• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Referees' Room

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
OK, the Refs' Room has got a little smaller. Thought a stickied thread might do in place of a whole board. Let's keep all the complaints (and the odd compliment) about refs and their decisions here, so that the game threads focus on the game.

We could start by thinking about the best ref of the Super 14. I hate to admit it, but it might possibly be Kaplan. The worst might be Lyndon Bray.

Lifetime award goes to you-know-who for his magnificent video referee work.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Who was that bloke running the Tahs / Force game? Bowden? What a bonehead. As the comentators said, he controlled the game well, in that no scuffles broke out. Or maybe that was more due to the players obviously having a good attitude about focused aggression.

I thought he made mistakes pretty much constantly. Clueless.
 
T

Turban

Guest
I know dummy line-out throws are a free-kick when the hooker does it but if the line-outs not set and someone dummies a quick throw do the same rules apply? You see this every 2nd kick.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Plus, if the lineout IS formed and you go for a quick throw (backwards), shouldn't it be called not straight?

The quick throw rule is under a bit of stress at the moment with it being used so much.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
If the lineout is formed and someone tries to take a quick throw the ref calls it back, because a lineout throw has different rules to a quick throw (hooker has to stand a certain way/throw a certain way etc). If they dummy a throw then there is no penalty.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Turban said:
I know dummy line-out throws are a free-kick when the hooker does it but if the line-outs not set and someone dummies a quick throw do the same rules apply? You see this every 2nd kick.

The dummy quick throw is far easier for the oppo to deal with than a dummy real lineout throw, which causes the jumpers to go early and takes them out of contention for the ball.
 
T

Turban

Guest
Red's try, the guy was bound in the ruck wasn't he?


Force non-try, the Ref wasn't allowed to use the TMO for the knock-on surely. Should have been a try technically, but we didn't deserve a try after we managed to fuck up some many chances.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Interesting one from last weekend's Force v Canes - Pocock gets yellow-carded for picking the ball up out of the "ruck" when he was the tackler, and it was not really that bad being outside the 22 and only his second offence for the game. IN the Brumbies v Bulls game, Walsh was constantly shrugging his "tackler OK" remarks around the place.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
Not a complaint or a compliment just a question.

Is the rugby card system the same as poofball? (i.e. 2 yellows = a red)
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Yep - but you can be awarded a red outright for particularly heinous crimes - striking, gouging, supporting Easts.
 

Aussie D

Dick Tooth (41)
Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?

I can understand having the 2 card system - yellow for 10 minutes, red for permanent removal from the field but why follow the poofball model completely? Surely if a yellow card is used for professional fouls (i.e. killing the ball) then a player should be able to receive multiple yellows in a match (possibly up to 7 if he is completely brainless) and may even influence refs to hand them out more freely.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I disagree. If a player is stupid enough to reoffend after he has been issued a yellow then he deserves to be sent off. Otherwise players who get yellowed will come back on and continue to offend- whats the worst that could happen? A yellow card is far less serious than a red, so currently players who come back after a yellow are on their best behaviour- they can't risk having their team play with 14 for the rest of the game.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Law Changes (Old & ELVs) ::)

SARugby.com
The IRB today confirmed that, following agreement at the annual Council meeting in May, a Laws protocol letter was sent to all Member Unions stating that match officials at all levels of the Game must referee the Tackle (Law 15) and Ruck (Law 16) in accordance with the written Laws.

The correspondence also addressed new protocols in other areas of Law and was accompanied with a DVD that further confirmed the requirements of Council.

All Unions were asked to ensure that the protocols were brought to the attention of national coaches, referee managers and IRB panel referees. The protocols apply to all international matches from June 1, 2008.

Law 15 - Tackle

It has become evident that players are going to ground over or on ball carriers which has become known as sealing off. On some occasions they remain in that position and fail to move away contravening Law. Furthermore players are going to ground or on top of players after a tackle thereby ensuring that the opposition cannot contest possession. Such actions are in breech of Laws 15.6 (g), 15.7 (c) and 15.7 (d).

Referees are requested to be more vigilant in this area of the Game and to ensure that both teams are treated equally at the breakdown.

Law 16 - Ruck

It has become common practice for players to move the ball from rucks using their hands and to pick the ball up in a ruck to form a maul. It is also evident that players of the ball carrying team are being allowed to handle the ball in the ruck when defenders are being told to leave the ball alone.

Law 16.4 (d) is to be refereed at all times and applied to both the attacking and defending teams.

Law 20 - Scrum Throw In

The IRB Laws Project Group (LPG) Scrum Working Party confirmed to Council the continual non compliance of scrum halves to feed the ball into the centre of the tunnel. Such action is in breech of Law 20.6 (d).

Council endorsed a protocol whereby from June 1, 2008 onwards at the awarding of each scrum and prior to having the front rows go through the engagement procedure the referee is to remind the scrum half of his obligations and then ensure that he is positioned in the middle and standing square to the scrum prior to the feed.

Law 4 - Players' Clothing

The Law in relation to inspection of players' clothing is covered in Law 4.5 (a), (b) and (c). Regulation 12 governs what is and what is not allowed to be worn by players.

Council endorsed the following protocol:

For all internationals from June 1, 2008 the practice of checking players clothing in the dressing rooms at the time of the stud check will continue. Furthermore the two assistant referees will then carry out another inspection of players clothing as the team assembles in the tunnel prior to going onto the field.

Any subsequent breech of Regulation 12 once the match commences will be dealt with under Law 4.5 (c) and the offending player will be ordered from the field.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Law 4 is bad news for your boys Paarl. Get rid of all the padding, I say. And I'm not too keen on helmets in cricket, either, but that's another story.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Andre Watsons view
SARugby.com
South African referees boss Andre Watson has shed some light on the applications of the new laws delivered by the IRB. Watson stressed, in certain instance, that while there had not necessarily been a change in the law, there may be a noticable difference in the way that it is applied.

He added the that overriding rationale for the changes is to 'ensure a fair contest for the ball'.

The changes in the law are as follows:


Not entering the breakdown through the gate.
Having ?pillars? (players in front of the last feet at the ruck and maul) interfering and/or blocking defenders attempting to reach the ball or ball carriers.
Playing the ball by means of hands in the ruck.

Lying on the ground and handling the ball.
Sealing the ball off (although there will be occasions when players fall on the ground after driving/cleaning out that does not prevent the opposition contesting the ball).
Crooked feeding at the scrum.


?If this leads to frustration I trust that everyone will understand that referees are merely applying the law as they have been instructed,? said Watson.

?It may mean that there will be more whistling initially but we?re confident that if the coaches and players comply, the game will improve in terms of continuity, better quality ball and fewer stoppages.?
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Well, whoever that Welsh ref was for the NZLvENG game, he didn't do what Andre suggested. He allowed both teams, but the AllBlacks in particular, to pillar and to obstruct.

He was throwing random penalties around for most of the game. He also missed the most blatant forward pass I have ever seen (including last year's RWC). Nonu's pass must have gone forward 6 metres.

Lastly, I am seriously considering making a YouTube movie of Richie McCaw from last night's game. He was allowed to illegally seal off the ball in about 70% of the rucks he entered. He lies in-between the ball and the halfback, with his back to the opposition goal line, hanging on to whatever players are around. My tiny mind boggles at why he is invisible to referees. :angryfire:
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
He also goes into the ruck area as the second "tackler" - I use the term loosely because to be a tackler you actually have to go to ground. The issue with this is he is on the wrong side of the ball, on his feet, and the refs allow him to pillage at will. Its ludicrous.
 
T

Turban

Guest
Scarfman said:
And I'm not too keen on helmets in cricket, either, but that's another story.

Have you ever seen someone hit in the face by a fast bouncer up close with no helmet on? Suffice to say he won't be playing cricket again, ever and thats the least of his problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top