Refereeing decisions

[Inside Shoulder]

As for a minimum yellow, I wouldn't have complained had he been given one but I don't think it's 'minimum'. It is deliberate but it's not remotely dangerous.

Well you need to take that up with world rugby.
Its banned because it was considered to be dangerous.
NO doubt the NZ referee with the NZ assistants and the NZ TMO in the capital city of NZ agree with you but that's another story.
Probably a NZ big screen too.
Not sure why Jackson was reffing when Pollock who is better in his sleep was running the line.

 

[Grant NZ]

Well you need to take that up with world rugby.
Its banned because it was considered to be dangerous.
NO doubt the NZ referee with the NZ assistants and the NZ TMO in the capital city of NZ agree with you but that's another story.
Probably a NZ big screen too.
Not sure why Jackson was reffing when Pollock who is better in his sleep was running the line.

I reckon you're being a tad obtuse there - This instance wasn't dangerous, hence the ref not feeling a card was required. Like I said, I wouldn't have complained had a card been issued but I can understand why it wasn't. Likewise, I could understand another ref carding the Brumbie for lying all over the wrong side of the ruck 1m from the tryline.

 

[mark_s]

What are the protocols for the use of the video ref in rugby?

I reckon sport suffers when the video ref is used to review critical incidents in the game, looking for illegalities or otherwise frame by frame or on slo mo. It makes the adjudication of those incidents fundamentally different to all other aspects of the game, which are managed real time using the judgement of the ref and his assistants. Even though the same rules apply for video reviews, the reality is that it is impossible not to apply them more strictly (and inconsistently with the other 95+% of game time) when replay after replay is viewed and many possible infringements are considered. Sometimes it feels like a fishing expedition, even if thats unintended.

I reckon the NRL has it right now, where the on field officials make a call - try or no try. The video review then determines if the decision is a bad one. The benefit of the doubt falls to the decision already made, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Cricket has a similar system. It doesn't remove all controversy but still eliminates most shocking decisions.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ agree, we'd do well to at least trial the NRL system as it seems to work far more often than what we've currently got.

Just on cricket's DRS, did you see/ hear Pakistan blow up when they reviewed a pad-bat catch to slip, got denied, then some clever-dick TV producer threw in a Hawkeye that appears to show the batsman was LBW. Now THAT's fishing IMO.

 

[yourmatesam]

Not sure why Jackson was reffing when Pollock who is better in his sleep was running the line.

All to do with rankings my friend, the top two guys (Pollock and Peyper) do the first week of the finals, three and four (Jackson and Joubert) do the second week and the best of one and two do the final with two and three as AR's.

No system will be perfect, but that's the way it rolls. For me, I hope that Jaco Peyper gets the final.

 

[yourmatesam]

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Peyper-to-ref-Super-Rugby-final-20150630

Jaco's in the middle with Joubert and Jackson as the AR's.

 

[fatprop]

Bray on the Penalty try

Bray acknowledges, however, that in some scenarios the double penalty is tough.
“The whole point of issuing a yellow card in deliberate infringement scenarios is that it creates a penalty on the team who are deliberately offending. They prevent negative play,” Bray said.
“In a penalty try scenario, the yellow card becomes a must situation. The only time that you look at penalty tries scenarios where you think it looks harsh is where is it is difficult to describe the action as deliberate. But unfortunately, you have no choice. As a referee you have no choice.”
Asked if World Rugby should give referees latitude to spare the yellow in some cases, Bray said: “The challenge is that you are asking the referee to read intent, and that is difficult.”

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think the PT+YC was right on the weekend, but there is a law clarification which appears to give refs some discretion at least for intent (though it's hard to say because the question and answer are both so poorly written)

Clarification 9 2004

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling​

9-2004

Union / HP Ref Manager​

IRFU

Law Reference​

10,22

Date​

23 December 2004

Request
The IRFU has requested a ruling with regard Law 10-Foul Play and Law 22-In Goal.

Rewrite and amendment of 10.2(a), and consequential addition to Law 22.

The first paragraph states:
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. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent-off. Penalty: Penalty Kick

The final paragraph states:
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.
The final paragraph does not appear to offer the possibility of an 'admonishment' by the referee; nor does it refer to 'intentionally'.

The clarification sought is:
Is it the intention of the Law (as now rewritten) to ensure that in each and every circumstance, where a penalty try is awarded, that the offending player is temporarily suspended, whether or not the foul is intentional?

Is it the intention to remove the discretion of the referee to admonish, rather then temporarily suspend or send off a player in such circumstances?

The reason clarification is sought is that there are circumstances where the offence is not intentional: e.g. mistimed (early or late, but not dangerous) tackle; unintentional instinctive high, but not dangerous, tackle -when an attacker steps inside a defender; certain incidences of scrum collapsing.
In these circumstances, the sanction of a penalty try, and a temporary suspension appear exceptionally severe. While it will not be a frequent occurrence, the effect on a match outcome could be hugely significant. It could also, in the event of a front row forward, lead to uncontested scrums.

Finally, it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Law 10.2(a) is Unfair Play relating to Intentional Offending.

The two paragraphs in Law 10.2(a) must be read in conjunction, having due regard to the heading 'Intentionally Offending'.

Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Examples of this would be after penalty tries resulting from:
• a collapsed scrum
• a collapsed maul
• a defending player intentionally offside
• a defending player intentionally knocking down the ball.

If a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player unintentionally offending, the player, as well as being liable to cautioning and temporary suspension or send off, can be admonished by the referee.

Examples of this may be after penalty tries resulting from:
• mistimed tackle (early or late, but not dangerous)
• unintentional reactionary high tackle, but not dangerous.

 

[yourmatesam]

Anyone got any thoughts on the Elliot Dixon try from last night?
I haven't looked through the match thread but am surprised that there hasn't been a mention of it on here yet.
Am I missing something? For me, I thought it made contact with the leg of the defender, not the ground.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^ defenders leg first, then the ground if only briefly before he lost control. Looked like a try in real time & all but the slowest of slo-mo so I reckon you've gotta call it a try.

 

[yourmatesam]

^^^^^^^ defenders leg first, then the ground if only briefly before he lost control. Looked like a try in real time & all but the slowest of slo-mo so I reckon you've gotta call it a try.

I didn't think it looked a try in real time, I reckon the try was called based on the slow mo.

Dixon's response after grounding showed me that he didn't think he'd scored.

 

[Bullrush]

I still don't thinkhe scored it, he didn't think so himself but the effort deserved it!!

 

[yourmatesam]

I still don't thinkhe scored it, he didn't think so himself but the effort deserved it!!

It was a great effort. Not sure that it deserved points for trying though!

 

[Bairdy]

Deserved winners were the Highlanders, but for me, Dixon planted it on NMS's foot and lost control of the ball as it made contact with the ground.

 

[badabing59]

I didn't think it looked a try in real time, I reckon the try was called based on the slow mo.

Dixon's response after grounding showed me that he didn't think he'd scored.

Interesting comments from Jonathon Kaplan on his rate the ref site:

"Dixon grounds the ball mostly on Milner-Skudders leg, and the ground. Remember, all it has to touch is 1 blade of grass for the try to be given. If the ball has not left Dixons hand by the time it touches 1 blade of grass, it’s a try! Furthermore, he does not need to be in control of the ball. All he needs to look at is that there is no separation. The TMO is tasked with this very difficult decision."
and
"Furthermore, if you can categorically say that it never touched the ground, then I have an extremely compelling argument that a penalty try would then have been awarded! It clearly states in law that you may not kick the ball out of the hands of a player attempting to score a try. This is exactly what Milner-Skudder attempted to do, and as a direct result of that act, his trailing leg became the only point of conjecture as to whether a try was scored. Since we cannot separate pieces of a players anatomy from their bodies, we must regard this leg as part of the illegal act, and hence a penalty try would have been given."

I'm happy with the try, A+ for effort!

 

[Strewthcobber]

"Furthermore, if you can categorically say that it never touched the ground, then I have an extremely compelling argument that a penalty try would then have been awarded! It clearly states in law that you may not kick the ball out of the hands of a player attempting to score a try. This is exactly what Milner-Skudder attempted to do, and as a direct result of that act, his trailing leg became the only point of conjecture as to whether a try was scored. Since we cannot separate pieces of a players anatomy from their bodies, we must regard this leg as part of the illegal act, and hence a penalty try would have been given."

I'm happy with the try, A+ for effort!

A penalty try and especially a yellow card there would have meant a very interesting reaction both in the crowd, commentators and on the forums.....

And only a blade of grass in it

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Watching the replays I didn't think he'd scored it. I was a bit surprised to see it given.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Watching the replays I didn't think he'd scored it. I was a bit surprised to see it given.

The front on angle didn't look as if he scored, but I thought the side on angle showed that it touched (ever so slightly) the grass.

I understand that the TMO has access to slow motion replay technology that the networks or big screen is privy too.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Why does the law book seem to go out the window when it comes to scoring a try? Kurindrani's effort, although judged a try, has a player not releasing the tackled player, and the next player going straight off his feet attacking the ball from the side. Rather than a thousand replays to determine whether he grounded the ball, a quick look at the play would have said Penalty Try, Yellow to the tackler, let's get on with the rugby...

 

[Gnostic]

Why does the law book seem to go out the window when it comes to scoring a try? Kurindrani's effort, although judged a try, has a player not releasing the tackled player, and the next player going straight off his feet attacking the ball from the side. Rather than a thousand replays to determine whether he grounded the ball, a quick look at the play would have said Penalty Try, Yellow to the tackler, let's get on with the rugby.

Perhaps because of the rule which allows the tackler to hold the player up in goal. Another of those delightful grey areas.