Refereeing decisions

[Froggy]

Totally disagree BH, there are any amount of time a player only gets one hand to an attempted intercept and re-gathers it (have done it myself). The point you make at the end of your discussion is effectively that an attempted intercept is a spoiling play and not a genuine attacking play, and on that point you and I will have to agree to disagree. To any observer there is a mile of difference between a genuine intercept attempt and a cynical knock-down (or knock-on if you like). Certainly there will be a small number of instances where the distinction is not that clear, and that no doubt is why the laws have tried to define that. My point is that they have that definition wrong.
If the laws were following your line, they would simply say that any intercept attempt that was unsuccessful would be ruled deliberate foul play.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am reposting this from a few days back, so everyone can (hopefully) get on the same page with regards to deliberate knock-ons...

I am more than happy to answer any forum questions on this, if further clarification is needed too


What utter nonsense...

It doesn't matter if his arm was up, down, sideways or even if he used both arms.

I don't know how you can reasonably say this. The fact that Perese went for the intercept with one outstretched arm clearly influences your decision making on whether there was a realistic chance he could catch the ball. You are using the the qualitative information you have available from the play to arrive at a yes/no answer to make your decision.

"He had Buckley's chance of catching his on the full" - the way you arrive at this conclusion (which I agree with) is you look at the fact that his attempt to catch it with one outstretched arm was not a realistic chance of catching it on the full.

It's like when people complain that referees and TMOs talk about a double movement when a player is trying to score a try because it isn't in the laws. It doesn't need to be in the laws. They are discussing whether the player did something that breaches the law of whether or not they placed the ball immediately after being tackled.

 

[Braveheart81]

Totally disagree BH, there are any amount of time a player only gets one hand to an attempted intercept and re-gathers it (have done it myself).

Of course it happens but the end result far more often than not is that the intercept doesn't happen and it is a knock-on and was also intentional.

You can disagree with the law but that is what it is. The action is an intentional knock-on. The fact that the intention is to prevent the knock-on by not letting the ball touch the ground isn't relevant.

 

[LeCheese]

I don't know how you can reasonably say this. The fact that Perese went for the intercept with one outstretched arm clearly influences your decision making on whether there was a realistic chance he could catch the ball. You are using the the qualitative information you have available from the play to arrive at a yes/no answer to make your decision.

"He had Buckley's chance of catching his on the full" - the way you arrive at this conclusion (which I agree with) is you look at the fact that his attempt to catch it with one outstretched arm was not a realistic chance of catching it on the full.

It's like when people complain that referees and TMOs talk about a double movement when a player is trying to score a try because it isn't in the laws. It doesn't need to be in the laws. They are discussing whether the player did something that breaches the law of whether or not they placed the ball immediately after being tackled.

My understanding from the discussion last week is that the 'realistic chance' consideration isn't about the initial contact/attempt that knocks the ball forward, but whether there's a reasonable chance to collect on another attempt before it hits the ground (i.e., whether the ball lands far enough away that it's impossible). Feel free to correct me @Old High Boy

 

[Eyes and Ears]

My understanding from the discussion last week is that the 'realistic chance' consideration isn't about the initial contact/attempt that knocks the ball forward, but whether there's a reasonable chance to collect on another attempt before it hits the ground (i.e., whether the ball lands far enough away that it's impossible). Feel free to correct me @Old High Boy

This is true but what Old High Boy has missed is that this scenario is almost always after a player has attempted an intercept with one arm/hand. Even in the Angus Gardner video, these are largely the scenarios.

 

[Froggy]

OHB, I have no argument with anything you have said, the law is as it is, you have made it very clear, and the ref ruled correctly. My argument has been and continues to be that the law's attempt at defining a deliberate knock-down doesn't align with reality. Anyway, I've had my say, others disagree, that's fine.

 

[Braveheart81]

Totally incorrect

You show me the passage (or the page(s)) in the current law book that will support your claim

I was responding to Froggy suggesting it shouldn't be an intentional knock-on if you're trying to complete an intercept.

Mate, its the law interpretation straight from the Game Management Guidelines - and all I have done is copy/ paste it here - so we can hopefully be all on the same page...

Its also what all of the referee coaches have been drilling into our heads since 2018, when the change came down

All I am saying (and Eyes and Ears) is that there is still a process to go through to determine "Was there a reasonable expectation the player could regather the ball?"

 

[liquor box]

Interesting ruling the the 7's Australia v NZ re hair pulling.

While I do agree an unnecessary pull of the hair on purpose deserves a penalty, I do think it is a poor rule if the hair is laying flat on the jersey and the tackler grabs the jersey and collects the hair at the same time.

There should be a rule about how hair is worn to stop this happening, although maybe rugby would be too scared to discuss hair as it may be accused of being sexist or racist like other sports have been in the past.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Interesting ruling the the 7's Australia v NZ re hair pulling.

While I do agree an unnecessary pull of the hair on purpose deserves a penalty, I do think it is a poor rule if the hair is laying flat on the jersey and the tackler grabs the jersey and collects the hair at the same time.

There should be a rule about how hair is worn to stop this happening, although maybe rugby would be too scared to discuss hair as it may be accused of being sexist or racist like other sports have been in the past.

Sometimes adding intent into refereeing decision making makes it more difficult and/or leads to greater inconsistency but this seems like a situation where intent should be taken into consideration.

 

[LeCheese]

There should be a rule about how hair is worn to stop this happening, although maybe rugby would be too scared to discuss hair as it may be accused of being sexist or racist like other sports have been in the past.

From memory the hair pulling laws were strengthened (or maybe even introduced?) following some incidents in women's games where players were being dragged to the ground by their ponytails. The discussion has been had, and a penalty (instead of a yellow, as seen with the Hill debacle) is what they landed on, even if accidental. I think that's the right call, and is in line with decisions for other forms of accidental foul play.

 

[Pfitzy]

I posted this elsewhere BUT long hair for me is like jumping into a tackle: you're changing the dynamics and target area for the defender and therefore putting yourself at risk.

Tie it up - mens or womens. I don't think we need to go as far as scrum caps. Sure if it comes loose it comes loose, but then it is like bootlaces - player safety issue, stop the game.

 

[liquor box]

From memory the hair pulling laws were strengthened (or maybe even introduced?) following some incidents in women's games where players were being dragged to the ground by their ponytails. The discussion has been had, and a penalty (instead of a yellow, as seen with the Hill debacle) is what they landed on, even if accidental. I think that's the right call, and is in line with decisions for other forms of accidental foul play.

Was there once a bounty for George Smiths dreadlocks??? Something at the back of my mind thinks this was once the case.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think it's likely there wouldn't have been a call on the hair pull if she'd let go straight away.

She clearly went for the jumper initially and then ended up grabbing the hair (which was hard to avoid).

I agree with the sentiment that hair below a certain level should be tied up because it does get in the way.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Woodman has stated that in hindsight she should've tied her hair up & that she doesn't think Levi deliberately pulled it, rather (per @Braveheart81 above) that Levi got a handful of jumper & hair at the same time. Watching it live I actually wondered if the penalty was for a high tackle (on or above the shoulder even if initial contact is lower) & not hair-pulling at all.

 

[D-Box]

In the Mens Semi v SA there was twice the rediculous situation where SA held the kick receiver in the air for long time post catch. In the first the aussies just watched and waited, while in the second they put a hand on early and then were done for tacking in the air. This led to a quick tap and a YC for not 10 (separate penalty and the right call but all related)

Two things. One the penalty was a bit ritch. It was technically correct however there was no danger. Second - should SA be able to hold the player up there that long. They have either stuffed up the lift or are actively holding the player up there to allow the remaining players to realign while the Aussies are not able to complete for the ball.

Surely we could amend the lifting law to say that they player needs to either pass the ball or be bought down immediately. Sanction just a FK. Currently we are rewarding dangerous play by the attackers, or giving them an advantage.

 

[Th0mo]

In the Mens Semi v SA there was twice the rediculous situation where SA held the kick receiver in the air for long time post catch. In the first the aussies just watched and waited, while in the second they put a hand on early and then were done for tacking in the air. This led to a quick tap and a YC for not 10 (separate penalty and the right call but all related)

Two things. One the penalty was a bit ritch. It was technically correct however there was no danger. Second - should SA be able to hold the player up there that long. They have either stuffed up the lift or are actively holding the player up there to allow the remaining players to realign while the Aussies are not able to complete for the ball.

Surely we could amend the lifting law to say that they player needs to either pass the ball or be bought down immediately. Sanction just a FK. Currently we are rewarding dangerous play by the attackers, or giving them an advantage.

Law9.26. In open play, any player may lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team. Sanction: Free-kick.

Havent seen the game In question but the law was changed to stop exactly what you are describing. Same rule in line outs.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Interesting that the Law requires the catcher to be returned to ground safely, but no mention of ensuring a safe retention of the ball by the receiving team. The ball presumably needs to be played on as soon as it is won. That seems to be the interpretation in lineouts. Both incidents could arguably have been FK/penalty to Aus.

 

[D-Box]

Law9.26. In open play, any player may lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team. Sanction: Free-kick.

Havent seen the game In question but the law was changed to stop exactly what you are describing. Same rule in line outs.

Thanks. The player was up for a good 3-4 secs in what looked like the lifter trying to control the player

 

[Drew]

Bit of a black eye for our insistence of the 20 minute red, the Kolby incident in the SA ABs test. Really ugly incident that the offending team deserved to lose a player for the duration. I’d be happy with an Orange card (our current version of red) for the incidental head knocks, etc and keep a red for reckless, dangerous, stupid play.

 

[LeCheese]

Bit of a black eye for our insistence of the 20 minute red, the Kolby incident in the SA ABs test. Really ugly incident that the offending team deserved to lose a player for the duration. I’d be happy with an Orange card (our current version of red) for the incidental head knocks, etc and keep a red for reckless, dangerous, stupid play.

Kurt-Lee Arendse wasn’t it, not Kolbe? Absolutely agree - that was one of the worst in a while