Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

You must be bound to have any options if the ruck has "collapsed" you would need to shift bodies (not step over them). Therefor D up and look for an opportunity

I think this covers it.

There's a certain point with some breakdowns where the ball has been won and you realistically have no legal ways to contest the ball in the breakdown.

You need to stay behind the last feet and can go for the halfback once they pick up the ball.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Wouldn't it be good if there was no collapsing in the ruck? Maybe the first to ground should be penalised until it becomes standard for the ruck to remain on its feet? Dreaming?

 

[Braveheart81]

Wouldn't it be good if there was no collapsing in the ruck? Maybe the first to ground should be penalised until it becomes standard for the ruck to remain on its feet? Dreaming?

So the first cleanout that takes a player to ground earns a penalty?

 

[Brumby Runner]

So the first cleanout that takes a player to ground earns a penalty?

If they remain within the playing area of the ruck, then yes. It should be sufficient that once a ruck forms then no hands on the ball at all. If the supporters of the ball carrier are too slow then the opposition on their feet should have all rights to the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

If they remain within the playing area of the ruck, then yes. It should be sufficient that once a ruck forms then no hands on the ball at all. If the supporters of the ball carrier are too slow then the opposition on their feet should have all rights to the ball.

That is the law. You are only allowed to play the ball on the ground prior to the ruck forming. If you were on the ball prior to the ruck forming you can keep playing it until you either win it, get awarded a penalty for the ball carrier not releasing or get taken off your feet by the clean out.

That player taken off their feet by a cleanout is still in the ruck. You seem to be suggesting they should get penalised because they are the first player off their feet.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It really is what I'm suggesting BH and I have no problem with that at all. My other point is that if the opposition haven't secured the ball when the first ball carrier supporter joins the ruck (legally), then it has to be "hands off 7", otherwise a penalty to the team in possession. No need then for any clean out at all - just legally join the ruck and stay on your feet. Anyone going to ground to be penalised. Wouldn't take a lot of getting used to by the teams, and would ensure quick, clean ball without the unnecessary wrestling on the ground interfering with the play. And might even see the end of forwards charging into the ruck, usually with no arms, with what seems to be the express purpose of injuring someone in a position not to be able to defend themselves.

 

[Braveheart81]

It really is what I'm suggesting BH and I have no problem with that at all. My other point is that if the opposition haven't secured the ball when the first ball carrier supporter joins the ruck (legally), then it has to be "hands off 7", otherwise a penalty to the team in possession. No need then for any clean out at all - just legally join the ruck and stay on your feet. Anyone going to ground to be penalised. Wouldn't take a lot of getting used to by the teams, and would ensure quick, clean ball without the unnecessary wrestling on the ground interfering with the play. And might even see the end of forwards charging into the ruck, usually with no arms, with what seems to be the express purpose of injuring someone in a position not to be able to defend themselves.

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying.

Are you thinking that the first player from the attacking team arriving to create a ruck doesn't have to clear out the player trying to steal the ball, they merely have to get there and touch that player and that player has to release otherwise they get penalised?

That seems to severely limit the contest for the ball and makes it incredibly easy for a side to retain possession.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I've always thought there was a good argument that rolling the jackler to the ground and off the ball was collapsing the ruck and therefore illegal.

Think everyone has agreed to let it happen in the interests of having a game occassionally

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

My starting point is definitely giving the opportunity to the attacking side to continue their attack with quick ball from the breakdown.

So, yes, I am saying that the first attacking support player only has to legally join the ruck, which means binding on any of the defensive players there who may or may not be trying to steal the ball. If the defense hasn't been able to steal the ball before the support players arrive, then at that point they must release.

The upside of course is that if the attack support is slow (read Wallabies) then the defense has a pretty clear go at the ball without the likelihood of being cleared out which is really just hyperbole for being tackled without the ball. Any clear out at the ruck which sends a player to the ground is really a tackle without the ball and should be penalised.

The way I see it, officiating the breakdown at a tackle situation in this fashion will ensure quick, clean ball to either the attacking side (which has the advantage) or the defending side if the attack support is slow. And importantly, no more wrestling on the ground by any number of players under the guise of being in a ruck and contesting the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think that would be a fundamental change to the game that would greatly reduce the contest for the ball.

I personally don't think it would be a good one.

You're pretty much getting rid of any ruck contest.

There aren't really situations where someone pilfers the ball at the ruck without an attacking player laying a hand on them.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Moreso imo the ruck would become more like an improvised scrum where the way to win the ball would come back to the side moving forward over the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

Moreso imo the ruck would become more like an improvised scrum where the way to win the ball would come back to the side moving forward over the ball.

This is what rucks were like a long time ago.

I don't think it results in quick ball whatsoever.

The game has sped up massively over the last couple of decades due to the different breakdown interpretations.

 

[Slim 293]

I suppose this thread'll do.......

10 year ban for this dickhead:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...h/news-story/22d253f720073c63359c8aa309e84c33

 

[yourmatesam]

I suppose this thread'll do...

10 year ban for this dickhead:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/...h/news-story/22d253f720073c63359c8aa309e84c33

Deadset disgusting.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Why only 10? Lifetime ban - he can reapply after 10 if he proves he's changed his behaviour

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Deadset disgusting.

10 years is a lifetime for the career of a rugby player. Sends a strong message that this sort of crap won't be tolerated. You don't touch the referee - period.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

10 years is a lifetime for the career of a rugby player. Sends a strong message that this sort of crap won't be tolerated. You don't touch the referee - period.

Not really - he looks less than 20. Plus I was thinking post playing ban too - no coaching, water boy etc unless he establishes he's reformed.
I gather all the codes respect each other's bans so I guess he won't be able to moonlight in another code for 10.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Not really - he looks less than 20. Plus I was thinking post playing ban too - no coaching, water boy etc unless he establishes he's reformed.

I gather all the codes respect each other's bans so I guess he won't be able to moonlight in another code for 10.

Hefty enough penalty. Plus charged with assault. He has paid the price so I think it is time to not go more overboard as this is not a light penalty given seriously at age 29 what career do you have left on football after not being able to play it for 10 year. NHRU is also supporting him as well as the referee, as they pointed out they have a duty of care to the player who has received a hefty ban and paid (a rightful) heavy price. I agree with that approach.

Like you said I doubt he will be able to moonlight in another code.

 

[Brumby Runner]

In the ABs v Argies test match yesterday, the ABs invariably set a three or four man lineout on all their throws. The throw was then aimed towards their jumper but because of the small distance involved, it wasn't once called not straight. Had it been a full lineout with a throw to the back at the same trajectory, it would have finished well and truly on the outside shoulder of the jumper. Why should short throws not be pulled up for being crooked when in truth the opposition have no real chance to compete in any case?

 

[Strewthcobber]

16:00 on the video, 74:30 game time

Australia hot on attack (after a massive forward pass from Foley)

Gold take the ball into contact, and a couple of players are in contact over the ball. The Wallabies blow past the breakdown letting space for Kriel to get over the ball.

Is Kriel entitled to use his hands there?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk