Refereeing decisions

[John S]

How James Ryan's ban has been mitigated to a slap on the wrist after dangerous hit on Malcolm Marx

☘️ James Ryan learns ban fate after his costly red card against the Springboks.

www.planetrugby.com

James Ryan given a three match suspension for his red card on the weekend against SA.

I'm probably a little bit dense, but I'm not seeing that much difference to the ones that got overturned in the last few weeks. There must be some differences as the disciplinary panel thought so.

 

[Strewthcobber]

How James Ryan's ban has been mitigated to a slap on the wrist after dangerous hit on Malcolm Marx

☘️ James Ryan learns ban fate after his costly red card against the Springboks.

www.planetrugby.com

James Ryan given a three match suspension for his red card on the weekend against SA.

I'm probably a little bit dense, but I'm not seeing that much difference to the ones that got overturned in the last few weeks. There must be some differences as the disciplinary panel thought so.

It's a clean-out, not a tackle (which doesn't make too much difference), but there was clearly direct, high force contact with the oppo players head; the main difference with those that have been overturned recently - the others didn't have both high force and direct contact.

 

[John S]

Yeah, ok. That makes sense. So what's the difference with the clean out on Tizzano - because there was high direct force to the head (well ok upper neck) on that one. It seems strange of the difference just because of the head position of the player being tackled.

 

[Major Tom]

I thought the SA shoulder-charge in the first half was extremely lucky not to get a YC.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, ok. That makes sense. So what's the difference with the clean out on Tizzano - because there was high direct force to the head (well ok upper neck) on that one. It seems strange of the difference just because of the head position of the player being tackled.

I can see a few differences, in no particular order:

- Tizzano's head is significantly lower than Marx's
- James Ryan jumps over the ruck whereas Morgan entered on feet
- Ryan's airborne at contact, which reduces the amount of control he has over his body and movement to zero, Jac still has control
- contact point, but you pointed this out already

The sum of all of that being we have one that is definitely foul play, and one that maybe is.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah, ok. That makes sense. So what's the difference with the clean out on Tizzano - because there was high direct force to the head (well ok upper neck) on that one. It seems strange of the difference just because of the head position of the player being tackled.

The actual law he was found guilty of breeching was this one

“A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.

So the difference is they found Ryan "charged" into the ruck, whereas the ref group didn't think Morgan did.

As they keep on telling us, not all head contact is foul play. To form a ruck in accordance with the laws of the game it's virtually impossible to avoid contact with the head/neck.

 

[John S]

Thanks muchly appreciated, with all these interpretations, how's a nufty like me supposed to understand it? lol

 

[JRugby2]

Thanks muchly appreciated, with all these interpretations, how's a nufty like me supposed to understand it? lol

Yeah it's pretty hard going. Fans struggling to interpret rules isn't a problem that's unique to rugby.

 

[Dctarget]

Questions for refs:

in a lineout, if I’m defending, can I cross the ‘mark’ to catch the ball? Say the hooker throws the ball and their lifted pod misses it completely, it’s coming down half a metre on their side, can I jump across and catch it? My understanding is it’s fine to cross the line if you catch the ball but could be wrong.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Questions for refs:

in a lineout, if I’m defending, can I cross the ‘mark’ to catch the ball? Say the hooker throws the ball and their lifted pod misses it completely, it’s coming down half a metre on their side, can I jump across and catch it? My understanding is it’s fine to cross the line if you catch the ball but could be wrong.

Offside line is the mark of touch until someone in the lineout touches it.

If you jump for the ball, cross the mark of touch and catch it, it's play on

If you jump for the ball, cross the mark of touch and don't catch it, you must return onside immediately.

If you don't jump (ie a lifter) and cross the line of touch, then you're offside

 

[JRugby2]

Offside line is the mark of touch until someone in the lineout touches it.

If you jump for the ball, cross the mark of touch and catch it, it's play on

If you jump for the ball, cross the mark of touch and don't catch it, you must return onside immediately.

If you don't jump (ie a lifter) and cross the line of touch, then you're offside

May be an obvious addition - but you must wait for the throw before you jump.

 

[Strewthcobber]

May be an obvious addition - but you must wait for the throw before you jump.

Another one of those offences that is usually managed. It happens nearly every lineout, and is pinged once every 5 games.

One I really don't like is the hooker taking a step to their side after getting to the mark. Nearly everyone does it, and it should be ruthlessly stamped out

 

[Wilson]

Another one of those offences that is usually managed. It happens nearly every lineout, and is pinged once every 5 games.

One I really don't like is the hooker taking a step to their side after getting to the mark. Nearly everyone does it, and it should be ruthlessly stamped out

If I was a crafty coach coming into the world cup I might make sure all my hookers were perfect at maintaining their mark and throwing with both feet outside the field of play but say absolutely nothing about it until the ref chat before an important knock out game.

The penalty is not super severe (just a lineout or scrum to the other team) and most pro hookers should be able to adjust well enough with warning, but it's an excellent chance to throw off an opposition lineouts timing in game and heap the pressure on, particularly if the hooker is not the most experienced or best thrower.

 

[Dan54]

Another one of those offences that is usually managed. It happens nearly every lineout, and is pinged once every 5 games.

One I really don't like is the hooker taking a step to their side after getting to the mark. Nearly everyone does it, and it should be ruthlessly stamped out

Couldn't agree more on the hookers stepping to side, have mentioned in here before. It infuriates me no end, it's a sneaker way of throwing ball down your own side while makng it straight!

 

[Strewthcobber]

Would you award this try?

Halfback try in French rugby

 

[Th0mo]

Almost looked like pink grounded it first (unintentionally).

 

[Strewthcobber]

Almost looked like pink grounded it first (unintentionally).

Yep. I think there's a very good case to be made that that is what happened.

21.1The ball can be grounded in in-goal: a. By holding it and touching the ground with it

Probably depends if you think this applies. Given he never actually does pick it up? I don't know

21.2Picking up a ball is not grounding it. A player may pick up the ball in in-goal and ground it elsewhere in in-goal.

 

[JRugby2]

Yep. I think there's a very good case to be made that that is what happened.



Probably depends if you think this applies. Given he never actually does pick it up? I don't know

I'm happy with the try.

If the referee thought pink had grounded it under 21.1, the moment it was rolled onto the line he should have blown the whistle and signalled it was taken back. Apply the same logic to pink claiming that's what he was trying to do.

I don't see any clear downward pressure on the ball (or change to what pink was doing) to indicate that while he didn't originally intend to ground the ball - he saw old mate yella coming around and did so before he did.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'm happy with the try.

If the referee thought pink had grounded it under 21.1, the moment it was rolled onto the line he should have blown the whistle and signalled it was taken back. Apply the same logic to pink claiming that's what he was trying to do.

I don't see any clear downward pressure on the ball (or change to what pink was doing) to indicate that while he didn't originally intend to ground the ball - he saw old mate yella coming around and did so before he did.

Doesn't need downward pressure as per 21.1 a) does he?

And then probably the next question - do you have to intend to ground the ball, to ground the ball?

 

[JRugby2]

Doesn't need downward pressure as per 21.1 a) does he?

And then probably the next question - do you have to intend to ground the ball, to ground the ball?

View attachment 23708

No but I'm trying to work through the psychology of how someone would interpret that situation with the laws. If I'm the referee who believes that rolling the ball onto the line doesn't automatically constitute a grounding, then I'm looking for some other visual cue to determine whether Pink has grounded the ball.

I go back to my original point - if the referee believed that the ball was grounded by pink just because he rolled it onto the line, then the moment it hit the line he should have blown his whistle - in addition, there is no indication in pinks actions or body language that indicates that he believes he has grounded the ball either. If he did, the moment the ball hit the line he most likely would have picked up the ball, and walked away to start preparing for the scrum.