Refereeing decisions

[Quick Hands]

Except t those two guys at the back aren't bound to the ruck?

Ball's definitely out there

Correct, neither of those Reds players ( no 1 and the obscured player) are bound with the full arm to a player in the ruck. Therefore they aren't part of the ruck. Therefore the ball is out and no offside lines apply.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Are you saying that once the ball is out (in the ref's opinion I guess), that a player from the opposing side can come from anywhere (there is no off side line) to pick it up? Surely that player would have to be onside at least until the ball is out, and probably called out by the ref if there's no half back in place.

 

[Quick Hands]

Are you saying that once the ball is out (in the ref's opinion I guess), that a player from the opposing side can come from anywhere (there is no off side line) to pick it up? Surely that player would have to be onside at least until the ball is out, and probably called out by the ref if there's no half back in place.

What I'm saying is that in the picture in post #1011, that the ball is still in as it is between the legs of a player who is bound to the ruck. At this point, Michael Hooper is behind the last foot and thus onside. When we move to the picture at post #1015, the ball has cleared the feet of the last player who is bound to the ruck. The two players at the back aren't bound, so aren't part of the ruck, so their presence is irrelevant to offside lines. This means that the ball is out of the ruck and the ruck offside lines no longer exist, therefore Michael Hooper is not offside at post #1015 or 1011.

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground.

A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.​

(c)​

Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.​

​

16.6 Successful end to a ruck​

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.​

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16

 

[mst]

IIRC, the law change re 1m behing the ruck was to be a trial in the Mitre 10 cup, not yet introduced to Super Rugby.

Not going to be trialled.

Proposed points scoring changes also vetoed. (like the Kiwis need incentive to be more attacking!!!)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...rovincial-rugby-trial-laws-set-to-be-scrapped

 

[Strewthcobber]

​

16.6 Successful end to a ruck​

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.​

probably called out by the ref if there's no half back in place.

Worth noting that when ending the ruck there's no mention of the halfback in the laws of the game. Technically when they reach into the ruck to pick up the ball they are not legal (hands in the ruck), but they're never penalised in the interests of actually having a game to watch and play.

But that is why you get so many different interpretations of when the ball is "out" - hands on, ball lifted etc - especially down the playing (and refereeing!) ranks

 

[MonkeyBoy]

The ball isn't out until the half back has it in his hands (if there is a half back. Note that Frisby again isn't even in the picture). In any case, in the picture, it is still between the feet of the last player in the ruck - so clearly not out.

There are two other Reds' players in shot who could have acted as half back, so I would again say that imo Hooper was offside when he came through to pick up the ball.

A howler that had an immense influence on the outcome of the game.

The ball isn't out until it is clear of bodies, the #9 can have it in his hands as long as it still under bodies. "Hands on" is an old clarification which has been changed.

 

[cyclopath]

Watching the broadcast, the comms at the time mentioned (? Kafer I think) that the ref called it "out" and Hooper went - I don't know if they were just making this up, or if they heard via the effects mike something viewers did not. And I didn't record it so I can't check, but they said something at the time.
Still looked iffy to me.

 

[Braveheart81]

Watching the broadcast, the comms at the time mentioned (? Kafer I think) that the ref called it "out" and Hooper went - I don't know if they were just making this up, or if they heard via the effects mike something viewers did not. And I didn't record it so I can't check, but they said something at the time.
Still looked iffy to me.

You could see Hooper ask the question of the referee whether the ball was out before he ran and pounced on it.

I think this was just a mistake by the Reds that their two players behind the ruck didn't pick the ball up.

 

[Parse]

Other then just pondering the opinions of singular referring decisions as discussed here, I have recently been recording and watching the Top 14 games (shown on Eurosport - Foxtel), and am totally stunned at how good the games are and how good the ref's are. People told me northern hemisphere rugby was dour and ugly, and the referring was very stiff and strict thus continually interrupting play. How wrong this is, the games are great examples of rugby and the french ref's make a mockery of aussie/nz ref's who seem to have just got out of "Ref School" in comparison.
Watching these games is a joy and far more entertaining then a lot of Super Rugby and it's inadequate ref's. I must admit I can't comment too much on this years pack of Sth African games and ref''s because I have been recording and watching the Top 14 game rather then the overnight Super Rugby games.
Anyone with Foxtel (Eurosport) should give it a look see. I expect tonight's Toulon v Clermont will be spectacular and not ruined by dumb referring - more then I can say for most Aussie derby's liked I watched today with the Tahs v Rebels.

 

[Quick Hands]

Refereeing stocks in Australia and NZ are at a very low ebb at the moment. The fact that Angus Gardiner is considered by those in authority to be the best ref in Australia and Glen Jackson seems to be thought of as the best ref in NZ says it all.

There's something seriously wrong with the way referees are selected and coached in both countries.

I agree with you about the French refs. IMO the South Africans are consistently the best as a group.

 

[dru]

I'd appreciate an run down on sacking the line out. Technical rules and interpretations.

Thanks.

 

[barbarian]

Refereeing stocks in Australia and NZ are at a very low ebb at the moment. The fact that Angus Gardiner is considered by those in authority to be the best ref in Australia and Glen Jackson seems to be thought of as the best ref in NZ says it all.
.

But Gardiner clearly is our best right now. I thought his performance in the Chiefs vs Brumbies game was great, might be the best I've seen him actually.

It's daylight second at the moment, which says more about the chasing pack than it does about Gardiner.
.

 

[Parse]

I'd appreciate an run down on sacking the line out. Technical rules and interpretations.

Thanks.

I no longer understand the rules of the maul. They used to have the guy go to the back, now they have to pass it back. Most of the mauls I see now the ball actually never gets to the back or only gets there a couple of metres before the end of the maul. I don't understand how they can move forward with the ball being only one person back or in the middle surrounded by players. Seems more like obstruction or a moving wedge then a maul.

 

[Braveheart81]

I no longer understand the rules of the maul. They used to have the guy go to the back, now they have to pass it back. Most of the mauls I see now the ball actually never gets to the back or only gets there a couple of metres before the end of the maul. I don't understand how they can move forward with the ball being only one person back or in the middle surrounded by players. Seems more like obstruction or a moving wedge then a maul.

The ball doesn't have to be at the back of the maul for it to be legal.

The change that has occurred as you point out is that the ball now needs to move backwards from player to player rather than the player with the ball sliding back (or players joining the maul sliding past the ball carrier).

 

[Sully]

Just need to point out a couple of things.
This was always the rule. If you are moving back in a maul you are not bound. If you're not bound everyone in front of you is off side.
I've started to see players sliding back again.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

But Gardiner clearly is our best right now. I thought his performance in the Chiefs vs Brumbies game was great, might be the best I've seen him actually.

It's daylight second at the moment, which says more about the chasing pack than it does about Gardiner.
.

I disagree Barbar. IMO Houston is the top of the Aussie refs. Gardiner is a lot like Lees; seems to make frequent mistakes but on both sides.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Just need to point out a couple of things.
This was always the rule. If you are moving back in a maul you are not bound. If you're not bound everyone in front of you is off side.
I've started to see players sliding back again.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

I have noticed players joining the maul behind the ball carrier and then pushing forwards rather than the ball carrier sliding backwards - but pretty much the same result I believe.

 

[dru]

My need for clarity is savking the line out. That's OK. But bringing down a maul isnt. How does this get determined?

 

[MonkeyBoy]

My need for clarity is savking the line out. That's OK. But bringing down a maul isnt. How does this get determined?

Must "tackle" the ball carrier (Sack) before the maul is formed and the ball is ripped back.

 

[Lindommer]

This was brought up in referee association meetings some years ago when I was still whistling, I thought it was as clear as mud then and I still do. If it CAN be done after the ball catcher touches the ground and before the maul's formed (bloody difficult as the bc's team-mates would surely have some sort of hold on him while he's still in the air) it has to be so split-second perfect I doubt if anyone would pick it up. And if a maul's "formed" before the bc touches the ground it's a penalty for attacking the bc in the air.

One of the more ridiculous scenarios described by the iRB Law Group, an unnecessary complication in a very technical book of laws.