Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
I wouldn't be surprised if most players have not read the Law Book. Plus most of these touch line decisions are not even in the Law Book. A number of them are IRB clarifications.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
I wouldn't be surprised if most players have not read the Law Book. Plus most of these touch line decisions are not even in the Law Book. A number of them are IRB clarifications.
Let's also remember that instincts take over particularly in pressure situations. If you're a former league player then the first instinct when desperately trying to save a try is likely to be to bat the ball dead or into touch rather than grounding it.
It takes some time for new instincts to be developed to replace the old ones. Take for instance Cam Clark who is currently playing the ball at the tackle instantly because you get penalised if you don't do that in 7s. He hasn't yet adjusted to the fact that he is allowed more time in the XV man game.
It takes some time for new instincts to be developed to replace the old ones. Take for instance Cam Clark who is currently playing the ball at the tackle instantly because you get penalised if you don't do that in 7s. He hasn't yet adjusted to the fact that he is allowed more time in the XV man game.
Grant NZ
Bill Watson (15)
I thought it was for tackling the player without the ball basically. The ruck was over (Owens called it over) but Faf - despite having hands on the ball - wasn't actually in possession of it.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
My impression is that Sio wasn't the player to interfere with Faf, as some have stated. And as I recall, Faf had the ball in both hands and off the ground when he was the incident dislodged the ball from him. Surely, if the ruck was called over there was no infringement?
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Yeah - just had a look at the replay.
Dean Mumm came through (and he was probably offside!) and took out the half back. The half had his hands on the ball but probably didn't have possession.
So Sio was fine, the ball was definitely out of the ruck, but it was Mumm who got penalised. Think Owens got it right too
16:52 on here if it doesn't work.....
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Referees have been encouraged to turn blind eye when ball goes forward
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ll-forward?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Pages_Manager
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ll-forward?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Pages_Manager
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Penalty attempt hits the post and then rebounds into touch.
Who gets the throw and why?
Who gets the throw and why?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Can someone tell me what's going on?
In both games last night on more than one occasion the ref called "its just a tackle" after several players from both sides had gathered around and were bound to the ball carrier and each other.
This is not a tackle it's a collapsed maul and that makes a huge difference to the rights of players.
It is marginalising the usefulness of the skill of holding a player up but also it is impossible to roll away from a collapsed maul with resultant bullshit penalties.
In both games last night on more than one occasion the ref called "its just a tackle" after several players from both sides had gathered around and were bound to the ball carrier and each other.
This is not a tackle it's a collapsed maul and that makes a huge difference to the rights of players.
It is marginalising the usefulness of the skill of holding a player up but also it is impossible to roll away from a collapsed maul with resultant bullshit penalties.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
The directive from world rugby was to let it breathe as a contest before calling the maul, much like letting the scrum settle before feeding the ball. If the ball carriers knee is in contact for the ground (pretty difficult to see unless you are right next to it) before the maul is formed then it is a tackle and tackler/tackleassist must release etc
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
The non kicking side.
Why? - This is why. http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=10&year=2006&clarification=27&language=EN
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
Should be in a good position to see this, it's a tackle situation at this point and you want to hit the Primary Infringement, not the Tertiary.....
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
The alternative is that you call them all mauls and then that turns into a sh1t fight because ever man and his dog wants to kill the play.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
Yep that's what I meant, referee is nice and close fans not so much so the decision is a hard one to criticize. I want the players to work to get a maul particularly in general play as killing it is negative play and horrible to watch but they are very hard to stop legally.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
When did 21.4 (d) come into effect? I can remember Andy Irvine among others place-kicking penalties to touch esp in windy conditions. Back then, of course, you were conceding the throw by kicking to touch hence wanting to gain as much ground as possible.
Just out of interest, if the ball hits the post & goes out on the full, presumably the lineout is set back where the kick was taken from?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well then the law should reflect the desired outcome - not forgetting in the world of unintended outcomes that would arguably create a different controversy about pulling down rolling mauls because they are called tackles in the interests of freer flowing game.
I see the law tries to sanction this now but the problem becomes the lack of any stipulation as to time: that is, the law suggests its immediately a maul whereas their being told to let it go for some indeterminate time.
It seems to me that this is just another area in which the new watcher will be defeated by technicality.
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
Think that one would come under 6.A.4 (a) WOB, and he'd give the throw where it went out.
The modern ruling at least in the professional game is that it is only a maul when the referee calls maul.
I don't mind this. An attacker supporting the ball runner shouldn't be outlawed and adjudicating that, as soon as that happens it is a maul and defenders don't have to roll away would make it a debacle.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
And this is the crux of so many arguments and one of the positives about our game - interpretation and grey areas. Our game is full of them.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
One of the reasons that we will never have a "coach's or captain's challenge" system.
Referee's interpretation and strict law definitions aren't the same thing
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
and during a game the former takes precedence over the latter.
It's only after the game is over that the inconsistencies are scrutinised.