Refereeing decisions

[Quick Hands]

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.


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?

The interpretation that has been in force for some time is that you can't clean out the half back whether or not you go through the gate. Phipps of all people should be aware of it. Going through the gate isn't relevant to this.

 

[Pfitzy]

Position of the ball is relevant though - if Phipps was past the ball, then OK penalty. If he's over the ball, then ruck. Play on.

The first decision should have happened a couple of seconds earlier - that Hooper had all rights, the Poms were off their feet, and we get a penalty near halfway and a shot at winning the game.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The interpretation that has been in force for some time is that you can't clean out the half back whether or not you go through the gate. Phipps of all people should be aware of it. Going through the gate isn't relevant to this.

So would Phipps have been entitled to pick up the ball there? IE was the ruck over?

 

[Quick Hands]

So would Phipps have been entitled to pick up the ball there? IE was the ruck over?

I'd have thought the ruck was over and he could pick it up.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Last night the 'tahs kicked the ball out & the next person to touch the ball was a 'tahs reserve. How does that not count as "too many players"? Prevented a potential 'canes quick throw so interfering with the play IMO.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Thought the ball was going to hit him regardless. Not in the same category as Gray a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Did it prevent a potential quick throw or a likely quick throw? IIRC it wasn't likely and IMO a penalty would have been officious refereeing.
However I did like the NRC rule that made it clear that anyone from the sideline team doing this would bring a Penalty.

 

[Strewthcobber]

They really need to get rid of the law that prevents a quick throw in if it touches anyone else - just stop these sort of conflicts/issues.

Penalise if you prevent one happening, and the ref could stop it if he believes a team has gained an advantage (Ie if the ball boy passes it back or something) but if it's incidental contact - qti should still be an option

 

[Quick Hands]

They really need to get rid of the law that prevents a quick throw in if it touches anyone else - just stop these sort of conflicts/issues.

Penalise if you prevent one happening, and the ref could stop it if he believes a team has gained an advantage (Ie if the ball boy passes it back or something) but if it's incidental contact - qti should still be an option

When the quick throw in its current form was introduced, the only restriction was that it couldn't be handled by anyone other than the player throwing the ball in. We've since had added further restrictions if it strikes advertising signs and other objects.

I'm with you, as long as the same ball is used, let's get on with the game. And penalise and/or eject from the playing enclosure any non-player who interferes with the ball.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

When the quick throw in its current form was introduced, the only restriction was that it couldn't be handled by anyone other than the player throwing the ball in. We've since had added further restrictions if it strikes advertising signs and other objects.

I'm with you, as long as the same ball is used, let's get on with the game. And penalise and/or eject from the playing enclosure any non-player who interferes with the ball.

There is no law about the ball touching anything ....

 

[Quick Hands]

There is no law about the ball touching anything ..View attachment 8128

Well, someone needs to tell the referees, because I hear them say it all the time.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Well, someone needs to tell the referees, because I hear them say it all the time.

If it was local rugby, it could be local "rules of Competition" or ignorance ... there was some weird stuff they did at NRC level to speed it all up, but the only real change I recall was making that the quick throw could be taken anywhere between their defending try-line and where the throw in would take place for a Line Out

 

[Scrubber2050]

All referees are terrific, human, allowed to make the odd error or three, except those bastards that referee losing Reds matches (frequent this year)

 

[elementfreak]

If it was local rugby, it could be local "rules of Competition" or ignorance . there was some weird stuff they did at NRC level to speed it all up, but the only real change I recall was making that the quick throw could be taken anywhere between their defending try-line and where the throw in would take place for a Line Out

That's how most referees have usually managed it anyway IIRC.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Couple of interesting decisions last night.
* QCs grounding while out on bounds which should probably have been a 22 not a scrum
* The simultaneous try/in touch
* The wallaby maul tactics which worked well but was done 2 too many times.

My question though is in those lineout maul situations, where the gold player comes round the back but the green team hold it at the front.

If the gold player is prevented from tackling the ball carrier at the front of the non-maul by the players bound behind him is it still obstruction?

Can you obstruct a tackler from behind the ball carrier?

 

[The torpedo]

Another one:
twice I saw one of the Boks grab Poey by the neck at the breakdown and Owens did....................nothing about it

 

[Brumby Runner]

There did seem to be a tactic to get Pocock around the neck. Happened again at almost the next ruck after the Saffas had been penalised, but nfa taken.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Couple of interesting decisions last night.
* QCs grounding while out on bounds which should probably have been a 22 not a scrum
* The simultaneous try/in touch
* The wallaby maul tactics which worked well but was done 2 too many times.

I remember QC (Quade Cooper) having one foot in TIG, and the ball still moving. What I don't recall is whether he picked the ball up first, or grounded it.


If he picked it up, then it's TIG off the kicker.
If he grounded it, it's a 22m restart.

 

[Lindommer]

Doesn't matter either way. As long as the ball was moving when Quade touched it/picked it up/patted it/kissed it the kicker took the ball into touch. Keep in mind "touch" is the operative word, the ball has to "touch" anything in touch, including a player with his toes in touch, while it's still moving.

 

[Wilson]

There's a specific provision for touch in goal, where a player can be standing dead and apply downward pressure without picking the ball up and it counts as though they were in the field of play.