Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

If the defending team is stepping back and not engaging the ball carrier in the lineout it should become pretty easy for the attacking team to take advantage of this rather than giving away a penalty for being offside in a maul.

Maybe they'll give away a penalty the first time, but after that they should smash straight through them.

 

[yourmatesam]

If the defending team is stepping back and not engaging the ball carrier in the lineout it should become pretty easy for the attacking team to take advantage of this rather than giving away a penalty for being offside in a maul.

Maybe they'll give away a penalty the first time, but after that they should smash straight through them.

If I was refereeing that, I would play advantage to the attacking team for the defending team leaving the lineout, then see what happens. If the attacking team infringe, PK to attacking team for defenders leaving the lineout.

Like I said, there are too many variables for this to result in a PK against the attacking team.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

My issue is that this is a neagtive tactic and there are a number of variables that the defending team would have to adhere to before I looked at penalising the attacking team in this instance. As with most areas of the game, there are any number of infringements that can be looked at and it just seems wrong for the attacking team to be penalised for the actions of the defending team.

The reality is that this is not going to happen very often and if it does, there is now a clear direction in place to deal with it.

I don't disagree with your comments. I was just answering your question as to what the problem was with an attacking team forming together with no opponent.

 

[Braveheart81]

If I was refereeing that, I would play advantage to the attacking team for the defending team leaving the lineout, then see what happens. If the attacking team infringe, PK to attacking team for defenders leaving the lineout.

If the defending lineout step back after a clean take by the attacking team with no contact being made then I agree with you. They should be penalised for leaving the lineout.

If they stay in their line and the attacking team puts someone offside in front of the ball carrier before they are engaged then the attacking team should be penalised.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In a similar spirit I have a pet peeve of players at the back of the line out who retreat from it to give the half someone to pass to before the line out has ended. Seldom penalised at any level.

 

[It is what it is]

In a similar spirit I have a pet peeve of players at the back of the line out who retreat from it to give the half someone to pass to before the line out has ended. Seldom penalised at any level.

If you don't like that keep an eye on the Rats line out during the play offs.
They have a whole bunch of innovative yet questionable plays.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you don't like that keep an eye on the Rats line out during the play offs.
They have a whole bunch of innovative yet questionable plays.

somewhat reluctantly, i will.
C'arn the Rats!

 

[boyo]

At a lineout would the catcher/ball-carrier have to be sacked or tackled to ensure that the attacking team couldn't form a maul or a maul-like thing?

 

[yourmatesam]

At a lineout would the catcher/ball-carrier have to be sacked or tackled to ensure that the attacking team couldn't form a maul or a maul-like thing?

The defence has to be pretty quick for this to happen. Also, the attacking team need to make sure they don't have their blockers shielding the ball carrier which would result in an obstruction penalty.

 

[Pfitzy]

make sure they don't have their blockers shielding the ball carrier which would result in an obstruction penalty.

In theory. I reckon refs are so inconsistent with this it's barely worth policing

 

[Brumby Runner]

In theory. I reckon refs are so inconsistent with this it's barely worth policing

There's no doubt the refs are inconsistent in their rulings in this regard, but I think it is crucial to managing a very technical aspect to the game, and one where there is little the defense can otherwise do about it, that it is imperative that the refs get their acts together and ensure that the mauls are constructed legitimately. Not only in respect of the blockers not causing obstruction, but also in ensuring attacking players join the maul behind the ball carrier and that the ball is then transferred legally to the back rather than the carrier essentially unbinding and moving backwards. Mauls are great attacking weapons, but most imo involve some form of illegality on the part of the attacking team.

 

[Gnostic]

In a similar spirit I have a pet peeve of players at the back of the line out who retreat from it to give the half someone to pass to before the line out has ended. Seldom penalised at any level.

No different from the 9 (or the 7 Rutchie McCaw in a test a few years ago) being 10 metres from the scrum before the ball is out to take the pass.

 

[ChargerWA]

There's no doubt the refs are inconsistent in their rulings in this regard, but I think it is crucial to managing a very technical aspect to the game, and one where there is little the defense can otherwise do about it, that it is imperative that the refs get their acts together and ensure that the mauls are constructed legitimately. Not only in respect of the blockers not causing obstruction, but also in ensuring attacking players join the maul behind the ball carrier and that the ball is then transferred legally to the back rather than the carrier essentially unbinding and moving backwards. Mauls are great attacking weapons, but most imo involve some form of illegality on the part of the attacking team.

Or when the attacking team basically swims around the side. The defensive team get a good stop, so the attacking team shears off and changes the point of attack, discarding the players from the attacking maul who have been stopped. It basically looks like the defensive team has cleaned out the front attacking players, but they havent until the shear happens and by then they have unbound.

To be honest I havent looked up the law for this one to see the ins and outs of the legality of it, but it feels like if the defensive team are not allowed to swim around the side, neither should the attacking team be allowed to.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Auckland vs North Harbour in NZ.

Very early on in the game (abour 4 minutes), the Referee awards Auckland a short arm penalty (FK).

Auckland #10 Anscombe stands on the mark and then takes 4 or 5 paces downfield before kicking the ball.

Referee brings them back to the mark and awards a scrum to North Harbour for Anscombe not taking the FK on the mark.

How often do the kickers steal 4-5 metres on FK/PK by advancing over the mark before kicking the ball? Good to see at least one referee picking this up.

The look on Anscombe's face when he was questioning the Ref's decision was priceless.

 

[ACT Crusader]

HJ, I don't see much advancing on free kicks, that's why players often take a little tap to themselves first before advancing for a bigger punt.

On penalty kicks it's a little different.

 

[Quick Hands]

Auckland vs North Harbour in NZ.

Very early on in the game (abour 4 minutes), the Referee awards Auckland a short arm penalty (FK).

Auckland #10 Anscombe stands on the mark and then takes 4 or 5 paces downfield before kicking the ball.

Referee brings them back to the mark and awards a scrum to North Harbour for Anscombe not taking the FK on the mark.

How often do the kickers steal 4-5 metres on FK/PK by advancing over the mark before kicking the ball? Good to see at least one referee picking this up.

The look on Anscombe's face when he was questioning the Ref's decision was priceless.

A slightly related pet-hate of mine is referees pulling up the non-offending team for not taking a quick tap "on the mark". What often follows is the team kicking for touch from either exactly the same spot, or stealing a metre or two and kicking from in front of "the mark."

I've never, ever been able to work out why some referees do this (and I speak as a former referee). The offending team has usually infringed to slow down their opponents play, why do some referees aid and abet this by slowing the non-offending team down even more? Remembering of course that in most cases "the mark" is a randomly selected blade of grass. A ruck/maul/tackle/scrum can encompass an area of up to 2m x 4m, so the idea that any particualar blade of grass within this zone is more appropriate than hundreds of others is ludicrous.

 

[Nusadan]

Had to do the same thing when refereeing a women's rugby match, obviously they were novices as I kept pulling back the kicker for overstepping by around four or five paces to the original mark.

Wasn't pretty to watch but it was for their own good as she would know better next time in case she runs into a much more pedantic referee than myself!

 

[qwerty51]

Law question

Team A team kicks a ball that finds touch just outside Team B's 22. Team B collects the ball out of the field of play and then steps back into his 22 for a quick throw in to another player who kicks the ball out of the full. Was that taken back?

 

[cyclopath]

Law question

Team A team kicks a ball that finds touch just outside Team B's 22. Team B collects the ball out of the field of play and then steps back into his 22 for a quick throw in to another player who kicks the ball out of the full. Was that taken back?

Logic says it should be considered taken back, as the real line of play was set outside the 22. In practice, I could see refs / ARs getting it wrong if they were not close to the line of play.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Law question

Team A team kicks a ball that finds touch just outside Team B's 22. Team B collects the ball out of the field of play and then steps back into his 22 for a quick throw in to another player who kicks the ball out of the full. Was that taken back?

In 2007, the answer was yes but I have never seen an official IRB ruling on it. In 2007, the ARU decided that the determining factor was where you pick up the ball. IMO where it crosses the touch line make more sense.