Refereeing decisions

[Tomthumb]

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?

Yeah, I guess the point is if that neck clean out happened in the 4th minute I doubt he would have had any issue in awarding a penalty

 

[Rebel man]

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?

It’s the culture of modern sport not make a call if you fear it will be controversial

Referees should absolutely be held to account when they get it wrong and in this case he has made two incredibly poor calls on the biggest stage. He should have to go back to club footy and earn another test

 

[Rebel man]

Yeah, I guess the point is if that neck clean out happened in the 4th minute I doubt he would have had any issue in awarding a penalty

Exactly in the moment he was afraid to correctly apply the laws of the game. He needs to do better

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, I guess the point is if that neck clean out happened in the 4th minute I doubt he would have had any issue in awarding a penalty

Sure - but you can make that point without the label. The refs don’t get a right of reply.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah, I guess the point is if that neck clean out happened in the 4th minute I doubt he would have had any issue in awarding a penalty

The reason I think it's probably OK, is that it was at least consistent with the way he'd been referring the breakdown all match (which is apparently what we want) - there were probably 20 similar clean outs that he didn't penalized, including the ruck immediately before this one, when Ikitau was cleaned up.

The Wallabies had plenty of them too.

 

[Tomthumb]

The reason I think it's probably OK, is that it was at least consistent with the way he'd been referring the breakdown all match (which is apparently what we want) - there were probably 20 similar clean outs that he didn't penalized, including the ruck immediately before this one, when Ikitau was cleaned up.

The Wallabies had plenty of them too.

Easy to say this but I would love someone to show me any Wallabies cleaning out with shoulder to head contact

 

[Major Tom]

I would say that the ref himself didn't have a bad game but he's assistants did. Fuckin BOK has his eyes painted on when it came to the scrum. I don't know how Genge does it but that's at least the 2nd time he's gotten away with a dodgy scrum on our shores (1st was on Tupou for England). And the Tizzano one, by their own logic they did not get that one right. Morgan can't have got there at the same time. So you either need to reward the jackaler for being on the ball or penalise the clear out for going off your feet. I understand the "it happens at every ruck" but they were always going to look at it with the game in the balance. And once you do that you're not going "well it happened all night" are you. At the end of the day Tizzano got to the ball on his feet quicker than the lions could clean him out legally and that it is that. And what pisses me off the most is that I know they will penalise this action on another night.

 

[Homer]

We shouldnt have been anywhere near our try line. BOK watched Genge drag Robertson down twice and did nothing. Robertson, Gleeson and Tizzano all pointed to the collapse, signaled what Genge did and got nothing, even when he repeated it on the reset.
Also, when we had a dominant scrum towards the end we didnt get rewarded, they got a reset. This was on halfway with 4 to play. For me that was worse than the Tizzano incident.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I would say that the ref himself didn't have a bad game but he's assistants did. Fuckin BOK has his eyes painted on when it came to the scrum. I don't know how Genge does it but that's at least the 2nd time he's gotten away with a dodgy scrum on our shores (1st was on Tupou for England). And the Tizzano one, by their own logic they did not get that one right. Morgan can't have got there at the same time. So you either need to reward the jackaler for being on the ball or penalise the clear out for going off your feet. I understand the "it happens at every ruck" but they were always going to look at it with the game in the balance. And once you do that you're not going "well it happened all night" are you. At the end of the day Tizzano got to the ball on his feet quicker than the lions could clean him out legally and that it is that. And what pisses me off the most is that I know they will penalise this action on another night.

I don't know why I'm playing the role of antagonist today but anyway.......

Tizzano never had hands on the ball as far as I can see, and wasn't being impeded by the Lions player holding on?

 

[Sword of Justice]

I think even if you were to completely ignore any element of danger or dangerous culpability one would still have to question whether it is a fair way to clean out a ruck. Ie would Tizzano have had a turnover chance had that clean out to head not occurred? Flying into rucks like that is pinged all the time even when no injury occurs. The dude is using Tizzano’s neck and head to not collapse off feet.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We shouldnt have been anywhere near our try line. BOK watched Genge drag Robertson down twice and did nothing. Robertson, Gleeson and Tizzano all pointed to the collapse, signaled what Genge did and got nothing, even when he repeated it on the reset.
Also, when we had a dominant scrum towards the end we didnt get rewarded, they got a reset. This was on halfway with 4 to play. For me that was worse than the Tizzano incident.

Have a look at how over-extended Robbo gets at every scrum. That's what is being penalised as the first offense in these cases. BOK as AR making the call

 

[Sword of Justice]

Have a look at how over-extended Robbo gets at every scrum. That's what is being penalised as the first offense in these cases. BOK as AR making the call

Is it against laws to be over extended? I can see 19.12c may apply for not having weight on at least one foot but that’s a free kick infringement.

 

[Homer]

Have a look at how over-extended Robbo gets at every scrum. That's what is being penalised as the first offense in these cases. BOK as AR making the call

Being overextended isnt in itself a crime, unless it leads to a collapse. Genge is dragging Robertson down, his elbow hits the deck before Robertson ever does, making him the instigator of the collapse.

 

[Major Tom]

I don't know why I'm playing the role of antagonist today but anyway.......

Tizzano never had hands on the ball as far as I can see, and wasn't being impeded by the Lions player holding on?

Hmm true. If that's the case, why did the lion's player not slow up and clear out with more care? Tizzano couldn't really get hands on the ball because he was being crashed at the neck/head by Morgan. I can't cop the "it weas a great clean out", no, it was exceptional jackalling which gave the cleaning out player minimal time and space to adjust technique. It should have been rewarded. But the law 9.20 or whatever, states you can't make contact to a player's head or neck when cleaning out. I'm not sure where it talks about simultaneous. That's where the argument lies.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Being overextended isnt in itself a crime, unless it leads to a collapse. Genge is dragging Robertson down, his elbow hits the deck before Robertson ever does, making him the instigator of the collapse.

Is it against laws to be over extended? I can see 19.12c may apply for not having weight on at least one foot but that’s a free kick infringement.

19.12c only applies during "set". Once the ball is in the scrum we are in a different part of the laws

He's getting penalized under

9.19 d. A front-row player must not intentionally collapse a scrum.

AR sees that his feet are way behind his hips at engage - ie not in a position to keep the scrum up, and he never chases his feet up to a point where the scrum is stable.

The complicating thing is Genge is definitely pulling down, but is in a much better body shape while doing it. If Robbo had a similar shape, the scrum wouldn't collapse, or Genge would be penalised for pulling it down. AR's view is Robbo's is the first offense

 

[Dan54]

Sure - but you can make that point without the label. The refs don’t get a right of reply.

Yep imagine the outrage if the ref came back with by geez you sound like a whiney bitch Turunui, which he does, and would we excuse ref because Turunui get's paid to do commentary? Always remember the outrage on here when Barnes retired, and talked of abuse etc he (and family) had to put up with.

 

[Dan54]

He's getting penalized under

AR sees that his feet are way behind his hips at engage - ie not in a position to keep the scrum up, and he never chases his feet up to a point where the scrum is stable.

The complicating thing is Genge is definitely pulling down, but is in a much better body shape while doing it. If Robbo had a similar shape, the scrum wouldn't collapse, or Genge would be penalised for pulling it down. AR's view is Robbo's is the first offense

I agree about Genge elbow hitting ground first, but if someone you are bound on collapses, either you let elbow bend, or get do in the muscles on arm. It's very rarely clear cut.

 

[Sword of Justice]

AR sees that his feet are way behind his hips at engage - ie not in a position to keep the scrum up

I’d have to take you word for it not having held up a scrum or binned one (other than indirectly via my piss weak power going through the pigs arse) but I feel that I’ve seen props over extended and managing to play a scrum through to the halfback. It seems like BOK has seen something that may well bin a scrum and pinged it rather than something that will almost always bin one.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I’d have to take you word for it not having held up a scrum or binned one (other than indirectly via my piss weak power going through the pigs arse) but I feel that I’ve seen props over extended and managing to play a scrum through to the halfback. It seems like BOK has seen something that may well bin a scrum and pinged it rather than something that will almost always bin one.

I don't think that's fair. This was happening literally every scrum and not all were penalised. The one in the screen shot below was just played on by the Lions/ref even though it did collapse with Robbos knee and then body going down. It looked like BOK said something to the ref, but it was just play on


But always the problem with scrums. Did it go down because of Robbo's poor body shape, or Genge pulling down. It's both. Do you pick one ,or not?

 

[Brumby Runner]

19.12c only applies during "set". Once the ball is in the scrum we are in a different part of the laws

He's getting penalized under

AR sees that his feet are way behind his hips at engage - ie not in a position to keep the scrum up, and he never chases his feet up to a point where the scrum is stable.

The complicating thing is Genge is definitely pulling down, but is in a much better body shape while doing it. If Robbo had a similar shape, the scrum wouldn't collapse, or Genge would be penalised for pulling it down. AR's view is Robbo's is the first offense

Is poor technique by Robertson really synonymous with "intentionally collapse a scrum"? I would be confident he has no intention of causing the scrum to collapse in contrast to the deliberate action by Genge.