I agree. If one looks at the past too many incidents were not punished harshly enough. Now it seems any incident is, whether intended or not. And with slow motion replays, any foul play ending up looking worse than it really is much of the time, and that is what needs to be taken into consideration by those officiating what is becoming an over-officiated game, like American football already is!
One problem is that there's too much phase play, and it's a safe move if the team without the ball isn't going to contest possession. Therefore there's static ruck after static ruck after static ruck, with three yards made per move and then the runner goes down and sets up another boring ruck with no defenders bothering to counter ruck, usually. They're spreading out across the field to defend. Then there's the halfback or acting half crouched over the ball sitting at a teammates heel (and there's another problem: the ball should be declared out by then and fair to play by either side) waiting to decide which teammate to pass the ball to, left or right. That, by the way, looks like rugby league quite a bit to me, and it's boring to me. »
Let's just admit that some newer interpretations and changes to law have made obstruction part of the game: dummy runners as in the video, and even worse, the maul with the ball carrier behind the maul as it moves forward. It's ironic in that that is exactly how American football evolved back in the 1890's: blocking with the ball carrier behind.
I couldn't agree with you more. When law changes were made in 1993 the whole game was being set up to look more like rugby league than union. It's something I wish never happened, and I am a referee. I remember quite well what Steven Jones, the rugby journalist, said about those initial law changes in 1993, and I am paraphrasing: "We just had a successful 1991 World Cup, and now the laws are going to change for no good reason." »
I'm sorry about this whole affair. There's already too much video reviews going on in a number of sports. It's making American baseball, already known for being a slow sport, be much slower than it already is. Regarding this situation, knowing full well that this decision was going to be a game breaker, could not Joubert have consulted the touch judge about who touched the ball in the knock on last, or if it was touched simultaneously by blue and yellow? At the worst for Scotland, an accidental offside call would have given the Aussies the put in at the scrum. At the best, the referee would have apologized for blowing the whistle when free play should have been allowed to commence, and awarded Scotland a scrum put-in. I do put blame on Joubert for not consulting his touch judge on that side of the pitch. I do also blame the touch judge for not trying to intervene. He could have put out his flag and gotten the referees attention and told him if he saw yellow touch the ball after blue knocked forward the ball. It wouldn't be the first time a touch judge pointed out to a referee whether a ball was knocked forward or a pass was forward. It happens often enough. »