elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
Why don't they have the right to do it? The game is about contests, you can choose not to contest something.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Lack of clear voice killing referee consistency
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/251001.html#BIg6XQEvt3D75UXb.99
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/251001.html#BIg6XQEvt3D75UXb.99
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Is Jonothan angling for a job?
Much truth in what he says, but I suspect that the quest for refereeing consistency will roughly equate to the quest for the Holy Grail.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Seems likely - somehow conned me into buying his autobiography, only to be asked by #1 son "why the hell would you want to read a ref's autobiography?".
Anyone got an answer?
Anyone got an answer?
^^^ Pffft to your Little Shoulder. I quite enjoyed reading Stuart Dickinson's book.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Dicko wrote a book as well?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Kaplan's might be a reasonable read. I'm told he has quite a sense of humour.
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
He does, however Mark Lawrence's book would be a great read if he ever did one.
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
It's about the 07 RWC from a referee's point of view I believe.
There was another variation of referee rulings on the uncontested lineout maul during the overnight Blues v Cheetahs game,
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.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I've never worked out why the IRB/WR (World Rugby) have decided that a side has to contest/take part in a maul. A maul only exists if a player from either side are in closed contact around a third player with the ball. Why should a team have to take part if they don't want to?
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^ agree 100%!& will go further: unless the ball-carrier is at the front of the uncontested maul i.e. able to be tackled by the defending side should they opt to contest the maul, that's obstruction & should result in at least a FK. Doesn't get refed that way, tho.
In saying that, not contesting an oppo-fed lineout on or about your own 22 is fucking crazy & asking for trouble. Dumb footy & they paid the price.
In saying that, not contesting an oppo-fed lineout on or about your own 22 is fucking crazy & asking for trouble. Dumb footy & they paid the price.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
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.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I didn't see that one HJ, does anyone have a clip?
I'd go even further than that, wob, a player with the ball should ALWAYS be at the front of his team's maul so it can be contested by the opposition. Law 17 clearly states "A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents.....". How can a group of players be called a maul when the ball's at the back of one side NOT bound to an opponent? Isn't one of the saws of rugby the ball's always contestable? When it's at the back of a "snake" maul it's obviously not.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^ Amen, Hallelujah & whatever else to that, mate, it's been one of my pet hates for a long time now, even when the AB & Crusaders do it. Needs to be policed a lot more often than it currently is (which is roughly 0% of the time).
It happened at about the 78 minutes mark.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Another contentious area is the refereeing of the advantage. It seems to be accepted practice now that knock on advantage expires if the non-offending team either kicks the ball, passes through the hands or makes a few metres through pick and drives. And I am happy with those calls in the main.
So, what happened with Walsh not calling advantage over after the Brumbies knocked on and the chiefs kicked through, finding touch about 15 - 20 m advanced towards the try line. Play was called back for the scrum, Chiefs feed, when it probably should have been a lineout with Brumbies throw in. This occurred with around 4 minutes left to play, and allowed the Chiefs to advance play to within 5m of the try line where the subsequent lineout resulted in the questionable knock on decision that then led to the winning penalty for the Chiefs.
Conceivably, had advantage been nullified when the Brumbies knocked on previously, they would have retained possession about 25m out from their try line, and the result could have been entirely different.
So, what happened with Walsh not calling advantage over after the Brumbies knocked on and the chiefs kicked through, finding touch about 15 - 20 m advanced towards the try line. Play was called back for the scrum, Chiefs feed, when it probably should have been a lineout with Brumbies throw in. This occurred with around 4 minutes left to play, and allowed the Chiefs to advance play to within 5m of the try line where the subsequent lineout resulted in the questionable knock on decision that then led to the winning penalty for the Chiefs.
Conceivably, had advantage been nullified when the Brumbies knocked on previously, they would have retained possession about 25m out from their try line, and the result could have been entirely different.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^ more straws, Sir?