Refereeing decisions

[waiopehu oldboy]

Law 9.7a means penalty, right?

 

[Wilson]

Law 9.7a means penalty, right?

Yes.

Also worth noting Italy actually had the option to have South Africa re-take the kick here because the ball didn't go 10 (rather than straight to the scrum for in front of the kicker). I went back and watched the game and the ref does appear to give them this option, but I wouldn't blame them for not realizing given he asks via rising inflection ("Scrum? We Scrum?") instead of a clear question ("Scrum or retake kick off?"). They may also have just figured a scrum was still better than giving SA another kick off, but I'd expect anyone would be wise to this in the future if the boks got their timing right trying to pull this off.

 

[Dctarget]

the Bokke are also just shit stirring, if they wanted the same outcome without the drama they could've 'accidentally' kicked it dead or made the timing less obvious.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Can’t believe the ref didn’t ping him for offside. SA player literally kicked the ball to his own player it was that deliberate. Common sense prevails.

Sanction for in-front of the kicker from a kick-off is a scrum

Law 9.7a means penalty, right?

Yep

Although in typical rugby union fashion, the online version of the laws was unclear and didn't have a sanction (!?!). Checking now, it looks like it's been fixed in the last day

The downloadable pdf has the same sanction for 9.7 a, b and c

 

[Braveheart81]

Sanction for in-front of the kicker from a kick-off is a scrum

It's classic rugby that in front of the kicker can only be a scrum whereas other kick-off infractions (ball not going 10 or out on the full etc.) do provide the option of retaking the kick.

Out on the full also provides the option of a lineout.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It's classic rugby that in front of the kicker can only be a scrum whereas other kick-off infractions (ball not going 10 or out on the full etc.) do provide the option of retaking the kick.

Out on the full also provides the option of a lineout.

I just checked my history book - it looks like until around 1885 any kind of kick-off infraction was always just a re-kick. In around 1885 the scrum, or lineout options were added in, and another law added for in-front-of-the-kicker, which was only a scrum

So it's been that way for a blong time!

Kind of hillarious we still are beholden to some old blazer in a Victorian-era pub with a lot of this stuff. They did that simplification of the laws in 2018(?). There are so many more opportunities to get anomalies like this straightened out.

 

[Dan54]

I just checked my history book - it looks like until around 1885 any kind of kick-off infraction was always just a re-kick. In around 1885 the scrum, or lineout options were added in, and another law added for in-front-of-the-kicker, which was only a scrum

So it's been that way for a blong time!

Kind of hillarious we still are beholden to some old blazer in a Victorian-era pub with a lot of this stuff. They did that simplification of the laws in 2018(?). There are so many more opportunities to get anomalies like this straightened out.

Lol even more hilarious , I think all the original rules etc were written up by schoolboys. They made them up as they played and 3-4 senior boys would have a pencil and paper in pocket to write them down as they came up with them during games.

 

[wamberal99]

Talking about match officials, it seems pretty obvious that the Wobbs will need to adjust pretty quickly, and creatively, to whatever weird interpretations are foisted on them. A lot of weight on Wilson's shoulders to manage the ref.

 

[liquor box]

Is the result of a kickoff or when first scrum/penalty occurs a spot betting option?

 

[Pfitzy]

It's classic rugby that in front of the kicker can only be a scrum whereas other kick-off infractions (ball not going 10 or out on the full etc.) do provide the option of retaking the kick.

Out on the full also provides the option of a lineout.

That's why it is a shit game to watch some days and a shit one to try and adjudicate most

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

First Lions try last night: I get that it was in the act of scoring a try but surely diving over players like that is dangerous play? Multiple Aus players could've copped a boot to the head & then what happens?

 

[Strewthcobber]

First Lions try last night: I get that it was in the act of scoring a try but surely diving over players like that is dangerous play? Multiple Aus players could've copped a boot to the head & then what happens?

The way the guidance is given, you'd penalise the try scorer if they did something dangerous, which might require someone copping the boot. The lawmakers said the famous Johnny May try was legal, and this one was very similar I think.

Dave Poreki was just way too low (on his knees when attempting) and couldn't get in a position to make the stop (I get that it's intense, and he has a role there to chop, and probably doesn't have anywhere near enough time to adjust)

 

[Backintheolddays]

Cannot believe world rugby would endorse going down the gridiron route of taking to the air to avoid the tackle. I thought this example was clearly against the guidelines yet was not penalised. Far worse plunder than the last try clean out.

 

[JRugby2]

The way the guidance is given, you'd penalise the try scorer if they did something dangerous, which might require someone copping the boot. The lawmakers said the famous Johnny May try was legal, and this one was very similar I think.

Dave Poreki was just way too low (on his knees when attempting) and couldn't get in a position to make the stop (I get that it's intense, and he has a role there to chop, and probably doesn't have anywhere near enough time to adjust)

He was maybe, but Slipper wasn't. And Porecki absolutely could have made a legal stop if Sheehan doesn't jump (or, if Porecki makes contact there and makes a tackle - he's not going to be penalised for making a tackle off his feet).

I think the contexts of the may try vs this one were different as well. May had an open try line, on the edge of the field with a single cover defender coming across when he jumped - and you could claim here that May was simply diving from far enough away that he had to go up to reach the line.

Sheehan's is different. The clarification by WR (World Rugby) back when was pretty clear in the language

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly

He's mid field, it's a tap move and he's staring at a literal wall of gold jerseys. If the line is there, and there are only off feet gold players in front of him, then sure - but otherwise he has no other option but to either make contact/ go through them or somehow find space to the side if he's going to carry to the line - unless he jumps.

Sure, Wallabies predict a low carry and chop - and Porecki leaves his feet (I reckon I'd still argue he's in position to make a legal tackle being his body is upright, moving forward, arms ready to wrap), but Slipper definitely doesn't and he jumps over them both.

Admittedly its a clever set up - first tap move he effectively surrenders to the defenders who predictably chop low to save space between Sheehan and line - when the next penalty comes he's baited them into the same defensive read with an identical set up. This to me adds to the argument of it being a deliberate jump (though not sure whether they can consider this in the moment to add context to their decisions).

 

[Strewthcobber]

This to me adds to the argument of it being a deliberate jump (though not sure whether they can consider this in the moment to add context to their decisions).

It's always stupid when we get into the semantics of stuff like dive v jump in the laws, but I don't think anyone would choose "jump" over "dive forward for a try" for this.

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted.

I think the ref correctly applied the current guidelines. Would be happy for them to be changed, but those were the rules they were playing under on Saturday

 

[Major Tom]

Can someone please explain how they didn't get penalised at scrum time?

 

[JRugby2]

It's always stupid when we get into the semantics of stuff like dive v jump in the laws, but I don't think anyone would choose "jump" over "dive forward for a try" for this.


View attachment 22843

I think the ref correctly applied the current guidelines. Would be happy for them to be changed, but those were the rules they were playing under on Saturday

I think if you rewind a few frames to find the still where he initially jumpdives it would be easier to see my perspective.

I think should come down to:

Do you have on feet defenders in front of you?

Yes - can't jump upwards at all (dive or burrow at their legs by all means though), No - jump away, do a front flip even.

 

[Rebel man]

It's always stupid when we get into the semantics of stuff like dive v jump in the laws, but I don't think anyone would choose "jump" over "dive forward for a try" for this.


View attachment 22843

I think the ref correctly applied the current guidelines. Would be happy for them to be changed, but those were the rules they were playing under on Saturday

It is blatantly cheating from Sheehan. He has jumped up to go over two tacklers and not dived forward to ground the ball.

The ref was once again afraid to correctly apply the laws there

 

[JRugby2]

It is blatantly cheating from Sheehan. He has jumped up to go over two tacklers and not dived forward to ground the ball.

The ref was once again afraid to correctly apply the laws there

I hate that Morgs has effectively greenlit this type of chat.

Referees can be wrong, or shit their jobs on a particular night (or in general) - without being "weak" or "afraid".

Play the ball, not the man eh?

 

[Backintheolddays]

“If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle”
Pretty clear to me. Awful precedent