Tue 25 Oct 2016 | 09:12

Wallabies disallowed try viewed as a major turning point in loss

24 Comments

• weejockmcplop

  3:58 PM 01/11/2016

  The initial contact is actually Savea on Haylet-Petty who then does run a line to cut Savea off and block the possible tackle. Savea then does his best theatrics to make it look a lot worse than it is. Harsh call but you can see why it was made.
• drg

  1:20 AM 01/11/2016

  The thing is, after the contact with Savea he rechecked his line (which granted he'd have to do at some point otherwise he'd end up in the North east stand (or South west).... but he then starts running directly behind the ball carrier or at worst slightly on the inside of the carrier again....
  
  I think it's a tight call, but I don't think it's as controversial as has been pushed.
  
  As my above comment, if it was actually a prop instead of Savea, I'd say it'd be a much harsher call, and perhaps controversial... but Savea who gets bumped.... sorry, not a harsh call...
• gonzoman

  7:33 PM 31/10/2016

  Except under the laws, continuing to run your support line is not obstruction. Haylett-Petty is not required to move out of the way of Savea.
  
  The law on obstruction that deals with blocking the tackler [10.1 (c)] states that "A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier."
  
  The argument is that Haylett-Petty deliberately got in Savea's way, but if you look at the video, he starts running a support line towards the outside. As he continues on his line, he happens to bump Savea (granted, he does shove a little...). Both players are entitled to continue running their lines (you wouldn't expect Savea to move to allow a support player to get into a better position).
• gonzoman

  7:26 PM 31/10/2016

  Obstruction requires the obstructer to change his line to deliberately get in the way. Because Hale-Petty was already running a line that would take him to the outside, he is entitled to continue to run that line. He does not have to get out of Savea's way.
• sjaaks

  9:49 AM 30/10/2016

  This is justice being served. If you can't win by the rules, you (the wallabies) should accept this as a fact, learn from it and move on (which might mean working even harder on improving your game). Bitching and whining about a referee's discision is just sad and unmanly behaviour.
  I really hope they do learn from this at all because I do like seeing the wallabies beat the all blacks.
• gunshowmckenzie

  3:16 PM 28/10/2016

  This could have been a turning point in the game and would have been an excellent try. As I saw it I did feel the Aussies had been hard done by, but DHP clearly changes where he is running to obstruct Savea. It was a needless thing to do. He should have run alongside, Speight probably would still have scored and he could have passed it to DHP if he got caught. As it was it was a poor decision that was picked up by the TMO. I can understand why Cheika was furious, but for Kafer and Kaplan to make those sorts of comments is outrageous. Owens is a top referee who rarely has a bad game and is often in the middle of the best games of the modern era.
  
  Overall I think Australia fans will feel more aggrieved by the game as a whole. Their first half performance should have had them well ahead really, but defensive lapses and errors allowed NZ to get points pretty cheaply at times (though they did also score some wonderful tries). Great game that was very competitive for the most part, despite the final scoreline.
• breakaway

  6:23 AM 28/10/2016

  I agree, Facepalm. There's a point on the video when the shove comes from Haylett-Petty (around 1:29) where Savea's front foot is almost in line with Speight's back foot. With well over 25 metres to run there's every chance Savea could have made some kind of contact, certainly an attempt to ankle-tap, which is often all that's needed.
• facepalm

  7:48 PM 27/10/2016

  It's really not that unlikely at all that Savea could have stopped him
• oldflyhalf

  10:52 AM 27/10/2016

  "The foul [play] is immaterial..." ...good joke. :)
• drg

  1:55 AM 27/10/2016

  See I would actually say if it was a prop, then the call might have then become 'controversial' had it played out the same way. But reality is, it was a winger who was obstructed. Sure Savea is not the fastest winger out there, but he certainly isn't a slow poke.
  
  Probably wouldn't have caught him is right. Definitely wouldn't have caught him is wrong. Therefore I do reckon it was a fair call...
• danknapp

  8:47 PM 26/10/2016

  Well put, Pyes.
• pyes

  8:03 PM 26/10/2016

  The foul is immaterial and that's what Owens should have ruled. Refs make/leave calls all the time based on materiality and this case was no different. If the infringement was a case of dangerous foul play, then yes, the play would be called back, but there is no case for calling back the play here.
• pyes

  7:59 PM 26/10/2016

  Refs make obstruction/offside calls based on materiality (whether it affected the run of play) so from my perspective, it was a very controversial call because for me, Savea had no chance of catching Speight at that point. Owens made a mistake in not taking that into account and Veldsman was equally as accountable for not pointing it out.
• dancarter

  7:50 PM 26/10/2016

  I thought this was a good call. Would Savea have caught Speight? Probably not, but I don't think that makes the clear obstruction invalid. Haylett-Petty can't obstruct someone like Crockett or Franks and then use the defence of "oh well he's a prop forward, he wouldn't have caught him anyway". If anything, I thought DHP was a bit stupid, he cost his team a try by clearly obstructing Savea when Speight would have been in anyway.
  
  Cheika should redirect his anger from referees or the NZ press towards his own players' decision making and poor performances. Interestingly, he was silent about the Australian press' treatment of McCaw ('Richetty Grub') prior to the '15 RWC and the England team before this year's tour. If you want to dish it out then you have to take it as well.
• drg

  3:39 AM 26/10/2016

  Sorry to comment again, but I just read the article (properly) where you've written Rod Kafers comment.... Firstly that's incredibly one eyed by the bloke, all referees have made mistakes on the pitch, so a wrong call is not a new phenomenon... Secondly, why is this such a controversy? I've seen calls like this being made in test rugby before? I can't recall a particular incident, perhaps they tend to be blocking someone who is chasing for a ball kicked ahead, but again, obstructing a potential tackler who is behind the ball carrier is not a new phenomenon either...
  
  Have the Aussies created this storm out of frustration? Is anyone else even buying it??
• drg

  11:45 PM 25/10/2016

  Tbf, Cheika hasn't done so bad at the head of the Wallabies... the rugby championship tournament wasn't so bad. Losing to the kiwis shouldn't be seen as a cause for a death sentence, there is not a huge amount of shame in losing to them - sure it's devastating for the Aussies, they want to win every occasion and it probably damages their pride, however it's not an unexpected result.
  
  I'd be less concerned about commentator comments and more concerned about Jonathon "Ballgate" Kaplan piping up on twitter about an incident which is fairly clean cut....
• jimmynee

  7:30 PM 25/10/2016

  Rugby Dump, think you need to add (by the Wallabies) at the end of your headline. Haylett-Petty clearly altered his line to obstruct, and what's worse, he didn't need to as Sleight was away.
  
  Don't know what Justin Marshall was taking about when he said Petty was allowed to run that line, as he didn't even bother to run a support line, he just blatantly obstructed Savea - a split second bad decision.
  
  Barrett left 7 points out there before half time so that could have been a turning point of the game. Cheika's on the ropes, and thinks he can turn Owens into the scapegoat. Desperate stuff.
• drg

  5:24 PM 25/10/2016

  I'm with the majority on this one... yeah it was harsh, yeah it probably wouldn't have stopped the try, but foul play is foul play. Of course I'd have love to see it let go, because it was a good try, however, put yourself in the kiwis shoes, lets say this try did turn the game and the Aussies won by a point or two, you'd be pretty pissed that a blatant foul was let off the hook because it 'probably wouldn't have stopped the try'....
  
  I can understand Cheika being miffed and I can understand the Aussies being somewhat miffed, but it is what it is and much like the Earls tackle earlier, don't do silly shit and you won't have to deal with the consequences.
  
  I'm not really sure about this being a turning point anyway. The AB's have a history of either ruining the opposition day from the get go, or for having a pretty loose first half then destroying on the second.
• facepalm

  4:26 PM 25/10/2016

  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lzVUCbyH7Sk
  
  There certainly wasn't a lack of Australian outcry following this try (albeit justified outcry). From what I can gather the defence in both cases is 'obstruction but not enough obstruction to alter the eventual outcome'. For me it has to be a penalty in both instances.
• anton

  4:10 PM 25/10/2016

  Absolutely not sure Savea wouldn't have made it. I don't think Haylett Petty knew for sure either, if not why event bother and take the chance.
  There is a alter of stride.
  Would have Sleight scored anyway? Maybe.
  Would this try have changed the game altogether? Maybe.
  Either way, once the TMO calls for review there's nothing Owens can do but check the replay.
  Based on the replay, the foul is there. No try. If you don't mind, I would like to remind that a foul doesn't need to be NEEDED or EFFICIENT to be a foul.
  Don't blame Owens, blame Petty.
• facepalm

  4:09 PM 25/10/2016

  Seems like a pretty straightforward obstruction call to me. Not sure I understand the controversy. Whether or not you think Speight would have made it regardless of the obstruction is irrelevant. The fact is that there was an obstruction and you can't know for sure what the outcome would have been.
• jimmy23

  4:07 PM 25/10/2016

  I was genuinely surprised Owens let the TMO sway his decision, he gave the try and almost an entire minute had passed until the TMO decided to get involved. It seemed like he was relying on the TMO to make the call on the obstruction, which is bizarre considering he completely overruled the TMO later on the in game.
  
  But as Mr. Colombes says, even the greats make mistakes from time to time. On that note, Rod Kafer needs to shut his stupid face with this; "He should never referee a test match again" nonsense.
  I can understand that if the try had been given that the Wallabies would have had more confidence but lets be honest, at some point the momentum would have swung in the ABs favour and when that happens they just seemingly score tries at will. It always seems to be the 50-60 minute mark that this happens. I think all that would have happened is that the final score would have been a bit closer.
• colombes

  2:23 PM 25/10/2016

  In a precedent article, i was saying that Nigel Owens, as the best ref of the moment, could also do mistakes like any other ref. This one is unfortunately a good example.
  
  Sleight would have score this try despite Haylett Petty line change as Savea was slower and 2 meters behind.
  Furthermore, if you look well at 1:46 (just before the "block"), HP was also slightly slowed by... Savea.
  
  I can understand why Cheka threw his toys out of the park.
• jeri

  12:49 PM 25/10/2016

  I agree that disallowing that try was harsh and uncalled for. I also believe TMO Veldsman was overstepping his boundaries by his two unusual calls (the obstruction call, and attempting to reverse Owen's forward pass decision).
  
  That said, this is hardly a turning point. The final score was 37-10.