Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

Hey guys, just wondering what your thoughts on du Toit getting a yellow card on the weekend in Tahs V Sharks game? Thought Nic Berry set a bad precedent in giving it just for holding onto a player a touch too long after a maul. Did he do it to counter the blow back from the home crowd in giving Hollaway a RC? Soften the blow maybe?? Overall, I thought Nic did a good job.

He absolutely gave the card because Holloway reacted and was going to get a red. If Holloway had only done something that warranted a yellow, Du Toit wouldn't have got a card.

A yellow card for holding someone is harsh but I also think it was the right decision from Berry. It sets a bad precedent if you can commit a professional foul and get off scot-free when someone responds with foul play.

Holloway had to get a red. Berry had no choice there. It was an idiotic move and it cost the Tahs any chance they had to win the game.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't think it is very clear cut BH. Professional fouls have been unpenalised throughout the history of rugby. Even where there is retaliation, mostly it is the retaliator who cops the wrath of the ref. In many cases, a ref has been in the process of awarding a penalty against the initial offender but then reverses it to penalise a retaliator.

Very few professional fouls end up with the offender being carded - unless he is a serial offender in the space of the game in question. If Holloway's retaliation had been less than warrants a RC, de Toit would not have been carded, as you acknowledge. Why he should be carded because of the level of Holloway's retaliation seems to me to be totally inconsistent with the history of foul play in rugby. However, I am not totally averse to the proposition that the initiator of a series (two or more instances) of foul play should be sanctioned quite severely for his part in the action.

 

[Derpus]

Hey guys, just wondering what your thoughts on du Toit getting a yellow card on the weekend in Tahs V Sharks game? Thought Nic Berry set a bad precedent in giving it just for holding onto a player a touch too long after a maul. Did he do it to counter the blow back from the home crowd in giving Hollaway a RC? Soften the blow maybe?? Overall, I thought Nic did a good job.

The only thing more annoying than players cynically clinging on to other players is the number of matches ruined every year by cards.

I traveled an hour and a half to watch that steaming pile of feces and i sure a shit won't be going to watch another rugby match this year.

Top stadium though.

 

[HayFarmer]

The only thing more annoying than players cynically clinging on to other players is the number of matches ruined every year by cards.

I traveled an hour and a half to watch that steaming pile of feces and i sure a shit won't be going to watch another rugby match this year.

Top stadium though.

Lucky Derpus, you didn't go & watch the Reds v Sunwolves on Friday.
Agnes Gardner just ruined it by giving a double YC=RC to the Sunwolves winger. I thought the 2nd YC should've just been a penalty- the arm was below the shoulder & his shoulder was just accidental into the head. Very harsh

 

[Strewthcobber]

Not really a ref issue, but the biggest problem (among many) with the game at the moment, is how you can kill a game off being 1 point ahead, with 4 mins to go by collapsing and resetting three scrums.

This robs the few remaining supporters we still have of so much

 

[Braveheart81]

Not really a ref issue, but the biggest problem (among many) with the game at the moment, is how you can kill a game off being 1 point ahead, with 4 mins to go by collapsing and resetting three scrums.

This robs the few remaining supporters we still have of so much

I really wish they'd stop the clock on scrum resets and shots at goal. It would remove so much of the stereotypical problem with rugby that stoppages take up too much time.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Had to check, but at the moment the ref may only stop the clock for injuries and/or to consult with another official

 

[Braveheart81]

Had to check, but at the moment the ref may only stop the clock for injuries and/or to consult with another official

Yep and I think that is what should change.

It's far more about perception than anything else. Although it would stop those additional scrum resets in the last few minutes as they would no longer delay the game (after the first one).

 

[The Honey Badger]

I really wish they'd stop the clock on scrum resets and shots at goal. It would remove so much of the stereotypical problem with rugby that stoppages take up too much time.

I think GRR have the idea, 1 reset. 60 seconds time for scrum. Then compulsory short arm. Maybe that takes too much away from the set piece competition but there needs to be a balance

 

[Braveheart81]

I think GRR have the idea, 1 reset. 60 seconds time for scrum. Then compulsory short arm. Maybe that takes too much away from the set piece competition but there needs to be a balance

I don't think that really solves it though. I don't think it is a good outcome if the attacking team has to take a quick tap and can't set another scrum because there is an indiscretion or reset that the referee isn't willing to penalise.

60 seconds for a scrum might work fine because it's a pretty standard amount of time and barring injury, scrums will get set in that time. I don't think you can really hurry it up because they are technical beasts with a risk of injury if things aren't done safely.

Stopping the clock is designed to maintain the existing substance of the game whilst getting rid of blatant time wasting and the perception that half the game is spent resetting scrums.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think GRR have the idea, 1 reset. 60 seconds time for scrum. Then compulsory short arm. Maybe that takes too much away from the set piece competition but there needs to be a balance

Who does the short arm go to?

 

[Braveheart81]

Who does the short arm go to?

The team with the feed originally.

 

[elementfreak]

Lucky Derpus, you didn't go & watch the Reds v Sunwolves on Friday.
Agnes Gardner just ruined it by giving a double YC=RC to the Sunwolves winger. I thought the 2nd YC should've just been a penalty- the arm was below the shoulder & his shoulder was just accidental into the head. Very harsh

Nah, under the current guidelines that was always going to be a YC. Reckless contact to the head. He could have tackled lower but chose to run the risk of going high. No one to blame but the winger himself.

 

[dru]

The team with the feed originally.

Unless they are holding it up.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Rebels v Bulls, early in the second half, (46:55 game time) Bulls feed the scrum and hold it at the back hoping to draw a penalty.

Ref tells them to use it 3 times and then blows it up when they don't. Ref gives possession back to the Bulls who had the feed.

How does that work?

Nearly 5 minutes between the knock on and the ball eventually getting passed out of the scrum in that little phase of play.

 

[Braveheart81]

World Rugby have released a decision making framework for high tackles. I think it's pretty good.

There's a video of it here:

https://laws.worldrugby.org/en/guidelines

Or you can download it as a pdf here:

https://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/2019-PlayerWelfare-HighTackleDecision_EN.pdf

 

[Strewthcobber]

Could we get Mike Fraser to talk through how that framework applies to his desicion for the Mo'unga/Nanai tackle and non-penalty try?

 

[Braveheart81]

Could we get Mike Fraser to talk through how that framework applies to his desicion for the Mo'unga/Nanai tackle and non-penalty try?

If you've decided it was an "arm tackle" that was "indirect (slips up)" and the degree of danger is low meaning it's only a penalty, and you consider the ball carrier drops in height as a mitigating factor, doesn't that mean you can decide it is no longer a penalty?

 

[Strewthcobber]

If you've decided it was an "arm tackle" that was "indirect (slips up)" and the degree of danger is low meaning it's only a penalty, and you consider the ball carrier drops in height as a mitigating factor, doesn't that mean you can decide it is no longer a penalty?

Fraser: "I think that tackle height's fine for me."
Paterson: "Ok, so now we're looking at grounding... Mike, so the player has lost possession before the tryline."
MF: "So it's a five-metre scrum, blue ball?"
AP: "Yeah, but just to tick off the tackle, are you happy with that tackle?"
MF: "Yeah, I think it starts on the ball/shoulder sort of area, as he's [Mo'unga] falling. So I'm happy with that, I think it's just a knock on here, blue scrum."

It's probably how he got there in a "don't want to give a penalty try and yellow card for a pretty soft penalty" kind of way.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I think common sense prevailed: letter of the Law it's a penalty but as it prevents a try being scored you'd have to go PT & YC at which point the punishment far exceeds the crime. Luckily it didn't determine the outcome of the match.