Refereeing decisions

[brokendown]

It's difficult and perhaps impossible but otherwise how do you protect the player in the air?

Take the red card of Kwagga Smith in the Super Rugby final a couple of years ago. He has run through and stayed on the ground. He would have probably caught the ball if no one else was there. Unfortunately for him, David Havili (from memory) was high in the air trying to catch it and easily got to the ball first.

Smith put Havili in a very dangerous position and had to be red carded.

People make the argument that penalising a player with eyes for the ball will stop contests in the air but my take is that it's actually the opposite. If you allow players to be essentially exempt from the dangerous play laws if they've got eyes for the ball then it allows players to put someone in a very dangerous situation with no repercussions. What's the incentive of trying to catch the ball in the air if you can instead just take the player out legally meaning they will almost certainly drop it?

AFL players contest the ball in the air every 30 seconds or so,without too many problems!

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'd say the tackler doesn't release because a) the guy has kept driving into him despite his knees touching the ground; and/or b) he is not aware the tackle has been completed and is just trying to hold him up.

In any case, surely the onus is on the tackled player to attempt to release once being tackled before you ping the tackler for not releasing.

Generally the ref guidance is that the tackler needs to release, then (or so) the tackled player must release the ball. But that may not fit here

 

[Braveheart81]

AFL players contest the ball in the air every 30 seconds or so,without too many problems!

Most of the time they're going in the same direction though (towards the ball).

At times when someone is running with the flight of the ball and someone is running towards it, there are some shocking collisions.

 

[barbarian]

Would you award Ireland's first try against France on the weekend?

If not, why not?

Looks like a clear-cut try to me. Am I missing something?
.

 

[Braveheart81]

Looks like a clear-cut try to me. Am I missing something?
.

Suggestion is that as soon as his left knee hits the ground he is tackled and can't get up again.

 

[barbarian]

Meh. That happens all the time. I think he is still going forward with momentum and is entitled to do what he did.

 

[Braveheart81]

Meh. That happens all the time. I think he is still going forward with momentum and is entitled to do what he did.

I agree. I don't think we would improve the game by reviewing this with the TMO and calling a penalty against the ball carrier for not releasing after being tackled.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Was just thinking that rugby ref must be the hardest gig in world sport. They have to know the laws of the game inside and out, but also have to know which ones to ignore

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree. I don't think we would improve the game by reviewing this with the TMO and calling a penalty against the ball carrier for not releasing after being tackled.

Not so sure about this. If a player finishes on the ground in the tackle and then promotes his position to score, invariably it will result in a penalty for not releasing. Why should there be any difference if it's only his knee on the ground. That is a defined tackle and he must release after he has one opportunity to promote the ball but not his own body.

It is sufficient to turn a maul into a tackle by having one knee on the ground, so why make an exception in the case of a possible illegal action leading to a try?

 

[Braveheart81]

Under the laws, the ball carrier having one knee on the ground is a tackle. Is the momentary touching of a knee on the ground whilst being held considered a tackle? I don't think it would help the game to try and adjudicate this closely on matters though. It would happen numerous times a game. I think we already err on the side of the TMO looking at too many things in slow motion that don't really benefit anyone or the game.

It's not NFL where there is a stoppage after every play and things can and are looked at closely and rulings are made with precision.

I don't think it works to try and let the game flow in general play and then suddenly forensically review a scoring play for any breach of the laws no matter how minute. The laws of the game can't be applied substantially differently just because a try has been scored.

It is sufficient to turn a maul into a tackle by having one knee on the ground, so why make an exception in the case of a possible illegal action leading to a try?

I think the difference here is that it is very clear what the ball carrier is trying to do. If they do it fast enough the referee will call tackle, release. If their knee only momentarily brushes the ground the referee might not call it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Issues like this one would make any sort of "Captains Call" really interesting. You could find a reason to block just about any try under a strict interpretation of laws

 

[Silverado]

Interesting decision in the Lions v Jags game where the TMO was called on to rule if a try was scored, if not the referee would award a penalty try. Try was awarded but the conversion was missed, so the Jags got 5 points instead of an automatic 7.

 

[Braveheart81]

Interesting decision in the Lions v Jags game where the TMO was called on to rule if a try was scored, if not the referee would award a penalty try. Try was awarded but the conversion was missed, so the Jags got 5 points instead of an automatic 7.

This is a bit ridiculous given a penalty try is also accompanied by a yellow card.

Big disadvantage not to get the penalty try.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

This is a bit ridiculous given a penalty try is also accompanied by a yellow card.

Big disadvantage not to get the penalty try.

Yeah, but. Isn't a penalty try awarded when a criminal act prevents a try being scored? The try was scored so no penalty try required.

It does look like a bit of an anomaly though.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The fact that a try was actually scored doesn't prevent the player from being given a YC. I haven't seen the scenario but in my view the issue is not the penalty try law but the fact that the referee did not issue a YC to the offending player.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Relevant law

A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.

 

[Silverado]

Relevant law

Yeah, thanks for that. The incident happened from a deliberate off side entry that brought a rolling maul down from a 5 m line out. After the maul went down the player picked up and scored 5 m in from touch. Jags would have benefitted from just. knocking the he ball on. I agree that it's an anomaly that I have not seen before

 

[Derpus]

Hi Refs,

If a player gets held up in a tackle and it becomes a maul, then a player from the side in possession comes in and pushes it to the ground to try and force the tackle, shouldn't that be a penalty for collapsing a maul?

Happens all the time.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Hi Refs,

If a player gets held up in a tackle and it becomes a maul, then a player from the side in possession comes in and pushes it to the ground to try and force the tackle, shouldn't that be a penalty for collapsing a maul?

Happens all the time.

The ball carrier can (try to) go to ground.
Everyone else has to try to stay on their feet and you can't intentionally collapse a maul.

But yeah it does happen all the time.

Just for accuracy, if the maul does collapse, but the ball isn't on the ground, there is no requirement to let go of it, and it stays a maul. If the ball does get on the ground, then we have a ruck.

Can't go maul -> tackle

 

[Dctarget]

If you watch the Harlequins - Sharks match from overnight there was an interesting piece of refereeing. Wayne Barnes carded Kyle Sinckler for slapping Faf de Klerk in the chest when walking past. Don't really have an issue with it because Sinckler seems to be the premier douche of world rugby and was being a grub all game. But the look on his face was priceless.

Also, Horwill played very well for the first fifty minutes before being knocked out.