Refereeing decisions

[Up the Guts]

Yatos Fijian shrug contacted Hodges head. So based on tonight they both should have been penalised.
Good one world rugby - give yourself an uppercut.
You are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

I don't think Adams should have been given a YC but we all know that if we were 100-0 up over some minnow and it was one of their players contacting the head of Isi then they would have been given a YC. Instead, Poite made up something about it not looking dangerous and excused it. I actually agree with him, it wasn't dangerous and doesn't deserve a YC, but it's not being ruled consistently which is what shits everyone.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's all just karmic debt for Kerevi's "shoulder charge" on Barrett back in Perth.

Seriously though, it would be great if World Rugby posted a summary of their post-match decision review. I'll regularly bay for blood only to be schooled by the ref, so I'd appreciate understanding from their perspective why they've called something one way or the other. Sure, they fuck up and will have to own it, but let the sunlight in FFS.

The Welsh nine was offside to my eyes and if there was another angle that the TMO saw then at least let me know, because as it stands, it looks like they've bottled it.

Tex, the real question is just when did Poite judge the ball to be out and play could continue? No TMO or touch judge can make that call. It is in the referee's head and he is the only person who knows what that is.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yatos Fijian shrug contacted Hodges head. So based on tonight they both should have been penalised.
Good one world rugby - give yourself an uppercut.
You are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Think I've seen that one in "Gotham".

 

[barbarian]

Tex, the real question is just when did Poite judge the ball to be out and play could continue? No TMO or touch judge can make that call. It is in the referee's head and he is the only person who knows what that is.

I think he was probably just onside, but I'm amazed they didn't look.

 

[tragic]

Think I've seen that one in "Gotham".

Winston Churchill circa 1939. Regarding the Soviet Unions role in WWII I believe.

 

[Tex]

I think he was probably just onside, but I'm amazed they didn't look.

This. If anything it would help internet conspiracy theorists like me sleep properly after such a bloody tense sunday affair!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Winston Churchill circa 1939. Regarding the Soviet Unions role in WWII I believe.

' A form of Winston Churchill's quotation, made in a radio broadcast in October 1939: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." '

 

[Bullrush]

Kerevi penalty is absolutely ridiculous. Cheika finally has a reason to actually be pissed off.

 

[John S]

Surely Barrett's fend to the face against the Boks was more worthy of a penalty?

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Surely Barrett's fend to the face against the Boks was more worthy of a penalty?

Fends to the face are totally legal. In fact, they are one of the greatest things about rugby. Something that would ordinarily get you arrested is instead encouraged, in broad daylight, as you run away from some poor prick, while thousands of people cheer you on

 

[Tex]

Barrett's happened before the bellends in Dublin threw the referees under the bus with their public knifing of them. If Kerevi's "incident" had occurred week one there wouldn't have even been a pause.

 

[barbarian]

The issue with the Kerevi fend is not really the fend itself- I can understand why that's a penalty against Kerevi.

It's the fact that this is the first time (to my eyes) they have decided to enforce this interpretation.

We've seen fends penalised in the past, and people sent to the bin - from memory Jacob Stockdale (?) was binned against us in Sydney for a fend to the throat of Nick Phipps.

But in those instances the fending arm has been well extended, and it's almost like landing a punch to the defending player.

In this instance the arm was against the chest of the carrying player, and not extended at all. It's an act we see multiple times each game, and especially from Kerevi - it's something of a trademark move.

So now, in a crucial World Cup game, he's told it's against the law. I think that's really unfair on Kerevi, and it's a classic rugby thing to do - ignore a law for years, and then dust it off on a big occasion right when everyone is watching.

So either it's wrong or it's a new interpretation of an existing law. Which is fine enough, but it's the worst possible time to introduce new complexity into the current laws.
.

 

[molman]

Tony Brown has come out with concerns around the refereeing (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12272150). I think WR (World Rugby) have handled the situation poorly. I honestly feel for the refs and do worry about an incident in a knock-out game causing dramas. It really is the lack of consistency and not just around the high tackles but the ruck, offsides, scrums..etc..

 

[Bullrush]

The issue with the Kerevi fend is not really the fend itself- I can understand why that's a penalty against Kerevi.

It's the fact that this is the first time (to my eyes) they have decided to enforce this interpretation.

We've seen fends penalised in the past, and people sent to the bin - from memory Jacob Stockdale (?) was binned against us in Sydney for a fend to the throat of Nick Phipps.

But in those instances the fending arm has been well extended, and it's almost like landing a punch to the defending player.

In this instance the arm was against the chest of the carrying player, and not extended at all. It's an act we see multiple times each game, and especially from Kerevi - it's something of a trademark move.

So now, in a crucial World Cup game, he's told it's against the law. I think that's really unfair on Kerevi, and it's a classic rugby thing to do - ignore a law for years, and then dust it off on a big occasion right when everyone is watching.

So either it's wrong or it's a new interpretation of an existing law. Which is fine enough, but it's the worst possible time to introduce new complexity into the current laws.
.

I don't get it. Is a ball carrier not allowed to protect himself anymore? Not allowed to attempt a dominant carry? As you say, Kerevi had his arms tucked to his own chest - do runners have no ability to go into contact with their arms protecting themselves? There is no way that this should be a penalty. I just can't see what Kerevi is supposed to do much differently - he is bracing for impact. Should he not???

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't get it. Is a ball carrier not allowed to protect himself anymore? Not allowed to attempt a dominant carry? As you say, Kerevi had his arms tucked to his own chest - do runners have no ability to go into contact with their arms protecting themselves? There is no way that this should be a penalty. I just can't see what Kerevi is supposed to do much differently - he is bracing for impact. Should he not???

You are allowed to have your arm tucked to your chest and use it to protect yourself/impact the ball carrier.

You are not allowed to have it extended on contact.

I think it was dubious call given the arm is definitely tucked in against his body at the point of impact and then extends as he pushes the Welsh player away.

 

[Bullrush]

You are allowed to have your arm tucked to your chest and use it to protect yourself/impact the ball carrier.

You are not allowed to have it extended on contact.

I think it was dubious call given the arm is definitely tucked in against his body at the point of impact and then extends as he pushes the Welsh player away.

Exactly. At contact, his arms are still tucked to his chest. It is simply a bad tackle which Kerevi shouldn't be punished for.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You are allowed to have your arm tucked to your chest and use it to protect yourself/impact the ball carrier.

You are not allowed to have it extended on contact.

I think it was dubious call given the arm is definitely tucked in against his body at the point of impact and then extends as he pushes the Welsh player away.

BH is this correct? I understand the definition of a fend is that the arm must be extended. But it also must be with an open hand, so on that count Kerevi was probably at fault. Also, my reading of the matter was that he was penalised for his hand (closed fist) working up off the point of impact with the chest and ended up contacting the neck which again is a penalty.

It was very soft, and worse happens in almost every game, but the letter of the law probably means the penalty was correct.

 

[molman]

It was very soft, and worse happens in almost every game, but the letter of the law probably means the penalty was correct.

Which is the concerning part. There have been arguably similar incidents. My issue is that it appears that only the 'dramatic' incidents are getting a proper look at and that others like the Owen Watkins hit on Kerevi later in the game (which was a head high) doesn't get a second glance. Now personally I don't want it too, let the boys play I say, but the cherry picking is a problem. Some of the Welsh tackle technique was really poor in that game. I don't know if it was that they were often trying for the choke hold, but they were often coming in rather high.

I thought Kerevi spoke really well in his interview today regarding the incident and the game (https://www.rugby.com.au/videos/2019/09/30/wallabies-world-cup-kerevi-tokyo). Much more well spoken than Cheika the night before. I think we might have gained some more sympathy if it had been him talking after the game.

 

[Dan54]

You know I go along with Shag Hansen,
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...referees-pleads-all-blacks-coach-steve-hansen

 

[cyclopath]

Which is the concerning part. There have been arguably similar incidents. My issue is that it appears that only the 'dramatic' incidents are getting a proper look at and that others like the Owen Watkins hit on Kerevi later in the game (which was a head high) doesn't get a second glance. Now personally I don't want it too, let the boys play I say, but the cherry picking is a problem. Some of the Welsh tackle technique was really poor in that game. I don't know if it was that they were often trying for the choke hold, but they were often coming in rather high.

I thought Kerevi spoke really well in his interview today regarding the incident and the game (https://www.rugby.com.au/videos/2019/09/30/wallabies-world-cup-kerevi-tokyo). Much more well spoken than Cheika the night before. I think we might have gained some more sympathy if it had been him talking after the game.

Interesting that there's a fair bit of chat from NH types on Twitter about how egregious Kerevi's effort was (and Hooper, who clearly deserved yellow or even red for his bump on Biggar), but little about the habit of high tackling position that Wales use (trying to hold up ball carriers and prevent offloads and get a maul ruling). That tackling position in and of itself is increasing the likelihood of these collisions, and is fundamentally poor and risky. I don't feel a ball runner should be obligated to perform a fend, because a player tries to tackle them upright and face-on, to avoid the risk of being penalised for dangerous contact. I think they are at risk of creating a very tricky precedent.
Besides the fact that a clearly worse example, Barrett against SA, was completely overlooked. And no, I don't think that should be sanctioned either. And even if you try to do the right thing, like Stockdale in Aus, you get the fend wrong and you get carded. Could be a messy area. And, like most things, World Rugby is shit at consistency. Look at Piers Francis being mitigated down to a yellow card, and a tickle with a wet lettuce leaf.