Refereeing decisions

[Brumby Runner]

A couple of incidents in the Brumbies/Jaguares game also looked a bit sus.

- the breakdown where Pocock was penalised for back chat or throwing the ball away, not sure which, Speight had effected the tackle and released the tackled player before getting his hands on the ball. Should perhaps have been a penalty to the Brumbies at that stage rather than against them.

- the tackle and breakdown later in the match where Pocock was penalised for diving over. Pocock was on his feet over the ball, hence a ruck had been formed by the current directives. A Jaguare player joined from directly behind Pocock, ie on the Brumbies side, and actually pushed Pocock over the tackled player on to the ground on the wrong side. Surely, should have been a penalty to the Brumbies for joining a ruck in an off side position.

- a scrum later in the game where the Brumbies had the feed and a turnover was allowed after the ball skewed out beyond both Naisarani and Powell. The Jaguares No 7 had prematurely disengaged and re-engaged directly on Cusack causing the lack of control of the ball by the Brumbies. Should have been a penalty to the Brumbies imo.

- twice Sanchez interfered with a Brumbies player attempting a quick throw in after the Jaguares had taken the ball into touch. I've seen many penalties given in this type of situation, but no action in this particular game even though on both occasions the infringement occurred in a strong attacking position for the Brumbies.

-

 

[Strewthcobber]

I am in vigorous support of WR (World Rugby) and the referees in limiting scrum resets and penalties as much as possible, and if they have to turn a blind eye to some games up front to get the ball in play, then so be it.

Delays as a result of inability to get the ball successfully out of the scrum is the biggest onfield issue facing the game in this country. Nothing sucks the life out of the game more often

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Oh how true that is. The scrum used to be a minor part of the game, a way of restarting play after a minor mistake. It has turned into a monster, that consumes time and teams holus bolus. And the average referee does not have the slightest idea which front row is cheating more, or, rather, more cleverly.


Then again, they like the scrum in the northern hemisphere, and they are apparently always right, according to our local experts who believe the game cannot be improved.

 

[Chronicle]

A couple of incidents in the Brumbies/Jaguares game also looked a bit sus.

- the breakdown where Pocock was penalised for back chat or throwing the ball away, not sure which, Speight had effected the tackle and released the tackled player before getting his hands on the ball. Should perhaps have been a penalty to the Brumbies at that stage rather than against them.

- the tackle and breakdown later in the match where Pocock was penalised for diving over. Pocock was on his feet over the ball, hence a ruck had been formed by the current directives. A Jaguare player joined from directly behind Pocock, ie on the Brumbies side, and actually pushed Pocock over the tackled player on to the ground on the wrong side. Surely, should have been a penalty to the Brumbies for joining a ruck in an off side position.

- a scrum later in the game where the Brumbies had the feed and a turnover was allowed after the ball skewed out beyond both Naisarani and Powell. The Jaguares No 7 had prematurely disengaged and re-engaged directly on Cusack causing the lack of control of the ball by the Brumbies. Should have been a penalty to the Brumbies imo.

- twice Sanchez interfered with a Brumbies player attempting a quick throw in after the Jaguares had taken the ball into touch. I've seen many penalties given in this type of situation, but no action in this particular game even though on both occasions the infringement occurred in a strong attacking position for the Brumbies.

-

Not to mention when Kafer criticised the Brumbies in general and Pocock in particular for questioning Gardner when he ruled a five metre scrum to the Jaguares for being held up when the replays showed they were short of the line from a maul should have been Brumbies ball, the Jaguares scored a couple of phases after the scrum win
Kafer insight was they needed to get on and stop whinging, they were beaten 25-20 would have thought asking Gardner to review call was in order myself and thought Pocock and Carter were quiet restrained in their requests

 

[Brumby Runner]

I am in vigorous support of WR (World Rugby) and the referees in limiting scrum resets and penalties as much as possible, and if they have to turn a blind eye to some games up front to get the ball in play, then so be it.

Delays as a result of inability to get the ball successfully out of the scrum is the biggest onfield issue facing the game in this country. Nothing sucks the life out of the game more often

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I am not suggesting the scrum in question should have been reset. I am saying it should have been a penalty to the Brumbies. One way to ensure fewer numbers of resets (and I know it won't be popular with many here) is to make all infringements a long arm penalty. Get rid of the short arm where the option of another scrum has some attraction.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh how true that is. The scrum used to be a minor part of the game, a way of restarting play after a minor mistake. It has turned into a monster, that consumes time and teams holus bolus. And the average referee does not have the slightest idea which front row is cheating more, or, rather, more cleverly.


Then again, they like the scrum in the northern hemisphere, and they are apparently always right, according to our local experts who believe the game cannot be improved.

I don't think it's got anything to do with that. The reality is there used to be more serious spinal injuries in scrums and now there are almost none. Players are far bigger and stronger and the forces at play in a scrum are far greater. You simply can't rush them and expect to maintain a similar level of safety.

 

[Derpus]

Scrums are fine. Mauls are the real blight.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't think it's got anything to do with that. The reality is there used to be more serious spinal injuries in scrums and now there are almost none. Players are far bigger and stronger and the forces at play in a scrum are far greater. You simply can't rush them and expect to maintain a similar level of safety.

You are clearly right BH about the greater forces etc in modern day scrums. I am concerned that the present edict (if that is what it is) to allow play to proceed when one side of the scrum is collapsing will lead to injuries as weaker scrums will elect to go down rather than be pushed backwards in an effort to avoid a tight head against them. In my book, if the team feeding the scrum goes down, then a penalty straight away to the opposition, but if the non-feeding team collapses then advantage to the feeding team and play on if safe to do so. If not safe, then immediate penalty to the feeding side. Lets try to eliminate collapsing as a tactic altogether.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

In my book, if the team feeding the scrum goes down, then a penalty straight away to the opposition, but if the non-feeding team collapses then advantage to the feeding team and play on if safe to do so. If not safe, then immediate penalty to the feeding side. Lets try to eliminate collapsing as a tactic altogether.

The second part of your statement fits with the current mentality around refereeing the scrum however they are trying to alo move away from teams scrumming for penalties and YCs (not positive play in itself). The first part of your statement is a little harder to work with, to get a scrum feed for a team(a) the opposition(b) must have infringed, having a really weak scrum would take any advantage away from (a) for (b)'s infringement. To take it to the ridiculous here is a hypothetical...
Team(b) are a team with an extremely strong set piece but no attacking nouse or skill and can't break the defensive line of (a) who are attacking genius but can't scrum at all. Everytime (b) attack they knock the ball on, attack (a)'s scrum and get a penalty moving them down the ground to score in increments of 3 points...

 

[Up the Guts]

If you start pinging teams more readily for collapsed scrums then the hijinks that go into deliberately trying to collapse a scrum to force a penalty will likely dissipate and we will be left with less scrum collapses.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Very interesting article showing which teams are penalised and carded most, and whose opponents get the treatment

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...bys-most-foul-but-they-dont-escape-punishment

 

[Derpus]

"Australia, meanwhile, saw their opposition carded for acts of foul play once every 247 minutes of possession time, the least of tier one nations."

 

[Dan54]

Pleased to see ARU have asked for clarification of what is a red card in the 'taking out in the air' situation. I also tend to agree with the thoughts that it seemed Gus Gardiner got it correct re the laws, and has been thrown under a bus by it getting it overturned. I don't like the law, but if it there you have to back your refs when decision is made. I hope at the very least it results in the law being rewritten with ie; another coloured card or some such thing!

 

[Braveheart81]

 

[Sully]

Everyone but the match official saw Fall knocked of balance.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

The problem is there's no "he's ok if he's been knocked off balance" exclusion in the game management guideline.

Refs have to follow the guidelines, judicial officers have a bit more leeway

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

Everyone but the match official saw Fall knocked of balance.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

So true Sully, but it really didn't have quite the impact that WR (World Rugby) now seem to be implying.

Just hypothetical, but wonder how a similar situation would be adjudicated if Barrett had fumbled the ball and Fall in his lower position had taken possession of the ball on its way to the ground. Would he then be deemed to be not in a realistic position to take possession of the ball?

 

[Derpus]

I can't think of a rule more susceptible to wildly differing interpretations, and there are a few in Rugby.

 

[Derpus]

Random question for experts:

Why does a losing scrum get penalized every time? Rugby is all about competition for the ball, so why is it when one team loses that competition and gets pushed 5 metres back it's invariably a penalty. Don't they just lose?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Random question for experts:

Why does a losing scrum get penalized every time? Rugby is all about competition for the ball, so why is it when one team loses that competition and gets pushed 5 metres back it's invariably a penalty. Don't they just lose?

Because, under the laws of the game, the scrum isn't over until the ball is out, and inevitably, if you get pushed back 5m someone has dropped a bind or isn't pushing straight and parallel.

Under the laws, if you have a dominant scrum you should be entitled to push the opposition back 80m and score a pushover.

If the opposition's offenses have prevented you from doing that, bearing in mind the referee must stop a scrum if they think it's dangerous, then you will be penalised



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk