• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Refereeing decisions

Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
waiopehu oldboy said:
I've read this a few times now & still not sure if it doesn't further muddy already murky waters:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...de-rule-which-cost-england-against-all-blacks

What do the actual refs on here think?
Click to expand...

I didn't think he was offside at the time as he was behind the hindmost foot of his own team. (see match thread)

This isn't a clarification really, it's a subtle law change with the "hindmost foot," which has been the law since time immemorial, replaced by the "hindmost point." As players off their feet aren't part of the game and thus where there body parts are is irrelevant IMO, it's not a change that I agree with. But I don't run world rugby.

I still don't think that the England player was offside under any definition.
 
Froggy

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
Interesting scenario on the penalty against Jordie Barrett for his challenge of Folau in the air. When Barrett got into the air he realised he wasn't as high as Folau and turned his head and body away, thus colliding with Folau with his shoulder. No harm done, but a perfectly legitimate penalty. Angus Gardner commented that 'you weren't competing for the ball', again fair enough and justifiable penalty.

However, when Barrett left the ground I'm going to suggest he was genuinely going for the ball. If he had kept his eyes on the ball, continued to face forward and kept his hands up, would he still have been penalised? He wouldn't have come down with the ball, and they still would have collided, but it would have been hard to suggest he wasn't competing for the ball. After all, whenever two players go up to compete for a high ball, only one will win it. Does that mean the loser should always be penalised?

Interested in the opinion of some of the rules gurus here.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Froggy said:
Interesting scenario on the penalty against Jordie Barrett for his challenge of Folau in the air. When Barrett got into the air he realised he wasn't as high as Folau and turned his head and body away, thus colliding with Folau with his shoulder. No harm done, but a perfectly legitimate penalty. Angus Gardner commented that 'you weren't competing for the ball', again fair enough and justifiable penalty.

However, when Barrett left the ground I'm going to suggest he was genuinely going for the ball. If he had kept his eyes on the ball, continued to face forward and kept his hands up, would he still have been penalised? He wouldn't have come down with the ball, and they still would have collided, but it would have been hard to suggest he wasn't competing for the ball. After all, whenever two players go up to compete for a high ball, only one will win it. Does that mean the loser should always be penalised?

Interested in the opinion of some of the rules gurus here.
Click to expand...


To me (and I definitely am in conflict with plenty on this) you have to have a realistic chance of winning the contest. Eyes for the ball aren't enough. If you arrive a clear second at the contest and you cause the player who gets there first to end up in a dangerous position you are liable for everything that happens in terms of penalties and cards.
 
zer0

zer0

Jim Lenehan (48)
Strewthcobber said:
Yep, no penalties and no free kicks conceded by Munster.

Italian Referee, Andrea Piardi was reffing his first Pro 14 match
Click to expand...

IgU4Y.gif


But wait. What's this? Is it..... is it the Crusaders jersey?

57813341xlarge.jpg


When the hell did the Bank of Ireland start sponsoring the Crusaders? Hmmm.

IgU4Y.gif


Ah. This is the Crusaders jersey.
crusaders_home_jersey_1024x1024@2x.jpg

I believe we've cracked the case, Watson. You see both jerseys have a red base. Both have darker shoulder stripes with matching collar and sleeve trims. Both sides are from the shit southern ends of their respective countries. Both jerseys are produced by Adidas. Both have weird geometric arrows pointing to their nethers in what I can only assume is an integral part of some southern native mating ritual. Clearly the rookie referee was simply confused and thought he was officiating the Crusaders. Hence the massive, basically impossible, feat of a penalty free game achieved by the mistaken Crusaders.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Braveheart81 said:
To me (and I definitely am in conflict with plenty on this) you have to have a realistic chance of winning the contest. Eyes for the ball aren't enough. If you arrive a clear second at the contest and you cause the player who gets there first to end up in a dangerous position you are liable for everything that happens in terms of penalties and cards.
Click to expand...
Which seems to be an unrealistic requirement. How are you supposed to assess whether you have a realistic chance of winning the ball in the heat of the moment?

Also, does anyone have a realistic chance of winning the ball against Folau?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Derpus said:
Which seems to be an unrealistic requirement. How are you supposed to assess whether you have a realistic chance of winning the ball in the heat of the moment?

Also, does anyone have a realistic chance of winning the ball against Folau?
Click to expand...


It's difficult and perhaps impossible but otherwise how do you protect the player in the air?

Take the red card of Kwagga Smith in the Super Rugby final a couple of years ago. He has run through and stayed on the ground. He would have probably caught the ball if no one else was there. Unfortunately for him, David Havili (from memory) was high in the air trying to catch it and easily got to the ball first.

Smith put Havili in a very dangerous position and had to be red carded.

People make the argument that penalising a player with eyes for the ball will stop contests in the air but my take is that it's actually the opposite. If you allow players to be essentially exempt from the dangerous play laws if they've got eyes for the ball then it allows players to put someone in a very dangerous situation with no repercussions. What's the incentive of trying to catch the ball in the air if you can instead just take the player out legally meaning they will almost certainly drop it?
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Derpus said:
I see your point but i don't recall much of that cynical play prior to law changes.
Click to expand...


There hasn't been a law change. They've just cracked down on it.

I seem to remember the All Blacks trying to interrupt Folau in the air through pretty unrealistic challenges around the 2015 RWC Final.
 
Up the Guts

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
Strewthcobber said:
tackler doesn't release though, in fact carries him over the try line
Click to expand...

I'd say the tackler doesn't release because a) the guy has kept driving into him despite his knees touching the ground; and/or b) he is not aware the tackle has been completed and is just trying to hold him up.

In any case, surely the onus is on the tackled player to attempt to release once being tackled before you ping the tackler for not releasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top