Refereeing decisions

[Quick Hands]

It really is a little ironic. We pride ourselves that the ball is always in contest in rugby, yet here is a tactic where one team chooses not to contest for possession and gift the ball to their opponents. The defending team chose not to contest in the air and on the ground.

But are those mauls set up from lineouts really a contest? They seem to me to be even less of a contest than the faux contest we now have at scrums as I have alluded to on the scrum thread (where the scrum has become a penalty wining contest not a ball winning contest)

 

[Quick Hands]

During the second half tonight, the Brumbies were awarded a penalty from either a ruck or scrum infringement by the Rebels, and they took the odds and ran the ball in a backline movement that took it to the opposite sideline. One or two rucks later they lost it to a knock on or turnover, but having made only about 10 - 15m forwards, Walsh apparently decided it was enough to cancel the penalty advantage and set a scrum with Rebels' feed rather than going back for the penalty.

Just another example of the refereeing being inconsistent. Didn't impact the result, but I have to say I hope we don't get Walsh in too many more games this year.

Without wanting to set the Walsh fan club into apoplexy, there was some very very odd refereeing in that match.

 

[Bullrush]

There was another variation of referee rulings on the uncontested lineout maul during the overnight Blues v Cheetahs game,

Spoiler

which ultimately lost the game for the Blues.

Blues decided not to contest the Cheetahs lineout "maul"/wedge, and they were penalised for "leaving the lineout" because the Blues forwards stepped backwards to avoid coming into contact with the Cheetahs maul, and the Blues OSF moved beyond the 15 metre line.

Apparently the Blues won 3 penalties from their game last week doing the exact same thing....this week they are penalised.

Apparently there was also an intentional knock-down by a Cheetahs player that Kaino asked the ref to take another look at but he refused to do so. Fuck these SA refs controlling SA games man.

Blues can't win a fucking trick this year.

 

[cyclopath]

During the second half tonight, the Brumbies were awarded a penalty from either a ruck or scrum infringement by the Rebels, and they took the odds and ran the ball in a backline movement that took it to the opposite sideline. One or two rucks later they lost it to a knock on or turnover, but having made only about 10 - 15m forwards, Walsh apparently decided it was enough to cancel the penalty advantage and set a scrum with Rebels' feed rather than going back for the penalty.

Just another example of the refereeing being inconsistent. Didn't impact the result, but I have to say I hope we don't get Walsh in too many more games this year.

At least he called advantage over clearly a phase or two before play broke down. It seemed a pretty marginal territorial advantage, although it did run quite a few phases. I wonder if they get any "guidelines" for penalty advantage (in terms of territory and/or phases or time before it expires) or they just go on the "vibe"? I guess with a lot of side-to-side, the metres gained might not be clear. Guidelines would be good.

 

[Quick Hands]

Apparently the Blues won 3 penalties from their game last week doing the exact same thing..this week they are penalised.

Apparently there was also an intentional knock-down by a Cheetahs player that Kaino asked the ref to take another look at but he refused to do so. Fuck these SA refs controlling SA games man.

Blues can't win a fucking trick this year.

Some of the SAF ref leave a bit to be desired, that's true, but there's been some pretty ordinary stuff served up by other refs. See post 722.

 

[Lindommer]

As a former ref I've been told in refs' workshops to rule advantage like this:

• for advantage leading to a scrum one clear pass from a ruck or maul (without being immediately monstered) means advantage over. The thinking here's an infringement leading to a scrum'll result in the side receiving advantage would win their own scrum and pass the ball.
• for advantage leading to a penalty it's gotta be a gain in territory or clear possession, best to keep in mind the side receiving advantage could kick for touch with the attendant gain in territory plus the throw-in. Super and test refs also seem to play advantage a bit longer if there's a chance of a shot at goal.
• Personally, I used to count to 5 for penalty advantages and then whistle if necessary. Saffer refs seem to play very long advantage when play's within 10m of the goal lines, too long in my opinion; far too many get called back for this practice to be considered appropriate.

 

[louie]

I'm a fan of very long advantages! It gives the attacking team a chance to spin it wide and have a real go without the risk of being punched on the
counterattack.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

@Lindo, as an armchair ref I mostly count to 3 for scrum or FK advantage, 5 for non-cynical PK advantage & 10 for anything deserving a card. How fast or slow I count is obviously heavily dependent on what colour shirts the non-offending team are wearing

 

[Sidbarret]

Apparently the Blues won 3 penalties from their game last week doing the exact same thing..this week they are penalised.

Apparently there was also an intentional knock-down by a Cheetahs player that Kaino asked the ref to take another look at but he refused to do so. Fuck these SA refs controlling SA games man.

Blues can't win a fucking trick this year.

So let me get this straight, last week the Blues got three penalties (actually scrum, whatever) for the tactic against the Stormers. Against the Cheetahs they got pinged, ergo the SA ref in the Cheeatahs game is bent?

Only one little problem with that version.

Stormers - Blues: Referee Joubert (SARU)
Cheetahs - Blues: Referee Hoffman (ARU).

But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.

 

[Brumby Runner]

As a former ref I've been told in refs' workshops to rule advantage like this:

• for advantage leading to a scrum one clear pass from a ruck or maul (without being immediately monstered) means advantage over. The thinking here's an infringement leading to a scrum'll result in the side receiving advantage would win their own scrum and pass the ball.
• for advantage leading to a penalty it's gotta be a gain in territory or clear possession, best to keep in mind the side receiving advantage could kick for touch with the attendant gain in territory plus the throw-in. Super and test refs also seem to play advantage a bit longer if there's a chance of a shot at goal.
• Personally, I used to count to 5 for penalty advantages and then whistle if necessary. Saffer refs seem to play very long advantage when play's within 10m of the goal lines, too long in my opinion; far too many get called back for this practice to be considered appropriate.

Many times teams with penalty advantage in or around the attacking 22m will retain the advantage if they take the ball to the tryline but fail to score the try. That's what I'd expect, but it seemed to me that Walsh was a bit premature calling the penalty advantage over against the Brumbies last night, while he kept the knock on advantage going for the Chiefs against the Brumbies last week.

 

[Bullrush]

So let me get this straight, last week the Blues got three penalties (actually scrum, whatever) for the tactic against the Stormers. Against the Cheetahs they got pinged, ergo the SA ref in the Cheeatahs game is bent?

Only one little problem with that version.

Stormers - Blues: Referee Joubert (SARU)
Cheetahs - Blues: Referee Hoffman (ARU).

But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.

there was the small case if a red card last week.... flat pass this week, not checking the intentional knock down.....SA refs in SA is just stupid.....hopefully we get a few go our way soon.....


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^I honestly don't believe that any of the referees in super rugby are biased towards or against anyone. I question the competence of some of them and whether they should be operating at this level, but I believe them to all be honest men.

 

[lincoln]

^^^I honestly don't believe that any of the referees in super rugby are biased towards or against anyone. I question the competence of some of them and whether they should be operating at this level, but I believe them to all be honest men.

Agree but do feel that they are afflicted with confirmation bias.

 

[southsider]

^^^I honestly don't believe that any of the referees in super rugby are biased towards or against anyone. I question the competence of some of them and whether they should be operating at this level, but I believe them to all be honest men.

Maybe Kaplan before he retired, his record against the waratahs was diabolical!!

 

[elementfreak]

I have no idea why teams have trouble with the maul laws. It's simple. A maul is only formed when both teams participate. You cannot move the ball backwards to guy at the end until a maul is formed or else is obstruction just like any other play where there's an attacker ahead of the ball. The Cheetahs moved the ball backwards but none of the Blues wanted to produce an obstruction call - all they needed to do was make contact and they would've gotten the penalty.

You don't get the penalty. It's a scrum from "accidental offside" as the memo says the team trying to buy the penalty should only get the scrum.

 

[elementfreak]

I'm the same, i like it, it adds variety to the game but i wish it wasn't an immediate penalty awarded, maybe just tell the halfback to use it instead.

It's not, if they don't use it then it's a scrum.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's not, if they don't use it then it's a scrum.

I think the point being made by TOCC is that the dominant scrum is holding the ball at the back in order to win a penalty when the opposition infringes in some manner or other. What he is suggesting is that the ref should call "use it" to force the team in possession to get it out.

That's a different scenario to the situation where the ball is being held in because of the pressure from the opposition scrum, which in the case it can't be used would be a scrum reset.

 

[elementfreak]

I think the point being made by TOCC is that the dominant scrum is holding the ball at the back in order to win a penalty when the opposition infringes in some manner or other. What he is suggesting is that the ref should call "use it" to force the team in possession to get it out.

That's a different scenario to the situation where the ball is being held in because of the pressure from the opposition scrum, which in the case it can't be used would be a scrum reset.

Ah right, my mistake I thought we were still on mauls.

 

[Braveheart81]

Many times teams with penalty advantage in or around the attacking 22m will retain the advantage if they take the ball to the tryline but fail to score the try. That's what I'd expect, but it seemed to me that Walsh was a bit premature calling the penalty advantage over against the Brumbies last night, while he kept the knock on advantage going for the Chiefs against the Brumbies last week.

I certainly think there should be greater clarity regarding penalty advantage in terms of consistency.

I would err on the side of it not being overly lengthy and in the case you were talking about where the Brumbies had used several phases and gone forward about 15m still with clear possession, advantage should be over.

In the red zone, maybe advantage should be limited to about 6 phases and then should expire if there hasn't been a new penalty offence in ther interim (restarting the advantage period).

I don't like endless pick and drives close to the line where advantage can seemingly go forever. I'd prefer for teams to either do that knowing that they're likely to lose that penalty advantage (but still be trying to score a try) or to try a backline move, cross field kick or something that is likely to either result in a try or come back for the penalty straight away.

It's a difficult situation because you want to see teams having a go and you want to avoid teams dropping the ball intentionally to claim the penalty after a few phases if they're getting nowhere.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Anyone see the maul set up off the Ireland lineout just before half time? Ball taken off the top, thrown backward down to an Ireland player in the lineout then players bound and the ball passed back to a ripper before an England player layed a hand on. England defended well but should have been an obstruction penalty all day. Rubbish refereeing.