• 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

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
While I agree it would be a dubious option from a sporting perspective, under the laws was there anything stopping the Tahs taking a shot at goal on that final penalty, lining up from 75 metres out and then when time has elapsed, place kicking it into touch to end the game?

Doesn't seem like it to me.



Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes.........

 

Jimmy_Crouch

Ken Catchpole (46)
Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...


Law 9.28 Players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing immediately when the referee blows the whistle to stop play
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...


It is explicitly in the laws that you can't kick a 22 restart directly into touch. Likewise with a kick-off.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I recall there was conjecture around place-kicking when one team used a PK to kick for their winger on the opposite sideline, who caught the ball and scored. I thought what came out of it was a kick for goal had to actually be for goal.

Which is to say I think you could line up from 75m out, but I'm not sure you could smash it into touch on the full.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...


I love that. I love that he tells him he can't do thing like three times, then he does the thing anyway and acts all shocked and surprised.

2nKT.gif
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Yes, it's still the law. I thought it was gone because it's not in the section it used to be. It's now under 8 (Scoring).

20. If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
I was asked a question today and it immediately made sense. Why didn't the Tahs tap and run, set up a maul and then kick it out. I'm sure there was only about 20 secs on the clock.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Dylan Hartley didn't just swear at the ref - he called him a cheat too.
Well done to the ref.
Well done to the commentator who said (paraphrasing) "good decision - this is rugby, not football"
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Dylan Hartley didn't just swear at the ref - he called him a cheat too.
Well done to the ref.
Well done to the commentator who said (paraphrasing) "good decision - this is rugby, not football"
That whole sequence is just hysterical, from the "Don't kick it out" warnings to the RC. So many binary points where the wrong option was chosen.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
That whole sequence is just hysterical, from the "Don't kick it out" warnings to the RC. So many binary points where the wrong option was chosen.


"I will perform the action that is - literally - the worst choice available to me under each of these circumstances"
 

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
At the end of the Force v Reds game last night the Reds crossed the line trying to score a try and there was a maul that crossed the goal line. The result was a 5m scrum with a Force feed.

Why is this not being held up in the in goal area and a goal line drop out as per the Super Rugby AU variations?

For what it is worth, Reds should have taken the three points.
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
At the end of the Force v Reds game last night the Reds crossed the line trying to score a try and there was a maul that crossed the goal line. The result was a 5m scrum with a Force feed.

Why is this not being held up in the in goal area and a goal line drop out as per the Super Rugby AU variations?

For what it is worth, Reds should have taken the three points.

Just a guess but maybe a maul is ruled differently than a tackle?
 

RedsRugbyfan101

Allen Oxlade (6)
A maul can only take place in the field of play (area between the try lines and the touch lines). Once the ball is over the try line the maul ends. The correct decision (without the Super Rugby AU variations) would have been held up in goal, 5m scrum to the Reds. With Super Rugby AU variations, a goal line drop out should have been the outcome.
 

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
Regarding TK's tackle that earned the yellow. To me it was virtually identical to the one that cost Perese a red in round one. We just need to see consistency in these things.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
Regarding TK's tackle that earned the yellow. To me it was virtually identical to the one that cost Perese a red in round one. We just need to see consistency in these things.

I agree, I for the life of me can't see how that was a yellow with other decisions we have had.
 
Top