Refereeing decisions

[mst]

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.

Yep, again intent. Hand deliberately trying to stop pass. The knock on is the consequence of the action.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yep, again intent. Hand deliberately trying to stop pass. The knock on is the consequence of the action.

does that mean you applaud halves who deliberately throw the ball into lazy runners?

 

[mst]

does that mean you applaud halves who deliberately throw the ball into lazy runners?

Lazy runners? Isn't that a term used to describe players intentionally transitioning back to an on side position deliberately at a slow speed and interfering or making it difficult for the opposition half-back by getting in the way of the play?

Again. Intent. Lazy runners choose to be there unnecessary. Consequences of action again.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Lazy runners? Isn't that a term used to describe players intentionally transitioning back to an on side position deliberately at a slow speed and interfering or making it difficult for the opposition half-back by getting in the way of the play?

Again. Intent. Lazy runners choose to be there unnecessary. Consequences of action again.

The trouble is that this just encourages players to milk the system - the end result of that is the type of diving you see in the round ball game. Its already creeping in.

 

[Braveheart81]

The trouble is that this just encourages players to milk the system - the end result of that is the type of diving you see in the round ball game. Its already creeping in.

If you made it so it wasn't a penalty, doesn't it just encourage more lazy runners and players lingering offside?

It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think penalising the player as offside if the ball is passed into them is the only reasonable outcome. Anything else would just encourage it to happen more often.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you made it so it wasn't a penalty, doesn't it just encourage more lazy runners and players lingering offside?

It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think penalising the player as offside if the ball is passed into them is the only reasonable outcome. Anything else would just encourage it to happen more often.

If its the 9 is just milking it make it a scrum

 

[Braveheart81]

If its the 9 is just milking it make it a scrum

Hard to draw the line there though and if it is only going to be a scrum doesn't that increase the appeal for players to loiter particularly if they had a stronger scrum?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

yeah, OK, you win

 

[mst]

The reality is it comes back to the quality of referee and their willingness to enforce the laws in a sensible way, rather than letting it all run and do mini coaching sessions in an attempt to fix it.

IMHO we have moved away from the quality refereeing that enforces the laws while keeping the game going. When player know the consequences they generally make an effort to avoid the silly penalties and in turn exposes those trying to milk it.

 

[Ulrich]

Read this article and watch the video too. Just inconsistent.

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/170328/High_and_bye

 

[Brumby Runner]

It was mentioned in one of the game threads for this weekend that Rohan Hoffman hasn't been allocated to any match, including as Assistant Ref. I note that Fraser is also missing from the weekend as a whole. Both were severely criticised for their performances by fans after last weekend. Indicative of the appointments board taking action, perhaps?

 

[yourmatesam]

Indicative of the appointments board taking action, perhaps?

Hardly likely in my view. Appointments are usually made weeks in advance.

 

[Brumby Runner]

But not published? I'm sure they would be able to change things around from the plan if they thought they had reason to do so.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm not sure the ruling bodies would be going down the path of determining referee appointments based on fan complaints. Given the travel sometimes involved, and logistics in general, I think it's more likely just the normal rotation of the process that some will have a week off each week.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^ Melchior has posted on the Blues v Force thread that Hoffman's an AR for an U20's match this weekend. That doesn't look like rotation to me (but I note that Bray hasn't made any comment on the refing of either Hoff or Fisher, so maybe I'm reading too much into it ).

 

[Braveheart81]

In six rounds Hoffman has had 2 games as referee, 2 games as AR and 2 weeks not reffing in Super Rugby.

I think it is unlikely he was demoted this weekend.

 

[Rugby Central]

I was wondering if I could ask the learned scholars of Gaggerland a question on a point of (rugby) law.

In watching the Brumbies vs Highlanders match I noticed that often when a NZ forward was the first receiver a second forward would bind on before the contact. This meant two bound players would run into the tackler.

It happened with such frequency that I'm wondering if this is no longer an illegal play.

Is this now legal as it's almost the very definition of the flying wedge? Having 2 players charge into 1 is surely considered dangerous play.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I was wondering if I could ask the learned scholars of Gaggerland a question on a point of (rugby) law.

In watching the Brumbies vs Highlanders match I noticed that often when a NZ forward was the first receiver a second forward would bind on before the contact. This meant two bound players would run into the tackler.

It happened with such frequency that I'm wondering if this is no longer an illegal play.

Is this now legal as it's almost the very definition of the flying wedge? Having 2 players charge into 1 is surely considered dangerous play.

‘Flying Wedge’. The type of attack known as a ‘Flying Wedge’ usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty kick or free kick.
The kicker tap-kicks the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team mates bind on each side of the ball carrier in a wedge formation. Often one or more of these team mates is in front of the ball carrier. A ‘Flying Wedge’ is illegal.
Sanction:Penalty kick at the place of the original infringement.

Need a tap-kick and two players binding on either side of the ball carrier to create a flying wedge according to the laws.

Don't think there's any law against pre-binding. As long as the ball carrier is available to be tackled and then everyone follows the laws around releasing players at tackles, rucks etc then I don't thnk there's a particular issue with it.

That's not to say it couldn't be penalised, it would have to be clearly dangerous for it to be so, and most of the time it isn't.

 

[yourmatesam]

But not published? I'm sure they would be able to change things around from the plan if they thought they had reason to do so.

Negatory Batman, travel, progression planning, referee coaches, annual leave for "day job" etc etc would all be booked in advance by two weeks at least I reckon.

Some of the Super Rugby referee's I've spoken to know pre-season that they will get at least 'x' amount of games during the season or that their role will be primarily ARing or that they need to be in NZ/SA/Perth for these weeks etc. Barring injury, appointments would be pretty solid.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So that puts paid to any thought of accountability being considered.