This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Although controversial, not relevant, personally. There is always a case for someone to complain about something in any game, Craig Joubert SCOvAUS. But not necessarily something that needs noting. If that controversial, it would be covered in the math report. Rugby.change (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not only did you think it should be added, you actually added it. I have removed it. As Rugby.change says there is always something for someone to complain about. This section is about records not details.
Also it was only c. 23 minutes into the match so there was plenty of time for Wales to score again, so when Gatland says this may have cost Wales the match it is true but rather meaningless. Every mistake that Wales made may have cost them the match. In week 1, France missed a penalty very late on that would have put the win beyond Ireland, so that actually did cost them the match, but we have not recorded that. The missed penalty was a mistake, the TMO decision may have been a mistake, mistakes happen. FerdinandFrog (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested it and asked if there were objections. It's not only Gatland who thought it was a mistake. We can't get into the realm of WP:OR over "what might have been", but some mistakes are more important than others. Missing a penalty is hardly the same kind of "mistake", is it? And I don't think Halfpenny's "injury" (a foot infection) was any kind of record, but it still gets, and deserves, a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. the match report says this: "The impressive Anscombe – a late call-up for the injured Leigh Halfpenny – was cruelly denied a first-half try by the TMO ..."[reply]
'I suggested it and asked if there were objections' But no-one supported the idea and you did not say that you were going to add it unless people objected almost immediately.
'We can't get into the realm of WP:OR over "what might have been" ' I quite agree. So adding a piece that is basically speculating about what might have happened had the TMO made a different decision is inappropriate.
'but some mistakes are more important than others. Missing a penalty is hardly the same kind of "mistake", is it?' No it is isn't. In the case I cited the missed penalty was far more significant as it did cost France the match. The TMO decision here influenced the result but did not decide it.
'And I don't think Halfpenny's "injury" (a foot infection) was any kind of record' Sorry, I was not as clear as I should have been. Those notes are mostly all records / milestones plus occasional late changes. All of those are factual rather than speculative.
'p.s. the match report says this: "The impressive Anscombe – a late call-up for the injured Leigh Halfpenny – was cruelly denied a first-half try by the TMO ..." ' So the information is available, as Rugby.change suggested.
TMOs have made controversial decisions before and coaches have complained about them before. I don't see anything special about this one. After the match Gatland said that he would be seeking some clarification. If something substantive came out of that (e.g. a change to what is done or how it is announced) then this TMO decision might be special enough to warrant a note. But short of that I really don't see this as being appropriate to add. FerdinandFrog (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TMO Glenn Newman disallowed the try and Warren Gatland complained. That's not speculation, those are just facts. The fact that it's also in the match report, alongside Halfpenny's "injury", suggested to me that it was worthy of note - in fact I thought that was Rugby.change's point. I still think that a significant mistake by a match official is more noteworthy that a team failing to land a try or missing a kick. Oh well, consensus seems to be clear on this one. I think this discussion has been useful because at least other editors will know where we stand. I could have quite easily added it without starting any discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The TMO deciding it was not a try (NB not disallowing it) and the coach complaining are facts but this happens time and again but we don't record every one. If I google for "rugby TMO error -gatland -wales" I get 30,000 results.
It is only the fact that people are speculating that this may have altered the match that has lead to so much publicity. Hence including it as a separate bullet would, IMO, not be recording facts but recording speculation.
Lots of things are in the match report, we don't record all of them separately. Personally I am in two minds about late replacements being included (players get injured all the time) but there seems to be a consensus and it is useful for anyone reading to see why a regular player was in matches 1&3 but not in match 2.
People make a lot more of mistakes by officials than of mistakes by players but I have never understood why. As I have said, the French mistake cost them the match but the TMO mistake did not cost Wales the match, see [1]. Despite me, albeit implicitly, asking you have not said why you think the mistake with less consequences is more noteworthy.
To my mind, the application of the rules by the match officials, is at a level in some way "above" the skill of the players in scoring points. It has the potential to skew the result in a way that is wholly beyond the control of the players or, of course, the coaches. That's the only way I can put it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. as a final comment I think part of the problem was that the TMO also didn't explain his reasons for disallowing very well at the time. There was also the potential knock-on, before the grounding, about which he made a perfectly good call.[reply]
Well, well, well. Maybe it's not time to "put this one to bed", after all? This admission of guilt will never appear in that official match report, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Naindeathlegs has added it in the notes with the reference. I am happy with that. A similar situation happened with Australia vs Scotland in the 2015 Rugby World Cup when the referee awarded Australia a penalty instead of a scrum. World Rugby admitted the referee made a mistake and it was put in the notes after the match.(Mobile mundo (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
"To my mind, the application of the rules by the match officials, is at a level in some way "above" the skill of the players in scoring points. ...That's the only way I can put it." Yes that has been clear to me all along. What I was asking (and I accept that you probably cannot answer) is why one mistake by an official is more significant than the numerous mistakes by the players. That is why I contrasted an example of a player mistake that cost the match with an official error that did not cost the match.
I have watched a lot of rugby at L3 and the refereeing is patchy. Some are very good, some seem to only apply some of the rules and some seem to only apply some of the rules some of the time. Perhaps because of that I have always taken the view that you want to be two scores ahead of your opponent because they might score and because the ref might give a decision against you, maybe a 50:50 or maybe a pure mistake.
"There was also the potential knock-on, before the grounding, about which he made a perfectly good call." According to Guscott [3] it was a knock-on.
I earlier said If something substantive came out of this then it should be included and the IRB saying that the touchdown decision was wrong fits that bill. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's all just my subjective opinion. So I'm not sure I want to venture any further into WP:OR or WP:FORUM territory here. If you agree with Jeremy Guscott, that the replay clip (0.22) shows the ball "hitting Wales winger Steff Evans' fingers", then so be it. In my book, to be a knock-on, it would have been "the fingers hitting the ball". But I thought it instructive that Garcès says quite clearly to the TMO "First check the player red player, that he hit the ball with his knee." Glad we have found "something substantive" in this rather lengthy discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It's all just my subjective opinion" That is what I was trying to get clear. You were saying that errors by official are more significant and so s/b recorded and the reason you think that is just your feeling, it is not based on any facts or evidence. I am most certainly not having a go at you, your view is, I believe, a common one. If it was based on anything objective or measurable there would, IMO, be a different discussion about when errors by officials s/b recorded.
"If you agree with Jeremy Guscott ..." I have not seen the frame by frame replay. I was just pointing out that you were saying that 'no knock-on' was fact and I was saying that other people disagreed.
"In my book, to be a knock-on, it would have been "the fingers hitting the ball"." Well the link you give disagrees with you, that says "the ball unintentionally moves forward after coming into contact with a player above the waist". Nothing there about the player hitting the ball. And I have seen plenty of balls hit a player's arm when he knew nothing about it (e.g. a misplaced pass) and the ref give a knock-on.
"But I thought it instructive that Garcès says quite clearly ..." In what is very clearly to his second language. You cannot do a meaningful word by word analysis of that. FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FerdinandFrog, you are very welcome to take each of my statements, one by one, and analyse each one, and take issue or agree as you see fit. But I'm really not sure this is in any way helping to improve the article. So, I was going to mention the change in the law about not having to be "in control of the ball" to make a legal try, but just to have "downward pressure", and whether this may have been a factor in the TMO's mistake, or the lack of a formal challenge. But, of course, I won't. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want people to comment on what you say then don't say anything and especially don't say anything that is not true, e.g. saying that 'no knock-on' was a fact when it was only your unsupported opinion, or that a knock-on requires the action of the player when it does not.
More generally, if you want to improve Wikipedia articles then you should work / comment on those where you can add to the subject. In your previous post you showed that you don't understand what a knock-on is and here you make it clear that you don't know how a try is scored. Neither 'control of the ball' nor 'downward pressure' is needed to score a try. If either was then it would have been obvious that the Welsh player had not scored - touching the side of the ball that is lying on the ground is neither control nor downward pressure. See [4]. FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is a distinction between a deliberate and accidental knock on. It wasn't clear to me which Guscott was suggesting. It now seems clear that my contributions have been of little or no value (whether I, or any one else, have learned anything or not from your examples). By the way (the English version of) your last source talks about "grounding the ball" - I couldn't find anything about "touching the side of the ball that is lying on the ground". Perhaps you could point that out for the benefit of other editors? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. I think you should probably watch the replay of that incident, unless perhaps you consider that WP:OR.[reply]
This will be my last response to you as you seem unable to understand what is written and continually try to change the subject - the sort of behaviour of someone who is unwilling to admit that they are ever wrong.
'there is a distinction between a deliberate and accidental knock on' Which clearly has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You said that the player had to actively hit the ball for it to be a knock-on and you provided a link that this is not the case, which I pointed this out. Nothing about accidental or deliberate.
'I couldn't find anything about "touching the side of the ball that is lying on the ground".' Which is hardly surprising as I did not say that this is there. You said that control of the ball had been removed and downward pressure had been added and I showed that neither is in the laws.
What a relief. I'm often wrong and am quite prepared to admit it. You seem to be never wrong, or even mistaken. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought the only way for a knock-on to occur was for a player to "actively hit the ball", whether with fingers or anything else. I tired to suggest earlier that this wasn't the best place to discuss the laws of rugby union. I still don't understand what Guscott's claim was based on. The referee seemed to know better about that bit. And I'm still not sure whether you've watched, or re-watched, the same television coverage as I have, since you said "touching the side of the ball that is lying on the ground is neither control nor downward pressure". I'm really not sure where this has come from, certainly not the replay coverage that I've seen, which is why I had assumed you thought it was somewhere in the rules. And I'm still not sure what you think "grounded" means. As for what M. Garcès said, in his second language, I would have assumed that all Six Nations referees would be required to demonstrate an adequate use of English; and I thought Garcès' use of English was very good, even for a Frenchman. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC) p.s. you may want to note that Laws of rugby union#Scoring#Tries and conversions still says (with a 2011 source supporting it) "No downward pressure is required, but the player must be holding the ball in at least one of their hands or at least one of their arms." But I'm sure you knew that.[reply]
I've been waiting for this story to play out before commenting, but I think given the controversy surrounding this particular incident, some mention of it should be made. World Rugby made a statement, Warren Gatland and Eddie Jones have had their say, there are plenty of media sources covering the social media furore and all the experts with their differing opinions. I'm not saying we have to go into massive detail, only that the incident probably should be mentioned in the article somewhere. – PeeJay15:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conor Murray has 13 points, due to 2 tries and a penalty goal, not 10. I don't know how to edit that without making a mess, so if someone were to update it, I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.217.33 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The note alongside Jacob Stockdale's seven tries states that this a record for the championship - I'd say this needs better wording though. Stockdale's seven are certainly a record in the 6N era, but it's not an outright record. The overall record stands at eight, achieved twice in the 5N competition. I tried editing the note but couldn't come up with anything which made it clear enough without being too wordy. --Bcp67 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
