Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Just saw a report from Bryce Lawrence on last weekend's games in Super Aotearoa , he says that the Ioane to Ioane pass was legal as it seemed to of come out of back of hand, and refs were distracted by how far forward the ball travelled. And that Cane's captain's challenge should of been upheld because Weber knocked the ball out of moung's hands and didn't make contact with it.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Lawrence is in charge. He was never a great ref and it is questionable whether the systems in NZ are producing great refs.
Do they need a change?
I don't understand how referees and TMOs are still getting this wrong.
I wonder how difficult/far away we are from adding technology to this?
If you measured the release point, speed that Akira Ioane was travelling and the catch point (or realistically any point the ball travelled through) to give you the distance travelled you could determine whether the ball was passed forwards or backwards.
It would potentially be even easier that you could have software that maps a pass that leaves the hands completely flat from the point the player passes it at the speed they were travelling and then see whether the path of the actual pass is behind or in front of that.
I wonder how difficult/far away we are from adding technology to this?
If you measured the release point, speed that Akira Ioane was travelling and the catch point (or realistically any point the ball travelled through) to give you the distance travelled you could determine whether the ball was passed forwards or backwards.
It would potentially be even easier that you could have software that maps a pass that leaves the hands completely flat from the point the player passes it at the speed they were travelling and then see whether the path of the actual pass is behind or in front of that.
spikhaza
John Solomon (38)
I think it's just outright poor knowledge not to immediately know that pass was perfectly legal. We've all seen the video of relative velocity etc. It's about where the ball travels vis a vis the player that made the pass and nothing else.
What made it worse was that Ioane actually kept running after he threw the ball, and it clearly shows he's ahead of where it ends up.
Also, for the record, Bryce Lawrence is a clueless referee, but his column isn't bad
What made it worse was that Ioane actually kept running after he threw the ball, and it clearly shows he's ahead of where it ends up.
Also, for the record, Bryce Lawrence is a clueless referee, but his column isn't bad
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
BH, my rule of thumb is that if the ball remains behind the passer (in the case where the passer isn't hindered, or tackled,) then it was legitimately passed backwards from the hand. In the case in question, Akira did not have his forward motion affected and the ball was caught by Reiko considerably behind where Akira was even though Reiko got it a good 5m or more closer to the tryline than the point from where it was passed.
Most definitely a legitimate pass. A basic understanding of physics and the laws of motion would apparently assist our referees a great deal.
Most definitely a legitimate pass. A basic understanding of physics and the laws of motion would apparently assist our referees a great deal.
Absolutely and your rule of thumb is pretty good.
This one was certainly nowhere near being forward despite being called forward.
I think my technological solution would be good though and hopefully not that far away.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Be very interested to see if every ref that makes a cock up gets the boot. Wouldn't have many refs left would we? Hell's teeth it would be shortest career in any country!
I remeber Kafer etc calling for Nigel Owens to never ref again a few years back too
.Next if you do same with players who are on the big money, we would have a huge turnover in players too, because they make more.
Really fellas stay sensible.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
I remeber Kafer etc calling for Nigel Owens to never ref again a few years back too
Yeah but that was due to his ridiculous favouritism of the All Blacks, so despite being Kafer: legit.
I'm not saying fire them into the sun. I'm saying let's have some honest review sessions, and give other guys a chance. This whole "we've selected our panel and will stick with them the entire competition" doesn't work if they turn to shit.
You temporariliy drop a player who is having a poor run of form. Sometimes it happens to refs as well when their confidence goes. Send them to the second rank, get their groove back, and go ahead better prepared.
Paddy O'Brien - Fiji v France anyone?
Jimmy_Crouch
Ken Catchpole (46)
Why can't they just have a presser each week? Head of referees takes any contentious decision (questions from media via notice) and prepares to discuss them show footage why or why not the call was correct etc.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Last night: Tahs on the attack just inside the Rebels's 22. Rebels have been warned for repeated offsides as cynical.
Tahs 19 is tackled by Rebels 13. Both go to deck, ball is released, and then 19 gets to his feet and picks it up. Only a couple of players in front of him, and support arriving.
Rebels 13, still on one knee, knocks the ball out of Tahs 19 hands. No action from the ref :|
Players must be on their feet. Penalty, yellow card minimum given the prior warning for cynical play.
Other than that I thought Berry was passable. His scrum work is getting better.
Tahs 19 is tackled by Rebels 13. Both go to deck, ball is released, and then 19 gets to his feet and picks it up. Only a couple of players in front of him, and support arriving.
Rebels 13, still on one knee, knocks the ball out of Tahs 19 hands. No action from the ref :|
Players must be on their feet. Penalty, yellow card minimum given the prior warning for cynical play.
Other than that I thought Berry was passable. His scrum work is getting better.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Um they seem to over here in NZ, that's where I heard what Lawrence said and also a couple of weeks back ref was on breakdown , saying what he was pulled up for getting wrong on weekend's game. I don't think you want every decision etc pulled out in press any more than you want a coach to single out player's cock ups in press, but have been reasonably happy to see them front over big cock ups.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
I'd be more inclined to make it a discussion point on weekly chat panels - where they should discuss not only the big decisions, but also some of the more obscure laws that pop up from time to time
eg. last night McReight picked the ball up and dived over to score BUT he wasn't the last player in the ruck, therefore that's hands in the ruck. Commentators confused, and probably a few fans as well. There is even another variation where if you ARE the last player bound to the ruck, you need to have both feet behind the ball to pick it up, but I think they might have messed with that to make it one foot.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
BTW the direction from the Game Management Guidelines here in Australia on that:
If it is a ruck, you must have both feet behind the ball. By definition of course, you can't pick it up if you're not the last man in the ruck.
If it is a tackle i.e. only one team over the ball, you only need to have one foot behind the ball.
If it is a ruck, you must have both feet behind the ball. By definition of course, you can't pick it up if you're not the last man in the ruck.
If it is a tackle i.e. only one team over the ball, you only need to have one foot behind the ball.
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
Cutting costs on the hosting service, prolly
zer0
Jim Lenehan (48)
Sorry, maybe it's because I was a fullback who was literally as far away as you can get from the forwards, but there was a maul penalty in the Chiefs/Blues match that I do not understand at all.
Blues had the lineout which they take. Blue #5 brings it down a maul forms around him as per usual. Ball is passed back to Blue #7. Blue #7 breaks off with two/three others for a try. Except it was ruled obstruction by Blue #19 because Blue #7 received the ball with those two/three others in front of him, including Blue #19.
So the obstruction penalty was for having players in front of the Blue #7 when he gets the ball from Blue #5. Fine. But how is that any different to when the ball gets passed back to the hooker in a regulation maul? In those regulation instances the hooker typically gets the ball with an entire pack in front of him and it's fine, yet, in this instance, it's a penalty?
Sorry for being stoopid. I genuinely have no idea.
Blues had the lineout which they take. Blue #5 brings it down a maul forms around him as per usual. Ball is passed back to Blue #7. Blue #7 breaks off with two/three others for a try. Except it was ruled obstruction by Blue #19 because Blue #7 received the ball with those two/three others in front of him, including Blue #19.
So the obstruction penalty was for having players in front of the Blue #7 when he gets the ball from Blue #5. Fine. But how is that any different to when the ball gets passed back to the hooker in a regulation maul? In those regulation instances the hooker typically gets the ball with an entire pack in front of him and it's fine, yet, in this instance, it's a penalty?
Sorry for being stoopid. I genuinely have no idea.
In a legal situation the lineout catcher would return to the ground and a player would rip the ball off him, and it would work back one player at a time to the back off the maul.
In this case the transfer was in the air and skipped a player. Because of the transfer that player wasn't 'kept' on side and was deemed in front of the ball. He would need to leave the maul and re-enter behind the ball to be onside.
The problem, if you can call it that, is that this happens in every game and is never called, so teams ignore the law because they can.