Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But those stats don't really prove anything. For example there were three extremely lopsided penalty counts involving 2 South African teams playing each other. A game where an Australian referee did a Bulls v Hurricanes game and the penalties were also lopsided.
I don't think that there's any bias from referees at super level. I question the competence of some of them to perform at that level, but not their impartiality.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
A very interesting article about bias and its effect/affect on perception of refereeing decisions: http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2016/05/15/10/55/the-reason-referees-are-always-wrong
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
Ok, query for the brains in this thread.
During Friday's Rebels v Brumbies match - first half, i think - the Brumbies the lineout on their throw with the Rebels forwards not competing.
Brumbies took the ball and immediately set up their devastating maul, with the ball smuggled to the back. No Rebels player engaged either the lineout or the subsequent 'maul'.
Adam Thompson ran to the back of the 'maul' and tackled the player holding the footy, and was whistled offside.
Am I wrong in assuming that because the maul wasn't legally formed, the offside rule as it was applied was not relevant?
During Friday's Rebels v Brumbies match - first half, i think - the Brumbies the lineout on their throw with the Rebels forwards not competing.
Brumbies took the ball and immediately set up their devastating maul, with the ball smuggled to the back. No Rebels player engaged either the lineout or the subsequent 'maul'.
Adam Thompson ran to the back of the 'maul' and tackled the player holding the footy, and was whistled offside.
Am I wrong in assuming that because the maul wasn't legally formed, the offside rule as it was applied was not relevant?
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
on the TV you can hear Hoffman say to Thomson that the line out wasn't over, i.e. it hadn't moved off the line of touch, also at that point there wasn't a maul, and furthermore the ball was still in the catchers hands. bluff and double bluff advantage Brums. at the time i was furious as were the crowd around because it looked legit, but in the strict context of the law the Hoff was right. unfortunately
The Brumbies either needed to start moving forward or backwards or for the ball to be transferred out of the catcher's hands to someone else and then the lineout would have been over and Thomson would have been in the right.
Just tuned in to Stormers Cheetahs and saw one replay of a Cheetahs player reaching for the tryline only for the ball to be kicked out of his hands, now I only saw one half a replay so might have been an accidental foot, but to the point;
Isnt kicking a ball from the hands of the opposition illegal? And should thus have been a penalty try? Barring i saw it right and it was kicked.
Isnt kicking a ball from the hands of the opposition illegal? And should thus have been a penalty try? Barring i saw it right and it was kicked.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Haven't seen the specific incident but this is covered by a couple of laws (taken from the law clarification in September 2015)
Law 22.4 (e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.
Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22.4 (f) above.
When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try, an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Aus v Eng game last night. 55th min. Poms take the ball from a lineout and form a maul, Fardy gets his hands on it and then attempts to take the ball to the ground. He appears to succeeded and then the rest of the maul comes down with him. He then sealed the ball off as per the maul-to-ground laws.
Poite appeared to penalise him for collapsing the maul.
Firstly, did I get that right, and secondly, is Fardy entitled to take the ball to ground in that situation (maybe the ref couldn't see from the other side), or is he collapsing the maul and hence illegal?
Poite appeared to penalise him for collapsing the maul.
Firstly, did I get that right, and secondly, is Fardy entitled to take the ball to ground in that situation (maybe the ref couldn't see from the other side), or is he collapsing the maul and hence illegal?
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
I agree completely that his actions caused the maul to collapse.
Having a read of the laws I think he was almost OK....but the ball was never available so liable
17.2(d)
Keeping players on their feet.
Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
I just cant understand that decision, how does it differ from the choke tackle? The defending team try to trap the ball and then bring it down to win scrum feed. This all of course barring that Fardy joined legally.
The other decision which was also discussed in the match thread, was the Haskell turnover close to the Pom try line, where Aus player was tackled, then first supporting Aus player clears the tackler away effectively setting the offside line, Haskell never retreats and enters from the side to get the ball.
The other law is 15.6.d which Chris McCracken posted on the match thread and it says that players must enter the tackle area from behind the tackle (barring the tackler) so either way it was interpreted I reckon it was just a flat out big fat mistake from Romain.
Thoughts? Facts?
Edit: http://giphy.com/gifs/xT0GqkkhfsgzIheCDm
So he is the tackler but no way in hell in his rights to play the ball from there.
The other decision which was also discussed in the match thread, was the Haskell turnover close to the Pom try line, where Aus player was tackled, then first supporting Aus player clears the tackler away effectively setting the offside line, Haskell never retreats and enters from the side to get the ball.
The other law is 15.6.d which Chris McCracken posted on the match thread and it says that players must enter the tackle area from behind the tackle (barring the tackler) so either way it was interpreted I reckon it was just a flat out big fat mistake from Romain.
Thoughts? Facts?
Edit: http://giphy.com/gifs/xT0GqkkhfsgzIheCDm
So he is the tackler but no way in hell in his rights to play the ball from there.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
There is no ruck formed, he is just a tackler in general play. Why can't he do as he did? Clear release and then just picks up the ball.
Timing is everything. Almost simultaneously to Haskell jumping to his feet and playing the ball, TPN cleaned out an English player as Horwill came in the protect the ball. Now does that mean, for a brief moment, that a ruck was formed? All happened in a flash. To me, it looks arguable from either point of view. In any event, it was smart thinking by Haskell.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
You could also make the argument that TPN didn't make contact over the ball, or he didn't bind to the opposition - just pushed him. So no ruck in those cases.
Just goes to show that in rugby at this level, smart thinking, and idiotic thinking is just a matter of milliseconds, millimetres and where the ref happens to be looking.