reversed to the other team. Scotland got off "scot free" when in many other situations possession would have been reversed.
It's a minor foul, so the punishment is "go back and do it again properly". It's like if you get a penalty and you tap-and-go from the wrong spot, you don't lose the penalty - you have to it properly.
Agreed. If you throw in crooked you lose the lineout. Don't see why it shouldn't be the same here.
@@tompw3141 Funny that you mention that considering Ireland's penalty was turned into a scrum for Scotland when Healy didn't tap the ball with his foot. They didn't just let Ireland take it again.
yea like Scotland do an illegal throw somehow don't concede a penalty from it ...... they literally tried to gain an advantage from a quick throw did so ilelgally yet got to retake the lineout ? i call Bullshit on that
@@tompw3141 which is inconsistent with "if you miss the tap and pick up the ball, its against you". A perfect set of what feels like little inconsistencies in the law. Why is missing the tap not "go back and do it properly"? (or why are they all not "reversals" ?
Always refreshing to hear Nigel's input after games, puts clarity of law and ambiguity at rest - brilliant stuff Nigel! Still wish you were on the pitch though! Top man
Great video and as usual I was totally wrong 🙄 nicely done by nigel though he's a top rugby brain .The joke about Wales winning in Paris was very good too !
How ironic to have Ireland’s try disallowed for a new ball infringement when the last Six Nations match I recall seeing that occur was when Mike Phillips scored the try for Wales that beat Ireland in 2011 from exactly the same situation. The touch judge that day had a mare. Still, all water under the bridge at this stage 😉
tbf, it was the Touch judge who said it was the same ball, and I guess the ref has just got to accept he's seen it. Also, IT WAS 12 YEARS AGO!!! 🙃
@@gwynevans6440 absolutely right on all counts. I have actually edited my comment accordingly. I was sitting about six rows back from the touchline where the ball went out and was screaming my lungs out when I saw them take the quick throw in. I guess it has mentally scarred me ever since 😂
I opened comments to make this exact point 😂 I think these events bind to memory because of the outcome of the games, or the overall context. If Ireland had won that day, neither of us would bear the scar 😅 just like Hogg's hand, if we had scored a 4th try, we wouldn't care
@@damianhackett7083 lol, I was in the lower stand too, in that same corner but behind the posts. let's just say every Irish person I spoke to that night was happy to share their opinions on the "try"! x
@@ciaranoconnor4027 not a grandslam, but the championship...
Wierd to me that Scotlands line out throw resulted in a re throw for Scotland but when Cian Healy took a tap penalty but didn’t tap it it resulted in a turnover for Scotland.
"Advantage cannot be applied because the phase of play should not have started in the first place"
Does sound like the logic should've applied to the Healy tap too
I think the key difference between the decisions is while Scotland executed the quick throw cleanly they technically should not have had access to the new ball and so were not deemed to be at fault themselves. I thiink the error might fall on the officials or match support staff? Cian Healy failed to execute the penalty correctly and so was deemed at fault. Whether Scotland's actions could be considered cynical doesn't seem clear-cut.
Different laws. Taking a quick throw-in with the wrong ball isn't an offence and 18.5 says the same team take a line-out; in 20.11 the sanction for not kicking the penalty a visible distance is a scrum.
@@Seanlovesbass Not if you go by the actual laws of the game instead of what you wish they were.
@@ChrisClaye Nope. It's just different laws. 18.5 is very clear.
Great show as always Nigel. ❤
I’m not sure about your predictions re Wales v France however.
Cmon Ireland ☘️☘️
The ref in the Wales/Italy game was shocking. Luke Pearce did more to keep Scotland in the game at Murrayfield than any Scottish player.
😃
AT 4:13 seconds you can clearly see that there are 2 Scottish players and 3 Irish players in the lineout, ergo the lineout is set, ergo this wasn't a "quick lineout" but rather a lineout taken quickly as Nigel explained at the start. Also, since Doris was tackled in the air, doesn't that foul play trump the technical infrigement which was called?
@7:15 There was a famous example in Lansdowne Road in 1989 between Ireland and New Zealand when the ball boy went onto to pitch to tell the Ref that the touch judge had seen an infringement - Grant Fox had scored a try in the meantime and it subsequently got disallowed.
You mentioned on telly that the lineout may have been formed when the throw was taken.. do you still consider this a possibility?
thanks, love having you on the BBC talking about the ref decisions a great addition to the understanding (and the yelling!) ...
Its interesting that Nigel did not give an opinion on whether or Williams offence was a penalty try and yellow card: it clearly was both and probably would have changed the outcome of the game. Nigel is maybe not as neutral as people think and was disappointing in that regard, he was certainly very definitive on the other contentious decisions.
He did say it was an offence, that "the next question would be a penalty try and yellow card" and even that on top of all that there would even be a call for a yellow cynical play. Hard to what more you want.
Wales still would have won on points even with the penalty try awarded. And if the red card had been given, who knows what the actual score line would have been.
@@maynardcm Wales should have been down one player for cynical play + yellow card + penalty try. They should also have L. Williams get a yellow for his charge on an opponent in the air in no position to contest the ball. That's a lot of points and players removed from the equation. Plus the pshychological aspect. Plus the times when the welsh props fell on their knees or stopped binding and used their hands in the scrum and were not penalised for it, that's a lot of things which decent refereeing would have changed.
Maurice, you are correct that Nigel's comments and decisions (or in the Williams case, lack of decision) are not always bipartisan or faultless. In the case of Hogg's potential yellow card, Nigel states that he was not supporting his own body weight. This is not proven by the video footage. Although one leg was clearly in the air, it is extremely likely that he was supporting his own body weight on the other leg. The referee may have been able to see this, while the camera could not?
The Scotland throw in was a deliberate play they hoped to score from.
So? Law 18.5 is clear.
@@gordon1545 and the dangerous foul play which saw Doris injured overrides it. Should've been a yellow card and penalty to Ireland
How is that likely? They were meters away from their own try line. And the play would still be called back anyway. The assistant referee is right there. I don't get these conspiracy theories. Hogg is quite clearly capable of making dumb mistakes without them being part of some master plan.
Still don’t understand the new ball thing
This man should be Sir Nigel Owens. He means so much for many.
Ah shure, he is Sir Nigel Owens to those of us who care about the game, and the rest of the important clear honest communications issues the World is facing at the moment.
6:30 I love how the cow looks up when Nigel calls out its name 😂
What makes it a quick throw in and not a lineout though? That it was perceived that the lineout wasn't set?
So if it can be said that a lineout was set, then that was incorrectly deemed a quick throw in?
After the quick throw-in, Doris is hit in the air, resulting in his game-ending injury. Surely foul play would trump the throw-in?
find it very interesting that for the analysis on the italy game, owens says that all the calls were up for debate and not giving a concrete answer on what the calls should have been like he did for the other games.
Almost as if he's biased
a welsh win in Paris ? I love your analysis, so do your big optimism ! I see France, Ireland and Scotland winning their last game. And very well deserved grand Slam for Ireland this year, waiting for the revenge against the blues in the World Cup !
World Rugby need to look at the quick throw in law where the wrong ball is used. It seems very strange and unfair and unsporting conduct when a team violates this law and are rewarded by being given back possession of the ball. At the very least, the lineout should be reversed to the other side. As that old saying goes ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the case of the Scotland Ireland game, Ireland were punished twice, first by having a try disallowed and second when Doris was injured during taking possession of that ball and was soon subbed off
yea imo this situation was Scotland trying to gain an unfair advantage it backfired Ireland got a try then not only was it called back for wrong ball somehow that doesn't mean it's a penalty to Ireland
imo that wrong ball situation ok so it's not a try to Ireland fine but then it should be a Lineout to Ireland instead of just giving the ball back to Scotland
It's a good point. The throwing-in player is free to take a chance that the officials miss the ball swap, knowing there's no danger of being punished. It's a bit of risk free cheating.
When the quick throw-in was added to the laws it made sense to be lenient while everybody got used to it, but it's time to tighten it up.
@@kurtpunchesthings2411 Are you saying the ref was wrong or are you saying the law is wrong?
I think this is at the bottom of things World Rugby need to look at to be honest.
You can't do this, because it brings too many variable and possibilities of bad actors into account when it comes to people outside of play touching the ball, or changing balls etc. without players noticing. Imagine someone kicking it 50 metres up the pitch into the sun and running back to take that lineout, finding the ball on the sideline but the physio or someone else has touched it and you take a quick lineout throwing it back to a teammate and then get called for a pen... it would be madness. When the ball goes out of play it has to be dependent on the officials to make sure the restart happens with the correct ball in the correct circumstances, you can't put that on players.
We need this man for the next world cup, at the moment we are in trouble we don't have good quality revs
I thought Nigel would talk about not releasing after the tackle first before France scored the try. That is the main point which was skipped here. Also at 9:44 Herefords disagrees with your predictions lol
Not releasing because Smith kept moving after being held. If anything England got away with a penalty try and yellow card
Absolutely love watching you Nigel
I'm very surprised Nigel doesn't mention that a lineout is formed when you have two players from each team and the player throwing it in. The screenshot he uses shows a lineout has actually formed and play could have continued.
Interesting point but I thought a lineout was only valid if the referee had called it as one regardless of if they had lined up. Also based on the photo in the video no gap had been formed and Ireland had more players than they would have been allowed on the line-out, so from that picture I'd have said the line-out at that point hadn't been called or set up correctly so it shouldn't have gone ahead.
Schoeman is clearly on Ireland's side of the line - there's only one Scotland player in the line-out.
@@gordon1545 that's a fair point Gordon on a rewatch
Made even worse by the fact Luke Pearce actually said "lineout formed" before the throw.
Homer bullshit as was seen throughout the game culminating in Pearce laughing about Ringrose being knocked out
For the Ollivon try, does DuPont ever release once the tackle has been completed? And if he doesn’t, should the try be disallowed?
I have a question for Nigel: would you like the idea of a law change so that if a team charges down a kick and the ball goes into touch, the team who charged the kick down get to throw in at the line out.
Seems like it would encourage attacking play?
Great video though! Was just thinking ‘wonder if there will be a whistle watch soon’ - searched it and here we are!
Alternatively, i would like to see a return of the Minor Point or Rouge which was when a player from a defending team carries the ball behind their own goal line and grounds the ball and where the attacking team were awarded a Point in the past (1886). Most sports do have this where the player scores an OG. If this was enacted and updated giving the attacking team 2 points and a 5 metre scrum, I think this would encourage more attacking play with kicking into these sentive areas and putting pressure on those defending at back to clear their lines quick
nah i wouldn't be infavor of that because the ball went out of play off the attacker now thankfully what you have stated is such a rare occurrence it ultimately does not matter what that specific rule is on it
Great show, as ever Nigel. I have two questions from the weekend. Why didn’t the officials look at the Malins’ try in real time? I thought it was a try but the slow mo made it seem like a knock on. And second question; to do with the Liam Williams contest in the air. As the Italian jumped upwards (vertically) and Williams jumped forwards, making contact in the air. Why wasn’t Liam Williams penalised for reckless or dangerous play?
my thought. It was highly reckless and dangerous.
YES AND WILLIAMS ACTUALLY WRAPPED AN ARM TO BRING THE CATCHER DOWN WHICH IS CONTACT IN THE AIR???? ...NO WAY WILLIAMS WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THAT BALL.
Just wondering what you're opinion is on how long a penalty advantage should last, it seems to vary considerably from ref to ref.
I'd say it depends more on circumstances than the referee of the day.
If the advantage is in the middle of the park, then a clean linebreak with a good shot at a try is "advantage over" straight away.
If the advantage is on the defender's 5, anything less than a dropgoal/try is "no advantage". I think it's fair to allow near unlimited phases here, as long as the attackers maintain posession and continue to build pressure. Only a turnover or a major loss of territory/momentum by the attackers should let the defenders off the hook.
My problem with the Scotland line out using the wrong ball, the ref called new ball play. Would that not make it a valid play or just wrong call by the ref?.
Would be nice to have some video replays of these moments rather than photos Nigel Owens is the goto referee for the "final answer". A true legend!
Great explanation as always by Nigel. But could he explain the law on where penalties should be taken from.
In my day it was through the mark but now it seems you go from the mark taking another 3-4 metres before you kick it.
And as for not straight in a scrum, oh dear. 🤔
You are without a doubt the best rugby pundit. Thank you
Two questions Nigel
First, how come Wayne Barnes has officiated in three out of four Irish matches?
Second, I remember Robert Jones scoring against Ireland after a quick throw in with the wrong ball. The assistant referee assured the referee that Wales had used the same ball which was a lie. Is there any sanction available against an official behaving like this. Maybe the equivalent of a red card?
Would love to see these with videos of the foul if possible! Really well described but hard to visualise with the photos only
Love these Nigel and hope that they continue but it is OlliVON not OlliVION!
Brilliant segment! I hope you're doing similar during the world cup!
Come on Nigel, please explain the difference between the precise location of a penalty kick from the kicking tee and the apparent random location of the kick from hand. Some kicks from hand can be several meters from where the offence occurred.
Ireland messed up the tap and go, so understandably the ball was given to Scotland. Messing up the lineout is on par and should also mean that you forfeit the ball.
For the record, I understand that both decisions were correct in law. I also agree that it's clearly inconsistent.
There's an argument for reversing the consequences of the two events. The botched tap and go was an innocent failure-to-restart, where the quick throw-in was a deliberate attempt to con the officials.
@@westasleep Genuinely, what convinces you that it was deliberate? What advantage did Scotland hope to gain by planning to take the line out twice? I can't think of one.
The issue with the French try was that Marcus Smith wasn’t released by his tackler (Dupoint) who held onto him
Agreed, I'm disappointed that Nigel didn't comment on that. As Dupont didn't release, before it was in-goal, everything else was irrelevant.
Thing is that Smith is taken by Dupont and starts to be pushed, he touches the ground with his knee (and more) and regathers again ! So it's a push push by both team and the fact that Smith held the ball is ultimately an English possession.
You can't penalize a team for pushing a guy who is trying and manages (congrats to him for that) to stay UP !
If penalty for England because you have to leave the guy you tackle => Ok, but if Smith is tackled he has to leave the ball and on the push France would have won it...
Either way, wouldn't have changed the match.
@@gunnarulfberht1610 agreed on the result, but sequence was, ball kicked back in open play. Smith gets back, over the ball and picks up. Then Dupont makes contact and 'tackles' Smith, about 4m out. Smith goes down, knee(s) on the ground, Dupont must release, but he doesn't. Then dupont drives Smith into in goal area. If Dupont had released the Eng support would have arrived and ruck formed ~3m out. That was what Farrell tried to raise with the ref, who ignored it. I'm neutral in this match, but I just thought Nigel would have picked that up.
@@sunnyinsanya2 Totally see your point here ! My guess is that it was not that clear, that's why the ref, or Nigel, did not pick that up...
I saw this at the moment. It's the same thing that happens everytime on the touch line. Tackle is completed on the 5 metre line and tacklers drive the ball carrier out of bounds. No ref blows the whistle in those cases.
I think Liam Williams was lucky not to see yellow - the point that he took off from was so far away from the flight of the ball he was making a high force contact inevitable whether he got to the ball or not. Due care must be taken, and he was reckless.
100% yellow all day. He was out of control.
Liam Williams ain’t thanking any one for those images 😂😂😂
Nigel, read an article on bovine TB where you featured. I have to say it was eye opening. Hope everyone and theirs stay safe.
The pictures didn't really do it justice but the Williams one looked a pretty clean pen from the side angle. Key thing for me is he was a good head or more lower on the contest and just hits the side. There was no contest, he was well beaten to the ball and just takes him out. These need to be pen or more for me. Penalising these is what stops the more dangerous ones.
Respectfully, I think that's wise with hindsight.
For me, Williams reasonably thinks he's got a realistic shot at winning the ball _at the time he commits to the jump_.
I've gone through it frame by frame, and at the moment they both leave the ground, Fusco is no more than 60/40 favorite. I'd call that fair contest. If Fusco is a slightly less athletic jumper, Williams is winning that ball, getting upended by Fusco, and we're wondering if it should be a card in the opposite direction.
The only fair way i can see to legislate this kind of collission out of the game is to put the onus for safety on the kicking team - in much the same way that the onus is on defenders when it comes to tackle time. If there's a bad midair collission and it's not 100% the receiving jumper's fault, then it's automatically the chaser's fault.
Best ref of all time
Yes, I only wish he was still officiating .
Congratulations on the new Springboks gig Nigel would love to go for a drink when in SA
What constitutes a lineout, as opposed to a quick throw in? Is it when players from both teams form on the mark?
With the Olivon one how were France allowed to drive after the tackle was complete?
I'd like to hear Nigel's take on how far away from the ball can a player be cited for obstruction.
Several times I've seen a player (usually on the attacking team and usually after a ruck) run up to and grab an opposition player and hug/hold them there for a second or 2, this might be 10m or more from the ball, but it's slowing them from getting back into defensive position.
What about the two Italian backs who were floored on the halfway line during play?
That would advantage and advantage over.
Williams not offiside because ball wasn't grounded: Rule 14: Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.
Read a few lines above. It's not about the offside line, it's that, still Rule 14: 8. Other players must :
[...]
c. Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball.
Obviously not the case for Williams
@@Ruskieit thanks, interesting. If the ball is offloaded is it still the same tackle?
@@ekolekol4389also is says playing the ball. Is tackling playing the ball?
I see 14.10 as establishing the "gate" for players who want to start a ruck by contesting the jackalls/guards already on scene.
I think the more relevant section is 14.9: Any player who gains possession of the ball... (c) May be tackled, provided the tackler does so from the direction of their own goal line. Sanction: Penalty.
@@ekolekol4389 The tackle "event" isn't over until a ruck forms or the ball is carried/passed away from the scene.
Until then, any new ball carrier "May be tackled, provided the tackler does so from the direction of their own goal line." 14.9(c)
As always Nigel, clear consise and well informed (no not you, us as a result of your video), keep up the good work, on the field, (farming!!!). Thanks again. you should still be reffing
Nigel, we love you, but we all know it's your heart talking concerning a possible welsh win in Paris!
In the build up to the England try, it seems that Farrell shoulder charges the French no 6 and then tackles him to the ground without the ball. To me this seems an obvious free kick or penalty, but it wasn't even mentioned, what am I missing?
It’s Owen Farrell. He gets away with most dirty play.
Hi Nigel, fabulous, enlightening presentation, clear as a bell! I was expecting you to comment on the taking out of two of the attacking Italian back line by Wales. My Welsh farming rellies of no discernible herd-name would disagree but I thought it was discernably cynical and merited a double yellow card. Now that would have been a thing to behold 😅
Nigel! Please be our PM or at least The Speaker. I can't imagine it would take you very long, to sort those children out.
No mention of Dantys illegal jackel technique bracing on the floor before embracing the ball.
I think the part that Farrell was querying with the ref, with the Ollivon try, wasn't the actions of the try being scored. Before the try, Dupont tackled Smith some 3-4 yards short of the tryline (Smith had got to his feet after picking up the ball and then was tackled and went back down) and Dupont, without first releasing him, pushed him back over the tryline. Now if Dupont had made a clear release and gone back in for the ball and Smith had held on then it's a penalty to France, advantage is being played and if he then wrestles Smith over the line and some French hand touches it down, it's a try. But with no clear release after the tackle the penalty should have gone to England, and it's no try.
It wouldn't have made much odds to the overall score, but I can understand why Farrell questioned the decision.
I would have awarded France a penalty for Smith failing to release the ball when tackled, so advantage is played and Ollivon scores his try, as explained by Nigel
@@iangraham871 So you think Dupont let go of Smith after tackling him? I don't see that myself.
@@michaelday8459 Smith clearly got back up on his feet after the tackle was completed. Correct decision would've been penalty try and yellow card
Amazing that there are so many different opinions on this. I've watched frame by frame, over and over, and see merit in them all.
Nigel, what's the craic with the put in at a scrum. Sure l can't remember the last time l saw the scrum half fire it straight down the middle of the tunnel...
I love you Nigel, one of the best refs in the history of the game, and from the image you had on screen, I see how u think Bruno should have seen red, but what u didn't show is that contact is on the chest then rises. This is what the ref thought, and there is an angel that clearly shows this, but the TMO didn't show the ref this angle, instead just told him its direct neck contact which it wasn't. The ref was initially right and the TMO made him believe it was a red. If it wasn't for Carl Dixon, he could have been very unfairly seen red.
Legend of a man, Legend of Rugby already only a couple of years after retirement from the frontline. If "Carlsberg did 'People'" there would be no Heineken Cup as long as true, honest, great guys like Nigel Owens walk the planet. Thank the Gods Carlsberg don't do "People" and Heineken march on. I like the world of Rugby with folk like Nigel doing the guidance. I really hope he stays in the arena, it's never been more important to bring Trustworthy commentary on to the lack of Clarity around a lot of the burning issues in the modern game. It's not that there is any failure by the governance of the game, I think across the board they really are trying to get to the next level in a uniform manner, but the fact that humanity, inclusivity, Fake News etc are moving forward so rapidly The whole Sport NEED guys ordinary folk look up to.
For the Liam Williams case, I'm hearing "interpretation"? Video is clearly showing his not interested in the ball (when Italian player is), knowing that similar case has happened a few minutes before, where the evidence was not so clear... but penalty against Italy. Looks like the same rule is not applied the same way to both teams.
I’m going to the Scotland game
The assistant ref argued at the time words to the effect that as the italian was “pushing” the welsh player and not “striking” it should be yellow not red.
Hello sir, I'm one of your italian fans. Like many others I also think that you are a legend and an irreplaceable point of reference for everything concerning the correct interpretation of the laws of rugby. I kindly ask you, considering that a large part of your fans are not native english speakers and actually have difficultys in understanding your explanations - like me - if you could speak in a simpler and more articulated way, so that even we poor english speakers could enjoy your precious interpretations. Thank you a lot. PS: I apologize for my mistakes.
Prova ad attivare i sottotitoli. Aiuta un po'. ;)
And the video playback speed can be changed, so it's possible to slow it down if it's difficult to understand.
@@ducapelli si grazie, hai ragione, ma a volte anche i sottotitoli sono così veloci che è difficile leggerli e capirli in tempo .
Will there be a whistle watch covering the Rugby World Cup?
What about the other aerial collision which saw Wales get a penalty but there was no yellow card or (I thought appropriate) a red card
Love how Orange stuck her head up when you called her name :)
Superb again Nigel
The name of one of those Herefords must be Barnesy! Favourite moment was Hansen's try.
If the Scottish throw-in was retaken, why wasn't Cian Healy's tap and go retaken, since he did it incorrectly?
I was hoping someone would ask him about the South African 🇿🇦 gig.😂
As much as I have huge respect for Nigel, Wales to win ? "And that's not my heart ruling my head". I love his sense of humour.
The French try should be disallowed because of the tackle on smith as it was a tackle and not released when he hit the ground so it should of been a penalty to England for no release
That would have meant ignoring Smith holding on to the ball. Unless the tackler is preventing release of the ball as well, I cannot recall seeing a tackler penalised when the tackled player is not releasing the ball.
@@martinbennett2228 what!!! Did you read or even think about what you just said!! Tackler has to release the player for him to place the ball so the penalty goes against the player that is not releasing not the tackled player
@@mickjames7896 Smith didnt release the ball either and it probably what the ref was thinking
@@ragnarlothbrok7880 it’s not what the ref was thinking nor Nigel as they all just had a look at the try and not the penalty leading up to the line of the try and there’s a penalty called “ no clear release” or “ no release “ of a tackled player which is penalised before “holding on”
@@mickjames7896 and ref can also penalise a player who do not release the ball
What about Dupont not releasing Smith after tackling him and dragging him back into touch?
Nigel is just a joy to listen to . Very honest , fair and always sticks to his opinions. He was the best referee by a long way , I’m hoping he’s taking something to do with the training of future reds. As a football and rugby fan I can assure you the refs in rugby are miles ahead of football refs tho. I also admit the rugby player are much politer with refs than football players are.
Brilliant as usual ,
Nigel is always a great watch
I don't want to say that cow was shaking his head becouse you said Wales will win, but that cow was shaking his head becouse you said Wales will win. 😬
Will Whistle Watch cover W6N?
Still don't understand 😮
Of course the try should have counted for Ireland when my hubby and I looked at the highlights next day the ref. Or touch judge said "new ball play "before the Scots threw it in ,?????take a look yourself and tell me if I m wrong ,all the refs seem to be rigid when it comes to Ireland ,other teams get off with ,offsides ,in at the side ,moving the ball too slow, etc etc ,same times ,rules should be applied to both teams ya Ireland were penalised because the ref said new ball play ,he f Ed up and Ireland payed the price ,of missing out on a bonus point
9:09 - I bloody hope it is your heart ruling your head! Because on pure rugby analysis you must be having a laugh!!
Sorry Nigel, you showed a picture of the quick line out, Ireland were set up perfectly legal, Scotland had a load of players offside, but had two in the lineout area when they played the ball in. There's no statement of a minimum time to wait for a lineout in the laws.. still don't quite get it
Thanks excellent
Do you think the 8min review of yellow cards being used in super rugby @ the moment is a good idea
I know Nigel won't probably answer this (or even read it) but let's give a shot anyway. Itally-Wales, Brex's non-try incident: Nigel claims there were "offside" lines but I don't see how is it possible. The relevant law (14.10) clearly states that the ball must be on the ground for a tackle with offside lines to form and the ball never was on the ground in that episode to begin with. Ruzza, the tackled player, immediately popped it to the incoming Brex who never was "on his feet and over the ball on the ground" as per law. Am I missing something or did Nigel get this one wrong?
so cool great mate
I have a question for Nigel: how would you feel about a law change in which teams do not get an advantage when a ball is knocked on into their possession? In my view, gaining possession when you didn't have it before should be considered enough of an advantage. The exceptions could be, knocking it on into the in-goal area. Also if the team that knocks it on regathers the ball, you obviously still have a scrum to the opposition.
Depending on circumstances, a scrum can be worth more a lot more than "bad" posession.
If your suggestion were law, canny defenders would do well to assess the situation and avoid taking posession of a knocked ball if the scrum looks a better option. We always want to incentivise players to keep playing until/unless the whistle is blown.
@@westasleep I see your point and agree that some may exploit the law, but I think it cuts both ways. If the players don't want to take possession and take the scrum then so be it, but if they do, and then it gets turned over again, there is no scrum. I think overall no advantage actually would lead to more ball in play.
AFTER THE LINE OUT BALL INCIDENT A BALL CHANGE OCCURRED NOT LONG AFTER WHEN A BALL BOY/GIRL THREW A BALL TO A PLAYER WHO THEN USED IT FOR A LINE OUT. IT WENT UNNOTICED YET IT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL BALL .. PLAY CONTINUED. ???? SO ? AM I SEEING THINGS THAT HAPPENED OR DID NOT HAPPEN ?
It is perfectly fine to use another ball for a lineout but you may not use it for a quick throw-in (they are two different things in the law).
Nigel what's the correct penalty for collapsing a scrum?
Why is the Scottish a quick throw in? Surely the fact they used another ball means it is not a quick throw in just an ordinary throw in and the game should have carried on.
What's your dog got going on in the background ?
Stuart Hogg should be yellow, again poor referring
Deberian poner los subtitulos en español
Ireland, quick throw in…it is the law that is wrong here, …ref correct.., law wrong, needs changed.
Was the lineout formed? It needs atleast 2 players from each side and an opposition player where Murray is.
it was a quick throw in and not a lineout
Tell me you nothing about rugby without telling me you no nothing......
OK the Scotland line-out law needs to change
It's OK for a team to try and use a different ball with no repercussions?
And if they get away with it (Wales vs Ireland for six nations title) they can catch Ireland out
Where is the advantage for Ireland? Sorry, its a stupid law