Refereeing decisions

[John S]

Scrum feeds? Bigger hills to die on IMO. If we broadly accept that in every aspect of the game, players will try and rig the moment in favour of their team and push the boundaries of law - then we understand this is going to happen and probably continue to happen even in a crack down. The likely result, to me anyway, will just be more whistle with no long lasting benefit.

I don't get the hate behind caterpillar rucks either? What do people so strongly dislike about them? Attacking team has 5 seconds from a use it call - provided they actually use the ball in that time who cares what happens in the interim? Maybe the issue is referees need to be dishing out a use it call quicker.

The 20min red card argument is a bit dead now I think, and the author of that article is just rehashing the same argument thats come from opponents to the policy from the start. Obvious pros and cons to it, but until we get hit with actual data that it is increasing the incidents of foul play I can't see it going away.

True - I think more consistency with the "use it" calls from refs needs to happen. And penalties - I'm sure I've seen heaps of rucks where the refs called use it, and the scrum half has waited another 30 seconds before doing anything.

As I said - looks to be a fair amount of NH tears this morning

 

[liquor box]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

 

[Sword of Justice]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

I agree that it looks terrible but there could be some implications if that isn’t allowed given its very common for a nine or a forward to have to grab the ball and wrangle it out of a ruck. The caterpillar is still technically a ruck. As Strewthcobber mentioned in this thread there is no wording in the laws that deal directly with when a tackle offside line vanishes if there’s no ruck contest and the tackler has rolled away from something that vaguely looks like the team in possession sealing off.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah in this context not being allowed to roll the ball backwards with your hands, but your feet is ok seems like a arbitrary ruling that achieves nothing.

I agree that it looks terrible but there could be some implications if that isn’t allowed given its very common for a nine or a forward to have to grab the ball and wrangle it out of a ruck. The caterpillar is still technically a ruck. As Strewthcobber mentioned in this thread there is no wording in the laws that deal directly with when a tackle offside line vanishes if there’s no ruck contest and the tackler has rolled away from something that vaguely looks like the team in possession sealing off.

There's not really any clear wording on this for rucks and mauls either - beyond the assumption that the offside line vanishes when the ruck or maul ends.

For tackles, there is wording that is consistent with that however.

14.10 Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the try line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the try line, the offside line for that team is the try line.

4.11 (c) The tackle ends when: The ball leaves the tackle area.

So in laymans - tackle occurs, supporting attacking player arrives and creates offside lines. Tackler rolls away and rest of defense stand off, set up a line but don't compete. More supporting players form caterpillar so ball remains at the tackle (we still have an offside line at hindmost point). Ball picked by 9 - offside line disappears.

 

[Pfitzy]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

At one point they were enforcing this. But like most little things, it was discarded when the next round of interpretations were raised for focus

 

[Braveheart81]

My understanding is that the halfback can use their hands to make the ball accessible in the ruck without it leaving the ruck. Once it is accessible they then need to roll the ball back with their feet.

My view of that article is that it should (and probably was) written several years ago.

1. Scrum feed - there was a crackdown on this a few years ago and halfbacks were made to put the ball into the middle of the scrum. That made it clear that the scrums are too low for hookers to actually hook and we had multiple scrums where neither team could strike for the ball and it just sat there. My view is that modern scrums are low and powerful and that doesn't combine with a genuine hooking contest for the ball. This hasn't really been part of the game for a long time anyway. Tight heads are won by driving over the opposition, not with a good piece of work by the hooker.

2. The caterpillar ruck isn't great but it has been actively sped up and in my view isn't an issue worth focusing on now. Just continue to push the halfback to use the ball in a timely manner.

3. The 20 minute red card is good and we haven't seen any evidence to suggest it is making referees make poor decisions. It's pretty clearly here to stay.

 

[Strewthcobber]

My bigger issue with the caterpillar is the 9 is offside when they are handling. I wouldn't have a problem if they enforced the half standing behind the back feet instead of just arbitrarily letting one player break one of the fundamental laws.

If you want to setup a caterpillar that's fine, but make it hard

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah in this context not being allowed to roll the ball backwards with your hands, but your feet is ok seems like a arbitrary ruling that achieves nothing.



There's not really any clear wording on this for rucks and mauls either - beyond the assumption that the offside line vanishes when the ruck or maul ends.

For tackles, there is wording that is consistent with that however.



So in laymans - tackle occurs, supporting attacking player arrives and creates offside lines. Tackler rolls away and rest of defense stand off, set up a line but don't compete. More supporting players form caterpillar so ball remains at the tackle (we still have an offside line at hindmost point). Ball picked by 9 - offside line disappears.

I would love a clarification confirming that tackles, rucks and mauls still exist when all players are off their feet, and then confirmation what a player entering a tackle, maul or ruck can actually do.

 

[Sword of Justice]

I would love a clarification confirming that tackles, rucks and mauls still exist when all players are off their feet, and then confirmation what a player entering a tackle, maul or ruck can actually do.

Additionally what is the tackle area? Is it anyone bound to the person on their feet over the ball? I guess it must be under the current interpretation.

 

[JRugby2]

I'd just rather argue the miniature of a stupid children's sport that adults get paid to play for some reason, than do any work

I'll just leave this here.