• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

CAS Rugby 2023

Famed_Star

Peter Burge (5)
How was Jonathon Ryan not initially selected in CAS firsts?

Has he been the standout to that level on the field for Knox so far this year, or was todays game an anomaly?
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
I’m pretty sure that’s how it works
It's not though. Here's Law 6: "Assistant referees and touch judges are responsible for signalling touch, touch in-goal and the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. In addition, assistant referees provide assistance as the referee directs, including the reporting of foul play." And:

6.13 The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

6.14 The referee may alter a decision after a touch judge or an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch, touch-in-goal or an assistant referee has signalled foul play.

So, there's nothing in the Laws that empowers a touch judge to overrule a referee. The touch judge may only intervene if there's foul play, touch or touch in goal. Otherwise, the referee may choose to consult a touch judge and may choose to change a decision based on what he's told. But a touch judge can't just run on and say, "no, that wasn't a penalty", any more than a spectator can.
 

rod skellet

Bob Davidson (42)
It sounds like Barker are up to their usual shenanigans.

Can’t get through a season without breaking a few rugby by laws and rules…
It sounds like Barker are up to their usual shenanigans.

Can’t get through a season without breaking a few rugby by laws and rules…
Touch judges overturn onfield decisions all the time. Most of the time it’s to take away points scored. Which was almost the case this time. Whatever the call the ref got wrong, the touch judge and he discussed a issue and the try was awarded. We either accept the refs call or we dont. There was another 5 or so incidences I observed where Brook to my eyes clearly infringed and did not get pinged.
 

Famed_Star

Peter Burge (5)
Touch judges overturn onfield decisions all the time. Most of the time it’s to take away points scored. Which was almost the case this time. Whatever the call the ref got wrong, the touch judge and he discussed an issue and the try was awarded. We either accept the refs call or we dont. There was another 5 or so incidences I observed where Brook to my eyes clearly infringed and did not get pinged.
And the lack of Barker accountability continues. There is always a ‘valid’ excuse.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Touch judges overturn onfield decisions all the time.
No, they don't. They just don't have the power, at least not if you're playing under Rugby Union laws. The referee can decide to consult them and can decide to accept their views, or not, at which point the decision rests with the referee. If you can point me to anything in the laws of the game that says something different, go ahead.

Point being, whatever the touch judge's intervention was today, he didn't "overrule" the ref. The ref may have changed his decision based on a touch judge's report, but that's not the same thing. And if the touch judge intervened without being asked by the referee, he exceeded his authority and the ref should have sent him back to the sideline.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Sorry, just to be precise: yes, sometimes touch judges intervene "to take away points scored". They have two express powers to do that, under the Laws: if the ball has gone into touch before the score, or if there has been foul play before the score. But there is no general power at all to stroll on to the field and tell the ref that a penalty decision was incorrect.

I'm not saying, by the way, that what happened today was wrong. I wasn't there. I don't know. If the ref asked the touch judge for some information, and changed his decision based on that information, then there's nothing irregular or improper about that.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Side issue, and not aimed at anyone here: people need to know the Laws of the game properly. You'd be amazed how many players don't (I remember that Waverley player who threw the ball into touch a few years back, gifting a penalty to the other side, from which they scored to win the match).
 

Eyes Up Footy

Allen Oxlade (6)
It's not though. Here's Law 6: "Assistant referees and touch judges are responsible for signalling touch, touch in-goal and the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. In addition, assistant referees provide assistance as the referee directs, including the reporting of foul play." And:

6.13 The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

6.14 The referee may alter a decision after a touch judge or an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch, touch-in-goal or an assistant referee has signalled foul play.

So, there's nothing in the Laws that empowers a touch judge to overrule a referee. The touch judge may only intervene if there's foul play, touch or touch in goal. Otherwise, the referee may choose to consult a touch judge and may choose to change a decision based on what he's told. But a touch judge can't just run on and say, "no, that wasn't a penalty", any more than a spectator can.
Don’t worry mate I’m agreeing with you. Bit of a misunderstanding there
 

rod skellet

Bob Davidson (42)
No, they don't. They just don't have the power, at least not if you're playing under Rugby Union laws. The referee can decide to consult them and can decide to accept their views, or not, at which point the decision rests with the referee. If you can point me to anything in the laws of the game that says something different, go ahead.

Point being, whatever the touch judge's intervention was today, he didn't "overrule" the ref. The ref may have changed his decision based on a touch judge's report, but that's not the same thing. And if the touch judge intervened without being asked by the referee, he exceeded his authority and the ref should have sent him back to the sideline.
That is what happened
That is not true
 

BlackBlue

Stan Wickham (3)
How was Jonathon Ryan not initially selected in CAS firsts?

Has he been the standout to that level on the field for Knox so far this year, or was todays game an anomaly?
How was Jonathon Ryan not initially selected in CAS firsts?

Has he been the standout to that level on the field for Knox so far this year, or was todays game an anomaly?
Ryan will be a star of the future..he has a motor very few can match
 

rod skellet

Bob Davidson (42)
It's not though. Here's Law 6: "Assistant referees and touch judges are responsible for signalling touch, touch in-goal and the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. In addition, assistant referees provide assistance as the referee directs, including the reporting of foul play." And:

6.13 The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

6.14 The referee may alter a decision after a touch judge or an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch, touch-in-goal or an assistant referee has signalled foul play.

So, there's nothing in the Laws that empowers a touch judge to overrule a referee. The touch judge may only intervene if there's foul play, touch or touch in goal. Otherwise, the referee may choose to consult a touch judge and may choose to change a decision based on what he's told. But a touch judge can't just run on and say, "no, that wasn't a penalty", any more than a spectator can.
The referee chose to consult the touch judge, which this referee chose to do on multiple occasions during this game. There is no doubt Cranbrook got the rub of the green for the majority of the game.
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
The referee chose to consult the touch judge, which this referee chose to do on multiple occasions during this game. There is no doubt Cranbrook got the rub of the green for the majority of the game.
If the ref chose to consult the touch judge, and then made a decision, there's obviously no problem (although it makes the ref look like a bit of a goose if he blew for a penalty before deciding to consult).
 

BlackBlue

Stan Wickham (3)
Agree 777, the Knox 7 and 13 were terrific but what people didn't know was that this Waves age has never lost a CAS game all through the ages, and it was only numerous injuries v Newington and View etc, and until recently, that camouflaged their ability.

The CAS selections are nearly always a joke because of agendas.

Waves won all ages, except the 16as, and a clean sweep in the 1sts, 2nds and 3rds.
Knox 16A,B&C won….
 

Snort

Nev Cottrell (35)
Barker v Trinity could be a pretty good game next week - the two sides seem more evenly matched than they have been for a while.
 

CAS_Rugby

Bob McCowan (2)
Well done to Knox and Waverley today in a great game of schoolboy footy.

Hats off to both teams for a great display of tough hard footy and great sportsmanship.

I believe man of the match was the Knox 7, even in a losing team, he has a big future in the game of rugby.

For Waverley, the most impressive thing from the team is the defense. They tackled on their line against Knox for 15 minutes and didn’t let them cross. They did the same against Barker and Cranbrook. They surely did a great job as a team to succeed as they have so far.

I know I have harped on about it, but to me it also highlights the issues with the CAS selection process, which then also impacts on gen blue selections.

Waverley had the fourth most selected kids but have now beaten the three teams with more selections ahead of them. Putting a mockery to the whole process. I have already highlighted some obvious errors so won’t highlight them again, and I don’t know how it is fixed for the future, but there must be some consideration to change the process in the future.

I think it also highlights a great rugby program at Waverley when Knox had 7 gen blue players and Waverley had 0. But Waverley were victorious.

To me that is a great point that could be discussed further.
Great post.

Thats the issue with a gen blue program selecting kids when they are 14 years old to be the next superstars.

It then becomes hard for them to change those selections even though they say it’s performance based program. If it really was performance based Waves would have more in gen blue in the next selection process..
 
Top