Refereeing decisions

[boyo]

You could also make the argument that TPN didn't make contact over the ball, or he didn't bind to the opposition - just pushed him. So no ruck in those cases.

Just goes to show that in rugby at this level, smart thinking, and idiotic thinking is just a matter of milliseconds, millimetres and where the ref happens to be looking.

Pushing is contact.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Pushing is contact.

Yep, but it only counts if the ref sees it!

Lot easier players bound to each other

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would think pushing is more like a cleanout, and cleanouts don't have to involve a player in the ruck, only one in the vicinity of the ball (a law that I absolutely despise. Only players already bound to the ruck should be able to be targeted for a cleanout imo).

In my understanding, a ruck requires at least one player from each side to be bound over the ball. That did not exist in the instance in question, so no ruck formed and no off side line established.

 

[The torpedo]

I just cant understand that decision, how does it differ from the choke tackle? The defending team try to trap the ball and then bring it down to win scrum feed. This all of course barring that Fardy joined legally.

The other decision which was also discussed in the match thread, was the Haskell turnover close to the Pom try line, where Aus player was tackled, then first supporting Aus player clears the tackler away effectively setting the offside line, Haskell never retreats and enters from the side to get the ball.
The other law is 15.6.d which Chris McCracken posted on the match thread and it says that players must enter the tackle area from behind the tackle (barring the tackler) so either way it was interpreted I reckon it was just a flat out big fat mistake from Romain.

Thoughts? Facts?

Edit: http://giphy.com/gifs/xT0GqkkhfsgzIheCDm

So he is the tackler but no way in hell in his rights to play the ball from there.

Page 99, part c of the laws of rugby states:

Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line. Sanction: Penalty kick

so going off the laws, it appears that it should have been a penalty against Haskell

 

[Brumby Runner]

Haskell didn't remain on his feet so misses the definition for that clause in the very first part of the requirements.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I would think pushing is more like a cleanout, and cleanouts don't have to involve a player in the ruck, only one in the vicinity of the ball (a law that I absolutely despise. Only players already bound to the ruck should be able to be targeted for a cleanout imo).

In my understanding, a ruck requires at least one player from each side to be bound over the ball. That did not exist in the instance in question, so no ruck formed and no off side line established.

As boyo correctly pointed out above, the law says contact over the ball, and specifically omits "binding" as how to initiate a ruck, but includes it in joining

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes, the first two players don't have to bind to each other because they can legally be attempting to pick up the ball (or more likely one picking up the ball and the other clearing them out).

 

[saulityvi]

Pardon me if this is slightly off topic, but I reckon there are people here who occasionally grabs the whistle and goes and spoils an otherwise perfectly good game.

Now the question itself, have you ever been in the situation where Joubert was on the weekend as he had warned the pommies about not infringing again or someone would go and then when they infringed, he did SFA.

On the level 1 refereeing course which I took a couple of years ago, I remember the coach saying that never threaten with a yellow card if you are not ready to walk it trough. And continued that never say the word 'card' or 'bin' but use a metaphor like "if you cant handle it I will".

What do the refs here think, was it a big mistake from Joubers or was there any reason why he didnt see through his warnings?

 

[Nusadan]

Think he was making up for letting the Wallabies win the qtr final v Scotland last year

 

[elementfreak]

Pardon me if this is slightly off topic, but I reckon there are people here who occasionally grabs the whistle and goes and spoils an otherwise perfectly good game.

Now the question itself, have you ever been in the situation where Joubert was on the weekend as he had warned the pommies about not infringing again or someone would go and then when they infringed, he did SFA.

On the level 1 refereeing course which I took a couple of years ago, I remember the coach saying that never threaten with a yellow card if you are not ready to walk it trough. And continued that never say the word 'card' or 'bin' but use a metaphor like "if you cant handle it I will".

What do the refs here think, was it a big mistake from Joubers or was there any reason why he didnt see through his warnings?

I don't think it was. The English got the warning in the first half around the 35th minute IIRC and then didn't infringe again until the 64th minute when under immense pressure for the whole of the 2nd half. I think that was enough time to "recalibrate" and give a 2nd warning. However I wouldn't have said he got it wrong if he had given a YC either.

It's about reading if you've had a change in behavior or not. I think the English did enough to show they had taken his original message on board. He even said "you've been under pressure for 24 minutes this half and haven't given away any PKs" or something to that extent.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ah, but what about the period between the warning and half time? Plenty of opportunities there for the card to be shown I would have thought, but apparently every offence was voided when penalty advantage to the Wallabies expired.

 

[liquor box]

Pardon me if this is slightly off topic, but I reckon there are people here who occasionally grabs the whistle and goes and spoils an otherwise perfectly good game.

Now the question itself, have you ever been in the situation where Joubert was on the weekend as he had warned the pommies about not infringing again or someone would go and then when they infringed, he did SFA.

On the level 1 refereeing course which I took a couple of years ago, I remember the coach saying that never threaten with a yellow card if you are not ready to walk it trough. And continued that never say the word 'card' or 'bin' but use a metaphor like "if you cant handle it I will".

What do the refs here think, was it a big mistake from Joubers or was there any reason why he didnt see through his warnings?

I get what you are saying but I think there was enough time elapsed to require another warning.

If you have three cynical penalties in the first minute of a game and issue a warning and then have no penalties until the 79th minute would you send them off or to the bin?


As for cards, if Moore is accused of using a shoulder during the choke hold incident then should he have been given a card?

 

[Pfitzy]

As for cards, if Moore is accused of using a shoulder during the choke hold incident then should he have been given a card?

The incident with Robshaw trying to rip Phipps' head off, as well as the subsequent shoulder, was all I really saw of the game before I got too sauced up.

1) Given the emphasis on protecting the head and neck, Robshaw should have gone for a 10 minute sit-down, minimum

2) Given Moore also followed up with a shoulder on the ground, he too should have received time in the naughty chair

How that just became a penalty reversal is anyone's guess, and probably why most people are saying Joubers didn't put his foot down on that game at all.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Was it Jake Shatz that Moore was laying into at Suncorp a year or two back, when all Shatz was trying to do was bind on to him as part of the ruck? Squeaky got in several haymakers to try and deter Shatz from binding on to him.

Ponies vs Reds. All very public. Does he have a copy of Sir Richie's Cloak of Invisibility?

When veteran players start to fall off the pace, they often resort to niggly cheap shots to try and be seen as the team enforcer.

 

[saulityvi]

I get what you are saying but I think there was enough time elapsed to require another warning.

If you have three cynical penalties in the first minute of a game and issue a warning and then have no penalties until the 79th minute would you send them off or to the bin?


As for cards, if Moore is accused of using a shoulder during the choke hold incident then should he have been given a card?

I also get your point, which is very good, but at the end of the first half Poms were under warning and hand goes up for an advantage, surely that is where you:

A) let the attacking team have a quick go at it, 2-3 phases, then whistle the penalty and bin the infringer or

B) blow the penalty immeadiately, show the card and carry on.

And yes I do understand that the advantage fades away when you have the pill for 20 phases, but those two aforementioned actions are what I would have done.

 

[Alex]

An advantage does not occur because of the elapse of time (or number of phases). If an advantage has not arisen the referee blows the whistle and brings play back to the place of infringement. As per the laws, the advantage must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain advantage (whether through 20 phases or otherwise) is not enough. Had Joubert blown the whistle the wallabies would have (presumably, given the penalty was nearly in front) had three points and the English would have (presumably, given they were on a last warning) been down a man. The 20ish phases may have given the opportunity to gain advantage, but it is hard to see how the wallabies were actually better off when Joubert called at advantage over (which had to be the moment at which he decided that an advantage had occurred).

Looking up the advantage law I noticed this "If advantage is being played following an infringement by one team and then the other team commit an infringement, the referee blows the whistle and applies the sanctions associated with the first infringement. If either infringement is for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction for that offence. The referee may also temporarily suspend, or order off, the offending player." In light of this, should Moore have been penalised or should the penalty have been given for the first offence (which I think was offside play at the ruck even before the high tackle)?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Was it Jake Shatz that Moore was laying into at Suncorp a year or two back, when all Shatz was trying to do was bind on to him as part of the ruck? Squeaky got in several haymakers to try and deter Shatz from binding on to him.

Ponies vs Reds. All very public. Does he have a copy of Sir Richie's Cloak of Invisibility?

When veteran players start to fall off the pace, they often resort to niggly cheap shots to try and be seen as the team enforcer.

IIRC wasn't Schatz. It was Ed Quirk I'm pretty sure.
'

 

[Lindommer]

Joubert's advantage just before half-time was in line with most Saffer refs, they have a habit of playing very long (too long?) advantage when play's close to the goal-line. And for the vast majority of those advantages play eventually goes back to the penalty as there ended up being no advantage. Something the Saffer refs' association should look at.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Nige's penalty tonight which ended the contest. It appeared that (and sounded like) Phipps was penalised for taking out the opposition halfback without the ball, despite coming through the "gate".

Looking at the laws - he seemed to be applying this...

10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without the ball.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

Which would imply that the ruck was over, or that the nine wasn't part of the ruck?

Have I go tthat right, and is it justified?

 

[Pfitzy]

Effectively, yes. THEN it depends if they were both over the ball, in which case a new ruck forms