Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

all depends when you pause the action

 

[Strewthcobber]

Just while we're on these laws is there a case to be made that the guys bound to the ball carrier above are in breach of 10.1(c)?

Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

Tackling implies bringing the player to the ground. They are certainly attempting to prevent that.

 

[yourmatesam]

Well, you're buggered young fella. I'll get the ACT refs on to you for not following the letter of the law.

Happy to speak my mind to the powers that be old timer!

Have you ever been to a referee or foundation course where they don't preach Safety, Fun and Fairness in that order. Or as one presenter likes to sprout: Safety, Safety, Safety.

The issue is that there are too many laws which create confusion. KISS - If it looks wrong, it probably is wrong.

 

[mxyzptlk]

View attachment 5841all depends when you pause the action

Not really, since Toner still has a hand on the ball when the English grab him.

EDIT: But that's also the question with the uncontested lineout. The reason Joubert says it's a maul is he says the ball carrier is still at the front, but it sure looks like Attwood has already handed the ball back to Vunipola well before there's any Irish engagement.

That looks a lot more like obstruction than the Irish lineout, but Joubert didn't see it that way.

 

[Scoey]

The ref is never going to get it 100% correct and nor should they be expected to. Suffice to say, if there is debate on whether an infringement has occurred when reviewing frame by frame stills then the ref watching it live will likely have a harder time determining exactly what has transpired and when.

At the end of the day, the laws are there to ensure a contest. Teams that try and get a bit cute with them and tread close to the line to try and gain an edge may find themselves winning some and possibly losing some also but I don't think they to much cause to be upset if the call doesn't always go their way.

I don't think the issue is with the laws or the general application of them. I think the issue is with the expectations of teams and players that are trying to manipulate same to fairly fine tolerances, getting closer and closer to 50/50 calls and expecting them all to go their way.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Not really, since Toner still has a hand on the ball when the English grab him.

EDIT: But that's also the question with the uncontested lineout. The reason Joubert says it's a maul is he says the ball carrier is still at the front, but it sure looks like Attwood has already handed the ball back to Vunipola well before there's any Irish engagement.

That looks a lot more like obstruction than the Irish lineout, but Joubert didn't see it that way.

They're all bloody wrong! Haha. When they happen it's like lightning so it's always going to be hard for the ref to blow it up, but in the Ireland one, there's more than one halfback while the ball is still in the lineout - short arm England before we even get to the maul. Then on the maul, the set up on Toner is a "flying wedge" - you can't set up like that, it's illegal.

Thanks for finding that clip!

EDIT: The maul also requires players to be bound - a hand on by the opposition does not constitute a bind

 

[D-Box]

What are people's take on this penalty try - http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/interesting-incidence-of-being-offside.html?m=1

While yes you can't throw a forward pass or knock on in the deadball area however there is no offside line. Therefore the penalised player can't be offside and the ref got it wrong. The TMO seems to be suggesting this. Thoughts

 

[Braveheart81]

11.1 Offside in general play
(a)

A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:​

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What are people's take on this penalty try - http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/interesting-incidence-of-being-offside.html?m=1

While yes you can't throw a forward pass or knock on in the deadball area however there is no offside line. Therefore the penalised player can't be offside and the ref got it wrong. The TMO seems to be suggesting this. Thoughts

There's no offiside line from rucks or mauls (or lineouts or scrums) in-goal but that wasn't a ruck or maul so doesn't apply.

You can be offside in-goal - see Law 11.1a

(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.

So that takes us to 10.2 (a) - the ref judged the defender intentionally played the ball from an offside position and a penalty try seems fair enough

Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.​

Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

 

[Blue]

Tell you what's killing me at the moment is inconsistency in refs penalising slowing the ball down.

Almost all the games this past weekend had sp much blatant slowing down. Tackler not rolling, hands all over the ball, taking space beyond the ball etc etc

The defensive team got a lot of ref bias in the Stormers, Tahs and Highlander games.

I think the card needs to come out much quicker.

We moan about a lot of other things but this is still the main issue in my opinion that take away from the spectacle. There is a ton of cynical play going on. Gives me the shits.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Tell you what's killing me at the moment is inconsistency in refs penalising slowing the ball down.

Almost all the games this past weekend had sp much blatant slowing down. Tackler not rolling, hands all over the ball, taking space beyond the ball etc etc

The defensive team got a lot of ref bias in the Stormers, Tahs and Highlander games.

I think the card needs to come out much quicker.

We moan about a lot of other things but this is still the main issue in my opinion that take away from the spectacle. There is a ton of cynical play going on. Gives me the shits.

Have you seen any of the six nations? The scary thing is - it's much worse at the moment up there.

 

[Braveheart81]

Have you seen any of the six nations? The scary thing is - it's much worse at the moment up there.

The one thing that has struck me in particular about some of the Six Nations games is that most of the time, a defensive player on their feet is being allowed to contest the ball regardless of being beaten to the ruck.

If you're the third or fourth person there, you can't compete for the ball because there is already a ruck formed.

 

[elementfreak]

What are people's take on this penalty try - http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/03/interesting-incidence-of-being-offside.html?m=1

While yes you can't throw a forward pass or knock on in the deadball area however there is no offside line. Therefore the penalised player can't be offside and the ref got it wrong. The TMO seems to be suggesting this. Thoughts

I don't know where this has come from however I have heard it a lot over the last couple of season. You can be offside whilst in in-goal.

 

[Slim 293]

Tell you what's killing me at the moment is inconsistency in refs penalising slowing the ball down.

Almost all the games this past weekend had sp much blatant slowing down. Tackler not rolling, hands all over the ball, taking space beyond the ball etc etc

The defensive team got a lot of ref bias in the Stormers, Tahs and Highlander games.

I think the card needs to come out much quicker.

We moan about a lot of other things but this is still the main issue in my opinion that take away from the spectacle. There is a ton of cynical play going on. Gives me the shits.

Yeah, it was rife in the second half of the Brumbies v Force game too..........

Mostly players handling the ball when off their feet/after the ruck was formed..........

This was actually my first post at the conclusion of the match:

Christ, so much hands in the ruck......

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah, it was rife in the second half of the Brumbies v Force game too....

Mostly players handling the ball when off their feet/after the ruck was formed....

This was actually my first post at the conclusion of the match:

As it also was in the Force/Canes game. Card should have come out at some point.

 

[Hawko]

In theory maybe, but if an opposition player gets through a maul to the extent that they make contact with the ball carrier invariably they'll lock the ball in the maul and it will be a turnover.

If you made it such that the ball carrier had to be in contact with an opposition player I think you'd have so many mauls result in turnovers it would make mauls pretty pointless from an attacking point of view.

And that would be a bloody good outcome. The maul has become a blight on the game.

 

[Blue]

I can't believe that after this being such a contentious issue for a few years now, World Rugby has done nothing about it.

What the feck are thy actually watching? What are the refs watching when they review games? Or do they?

 

[Scoey]

Another maul related pet hate of mine. When defending players start working their way through the maul, it's not uncommon to see the jumper from the lineout grab the defender in a headlock. Carter did this to McDuling last night as a recent example but it's pretty rife.
The defending team has enough stacked against them in mauls, I don't think it should be necessary to allow the attacking team to play the head and face of a successful defender to take them out of the play.
I've seen it penalised once I think, maybe in a test match but I can't be sure.

 

[Slim 293]

Carter did this to McDuling last night as a recent example but it's pretty rife.

He must've picked it up from Horwill, who had two digs at Carter's head last night in the one maul..............

But I agree, it's supposed to be a penalty.

 

[Scoey]

Yeah I don't think any of them are innocent of it. To the point where in that incident McDuling didn't even seem to object.