• 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.

Refereeing decisions

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
If you punt the ball over the goal posts you don't get three points but if you drop kick it you do. I don't think it is crazy to treat it going dead differently as well.

I also don't think we need to be encouraging more scrums, particularly mostly from areas on the field where the team with the scrum feed will more often than not kick the ball away.
 

Brumby Runner

Tim Horan (67)
I have some issues with the Scottish rolling maul try. Can someone with good knowledge of the laws help out please. I reckon it shouldn't have been awarded for one of a couple of reasons.

To my eyes, the catcher retained possession, ie he didn't knock/pass it down to a support. He then turned his back on the Wallabies defence and with the help of two or three players bound to him started to move towards the tryline. There is apparently some debate about whether he passed the ball back to one of the bound players before the Wallabies engaged the maul. Again, to me it looked like he did pass the ball backwards. In that case, then he and any other bound player in front of the ball carrier must have been obstructing the defence getting at the ball carrier.

If, however, he had not divested the ball, then I believe each of the players bound to him were pre-bound, which I understand now is illegal.

So, to me, no matter what the catcher did with the ball, there was an illegality that should have caused the try decision to be turned over, as was the case with two potential Wallaby tries.

Can anybody clarify with authority?
 

Dctarget

Steve Williams (59)
I have some issues with the Scottish rolling maul try. Can someone with good knowledge of the laws help out please. I reckon it shouldn't have been awarded for one of a couple of reasons.

To my eyes, the catcher retained possession, ie he didn't knock/pass it down to a support. He then turned his back on the Wallabies defence and with the help of two or three players bound to him started to move towards the tryline. There is apparently some debate about whether he passed the ball back to one of the bound players before the Wallabies engaged the maul. Again, to me it looked like he did pass the ball backwards. In that case, then he and any other bound player in front of the ball carrier must have been obstructing the defence getting at the ball carrier.

If, however, he had not divested the ball, then I believe each of the players bound to him were pre-bound, which I understand now is illegal.

So, to me, no matter what the catcher did with the ball, there was an illegality that should have caused the try decision to be turned over, as was the case with two potential Wallaby tries.

Can anybody clarify with authority?
Yeah, look it beats me. I thought it looked dodgy as but Poite was determined to award it. I have no idea why they scrutinise the defence intensely but not the attack at mauls. Make it a high risk strategy. If you go for a maul, you let the TMO run the ruler over both the defence and the attack.
 

Rob42

Trevor Allan (34)
Yeah, look it beats me. I thought it looked dodgy as but Poite was determined to award it. I have no idea why they scrutinise the defence intensely but not the attack at mauls. Make it a high risk strategy. If you go for a maul, you let the TMO run the ruler over both the defence and the attack.
During the TMO review, Poite decided that the player in front still had possession of the ball at the time of contact with the defender. Scotland 7 definitely had his hands on the ball as well, but I don't think any angle conclusively showed that the player in front had released it prior to contact.

But yes, the pre-binding? I thought was dodgy - pretty risky for a defender to try to bring down the ball carrier at the front when he's essentially trying to tackle four blokes at once.
 

Rob42

Trevor Allan (34)
During the TMO review, Poite decided that the player in front still had possession of the ball at the time of contact with the defender. Scotland 7 definitely had his hands on the ball as well, but I don't think any angle conclusively showed that the player in front had released it prior to contact.

But yes, the pre-binding? I thought was dodgy - pretty risky for a defender to try to bring down the ball carrier at the front when he's essentially trying to tackle four blokes at once.
I should have taken a moment to Google - looks like pre-binding was addressed in the global law trials for 2021-22, which also introduced the 50:22 kick and the goal-line drop-out. Assuming those trials were in place for this match - seems pretty clear it should have been penalised as a flying wedge:

 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Yeah probably should have been done for flying wedge. It directly affects Faingaa as he contacts one of the Scottish props in going for the "ball carrier"

But fucking whatever. It's in the book now.

If you're expecting any breaks as the defending side on a "maul", good luck. It is the most poorly refereed area of the game just ahead of scrums.

I use inverted commas around the terms above because both of them were fucking bullshit.

Up to our coaches now to work the press about it this week and remind Jaco of what obstruction looks like.

TBF to Jaco, he's one of the few guys who has actually penalised bullshit "maul" attacks.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
One of the few areas where Jaco's somewhat competent, I agree. Even then he's always about promoting the ref (him) above the play/players. As you may've deduced I'm not a fan of Jaco's (or any ref who acts like a prima donna) but, if he gets this right I'll give him a proverbial pat on the back.

HATE posturing referees. And that's from a former ref. Seen enough of 'em from the touch lines while running the flag.
 
Last edited:

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Agreed @Lindommer - be part of the game, not the reason everyone is there.

I've learned to enjoy the laissez faire approach Jaco takes to the breakdown - he lets the players sort it out for the most part.
 

formerflanker

Peter Fenwicke (45)
A Referee, two Assistant Referees, and a TMO all trying to insert their viewpoint into the game.
Yeah - nah. The incessant interruptions are ruining the game.
Give the Referee sole responsibility with no interference from the others during game time unless he asks for help on a particular decision.
All unseen illegal acts can be assessed in the quietness of a video review room well after the crowd and the match broadcaster have left the stadium.
 

liquor box

Jim Lenehan (48)
A Referee, two Assistant Referees, and a TMO all trying to insert their viewpoint into the game.
Yeah - nah. The incessant interruptions are ruining the game.
Give the Referee sole responsibility with no interference from the others during game time unless he asks for help on a particular decision.
All unseen illegal acts can be assessed in the quietness of a video review room well after the crowd and the match broadcaster have left the stadium.
The TMO should only interrupt if it is a without doubt yellow/red card that was missed by the referee. If it is a maybe then it should be assumed that the Referee or touchies saw what happened and decided that it was not worth a penalty.

I did like how short the advantage after knockons was in this game. Too often advantage goes for too long, if you have the ball and get chance to assess what is in front of you and you decide to kick the ball away then advantage should stop. This was good to see.
 

Tex

Jim Lenehan (48)
Came in here to call out the forensic TMO interruptions for technical 'seatbelt tackle' penalties. You could see the perverse inventive that's been added to the game with Curry throwing his head back dramatically when a tackle went over his shoulder (but nowhere near the neck/head). The crowd loves the pantomime and plays up the outrage, Jaco is on the spot with the tv official whispering penalty in his ear, and away we go.

By all means protect the head but beware TV referees being empowered to stop tests for incidental offences with minor impact.
 

Wilson

Jim Lenehan (48)
The call that had me most confused in the England/Australia game was a penalty advantage against us that ended with a tackle in the air by England, going back to the original penalty. There wasn't much in the tackle, but Peyper definitely saw it as meeting the penalty threshold and said as much. I was under the impression that a new penalty would always take precedence in those situations, and so we should have been awarded the penalty rather than England.

Does anyone know if this is defined in the laws or just a convention in some places?
 

Dctarget

Steve Williams (59)
The call that had me most confused in the England/Australia game was a penalty advantage against us that ended with a tackle in the air by England, going back to the original penalty. There wasn't much in the tackle, but Peyper definitely saw it as meeting the penalty threshold and said as much. I was under the impression that a new penalty would always take precedence in those situations, and so we should have been awarded the penalty rather than England.

Does anyone know if this is defined in the laws or just a convention in some places?
Definitely not new penalty. You don't even lose knock on advantage if you concede a technical penalty. I think only dangerous penalties take precedence.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
All unseen illegal acts can be assessed in the quietness of a video review room well after the crowd and the match broadcaster have left the stadium.

And here's the issue: in both the Scotland and England games, the Wallabies were hammered post-action by the home broadcaster putting some rubbish up on the big screen during some down time.

It is a fucking disgrace that this is allowed, and referees should ignore it.

They can't, because World Rugby is quietly shitting its pants about potential lawsuits for head contact.
 

wamberal

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
And here's the issue: in both the Scotland and England games, the Wallabies were hammered post-action by the home broadcaster putting some rubbish up on the big screen during some down time.
I remember an incident at Twickenham a long time ago, we were down to 13 men, from memory, this is through the mists of time, we were really under the pump and the Poms were awarded a highly dubious try. I think it looked as though the ball had been grounded by Chris Latham, the referee's view was obscured, the bad guy fell on the ball and quelle surprise, there was no replay available.

Farking cheats.
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
I remember an incident at Twickenham a long time ago, we were down to 13 men, from memory, this is through the mists of time, we were really under the pump and the Poms were awarded a highly dubious try. I think it looked as though the ball had been grounded by Chris Latham, the referee's view was obscured, the bad guy fell on the ball and quelle surprise, there was no replay available.

Farking cheats.

I also recall that - was in 2000 at Twickers. Apparently the TMO only got 2 angles from the broadcast desk, and asked for more, but was told they didn't exist. First time that the TMO had been used in Britain I believe, and it was controversial from the get-go.

Footage emerged later, showing that England's Dan Luger had not grounded the try to win the game. But the bus had left...
 

Pfitzy

David Wilson (68)
Ah here we go - this describes the circumstances. We'd been pounded by Andre Watson for discipline then the Irish TMO gave the try deep into injury time.

 

Dctarget

Steve Williams (59)
Nic Berry’s section from the WR investigation into Rassie.
Rassie is a bit of a twat isn’t he.
2D5603D2-F15C-4164-AC88-8D65B64EEA78.jpeg
 

Ignoto

Ken Catchpole (46)
Grim reading of Berry's statement, pathetic man Rassie is.

Peyper doesn't cover himself with any glory in this situation. Knowing Berry won't be Reffing a SA again, I hope we extend the same olive branch to SA and Peyper being excluded from Super and TRC games.
 
Top