Refereeing decisions

[dru]

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. 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.

Lindomer, we are exactly on the point here. I was then wondering on the ref interptetations, but it doesnt seem like something that Super Rugby franchises are testing frequently. I suspect I'd be guiding the forwards to sack the crap out of the jumper well before it was a 10 yard LO. See what the ref does with it.

 

[swingpass]

from what i have seen, if the ball catcher is immediately brought to the ground after he lands, then irrespective of who is binding on him, most refs say thats ok, but once there is any movement of the "maul" then thats a penalty. like everything in life its all about timing.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Certainly murky

The relevant law

19.10 (k) - Defending at a lineout. A player who jumps and gains possession of the ball in the lineout may be tackled immediately upon returning to the ground.

A player who gains possession of the ball in a lineout without jumping may be tackled immediately.
In both cases, these actions must be commenced before a maul has formed.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Novel way to legally sack the opposition

A maul is formed when a player from each team is bound to the ball carrier.

"Binding" is defined as grasping firmly another player’s body between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

So if the sacker makes contact below the hips then should never be an issue if other players don't get involved. Good luck with that though

 

[saulityvi]

Hurricanes-Jaguares
About 54minutes gone, a scrambling Jaguares player collects a kick and steps on the sideline, the ar misses it and next phase Hurricanes intercept and run away to score.

Replay on big screen shows the Jaguar foot on touch and the Jaguares start protesting, eventually the ref takes the play back to the lineout, no try.

Now if the try was not scored and the intercepted pass struck, Jaguares had got a good attacking opportunity and adcantage over it.

Does anyone know if it was the right decision?

 

[louie]

Got to say the local referee is starting to give me the shits. Makes the comp looks very unprofessional.

 

[Sully]

I think it was correct but man tough for the Hurricanes.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[saulityvi]

If I was the ref I would have given it just to show off half the Jaguares team arguing all around like football players.

 

[Scoey]

In the Reds v Highlanders game last night, Osborne took out Faddes in the air. It was pretty ugly but since it was his own guy, play on.
Both Holmes and Gill were telling Glen Jackson to refer it to the TMO for foul play but he was having none of it.
I thought they were joking but they kept at it indicating that maybe they weren't.
Q: do the laws in this case only apply to opposition or does dangerous play not specify?
I agree with Jackson but it creates a curious situation. Dangerous play laws are for player welfare so possibly should apply to anyone playing recklessly if they are fair dinkum.
I think it was handled correctly, I'm just wondering if Gill and Holmes had a point?

 

[Strewthcobber]

In the Reds v Highlanders game last night, Osborne took out Faddes in the air. It was pretty ugly but since it was his own guy, play on.
Both Holmes and Gill were telling Glen Jackson to refer it to the TMO for foul play but he was having none of it.
I thought they were joking but they kept at it indicating that maybe they weren't.
Q: do the laws in this case only apply to opposition or does dangerous play not specify?
I agree with Jackson but it creates a curious situation. Dangerous play laws are for player welfare so possibly should apply to anyone playing recklessly if they are fair dinkum.
I think it was handled correctly, I'm just wondering if Gill and Holmes had a point?

Yeah - 10.4 refers to actions against an opponent, so the ref was right.

Having said that he'd want to be very careful with his technique

 

[RugbyReg]

Was it more the potentially dangerous actions of leading with the feet or knees rather than who it ended up connecting with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Mil]

Even if it was a Reds player they wouldn't have been binned. Osborne was actually right under the ball, looking up at it with his hands out and then Faddes jumped into him.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

In the Reds v Highlanders game last night, Osborne took out Faddes in the air. It was pretty ugly but since it was his own guy, play on.
Both Holmes and Gill were telling Glen Jackson to refer it to the TMO for foul play but he was having none of it.
I thought they were joking but they kept at it indicating that maybe they weren't.

so dumb considering a replay would show the Reds player gently shunting Faddes into Osborne. Enough to warrant a yellow for Reds guy? Who knows, that would've been another decision for Jacko and the TMO to potentially fuck up together in super slo-mo

 

[Scoey]

I just had another watch of it and I think Gill and Holmes wanted him to look at it again as CFS was penalised for what Dismal described above. I think they thought there was nothing in it. Jackson probably played that about right then.

 

[Slim 293]

The Roar have published an article regarding penalty distribution throughout Super Rugby last year.............

There's some interesting figures in there, particularly regarding teams travelling to South Africa:

Table 3 – Matches with unusual penalty distribution
Home Pen Away Pen Referee Penalty %
Sharks 4 Crusaders 14 Berry (SA) 0.222
Lions 3 Highlanders 10 Joubert (SA) 0.231
Stormers 5 Brumbies 17 Berry (SA) 0.227
Stormers 5 Cheetahs 16 Joubert (SA) 0.238
Stormers 3 Brumbies 13 Peyper (SA) 0.188
Bulls 12 Hurricanes 6 Lees (OZ) 0.667
Reds 12 Brumbies 6 Lees (OZ) 0.667
Chiefs 17 Cheetahs 8 Joubert (SA) 0.680
Hurricanes 14 Crusaders 6 Fraser (NZ) 0.700
Cheetahs 12 Stormers 5 Joubert (SA) 0.706
Stormers 11 Rebels 4 Berry (SA) 0.733
Crusaders 13 Hurricanes 6 OâKeeffe (NZ) 0.684
Stormers 11 Lions 5 Berry (SA) 0.688


http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/04/13/a-study-of-penalty-distribution-in-2015-super-rugby/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: theroar/rugby-union (The Roar - Rugby Union)

 

[barbarian]

I skimmed that article Slim, and while I respect their methodology I think it's a really tough subject.

In theory you want penalties to be evenly distributed, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. What if one team commits a tonne of offences?

In isolation a 14-4 count looks bad, but unless you show me all 14 offences it's really hard to judge. The Sharks could well have been pushing their luck at the breakdown, and deserved to be penalised every time.

So under this methodology one ref's stats could be completely skewed by a match where one side just wasn't playing by the rules, and he took appropriate steps to punish them.
.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

I skimmed that article Slim, and while I respect their methodology I think it's a really tough subject.

In theory you want penalties to be evenly distributed, but in reality it doesn't work out that way. What if one team commits a tonne of offences?

In isolation a 14-4 count looks bad, but unless you show me all 14 offences it's really hard to judge. The Sharks could well have been pushing their luck at the breakdown, and deserved to be penalised every time.

So under this methodology one ref's stats could be completely skewed by a match where one side just wasn't playing by the rules, and he took appropriate steps to punish them.
.

True but, just looking at that one table and just the games where it was a Saffa team at home against a non-Saffa team the penalty differential is 38-64 from six games.

Too small a sample to be meaningful but still interesting.

Having neutral referees for games between international teams might not make a difference to the quality of decisions but it would be a better look and would remove a bit of controversy from some games.

 

[barbarian]

Referees are certainly influenced by partisan home crowds, that has been proven in a number of studies across a number of sports.

I'm not a fan of neutral refs in Super Rugby, as it stretches things from a resourcing perspective and often throws below-par Aussie refs into big Saffer-NZ matches.

But for internationals it's a no-brainer.
.

 

[Brumby Runner]

In isolation a 14-4 count looks bad, but unless you show me all 14 offences it's really hard to judge. The Sharks could well have been pushing their luck at the breakdown, and deserved to be penalised every time.

.

Except in the case you've mentioned, I believe it was the Crusaders who were penalised 14 times, not the Sharks.

And the fact there is such a large discrepancy across a number of SA games involving a variety of SA and other teams does look at least a bit suspicious. At the least, you'd have to say that no visiting side has given the impression they have been able to adjust to the local SA referees' interpretations (which we're repeatedly told is a sign of a good side).

 

[Dan54]

What is a neutral referee anyway?? They are not playing internationals, so if a ref is from Sydney is still neutral when Brumbies play the Blues, to say otherwise is rubbish, because next we will be saying that a ref from say Brumbies area can't ref teams like Crusaders or the Clan etc as them losing may help the aforementioned Brumbies!! See how ridiculous you can get when worrying whether a ref is partial to one team!!!