Refereeing decisions

[Hugh Jarse]

Another "uncontested" lineout "maul" in the Ponies vs Rebels tonight (35 min). No penalty against the uncontesting team.

Methinks we are going to see a few more of these being used at Super Rugby and Test level as a counter mauling tactic by the defending team.

 

[Scoey]

I'm all for it. Mauls are traditionally a fairly uncontestable attacking weapon. The attacking team winning the ball from a lineout and quickly moving it to the safety of the back of the maul. If they are required to think a bit about what the defending team is choosing to do first it will bring a bit more strategy and 'contest' into this type of play. Thumbs up from me.

 

[TOCC]

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.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ That advice for referees to tell the halfback to use it was included in the IRB briefing note issued last year.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I'm all for it. Mauls are traditionally a fairly uncontestable attacking weapon. The attacking team winning the ball from a lineout and quickly moving it to the safety of the back of the maul. If they are required to think a bit about what the defending team is choosing to do first it will bring a bit more strategy and 'contest' into this type of play. Thumbs up from me.

Problem being that 9/10 refs will allow the team in possession to move it to the back of the "maul" regardless of whether the defending side has made it an actual maul by one or more of their players joining it. If they're gonna enforce the Law then, yes, I'm all in favour but if they're not then I say it's bullshit.

 

[Scoey]

For sure. This tactic is only just starting to become a bit more widely used and as such it will take a little while for the refs to react to it, if at all. After what Higgers and the Rebels did to the Brumbies maul tonight in HJ's example, the Brumbies may think differently in terms of how the engage and execute in an attacking maul in this game. That's what I like.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

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.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^ I'm sure you're right but call me old-fashioned, I'd just like the refs to ref the Laws that are already in the fucking book & let whoever decide which if any variations should be allowed. Really hate the likes of Walsh, Clancy & Barnes (to take just 3 of the possible examples) re-defining the Laws of our game on the hoof & seemingly often as not on a whim.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

#therulesarethefuckingrulesreffuckingrefthem

 

[Scoey]

Yes and no. I find myself thinking like that most of the time but then when a ref blows something truly pedantic up I get fucking incensed. Yes technically it was a penalty but for fucks sake just let the boys play footy. It's then that I realise that referees need to use plenty of discretion for the good of the game. Who'd be a ref eh?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yes and no. I find myself thinking like that most of the time but then when a ref blows something truly pedantic up I get fucking incensed. Yes technically it was a penalty but for fucks sake just let the boys play footy. It's then that I realise that referees need to use plenty of discretion for the good of the game. Who'd be a ref eh?

Me. For one week, after which I'd get stood down forever for telling (say) GOAT "you're not the fucking captain. Fuck off" and/ or Genia "you're not the fucking captain. Fuck off", and/or Hooper "you can't be the fucking captain, what are you, 12? Fuck off".

 

[Scoey]

You and me both I reckon. But then I think I would prefer you reffing to some of the ones I've played under.
The best one ever was a guy who just after our boot check, he grabbed our captain and said that when he blows our whistle to signal us onto the pitch, we have 60 seconds to get out there. If we're not in the middle inside of 60 seconds we would be penalised.
We didn't try to be slow but apparently we weren't out there quick enough. It was our kick off, so we were all set and the ref blew time on and then immediately blew a penalty awarded to the opposition for our tardiness.
Needless to say it went downhill from there.

 

[cyclopath]

The maul thing I find puzzling, and I saw it last night and today in the NZ game at least once, is an attacking player coming in to a formed maul and just attaching in front of the player carrying the ball at the back, who briefly detaches from the guy he was holding onto and then attaches behind the new guy. It just doesn't look right.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether it's legal?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Can't possibly be legal but almost certainly allowed under Protocol 809 or whatever number they're up to.

#therulesarethefuckingrulesfuckingrefthem

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

You and me both I reckon. But then I think I would prefer you reffing to some of the ones I've played under.
The best one ever was a guy who just after our boot check, he grabbed our captain and said that when he blows our whistle to signal us onto the pitch, we have 60 seconds to get out there. If we're not in the middle inside of 60 seconds we would be penalised.
We didn't try to be slow but apparently we weren't out there quick enough. It was our kick off, so we were all set and the ref blew time on and then immediately blew a penalty awarded to the opposition for our tardiness.
Needless to say it went downhill from there.

Ouch. I had a mate who got pinged for being outside the designated sinbin area after being told by the TJ (pre-AR era, sorry) to move so he didn't distract the guy attempting the PK from the infringement for which my mate had been (wrongly) binned. Initial kick missed so Sir (rhymes with hunt) gave them a 2nd shot AND moved it 10m infield to where my mate supposedly offended...... Guess what, 2nd shot goes over & Levin Athletic RFC get screwed yet again, nothing to see here, move along folks.........

And Levin Wanderers members & supporters wonder why the rest of the 'nua hate (OK, dislike) you. Onya, Tubby.

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^^ more straws, Sir?

Too bloody late to be clutching WOB. Just seemed to me to be inconsistent with the bulk of advantage calls in Super rugby over the years.

And it may not be too long before one of these straws sees the last of Aussie Steve in the centre.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I suspect that Aussie Steve will outlive us both & possibly the 'roaches.

 

[Scoey]

The maul thing I find puzzling, and I saw it last night and today in the NZ game at least once, is an attacking player coming in to a formed maul and just attaching in front of the player carrying the ball at the back, who briefly detaches from the guy he was holding onto and then attaches behind the new guy. It just doesn't look right.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether it's legal?

No that is most definitely illegal. Law 17.4.
(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.

 

[cyclopath]

No that is most definitely illegal. Law 17.4.
(c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.

Thanks, I thought so, but it seems to happen a bit, and I wondered if I was wrong.
I like the maul, but it is stacked enough in favour of the attacking team without them being allowed to take the piss.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.