Refereeing decisions

[Dam0]

Don't get caught up in the details. A dangerous tackle is like pornography (to paraphrase the US Supreme Court), hard to define, but we know it when we see it. Trying to define tackles with particular details is unnecessary.

If you pick a guy up and drop him or drive him on his head or shoulder I would expect every referee to give a RC without worrying about whether the guy was still moving or whether the tackle began above or below the waist. Tackles where the person is lifted beyond horizontal, but the person is put down safely are always a PK, and sometimes a YC, depending on the circumstances. There are tackles where the person is not lifted beyond the horizontal and yet it is still worthy of a card. There are no hard and fast rules, just some guidelines.

 

[Rassie]

Concerning the Kiwi breakdown tactics. I notice the 3rd one to be disputed a lot and I think Joubert was spot on.

Forgive for this but this is a jpeg not a gif but it shows why Joubert was spot on

As you can see both 9 and 4 were in physical contact with each other over the ball. Neither had possession.

I quote from a law ruling request incidentally from the NZ and Australian rugby union to the IRB. Available here
http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/Laws/Rulings/090608sgirbrulings2009_8205.pdf

Law 16 1 (b) states: How can a ruck form? Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball is on the ground.

At that moment both had hands on the ball and were allowed to do so because the hands were on before the contact with each other. When they both were over the ball it was then a ruck.

Law 16.1 refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player.
Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

So

Any other players joining the two players contesting the ball must not handle the ball in accordance with Law 16.4 (b). If the ball is not in possession of any player after a tackle and a ruck is formed players may not use their hands in accordance with Law 16.4 (b).

Yes it was a ruck. Yes Richie did broke two laws. First on was entering from the side 2nd one was

16 (3) (b) A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Dangerous play as in him with his knee hitting the player on the ground which is dangerous which is foul play

 

[Hawko]

Concerning the Kiwi breakdown tactics. I notice the 3rd one to be disputed a lot and I think Joubert was spot on.

Forgive for this but this is a jpeg not a gif but it shows why Joubert was spot on

As you can see both 9 and 4 were in physical contact with each other over the ball. Neither had possession.

I quote from a law ruling request incidentally from the NZ and Australian rugby union to the IRB. Available here
http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/resources/Laws/Rulings/090608sgirbrulings2009_8205.pdf

Law 16 1 (b) states: How can a ruck form? Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball is on the ground.

At that moment both had hands on the ball and were allowed to do so because the hands were on before the contact with each other. When they both were over the ball it was then a ruck.

Law 16.1 refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player.
Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

So

Any other players joining the two players contesting the ball must not handle the ball in accordance with Law 16.4 (b). If the ball is not in possession of any player after a tackle and a ruck is formed players may not use their hands in accordance with Law 16.4 (b).

Yes it was a ruck. Yes Richie did broke two laws. First on was entering from the side 2nd one was

16 (3) (b) A player must not intentionally fall or kneel in a ruck. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Dangerous play as in him with his knee hitting the player on the ground which is dangerous which is foul play

Without going into the detail of what you have said, two things stick out to me clearly:

1. Only one player in that whole mish-mash is on his feet other than gold 9 who was legally the halfback, and some could argue that the player on his feet was bridging anyway (though I would not). This is not a ruck as defined by the laws.
2. If law 16 (3) b was consistently applied in the modern game then the result of most games would be a loss by one or two penalties and the score would likely be 60-57 assuming each penalty takes about 90 seconds to take.

 

[Rassie]

The

Without going into the detail of what you have said, two things stick out to me clearly:

1. Only one player in that whole mish-mash is on his feet other than gold 9 who was legally the halfback, and some could argue that the player on his feet was bridging anyway (though I would not). This is not a ruck as defined by the laws.
2. If law 16 (3) b was consistently applied in the modern game then the result of most games would be a loss by one or two penalties and the score would likely be 60-57 assuming each penalty takes about 90 seconds to take.

moment both went to ground it became a tackle. Have you heard about the term squeeze ball? Squeeze ball is a legal tactic to secure ball and to make the gate as small as possible for people like McCaw.

McCaw was offside, enter from the side and committed a piece of foul play which is him going on to one knee in a situation where players are laying near the ball that similiar to a ruck. Its dangerous play. He can cxount himself luck he was not copped for the foul play.

Accidental or timing issues or the way they play is completely irrelevant when it comes to repeated infringements

10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated
infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to
infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Its foul play and should be YC. Not directing this at McCaw but to all the fetchers living on the edge. They should be binned

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

If you want to see good rugby spirit, watch Argentina vs .SA. both teams very respectful to the match officials throughout, in what was a very tense game. Some good dialogues caught on the microphone between Walsh and the players as well.

 

[Pfitzy]

In part because both teams know Walsh likes the camera and pissing him off is a sure way to lose

 

[Rassie]

Obstruction

It that wasn't enough Brodie wanted to be noticed and dived like Superman into the next ruck going off his feet

What about the ball coming out the other side of the scrum

That is three tries there that should have never been given

 

[Shiggins]

Obstruction

It that wasn't enough Brodie wanted to be noticed and dived like Superman into the next ruck going off his feet

What about the ball coming out the other side of the scrum

That is three tries there that should have never been given

Not all photos work mate

 

[cyclopath]

I'm not sure any of them work, in terms of making a coherent point. How does a still shot tell us anything?
This Thread Is Useless Without GIFs.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In deference to Lee Grant and Hugh Jarse I'm posting this here.

I disagree with you both.

I don't see most posters in the Wallaby Recovery thread or the 2nd Bledisloe thread suggesting that there would be a different result and I am certainly not suggesting that.
We wont win the Bledisloe until we do what Lee Grant suggests.

My issue is with the credibility of the game.

When a bloke puts on a performance like Peyper's I'm not sure we would ever want to see him officiating a close game: that's why my focus has been on the no try - that's not a case where it can be argued that he was "letting the other team get away with it" or there is room for discretion about wherhe he really rolled away from the tackled player. Peyper's error was a simple one and not even a question of judgment - he just buggered it up by not going upstairs.

The specualtion, and that is all it is, about why the advatange we had may have ended proves the error he made:

• if he thought it had been lost he needed to communicate that fact - not just orally but with the traditional perpendicular arm showing a knock forward
• if he thought we had sealed off then there's a signal for that too
• He should have used any other signal that is routinely given when an advantage ends because of a breach of the laws - its done routinely both manually and orally.

I haven't seen a plausible excuse for the lack of hand signals even if the reality is that he made some "statement" which cannot be deciphered.
The laws are difficult enough to explain without accepting inexplicable and unexplained interpretations.

We have 7's at the next olympics. You can see interest in rugby hotting up in the USA particularly in the universities - which seem to be going bananas over the sport.

Someone sitting in South Bend, Indiana, used to having the ump address the crowd when Notre Dame are denied a TD, is going to be left scratching his or her head watching pee wee league level officiating in, arguably, the most important annual competition in the code.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The problem with criticizing him for one particular imperfection in the game, like being inaudible, or not clear at that decision. Is that at the end of the day he is still world class in the area of communication. Bad trends that emerge are what we dont want to see.

For example if he was always slow to the ruck, or always out of position, that would count against him.

Whereas if he is always in position with a cool head, ready to make a call. That is all we can reasonably ask for.

Saying that, it's not an easy task and only a few human beings on earth are able to do it to such a high standard.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The problem with criticizing him for one particular imperfection in the game, like being inaudible, or not clear at that decision. Is that at the end of the day he is still world class in the area of communication. Bad trends that emerge are what we dont want to see.

For example if he was always slow to the ruck, or always out of position, that would count against him.

Whereas if he is always in position with a cool head, ready to make a call. That is all we can reasonably ask for.

Saying that, it's not an easy task and only a few human beings on earth are able to do it to such a high standard.

Someone somewhere suggested that he has a track record of not going to the TMO.
We are getting pretty thin on the ground for decent refs once you take the Kiwis out of the equation.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

If we want obsessive use of the TMO, Walsh is the man. Give him next year's Bledisloe 1. I reckon he'd nail it.

As for bias, he's a kiwi employed by the ARU. Can't get anymore unbiased than that.

 

[boyo]

Where does his loyalty lie, though?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'd rather have kiwi refs anyway - and not just for the ready made excuse it would provide


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

The neutral referee thing is often as controversial as it is not having neutral referees.

To strike a parallel for a minute with cricket, cricket currently has 12 top ranked umpires who officiate in every test cricket match. Each test requires four umpires (two on the field, a 3rd umpire and a match referee).

The recent Ashes series had to use the same four umpires for the whole series because of the 12 in the current panel, only four of them aren't from Australia or England.

Rugby has less of an issue because there are more top tier nations which provide referees but I can still see it causing some problems down the line.

I'm also not convinced that top class referees can't officiate matches involving their own country. These are professionals whose continued employment is reliant on being good at what they do.

 

[ACT Crusader]

The neutral referee thing is often as controversial as it is not having neutral referees.

To strike a parallel for a minute with cricket, cricket currently has 12 top ranked umpires who officiate in every test cricket match. Each test requires four umpires (two on the field, a 3rd umpire and a match referee).

The recent Ashes series had to use the same four umpires for the whole series because of the 12 in the current panel, only four of them aren't from Australia or England.

Rugby has less of an issue because there are more top tier nations which provide referees but I can still see it causing some problems down the line.

I'm also not convinced that top class referees can't officiate matches involving their own country. These are professionals whose continued employment is reliant on being good at what they do.

I've had this discussion on the forum before with kiap about 3 years. He provided some research into the matter that was based on super rugby officiating.

 

[kiap]

Some thoughts from over the ditch by Mark Reason in the extract below. Interesting reading and he makes some good points.

Reason: The magic and the myth of All Blacks​

MARK REASON Last updated 05:00 28/08/2013​

​

OPINION: Hang on a moment.​

​

The All Blacks' Bledisloe Cup victory over Australia on Saturday was not the summer solstice, a holy day or the dawn of the age of enlightenment. It was a poor performance over fatally flawed opposition, aided and abetted by a South African referee who has clearly not yet come to terms with the principle of equality.....​

​

..... The All Blacks don't admit the big mistakes in public unless the unthinkable happens and they lose. Then confession is called for. There were others in this New Zealand team who under-performed on Saturday.​

​

Israel Dagg kicked out on the full, missed a tackle, put his wing under pressure with a daft throw-in, but one good break and the country looks the other way. The hooker position is an ongoing problem, and Aaron Smith did not kick well from the base. But the myth must be perpetuated.​

​

It intimidates other teams, although Australia look quite capable of intimidating themselves at the moment. Some of their tackling is feeble and they are quite hopeless at fielding short, high kicks in midfield.​

​

More importantly, the myth intimidates refs. This millennium, New Zealand have received 46 cards in 166 tests. South Africa have copped 77 in 164 games. Are the Boks really nearly twice as evil?​

​

The Aussie coach was right to be apoplectic on Saturday evening. Why was Moore's ''try'' not referred? Why was Kieran Read not yellow-carded for a professional foul? Why was Nonu not yellow-carded for a dangerous tackle? Why were the All Blacks' tacklers and defenders repeatedly allowed to take so long getting back that they blocked Will Genia's blindside channel?​

​

That was coached cheating again, by the way. Why was Ben Smith allowed to stand offside in front of the tryline to make a crucial defensive tackle? Why was Tony Woodcock allowed to angle in, but not Australia?​

​

The penalty count should have favoured Australia in the first 50 minutes, but New Zealand led it 12-5. Sir Graham Henry would have suspected perfidy or a betting scandal in such circumstances. The rest of the world just thinks, ''Same old''.​

​

The magic and the myth.​

​

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/9093139/Reason-The-magic-and-the-myth-of-All-Blacks​

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Some thoughts from over the ditch by Mark Reason in the extract below. Interesting reading and he makes some good points.

Well that should stir up a hornet's nest.
Presumably "Reason" is not planning a dinner with Bullrush, Dam0 or Dan54 any time soon.
Ahhh - the lone voice of Reason

 

[Hugh Jarse]

For someone who is domiciled in the country, Mr Reason seems to go out of his way to be "constructive" towards the AIG's.

They must really love reading his stuff.