Refereeing decisions

[molman]

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

I've said it before, but what all the scrum discussions bring me back to is a failing in the way scrums are presented to the Rugby viewing public. Camera angles are often poor with blind sides, camera angles cutting, commentators not helping and referees who could be brought in more with their use of language which probably could be enhanced for more clarity.

I haven't rewatched, but I assumed it was due to Robertson going long. That said, I do tend to agree with @Brumby Runner that Genges actions are pretty overt.

 

[Rebel man]

I've said it before, but what all the scrum discussions bring me back to is a failing in the way scrums are presented to the Rugby viewing public. Camera angles are often poor with blind sides, camera angles cutting, commentators not helping and referees who could be brought in more with their use of language which probably could be enhanced for more clarity.

I haven't rewatched, but I assumed it was due to Robertson going long. That said, I do tend to agree with @Brumby Runner that Genges actions are pretty overt.

He is intentionally dragging it down right in front of the AR

 

[Strewthcobber]

I've said it before, but what all the scrum discussions bring me back to is a failing in the way scrums are presented to the Rugby viewing public. Camera angles are often poor with blind sides, camera angles cutting, commentators not helping and referees who could be brought in more with their use of language which probably could be enhanced for more clarity.

I haven't rewatched, but I assumed it was due to Robertson going long. That said, I do tend to agree with @Brumby Runner that Genges actions are pretty overt.

I just think no-one involved in rugby broadcasts find it interesting enough to do better, and that includes all commentators, even ones that used to play front row in World Cup winning Australian teams.

If not even they care, why would any viewers?

We romanticize it as a powerful battle between two huge packs, when it's mostly refs deciding between who has the wrong leg angle versus which way an elbow is pointing.

 

[molman]

I just think no-one involved in rugby broadcasts find it interesting enough to do better, and that includes all commentators, even ones that used to play front row in World Cup winning Australian teams.

If not even they care, why would any viewers?

We romanticize it as a powerful battle between two huge packs, when it's mostly refs deciding between who has the wrong leg angle versus which way an elbow is pointing.

I think yes, viewers would care if you presented it properly. It's much more engaging than some of the prosaic things people engage with on the internet these days. I know a lot of South Africans who would care. At the very least I'd love to see some ex-referees on the commentating panels.

Personally, I still feel we are getting too many penalties called on scrums in general. I'm not sure what the running stats would be and I do concede that it looks to have improved some with refs now calling for the ball to be played, but it's still occurring more often than it feels like it should be for what is a mechanisim to return the ball to play. In part because the value of the penalty is so much higher than playing to get the ball back into play. As such we have all these shenanigans going on, like Genge having watched tape or had a wisper in the ear and knowing he has a good chance to pull Robertson down there. Even dominate scrums are sometimes questionable if they are driving cleanly forward half the time and not wheeling, driving up, driving in etc.

 

[Tomthumb]

So if World Rugby aren’t going to make a clarification, I guess we are to assume that the refs call was correct and that head and neck contact in rucks is now legal

Now with the President set, do we think coaches will start teaching players to target heads and necks to affect a clean out and use this supposedly correct decision as a precedent

 

[JRugby2]

So if World Rugby aren’t going to make a clarification, I guess we are to assume that the refs call was correct and that head and neck contact in rucks is now legal

Now with the President set, do we think coaches will start teaching players to target heads and necks to affect a clean out and use this supposedly correct decision as a precedent

This is probably a stretch.

FWIW - I'm on the side of it's foul play, as Tizzano beats him into the ruck and has a right to compete safely. Foul play comes from the careless lack of control in where Jac is going to hit.

But Jac arrives legally, is low and showing an attempt to wrap. For mine, other than the timing which even I think is borderline at best in full speed - the rest of his actions are pretty much textbook so I think it's unfair to say that he's targeted his neck - and by extension WR (World Rugby) are greenlighting it to be coached.

We never see WR (World Rugby) clarify these types of decisions (unless it's been cited) as they aren't 'technical' per se and there's also no conjecture of what the law is in this scenario - the debate is squarely around the events and the application of the well understood laws.

 

[Tomthumb]

This is probably a stretch.

FWIW - I'm on the side of it's foul play, as Tizzano beats him into the ruck and has a right to compete safely. Foul play comes from the careless lack of control in where Jac is going to hit.

But Jac arrives legally, is low and showing an attempt to wrap. For mine, other than the timing which even I think is borderline at best in full speed - the rest of his actions are pretty much textbook so I think it's unfair to say that he's targeted his neck - and by extension WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) are greenlighting it to be coached.

We never see WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) clarify these types of decisions (unless it's been cited) as they aren't 'technical' per se and there's also no conjecture of what the law is in this scenario - the debate is squarely around the events and the application of the well understood laws.

I disagree with that. His head is down, he comes from high to low and dives off his feet

 

[JRugby2]

I disagree with that. His head is down, he comes from high to low and dives off his feet

We'd accept every single element of this clean out as legal if the contact point was different - including the off feet as he makes contact with someone and successfully removes them before falling.

That's a universally accepted interpretation that accepts the logic that it's pretty much impossible and unsafe (unsafe for the ball carrier/ tackler/ anyone on the ground that is) for all other players in a ruck to remain on their feet post contact in a ruck.

 

[Tomthumb]

We'd accept every single element of this clean out as legal if the contact point was different - including the off feet as he makes contact with someone and successfully removes them before falling.

That's a universally accepted interpretation that accepts the logic that it's pretty much impossible and unsafe (unsafe for the ball carrier/ tackler/ anyone on the ground that is) for all other players in a ruck to remain on their feet.

Then what are the laws for if we are just going to pick and choose which ones we want to enforce and even in which situations we want to enforce the ones we do?

We accept that not everything will get caught, but once they look at it again they need to enforce the laws of the game, and the fact that they said it was fine and legal should be precedence going forward in regards to the way we treat head and neck contact

 

[JRugby2]

Then what are the laws for if we are just going to pick and choose which ones we want to enforce and even in which situations we want to enforce the ones we do?

We accept that not everything will get caught, but once they look at it again they need to enforce the laws of the game, and the fact that they said it was fine and legal should be precedence going forward in regards to the way we treat head and neck contact

Specifically around the off feet interpretation - there isn't picking and choosing going on, it just an acceptance of reality. If we mandated that every person involved in a ruck remain on the feet the entire time otherwise it's a penalty - it would be blatantly dangerous for the tackler/ ball carrier underneath them. Provided they arrive on feet and make contact with someone - if they then fall we just mandate they can no longer compete until they get back to their feet and re-enter. Pretty obvious that Jac is on feet at the time he makes contact with Tizz, then falls.

I really don't agree with that second bit. You're effectively insinuating that the referees reviewed the incident, accepted it was foul play and decided to make a different decision anyway, rather than merely coming to a different interpretation to me and you in the short moment they had to make that call.

It's not that binary - errors that aren't publicly acknowledged or clarified does not automatically mean they are greenlit. These guys are entitled to make decisions and then learn from them on review, and make different decisions next time. Just because they said it was ok in the moment doesn't necessarily mean they still think it's fine now (although, I reckon they probably do - but that's beside the point) and that, that is the new precedent for how all identical scenarios will be adjudicated in future.

If that were the case, you could apply that logic to the famous Wayne Barnes missed forward pass back in 2007 who in the moment thought it was fine. We only know his opinion because he volunteered it many years later, not because WR (World Rugby) issued a clarification at the time that actually - passes really do need to travel backwards.

 

[KOB1987]

So if World Rugby aren’t going to make a clarification, I guess we are to assume that the refs call was correct and that head and neck contact in rucks is now legal

Now with the President set, do we think coaches will start teaching players to target heads and necks to affect a clean out and use this supposedly correct decision as a precedent

And this is why it needed to be a penalty. Regardless of whether it was intentional, or termed foul play or whatever, any contact above the shoulders needs to be in the very least penalised (and aside from this instance it always has been) otherwise they are effectively endorsing it. Mitigating circumstances merely stop it from being escalated to a yellow or red card.

 

[JRugby2]

And this is why it needed to be a penalty. Regardless of whether it was intentional, or termed foul play or whatever, any contact above the shoulders needs to be in the very least penalised otherwise they are effectively endorsing it. Mitigating circumstances merely stop it from being escalated to a yellow or red card.

So in a completely different scenario -

Ball carrier is running into contact, trips at the last minute, falls quickly forward and is collected in the head by a tackler who otherwise would have made contact around their waist/ thighs, this should be penalised by virtue of the fact the ball carriers head was hit?

 

[Tomthumb]

Specifically around the off feet interpretation - there isn't picking and choosing going on, it just an acceptance of reality. If we mandated that every person involved in a ruck remain on the feet the entire time otherwise it's a penalty - it would be blatantly dangerous for the tackler/ ball carrier underneath them. Provided they arrive on feet and make contact with someone - if they then fall we just mandate they can no longer compete until they get back to their feet and re-enter. Pretty obvious that Jac is on feet at the time he makes contact with Tizz, then falls.

I really don't agree with that second bit. You're effectively insinuating that the referees reviewed the incident, accepted it was foul play and decided to make a different decision anyway, rather than merely coming to a different interpretation to me and you in the short moment they had to make that call.

It's not that binary - errors that aren't publicly acknowledged or clarified does not automatically mean they are greenlit. These guys are entitled to make decisions and then learn from them on review, and make different decisions next time. Just because they said it was ok in the moment doesn't necessarily mean they still think it's fine now (although, I reckon they probably do - but that's beside the point) and that, that is the new precedent for how all identical scenarios will be adjudicated in future.

If that were the case, you could apply that logic to the famous Wayne Barnes missed forward pass back in 2007 who in the moment thought it was fine. We only know his opinion because he volunteered it many years later, not because WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) issued a clarification at the time that actually - passes really do need to travel backwards.

No, I'm saying they looked at it and said it wasn't foul play. In which case I would like to understand why Law 9.20b b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders was not enforced. Because if World Rugby considers the non penalty decision correct, than this law needs to be either removed or modified to clarify when it is ok to make contact above the shoulder line

The difference with the Barnes one was it was a missed call. They didn't put it on the big screen and still decide it was fine. This call wasn't missed, it was reviewed and decided it was legal despite a law on the books that prohibits it

 

[JRugby2]

No, I'm saying they looked at it and said it wasn't foul play. In which case I would like to understand why Law 9.20b b. A player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders was not enforced. Because if World Rugby considers the non penalty decision correct, than this law needs to be either removed or modified to clarify when it is ok to make contact above the shoulder line

The difference with the Barnes one was it was a missed call. They didn't put it on the big screen and still decide it was fine. This call wasn't missed, it was reviewed and decided it was legal despite a law on the books that prohibits it

Referees making calls in the moment don't immediately reflect the considered view of World Rugby though, and there is absolutely no precedent for world rugby clarifying decisions in post at all unless it's been queried by a union or cited. We have no idea what world rugby thinks right now, or what factors/ context they are considering in how they have come to their unknown position.

Silence ≠ endorsement.

 

[Strewthcobber]

And this is why it needed to be a penalty. Regardless of whether it was intentional, or termed foul play or whatever, any contact above the shoulders needs to be in the very least penalised (and aside from this instance it always has been) otherwise they are effectively endorsing it. Mitigating circumstances merely stop it from being escalated to a yellow or red card.

This is not how rugby is refereed, or in practice has ever worked. This would make the game unplayable. Not all head contact is foul play.

Even the laws of the game recognise that reality

 

[Strewthcobber]

There's lots of info on World Rugby's website as to what they consider to be foul play.

Start here

World Rugby Passport - Foul Play

passport.world.rugby

 

[Tomthumb]

Referees making calls in the moment don't immediately reflect the considered view of World Rugby though, and there is absolutely no precedent for world rugby clarifying decisions in post at all unless it's been queried by a union or cited. We have no idea what world rugby thinks right now, or what factors/ context they are considering in how they have come to their unknown position.

Silence ≠ endorsement.

It has been queried though, the CEO is on record with this

And World Rugby did come out and confirm the Ref got it wrong in the 2015 QF Australia vs Scotland, so there is indeed precedence

What silence does = is confusion for all involved

 

[Tomthumb]

There's lots of info on World Rugby's website as to what they consider to be foul play.

Start here

World Rugby Passport - Foul Play

passport.world.rugby

View attachment 22864

Pretty much all head contact is an accident though, so this is even more confusing

And I would consider Morgans clean out reckless considering he didn't once look up to see where he was hitting, his head was down the entire time

 

[LeCheese]

Pretty much all head contact is an accident though, so this is even more confusing

Something like poor body positioning isn't considered an accident - it really is just blanket wording to cover extenuating circumstances (e.g., a player is accidentally tripped, and then headbutts another player on their way down)

 

[KOB1987]

So in a completely different scenario -

Ball carrier is running into contact, trips at the last minute, falls quickly forward and is collected in the head by a tackler who otherwise would have made contact around their waist/ thighs, this should be penalised by virtue of the fact the ball carriers head was hit?

I'd be happy for that to be adjudicated separately when I see it happen. In a more likely scenario we do often see the ball carrier change height at the last second and head contact is made, but it is generally only mitigated down to a penalty. We're referring specifically to law 9.20 here - the determining factor would be if it was deemed reckless, and all head contact in a tackle situation usually is.