Refereeing decisions

[Pfitzy]

Obviously the subbies know the Laws of the Game better!!

I've done my field test now so am 1 online test away from being fully legit

 

[Dctarget]

He's not tackled. But you can't crawl anywhere with the ball in your possession - Law 13 has the stated Principle that players will be on their feet.

Right, genuinely never knew that. Thought that it was only after a completed tackle you couldn't crawl.

 

[sendit]

But you can't crawl anywhere with the ball in your possession

Because he wasn’t tackled he’s allowed to get up on one knee and offload it though, fundamentally I’m not sure why that’s any different to gettin on his knees and placing the ball, he didn’t actually gain any ground by going from his stomach to his knee

Regardless i thought the decision was a bit rushed for the type event it was, especially considering how much time is taken to conclude other TMO events

 

[Dan54]

Because he wasn’t tackled he’s allowed to get up on one knee and offload it though, fundamentally I’m not sure why that’s any different to gettin on his knees and placing the ball, he didn’t actually gain any ground by going from his stomach to his knee

Regardless i thought the decision was a bit rushed for the type event it was, especially considering how much time is taken to conclude other TMO events

No!! If players from both teams are bound above and you on ground it is a ruck whether you tackled or not so you can't use hands!!

 

[sendit]

No!! If players from both teams are bound above and you on ground it is a ruck whether you tackled or not so you can't use hands!!

Have you actually slowed it down and watched it though?

They’ve splintered off from the maul there’s only two AB’s that are really involved, number 5 is almost standing at BPA’s hips way past where the ball is and if there is a ruck he’s also terribly from the side

That leaves only 16 doesn’t really commit to the ruck in any sort of meaningful way until after BPA is already on his knees, all he does is place hands on the guy behind BPA, no shoulder or anything

I’m not super disappointed with the decision but don’t think it was given near the time it deserved for what I thought was easily the most technical decision of the game

 

[Dan54]

I convinced it was right decision, and not really seeing any point in taking more time to make decisions. But as you say if there is a doubt, maybe there should be time taken, I just thought it clear cut!

 

[Derpus]

Correct decision and the less time they take making calls the better.

Dumb thing was he didnt even need to get to his knees. Just place it. One of many in that match.

 

[Pfitzy]

Because he wasn’t tackled he’s allowed to get up on one knee and offload it though

Not really, but that isn't the point because placing the ball isn't passing the ball, though I understand what you're getting at.

Throughout the Laws it is stated that if a player has any part of their body from the knee upward on the ground, they're off their feet. And in the act of scoring a try it gets greater scrutiny where TMO is available, which can also derail things.

1 Get to your feet.
2 Place it.
3 Pass it.
Those are your options. And the number shall be three (Monty Python fans)

Rugby is a system of Laws - they get interpreted because they actually never work together 100% in fluid situations.

This situation in particular gets messy when you try to step through the Laws on it.

My recollection is that BPA was under some AB players who hadn't noticed he had gone to ground. It was called a maul, therefore going to the Maul Law (16) we see:

ENDING A MAUL
16. A maul ends and play continues when:
a. The ball or ball-carrier leaves the maul.
b. The ball is on the ground.
c. The ball is on or over the goal line.

17. A maul ends unsuccessfully when:
a. The ball becomes unplayable.
b. The maul collapses (not as a result of foul play).
c. The maul does not move towards a goal line for longer than five seconds and the ball does not emerge.
d. The ball-carrier goes to ground and the ball is not immediately available.
e. The ball is available to be played

If he's under any bound players who were part of the original maul, the only logical option is the one in bold (17.d.) above.

Technically you could say this is now a Ruck (Law 15) BUT there is nothing in either the Maul (16) or Ruck (15) Law about what happens when a Maul technically becomes a ruck - it is generally accepted that it becomes a ruck at a given point and we kind of ignore what happens in between.

So it was never called a ruck, and even if it was, BPA's options are the same: get up, place it, pass it.

Is the ball "immediately available"? The definition of "immediate" is not available anywhere within the Laws, and if we had to define it as per the English word you'd blow penalties all day long. Instead the general interpretation is "as soon as the player is able providing they're making a decent effort to do so" which isn't always helpful.

He's on the ground. Now we're not technically in Open Play so you could argue that my use of Law 13 above doesn't apply - I was only using it for the "Principle" stating players are to be on their feet, so I'm probably wrong to quote it as gospel in this instance. Forget that for a second.

Let's go to Law 8 - scoring.

TRY
2. A try is scored when an attacking player:
a. Is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal.
b. Is first to ground the ball when a scrum, ruck or maul reaches the goal line.
c. With the ball is tackled short of the goal line and the player’s momentum carries them in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball.
d. Is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line and the player immediately reaches out and grounds the ball.
e. Who is in touch or touch-in-goal, grounds the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not holding the ball.

Now we can sort of apply 2.d. above BUT we're not talking about a tackle (Law 14), are we? So we can sort of forget that.

*sort of*

When you lay it out, you can safely say that of the five laws (8, 13, 14, 15, 16) I've consulted for an outcome, none of them specifically apply to this situation because while it IS a maul and the act of Scoring (and sort of a ruck), it isn't a tackle or open play.

So you need to go back to Principles and say that BPA must pass, place, or get up, and in placing must not attempt to get up because that immediately contravenes the act of "placing".

Really would have just been easier if he'd knocked it on...

 

[Up the Guts]

If you listen to the official reason for the no try it’s because he “propels himself forward” so it is “double movement.” No double movement law in union.

The referees need to communicate better. Pretty easy to penalise him for playing the ball on the ground if that's your interpretation of him propping himself up on his knees. Blowing a penalty for a law that is well-known not to exist in rugby is village.

 

[sendit]

Pfitzy I enjoyed reading all that lol

 

[yourmatesam]

My recollection is that BPA was under some AB players who hadn't noticed he had gone to ground. It was called a maul, therefore going to the Maul Law (16) we see:

If he's under any bound players who were part of the original maul, the only logical option is the one in bold (17.d.) above.

Technically you could say this is now a Ruck (Law 15)

A solid summary Pfitzy - well done mate.

Just a point that gets confused a lot in Rugby is the view that a Maul can become a Ruck... it can't.

Once a Maul is formed, if it goes to ground, it's now a collapsed Maul - not a Ruck. It looks weird and the way referees try to get the ball out and into play definitely confuses the issue but they're doing that to avoid the scrum following a collapsed maul.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you listen to the official reason for the no try it’s because he “propels himself forward” so it is “double movement.” No double movement law in union.

The referees need to communicate better. Pretty easy to penalise him for playing the ball on the ground if that's your interpretation of him propping himself up on his knees. Blowing a penalty for a law that is well-known not to exist in rugby is village.

The double movement explains how he breached the law.

The penalty was for not releasing.

I think it is fine. The nuance is in why was it a penalty for not releasing as you're allowed to reach out and place the ball. The fact that he moved a second time to do that is why it wasn't legal.

There's a number of penalties where the reason the referee states isn't actually the law that is broken. E.g. last week the referee penalised Rob Simmons for changing his bind in the maul. Clearly that isn't against the laws. The law he broke was being offside at the maul but it was the action of changing his bind that put him from a position where he was onside to one that was offside.

 

[Up the Guts]

The double movement explains how he breached the law.

The penalty was for not releasing.

I think it is fine. The nuance is in why was it a penalty for not releasing as you're allowed to reach out and place the ball. The fact that he moved a second time to do that is why it wasn't legal.

There's a number of penalties where the reason the referee states isn't actually the law that is broken. E.g. last week the referee penalised Rob Simmons for changing his bind in the maul. Clearly that isn't against the laws. The law he broke was being offside at the maul but it was the action of changing his bind that put him from a position where he was onside to one that was offside.

Not for me. Using a loaded term like double movement doesn’t help clarity at all. It makes sense to say that he has to release the ball immediately, if that was his ruling, I didn’t hear him say anything about releasing. Also, all that talk about ‘propelling himself forward’ was rubbish as he didn’t.

 

[Pfitzy]

A solid summary Pfitzy - well done mate.

Just a point that gets confused a lot in Rugby is the view that a Maul can become a Ruck. it can't.

Once a Maul is formed, if it goes to ground, it's now a collapsed Maul - not a Ruck. It looks weird and the way referees try to get the ball out and into play definitely confuses the issue but they're doing that to avoid the scrum following a collapsed maul.

Agreed - hence my point above that there is no transition in either law stating it can change like that

However in practical terms, it happens all the time for the reasons you state: get the ball on the deck and call "use it". Players often don't know the laws and backrowers aren't the brightest so you'll see refs call "RUCK!" to let them know that killing it won't work at that point.

 

[Derpus]

Agreed - hence my point above that there is no transition in either law stating it can change like that

However in practical terms, it happens all the time for the reasons you state: get the ball on the deck and call "use it". Players often don't know the laws and backrowers aren't the brightest so you'll see refs call "RUCK!" to let them know that killing it won't work at that point.

You can count the number of people who actually understand mauls on a single hand.

Fucking abominations.

 

[Pfitzy]

You can count the number of people who actually understand mauls on a single hand.

Fucking abominations.

I just think we're at a point where the "stop once" rule needs to be jettisoned. Use it or lose it.

I remember back when they brought in the 5 second rule that England would game the shit out of it, and when refs used to let mauls form and then not starting counting the stoppages until it had advanced.

If you're going sideways or backwards, use it or lose it. Fixed.

 

[Wilson]

I just think we're at a point where the "stop once" rule needs to be jettisoned. Use it or lose it.

I remember back when they brought in the 5 second rule that England would game the shit out of it, and when refs used to let mauls form and then not starting counting the stoppages until it had advanced.

If you're going sideways or backwards, use it or lose it. Fixed.

100%, this is the simplest way to clean up mauling and the way it's adjudicated at the moment. That probably means there's next to no chance of it happening though.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Right, genuinely never knew that. Thought that it was only after a completed tackle you couldn't crawl.

There is a balance here - the player on the ground can't crawl but he also can't be dived on to make a tackle. Ethos - the game is played on your feet. The player on the ground either gets up and/or the arriving player stays on his feet and put his hands on the player on the ground to force the player on the ground to release.

 

[Dan54]

You can count the number of people who actually understand mauls on a single hand.

Fucking abominations.

I have watched and coached rugby for more years than a few on here have even been alive Derpus, and I for the life of me can't understand why we allow a player to have a ball in his hands shielded behind his team so you can't tackle him and we allow it!!
I still reckon anyone at front should be able to brought down so you can work your way to the bal!

 

[Dismal Pillock]

I've done my field test now so am 1 online test away from being fully legit

Oh Jesus. We're never going to hear the end of this.

"Pursuant to Law 322 sub-clause cII the forward motion of A obliviates the principles of 88, 12 and 36a therefore, in this instance, Waratahs ball"