Barrett's second yellow, the Offside Law and Nigel’s Rugby World Cup Ones to Watch | Whistle Watch 

, Nige has lost all credibility in my view. His take on Barrett's vile foul is execrable.

the most famous yes, the best ? well all referee have weakness because its a difficult task, he had his downside.

He's the best.

After the games, I was looking for his review on the games. Love it !

Overrated, great rapport with the players yes but was sometimes a hometown ref. Let emotion get into his decisions.

Luke Pearce is up there with him too.

Hypothetically a player could commit two penalty offences and have to go in front of the judiciary if they're unlucky enough that their team was under a warning both times, the judiciary should be reserved for straight red card offences.

I thought Barrett clearly dived off his feet into Marx while he was seated not protecting the ball trying to get out of the ruck. That's plain reckless and dangerous play. I think it warrants a red card.

What a load of bollocks

all players do it. It is illegal as I understand it, players entering the ruck must be bound to another player.

Same thought!

Nigel just reaffirmed Jeff's position that it was a yellow card offence not red. Also people who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

@@LJFN213 rewriting history are we? Jeff Wilson's stance was that it shouldn't have even been yellow. Kiwis can never ever admit fault it seems.

@@LJFN213 he was given a yellow card for that tackle. Unfortunately, it was his second ...

To be fair football/soccer referees aren't mic'd up, we don't really know how they communicate with players.

@@alexpotts6520 badly, given the constant barracking and play-acting they are subjected to.

@alexpotts6520 in Rugby, you will never see a player run up and scream into a refs face like they do in football. You are taught from a very young age that the ref is the boss and only the captain is allowed to talk to him, and then respectfullyat that. There something honorable about this approach, and to see massive names in football screaming at the refs sours my view on them, no matter how good they are.

Yeah he mentioned that. Rules are quite generous to the attacking side - the whole of the player's body has to be ahead of where the kick happens. Marcus Smith is leaning forward and his trailing foot is level.

It was marginal.

sometime there are referee mistakes, it happend or maybe it was not obvious foreward for the referee point of view which i can understand. in the last France-Australia Jaco Peyper miss few foreward ball. It happend deppending of the referee focus i guess.

Yes, he was very lucky. But this is the problem with the game, the ref can't watch everything and if there are no available alternative views, they can't make any decision.

I would say that if a player's on a yellow card, they need to be more careful than Barrett was. Going off your feet, leading with the shoulder, against a player on the floor and not even near the ball is risky at the best of times. Doing that on a yellow card is just silly, in my amateur opinion 😊

I would be more inclined to agree with you if it was the second yellow that was a team yellow. In this case Barrett knew he was on a yellow and still went in for that clearout recklessly so I don't really feel bad for him in the same way.

Well, you should be relieved now that he'll play in Paris next week

Offside ...1m !!! No doubt!

Where you contact comes into it , he was lucky but it was yellow for that singular offence , But had already received a team yellow for repeated infringements , 2 yellows = red

I think because it was on a player who was off the ball it was foul play. Its not an illegal cleanout....its a dirty shoulder charge. It was intended to hurt a specific player. It's a straight red. Imagine if Bakkies botha went in on an AB player, off the ball, off his feet, shoulder and no arms and does make indirect contact with the head? NZ would experience an earthquake because of all the NZ fans losing their minds!

@@renewablefuelsanalyst8263 now you are bringing emotion into it , Nigel explained it well , that’s where it sits , end of

no head contact and no injury. Wouldnt have been a yellow if Marx hadnt cried about it.

He went for the ball from an offside position and honestly was lucky because he also kicked the ball out of the All Blacks players hand. That could have been a yellow card. By the was I'm a Bok supporter,

This Bok supporter says offside. I know some refs allow binding like that but many don't & the law doesn't seem to either. Ball is still trying to gather when Canan kicks it. IMO.

You have to be bound to the maul with arm up to the elbow. Moodie was just holding on with his hand.

@@StaalBurgher0 Thank you for proving my point. 1 - that wasn't a maul, it was a ruck; 2 - rucks happen all the time where players are not bound with their full arm (just by holding on), and nobody ever says anything about it; and 3 - neither one of referees questioned Moodie's bind, other than asking whether he lost contact before the ball came out... the penalty ended up being for offside. Which doesn't make sense, because if he was bound (which it looked like he was) then he was onside the moment the ball came out of the ruck (because the hindmost feet was no longer the offside line).

Even if he wasn’t offside he kicked the ball out the hands. That’s a penalty.

@@alexwhite5944 correct

@@alexwhite5944 No it is not! There was no question whatsoever about him kicking the ball! Thanks for confusing this situation even more... LOL

Yeah I also saw that as a major flaw in the system

Yeah I thought so too but if you watch the video Barrett was on the ground and lifted himself to his feet to counter ruck, which you can’t do to the half back. He should have gone for the ball. No way the SA player lifted him to his feet. Fair call to me.

I saw it as well - and he was trying to correct his error - but he was somewhat illegal - kind of like players holding another player over the ball - and penalty for not clearing away - Just unlucky as ref was primed - like ABs pushing early - both sides set to push early - just have to play to ref - Can't remember if this game or Crusader game just gone - my side made a tackle and clear release - Ref deemed not held - Just the way it is - As long as ref consistent throughout game - just have to learn to adjust - A good reminder to ABs of loss in semi to England in WC - adapt quickly to ref - use their bias to your advantage

NZ were well passed official warnings after 7 in a row pens before that, any engagement in play from that offside position was gonna cop a card.

@@TheCryptoSniper true. I suspect though, that the SA tactic of keeping the receiver in the air at 5m lineout / drive time (in order to force the opposition to either lay off defence or commit the infringement) may yet be looked at as something either undefendable and needing a law change, or it is what it is, work it out. The ABs did not deserve to win that game in any way, they played so poorly. Just interested in the interpretations and challenges around what I think are dodgy things in rugby (clearing out too much off and away from the ruck etc…).

He got up from an offside position and played the half back. Pretty cynical and an easy decision after the warnings imo.

No french

No England escuse me

Well, for saying thanks, I just want to thank you

The foot touched the line, so he was outside the 22-50m zone. Like if your foot touches the line, it's a touch; if the ball grounds on the line, it's a try, etc. Nigel wasn't very clear about the inside/outside part of it, though, indeed.

@@Pandemonis Nigel explained it correctly. Don't get confused by the direction the player is facing. His foot is on the line so he's in the 22.

Are you referring to the *sideline?* Any contact with the sideline means they're in touch, meaning any further play by them following on from that is discounted. A player in touch BEFORE grounding the ball means the try wouldn't count. Here, Nigel is referring to the lines ACROSS the pitch, the markers like the halfway line, 5m line, 22m line etc.

Actually, I can understand your confusion. I just watched it again, and he *does* say "the goal line, the try line, the TOUCHLINE, or the 22m line"! Slip of the tongue I reckon, he likely meant the centre line, considering context 🤔 That's what my brain heard it as anyway, even though he misspoke 😂

its called a clean out. pretty big part of the game. do you follow rugby?

@@timgregory82 cringe

The clean out occurs for guys competing in the ruck not the guy rolling out the way of the ruck... Do you not know the rules?

​@timgregory82 don't you go the optometrist ? he was not hear the ball.why are you so biased.? Go Scotland !!!

There are things like this all the time that are done on the field to address stuff that is getting passed up or missed by the refs. Its a simple enforcer action letting the opposition know that they need to back down or someone will get hurt... on purpose.

Sidelines are different, if you touch the touch line you’re out

@@Gasson86 His foot touches 22 line, so he's outside the 22-50 zone, not inside his 22. Yeah Nigel's explanation asn't very clear.

Not just Americans mate, I regularly go to games or watch them with friends and family who are casual observers and they don't have a bloody clue either. Only one more sport has more rules than rugby...... Golf

Yes firing your body like a missile into a ruck is yellow. It's not the off feet part that makes it yellow.

How do you create the force necessary to clean out the Bok forwards if you can't go in too hard? It still has to be a competition for the ball.

@@scw3017 multiple options. Lift his leg and lift to the side. Pull him down onto the ruck. Lift his arms/torso upward and push. They're only human, the Bok scrum is not much heavier than the Irish or French. Wales played them a while back and the Welsh scrum was heavier

That was tried in the SH, in the Super Rugby Competition, and I think in the Pacific Nations Cup. It definitely has its supporters. During the trial, a player shown a red card for foul play could be replaced by a substitute after spending 20 minutes off the field. This tactical substitution sought to provide a compromise between maintaining a competitive contest and penalising serious breaches of the game’s laws. While the trial generated both interest and debate, it will not be extended to the Rugby World Cup. Furthermore, the 20-minute red card rule was not trialled at the recent World Rugby U20s Championship held in South Africa. There is an argument to say that because getting a red card as a result of one player's indiscretion is such a disadvantage to the whole team then the so-called "orange" card system is fairer. However, the best way to avoid getting a red is not to commit foul play or give away cynical or repeated penalties. We are talking here about (mostly) professional athletes who know the rules and the consequences for breaking them. Delayed punishment, in the form of (long) subsequent bans, may be far less effective in terms of keeping players honest than the immediate prospect of being dismissed from the field leaving your team one down for the rest of the game. I do think, though, that there have been occasions when the tackler genuinely could do nothing to avoid a head clash, say when their opponent changes direction at the last moment (intentionally or not) and is themselves very upright. While this is often mitigated down to a yellow, there is a case - and we do see this sometimes - for declaring it a "rugby collision" with no fault being apportioned to either player.

The issues occur because teams just repeatedly infringe, especially on defense. They have decided that cheating is more benefit than the punishment. This could be solved by increasing the punishment for penalties. In particular, giving team yellows based on penalty advantages, not just penalties awarded. If you loosened offside rules, then teams would still push just as hard against the newly relaxed rule.

No they didn't get "outraged"- some questioned it- and all were dubious as to the potential outcome at the judiciary- Steve Hansen felt the 2nd card shouldn't have been shown at all- but , like the presenters, he was not "outraged " either- but hey, keep spreading the B/S if that's what makes you happy.....

only outrage I see is yours, no one was outraged at the yellow, it was more to the prospect of a potential ban that people were questioning

yep, only one side were being refereed . the ABs were playing against 16 that day

@@jasonsmith3573 so how many of the penalties they conceded weren't justified?

​@@jasonsmith3573nah it was just the ABs weren't used to the northern hemisphere interpretation whereas the boks were

@@Tom_McMurtry the flow of the AB's game seems to be quite fragmented under english referees. Always seems to be atleast one obscure overly pedantic ruling in those fixtures.

No It's a very known thing mate.

Absolutely. Poodle Erectile Disfunction is a real problem in the sport.