Refereeing decisions

[Scoey]

I wasn't sure how long it would take for that possibility to be brought up. The amount of TMO interventions that occur from a home broadcasters replays highlighting the away teams infractions seems to be waaaaaaay higher than the opposite scenario.

It felt particularly bad in the Reds vs Jaguares games. Whenever a stoppage in play occurred, the broadcaster would go back to a previous play that if slowed down enough might look like Red foul play. In contrast, after a JAG kickoff, one of the Reds players caught it and copped a swinging arm to the head. Ref missed it and whilst the Reds player was down being assessed for concussion for the next few minutes the broadcaster replayed the last try a few times. Not one single replay of a play that resulted in a Reds injury.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What were the stats for last year? Has there been much of an increase?

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know how you deal with the instant replay situation at the ground. It will always be controlled by the home ground/team staff and you need to have it. You can't deny people who turn up to watch live the benefits of replay technology. The experience for fans needs to be as good as possible.

Maybe it should be something that is reviewed by World Rugby and consider video replays to be a referee style role that is appointed for each match and as such can have guidelines for how they operate and chance to review performance.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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

In the olden days they were obsessed with policing peeling off - recently i dont know and i think you have a point about that: but i haven't seen that one before.
I just think these little line out laws are being rorted and they change the game.
Another one - pointed out by Kafe - is the attacking team being back 5m from the scrum: if they dont want it policed abolish it but if they dont abolish it police it.
i feel better now.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't know how you deal with the instant replay situation at the ground. It will always be controlled by the home ground/team staff and you need to have it. You can't deny people who turn up to watch live the benefits of replay technology. The experience for fans needs to be as good as possible.

Maybe it should be something that is reviewed by World Rugby and consider video replays to be a referee style role that is appointed for each match and as such can have guidelines for how they operate and chance to review performance.

Seen Wayne smith's rant in the Oz today?
Typically good.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Oh......and another thing.
My understanding is that in order to be classified as "bound" you have to have your arm from shoulder to wrist in contact.
This blight on our game of the rolling maul could be reduced to the minor curiosity seen rarely that it deserves if the frigging refs would police the bind law: so if the player with the ball becomes partly detached and is only hold on with his hand (arm not in contact) he is technically speaking unbound. Thus, if he reconnect with the whole of his arm he is rejoining the maul and has placed all his team offside.
Thoughts?

 

[Braveheart81]

Seen Wayne smith's rant in the Oz today?
Typically good.

I'm not sure I really agree with him though.

I definitely think Nabuli in making that tackle is also trying to get his arm in the way to block a pass. I don't think it is accidental that he knocks that ball down. Fraser was at least consistent with that in yellow carding the Jaguares player for the same thing.

It's an intentional knock on with no realistic attempt at taking an intercept. I have no issues with that being a yellow card. It is a professional foul.

As for Douglas' yellow card, my viewing of that was that when the maul splintered there were still a couple of Jaguares players in front of the ball carrier and Douglas ran right by the side of them to tackle the ball carrier as they were driving for the line. It was a mess due to the maul fracturing but I don't think the ball carrier was available to be tackled without going through the players in front of him.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not sure I really agree with him though.

I definitely think Nabuli in making that tackle is also trying to get his arm in the way to block a pass. I don't think it is accidental that he knocks that ball down. Fraser was at least consistent with that in yellow carding the Jaguares player for the same thing.

It's an intentional knock on with no realistic attempt at taking an intercept. I have no issues with that being a yellow card. It is a professional foul.

As for Douglas' yellow card, my viewing of that was that when the maul splintered there were still a couple of Jaguares players in front of the ball carrier and Douglas ran right by the side of them to tackle the ball carrier as they were driving for the line. It was a mess due to the maul fracturing but I don't think the ball carrier was available to be tackled without going through the players in front of him.

I think contact with the ball was entirely incidental - if his arm had not been moving the way it was then he'd be carded for not using his arms in a tackle.
I tend to think you're right about Douglas - but see my post in the refereeing thread concerning detachments from mauls - the three blokes at the rear were not properly connected to the front of the maul, on my recollection.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think contact with the ball was entirely incidental - if his arm had not been moving the way it was then he'd be carded for not using his arms in a tackle.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the outside arm goes out as far as possible to try and block the pass. It is a fairly common occurrence.

They should clarify it though because it isn't an unusual situation. Maybe World Rugby needs to do some research into it to determine whether or not it is an intentional play or just a byproduct of making a tackler as the ball carrier is trying to pass.

This is entirely anecdotal but the times when it is clearly not intentional the ball tends to spit out a long way back because it hits the shoulder or similar as the tackle is being made rather than being passed and being blocked by an outstretched hand.

 

[Brumby Jack]

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not sure I agree. I think the outside arm goes out as far as possible to try and block the pass. It is a fairly common occurrence.

They should clarify it though because it isn't an unusual situation. Maybe World Rugby needs to do some research into it to determine whether or not it is an intentional play or just a byproduct of making a tackler as the ball carrier is trying to pass.

This is entirely anecdotal but the times when it is clearly not intentional the ball tends to spit out a long way back because it hits the shoulder or similar as the tackle is being made rather than being passed and being blocked by an outstretched hand.

so if you're holding you hand in such a way as to block the pass but the dope with the ball throws it anyway and it comes off your stationary hand downwards do you get to sit down for 10 (assuming same field position)?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

View attachment 9065

Shocker - Dargaville did his best to "milk it" - mind you he could have broken his jaw.
How come given that he lay on the ground milking it he didn't have to undergo a compulsory head check?
Thats the trouble with this - shiggins being the proof of the point - once you start digging there are so many anomalies its all you talk about

 

[Braveheart81]

so if you're holding you hand in such a way as to block the pass but the dope with the ball throws it anyway and it comes off your stationary hand downwards do you get to sit down for 10 (assuming same field position)?

Either way I think there needs to be some investigation and clarification as to whether the tacklers are intentionally blocking the pass (and intentionally knocking it on) in these situations or whether it is a by-product of the tackle.

It does seem like a fair few referees will keep yellow carding these situations, particularly in an attacking position.

Personally I think they generally should be harsh on intentional knock ons. They are a professional foul and players shouldn't be sticking their hand out to block a pass, particularly when there isn't a realistic chance of an intercept.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Personally I think they generally should be harsh on intentional knock ons. They are a professional foul and players shouldn't be sticking their hand out to block a pass, particularly when there isn't a realistic chance of an intercept.

not so sure about this - the law of unintended consequences is peering over the parapet

 

[Braveheart81]

not so sure about this - the law of unintended consequences is peering over the parapet

What's the unintended consequence?

I think players should rightfully be penalised if they stick their hand out to block a pass and yellow carded when that prevented an attacking opportunity.

I think they are generally being harsh enough on this.

I think the previous assumption that if you tipped the ball in an upwards direction it was just a knock on and it was only a penalty if you slapped it down wasn't far enough and doesn't match the laws.

 

[Brumby Runner]

On the question of home town replays at the ground - I was fairly certain I saw Henry Speight tip tackled early in the game last Saturday, and was fully expecting a review of the incident by the referee. MvdW must have missed it or thought it fairly benign, but there was no replay at the ground also. Did anyone else see this happen and was it a card offence? Henry's legs both ended up vertically above the rest of his body.

EDIT : As an aside, I don't think there was a card at all in this game. MvdW seemed to be content that all offences were minor enough to be worthy of a penalty only. And perhaps coincidentally, there hasn't been a lot of criticism of the officiating in this game.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What's the unintended consequence?
.

If I knew that.......if a player is standing between 2 opposition players trying to block a pass by holding his hands out to the side and waving them around a player throwing a pass deserves what he gets. Sometimes happens between a half and 5/8.

 

[cyclopath]

Shocker - Dargaville did his best to "milk it" - mind you he could have broken his jaw.
How come given that he lay on the ground milking it he didn't have to undergo a compulsory head check?
Thats the trouble with this - shiggins being the proof of the point - once you start digging there are so many anomalies its all you talk about

I'm not sure Shiggins is the proof of any point. Other than predictive text is flawed.

 

[mst]

so if you're holding you hand in such a way as to block the pass but the dope with the ball throws it anyway and it comes off your stationary hand downwards do you get to sit down for 10 (assuming same field position)?

Yep. The simple question is why is his hand there? Swatting flies, waving at his peeps? No, its there intentionally to interfere with the pass, or attempted pass. or to prevent the pass.

Sorry, ref but my hands......

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yep. The simple question is why is his hand there? Swatting flies, waving at his peeps? No, its there intentionally to interfere with the pass, or attempted pass. or to prevent the pass.

Sorry, ref but my hands..

the consequence being that if you stand in that position and it hits your hand on your analysis that would be a penalty and possible yellow card: you think that's intended - what was actually intended was to deter the pass being thrown.