Refereeing decisions

[Hawko]

Sacking is fine. The issue was who they were sacking. Going anywhere near the lifters as they did repeatedly will always attract the ref's attention.

The lifters primary job in the modern maul as the carrier is coming back to ground is to set up just enough in front of the catcher not to get pinged so that the catcher is protected from being sacked. In my view, because they are not getting pinged for truck and trailer, it is very difficult for the defenders to try and attack the carrier without also attacking the lifters.

 

[liquor box]

Question for those who know the laws better than I do.

There was anew rule this season that features "When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned." http://rugbyrefsny.com/?p=675

In the Reds v Cru game there was a bit if handbag throwing at one stage. Can you slap or push an opponents face without sanction?

Let me be clear, I love it and have no issue with a face palm but was shocked that there was no care for these actions by any refs.

technically should deliberate contact with the head be penalised?

 

[zer0]

".....may still be sanctioned" means it's up to the refs to exercise common sense. By the wording of that ruling you could also see all front rowers being carded after the first scrum. But even as a former fullback, I would say that, that would be ridiculous.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There a clause in Regulation 17 (World Rugby discipline/foul play) addressing this

Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist

The ref clearly thought it wasn't a strike (he kept referring to it as pushing throughout that part of the game) so he could have penalised/carded if he thought it was warranted, but he didn't.

Thought the yellow card later in the game could have easily been red too, but the ref made his choice.

As an aside, the handoff wasn't strictly legal under the laws until 2010.

Law 7

A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.

 

[The torpedo]

There a clause in Regulation 17 (World Rugby discipline/foul play) addressing this



The ref clearly thought it wasn't a strike (he kept referring to it as pushing throughout that part of the game) so he could have penalised/carded if he thought it was warranted, but he didn't.

Thought the yellow card later in the game could have easily been red too, but the ref made his choice.

As an aside, the handoff wasn't strictly legal under the laws until 2010.

Law 7

I also said that the sin binning should have also been for what was quite frankly a laughable attempt at a puch

 

[mst]

The lifters primary job in the modern maul as the carrier is coming back to ground is to set up just enough in front of the catcher not to get pinged so that the catcher is protected from being sacked. In my view, because they are not getting pinged for truck and trailer, it is very difficult for the defenders to try and attack the carrier without also attacking the lifters.

If you have a look at the other post I made that provides further explanation the reason I used the description "lifters" was deliberate as it was to align with referees explanation that the jumper was still in the air so no maul has been formed (so it was still a line out). I get where you are coming from but as far as I understood in the case, it was all about the timing more than anything else.

Check out the video here where the Referee explains it to Hooper: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/the-tuesday-top-5-39/

 

[Hawko]

Unintended consequences of law changes:

The last Crusader try this week was cleverly scored and correctly adjudicated according to the current law. But IMO it was clearly against the fundamental spirit of the game, where the laws are supposedly designed to always ensure a fair contest.

When padding around the posts was first introduced it was decided (wrongly IMO) that the tryline would be extended around the front of the posts, so contact with the front of the post constituted contact with the tryline. It should have been that the tryline went around behind the post but they botched it.

What happened on Saturday was that the Crusaders had a ruck adjacent to the post so that no Red player could defend on the right side of their post. The angles and shape of the ruck were such that the Crusader player was able to pick the ball up near the back of the ruck and place it at the base of the post padding without any red player being able to get close enough to defend it. Thus there was no contest for the ball. It was standard truck and trailer except that the post became the truck and you can't penalise a post!

Solution? Most sensible one would be to move the tryline behind the post padding and make the attacking team run round the post to score. Nanny state solution would be to replace all posts with those weird ones gridiron uses where the post base is behind the dead ball line.

Likelihood of any change? Not greater than 2% until some team starts using it as standard procedure when they get into the 5 metre zone.

 

[Lindommer]

The original law about scoring tries from a ball placed against a goal post stemmed from the view the front of the post was a vertical extension of the goal-line. As it was before goalpost pads. Now that the modern pads are up to 10cm thick the front of the goal posts are no longer in line with the leading edge of the goal-line. Common sense prevailed when the corner posts were taken out of play (the "vertical alignment " argument of the touch line was dispensed with), a similar philosophy should prevail here with the goal-line/pads issue.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Thanks Stewth.

If you haven't seen the last 20 minutes of Wales v France have a look.

Samson Lee gets a yellow card after 80 mins. Game isn't completed so he comes back on after 90mins on the clock.

Missed just 90 secs of game time

 

[Strewthcobber]

We've seen a couple of nicely taken tries from the Crusaders against the padding of the posts recently.

My question. Are defenders allowed to stand there, in front of the posts, with their heels against the padding?

 

[Dan54]

We've seen a couple of nicely taken tries from the Crusaders against the passing of the posts recently.

My question. Are defenders allowed to stand there, in front of the posts, with their heels against the padding?

We were talking about this at the rugby club yesterday Strewth, I reckon a defender should be able to dive into the otherside of post, and if hits ground first it counted as held up!! Simple

 

[yourmatesam]

We've seen a couple of nicely taken tries from the Crusaders against the passing of the posts recently.

My question. Are defenders allowed to stand there, in front of the posts, with their heels against the padding?

Without consulting the law book, I would say no. The Referee wants to see players clearly on side and that's not clear for me. I think the GMG reference something about both feet behind the line and in those instances where a player takes a three point start, the hand must be behind the line.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Highlanders pulled a move last night where Dixon at front of line out left it and took up the 9 spot and the person at 9 went into the line after the ball had left the throwers hands.
There are a number of variations on this.
You cannot leave the lineout once it starts until it is over.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Highlanders pulled a move last night where Dixon at front of line out left it and took up the 9 spot and the person at 9 went into the line after the ball had left the throwers hands.
There are a number of variations on this.
You cannot leave the lineout once it starts until it is over.

You're allowed to "peel off" though once the ball has been thrown

 

[TOCC]

At the risk of sounding like a scorned Reds fan, I think the standard of refereeing this season has taken a nose dive, and it can't be just all about the new law interpretations, the standards hasn't been effected that much in the NH

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You're allowed to "peel off" though once the ball has been thrown

A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player’s line of touch to 10 metres from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended.
He stopped.

 

[Ulrich]

At the risk of sounding like a scorned Reds fan, I think the standard of refereeing this season has taken a nose dive, and it can't be just all about the new law interpretations, the standards hasn't been effected that much in the NH

To be honest the NH refs have always reffed differently and the game is played somewhat differently up there. Law changes are always more comely adapted to in the SH with the impetus of growing the game and staying one step ahead.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A player who peels off, must stay within the area from that player’s line of touch to 10 metres from the line of touch, and must keep moving until the lineout has ended.
He stopped.

Ever seen that part of the law blown?

I don't disagree, but just don't think there's any desire by anyone at any level to stop that sort of move

 

[Scoey]

I'm in the same boat as TOCC. I know the Reds are one of the worst teams in the comp but some of the cards our guys have received this season are just ridiculous. I watch a fair bit of Super Rugby but only really watch the Reds games intently and for the full 80mins so I wanted to get an idea if the cards being handed out in the Reds matches were representative of the bigger picture.

Super Rugby 2017 - up to and including Round 5
42 Matches
54 Yellow Cards
3 Red Cards
57 Cards total
1.4 Avg cards/match

8 Matches with 0 cards
18 Matches with 1 cards
9 Matches with 2 cards
7 Matches with 3 cards

Total game time (not including extra/injury time)
3360 minutes
456 minutes lost through YC's (14% of total)
115 minutes lost through RC's (3% of total)
571 minutes lost combined (17% of total)

Cards by home and away.
19 home team cards (18 YC + 1 RC)
38 away team cards (36 YC + 2 RC)

Cards by halves
18 First half cards
39 Second half cards (36 YC + 3 RC)

I don't know about you guys but this seems a bit over the top. Thoughts?

 

[Parse]

Cards by home and away.
19 home team cards (18 YC + 1 RC)
38 away team cards (36 YC + 2 RC)

The telling stat. Seems like a lot could be the result of the hometown broadcasters who like showing up the opposition on the big screens.

You can't blame the ref's, they obviously have been told they will lose their job if they don't penalise the bejeezus out of anything even remotely above the shoulder.