jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
It’s not sympathy. They allow for the team in possession to have the feed when he’s blown something in error, got in the way or had another form of stoppage, no?
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
I don't think this is the same as any of those. He made a call and did not ask for a review in any way. Yes, it was a bad call, and yes, the Reds were very hard done by, but I'm not sure there was an option to call a scrum and give the feed to the Reds. It's a shitty thing, but there you go.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
Agree to disagree
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
If that's the case, then so be it.
But the Dud and the dud TMO should be dropped for 4 weeks.
Why isn't there consequences for negligence.
People just make lame excuse that they are human. Fuck that !
Perhaps the ref should be. The TMO strictly is not supposed to weigh in unless asked (though some do) so probably not the villain here. But I won't hold my breath - I can't recall any serious critiques of refs from the SANZAAR bunker in recent years.
I think you have to start a Facebook or change.org petition to get a ref banned these days.
Look at Bryce Lawrence...
Look at Bryce Lawrence...
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Discussion here and elsewhere about knocking the ball down being a YC offence. Just a thought, but would it be fairer all round if the test for a YC was that a penalty try is awarded. So that, if the offence causes a try not to be scored, then the offender is YCed, in all other cases just a penalty?
I don't think so. It's often hard to say a try would have been scored.
Would the Sunwolves have scored if Hooper didn't illegally hang onto the ball? You couldn't say for sure but Hooper deserved the yellow card.
CFS blocked a pass when there were at least two unmarked players outside him but cover defenders would have had a chance to stop a try. You certainly couldn't say a try would have been scored but I 100% agree with the decision to yellow card him.
It's about penalising negative play with sufficient sanctions that it should be a detriment not to do them and if they are done, the attacking team gets enough of an advantage to compensate them.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
The problem with "deliberate" knock-ons is consistency. In the NZ conference games the referees have decided they will not issue yellow cards, even when its blatant. In Australia the ruling seems to be yellow most of the time. In CFS's case he appeared to be making a genuine attempt to catch the ball and run away with it but his back foot slipped and he knocked it on. But he still got a yellow card. In the Stormers/Waratahs game there was a blatant knock on that was never going to be an intercept that prevented Beale scoring from about 10 metres out. It wasn't even a penalty.
Someone at Sanzaar needs to give the referees a clear direction on how they are to rule and then instruct the assessors to adjudicate strongly on any variations from that instruction.
Someone at Sanzaar needs to give the referees a clear direction on how they are to rule and then instruct the assessors to adjudicate strongly on any variations from that instruction.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
If Munster is playing at Thomond Park and O'wens is the ref', they are almost guaranteed a win.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
But BH that is a decision the ref, sometimes with the help of the TMO, already makes in all situations. It would be nothing new. If the ref is of the opinion a try would have been scored, then YC, but if he has doubt, then just a penalty.
Using the threshold for a yellow card would get rid of a lot of yellow cards for professional fouls though. A player killing the ball metres out from their try line could never be a yellow card because there is no certainty a try would be scored.
The threshold for a penalty try currently is pretty high. There's no ability to make the assumption that multiple passes (or indeed any passes) would be made to the free unmarked players out wide for the try to be scored. Where there has been a pass knocked down or a player tackled without the ball, the pass already needs to have been made (i.e. the ball is in the air).
I don't think the game should get more lenient on professional fouls that kill attacking opportunities by only making it a yellow card if it is also a penalty try.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
BH, we are on different pages it seems. Maybe my poor effort in describing my idea. I am only talking about the contentious issue of the YC for a deliberate knock on. I don't wish to change any other set of circumstances.
The debate has been about whether or not a deliberate Knock on is deserving of a YC, as in the F'Sautia incident last weekend. My suggestion is simply that if in the circumstances the referee is of the opinion the knock on would have stopped a certain (in his opinion - no different test to the existing for penalty tries) try from being scored, then award a penalty try (as at present) and YC the offender. If, however, he does not form the opinion a try would have been scored, then just a penalty. I am expressing a simple thought that a deliberate knock on should not result in a YC unless, and only if, in the opinion of the referee it stopped a try from being scored.
I do not reference any other situation in my suggestion. Hooper's YC and the types of situations you otherwise mention just have no bearing at all on what I was proposing.
The debate has been about whether or not a deliberate Knock on is deserving of a YC, as in the F'Sautia incident last weekend. My suggestion is simply that if in the circumstances the referee is of the opinion the knock on would have stopped a certain (in his opinion - no different test to the existing for penalty tries) try from being scored, then award a penalty try (as at present) and YC the offender. If, however, he does not form the opinion a try would have been scored, then just a penalty. I am expressing a simple thought that a deliberate knock on should not result in a YC unless, and only if, in the opinion of the referee it stopped a try from being scored.
I do not reference any other situation in my suggestion. Hooper's YC and the types of situations you otherwise mention just have no bearing at all on what I was proposing.
OK, we are definitely on different pages.
I see it as a professional foul that warrants a yellow card because a penalty isn't a severe enough punishment in that sort of situation.
If you knew it was only a penalty and your actions would stop a break that may well lead to a try you would do it every time. If you knew you were going to be yellow carded you'd preferably roll the dice and not commit the professional foul.
The biggest change we need here is consistency though. It is something World Rugby should clarify and set clear benchmarks for what is a knock on, what is a penalty and what is a yellow card.
I see it as a professional foul that warrants a yellow card because a penalty isn't a severe enough punishment in that sort of situation.
If you knew it was only a penalty and your actions would stop a break that may well lead to a try you would do it every time. If you knew you were going to be yellow carded you'd preferably roll the dice and not commit the professional foul.
The biggest change we need here is consistency though. It is something World Rugby should clarify and set clear benchmarks for what is a knock on, what is a penalty and what is a yellow card.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
We're getting close now I think. I am not wedded to the idea that a deliberate knock on must result in a YC because it is foul play. I see other situations that are just as much foul play, like deliberately pulling down a maul or taking out a jumper in the air in a lineout, but usually are not YCed until after a number of occurrences, unless of course the act stops a try from being scored (in the referee's opinion).
I certainly do agree that consistency is needed. Most fan concern atm seems to centre on the interpretation of deliberate versus accidental.
I certainly do agree that consistency is needed. Most fan concern atm seems to centre on the interpretation of deliberate versus accidental.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
The player (and his team) throwing a shitty or hail mary pass (capable of being touched or intercepted) is rewarded bigtime, whether by penalty or YC.It's a wonder that a genuine intercept isn't also penalised for inhibiting the attacking team's ability to score a try
IMO should be a scrum only with the attacking team having the feed.
IMO should be a scrum only with the attacking team having the feed.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
The directive is knock on -
Is the player in a position to regather Y=Scrum, N=PK
if No was there a potential line break/overlap Y=YC, N=PK
It is a lot clearer in the 7s as there is nearly always a potential linebreak/overlap
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I am coming to the conclusion that WR (World Rugby) assisted by the referees, at least in Australia, are trying to negate the role of a dominant forward pack in the game of rugby. Too often, we see scrums being pushed backwards and on the verge of collapsing where the referee calls for the ball to be played. It especially irks when the side being trounced fed the scrum. In that instance, the advantage should go to the side with the dominant scrum rather than letting the side at fault in collapsing have the advantage of possession. Examples are the very first scrum in the Brumbies v Jaguares game where the Jaguares scrum was backpedaling and collapsing as the ball was at the back. Gardner allowed the ball to be played and effectively gave advantage to the side offending in the scrum. The very same occurred in the first scrum of the match Brumbies v Waratahs. I have no doubt that at other times, the Brumbies have been guilty of the same indiscretion.
The laws of the game require the scrum to remain up and straight, and any side incapable of doing so in any particular scrum should be penalised. There is another consequence that usually occurs and that is that the non-offending scrum will also be taken down and the flankers and No 8 are taken out of the game.
On top of the scrum difficulties, the law changes relating to the formation of the ruck and the restricted opportunity for the ball to be pilfered is another attack on sides with a strong forward pack. The result is that the competition for the ball is very much skewed in favour of the side in possession. It is no longer an even contest. We now see sides hold the ball for as many as twenty or more phases with no contest by the opposition through the whole process. Teams are having to more and more rely on handling mistakes to gain a turnover.
IMO these changes are not in the spirit of the game, and matches are becoming less of a spectacle because of them.
The laws of the game require the scrum to remain up and straight, and any side incapable of doing so in any particular scrum should be penalised. There is another consequence that usually occurs and that is that the non-offending scrum will also be taken down and the flankers and No 8 are taken out of the game.
On top of the scrum difficulties, the law changes relating to the formation of the ruck and the restricted opportunity for the ball to be pilfered is another attack on sides with a strong forward pack. The result is that the competition for the ball is very much skewed in favour of the side in possession. It is no longer an even contest. We now see sides hold the ball for as many as twenty or more phases with no contest by the opposition through the whole process. Teams are having to more and more rely on handling mistakes to gain a turnover.
IMO these changes are not in the spirit of the game, and matches are becoming less of a spectacle because of them.