• 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

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Just to be absolutely clear - I did not bring this 22 call into the discussion and it was not something I am using as a reference to my original point. I am responding to it, but it's separate to my original post.
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
The ball crossed the plane of the 22 before he landed.

His feet and body went over the 22 when he landed.

His feet were still over the line of the 22 when he was tackled and went to ground.

His feet were still over the line when he placed the ball back

Carried back.
 

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
The ball crossed the plane of the 22 before he landed.

His feet and body went over the 22 when he landed.

This will be the last thing I say because we’re hitting that rule…

But he only puts one foot over the line - the ball remains in the 22m the whole time and he’s tackled inside the 22m.

I have no doubt that the TMO would have also quickly checked it at the time.
 

qwerty51

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Whether it was carried back or not wasn't the point I was making when I brought it up. We should've seen a replay, maybe the TMO saw it who knows but even from a non-refereeing perspective the viewers deserves to know the outcome too.
 

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Whether it was carried back or not wasn't the point I was making when I brought it up. We should've seen a replay, maybe the TMO saw it who knows but even from a non-refereeing perspective the viewers deserves to know the outcome too.


I assume we didn’t see a replay because there was nothing in it and the world moved on…
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Last I will say on it as well. The video footage is clear and supports my statement.

Jaco states that "ruck was inside" in response to the australian players, with no time for anyone to review anything - he made the call himself (it's about 7 seconds after the ball is kicked). So he's using where the ruck is. Even using that, the extents of the ruck clearly straddle over the line (and the players own body straddle it).

(Furthermore he then proceed to coach the French team from then on to make sure they do not repeat the error).

I'm sticking with it - clearly carried back.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
Whether it was carried back or not wasn't the point I was making when I brought it up. We should've seen a replay, maybe the TMO saw it who knows but even from a non-refereeing perspective the viewers deserves to know the outcome too.
The viewers surely knew the outcome qwerty, by the fact the ref ruled the ball was not carried back surely. Why do you need more than that? And I haven't looked at it, and not being rude, but as I keep saying supposedly the ref is the soul arbitrator (though I say supposedly because of tMO), and I don't really think there is anything to be gained by replaying it, as gel says Peyper calls it ruck inside, so there not much point replaying it.
 

qwerty51

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Dan, that is absolute rubbish. The viewers knew the outcome - not by seeing it but because the ref said so? What more do I need than that?

Again, the point isn't whether or not the call was correct; as for a viewing experience - viewers want replays. That's really not a difficult thing to ask for?
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
If there was no TMO, the host broadcaster would have had no issue replaying that (and other decisions) because the decision had been made by the referee.

That's my issue with having a TMO. It absolutely brings the broadcaster into play and power. There's no question that they have their own feed, but they choose when and how to use that feed. Broadcasters influence that choice by what they elect to show or not show.

If that had been an Australian ruck and kick for touch, the broadcaster would have replayed it until the TMO paused the match to review every fucking angle to determine if the grass had grown 0.1 or 0.2 of a millimetre and found some obscure law to justify their own existence in the game.

At the moment, If there is no reason to review something and the referee is controlling the match, TMOs just can't help injecting themselves in where it's just not wanted and fucking up the match. They just find something so they are relevant
 

qwerty51

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Exactly, if a TMO missed something, he's not going to go looking for it. So it's often up to the broadcaster to show the TMO - it doesn't matter if the TMO can direct the producer next to him to show him something, he's not going to ask to see something he didn't see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gel

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
His feet were over the line at all times throughout the tackle process. Just so I am very clear on the definition I am using for "throughout": that means - When he lands after the jump and before the tackle, as he is grabbed by an australian player but still upright, as he is brought to the ground (i.e. is tackled), and as he is placing the ball. I.E. he has carried the ball back over the line because he has been tackled over the line.

His legs are over the 22 the whole time - therefore he is over the 22 line. Exactly the same as when a player is near the sideline and gets tackled and his foot goes into touch as he is trying to release the ball back to his halfback during the ruck (i.e. they are classed as over the line).

This doesn't matter. Likewise if you are kicking out you can have part of your plant foot outside the 22 as long as part of it is on the line.

The sideline law is different.

I am disagreeing with your understanding of the law, not what took place on the field. I completely agree that the ball carriers legs were outside the 22 and I'm saying that per the laws, that doesn't matter. When the tackle was completed his body and the ball was inside the 22. The fact that part of his body (his legs) were still outside the 22 isn't relevant.
 

liquor box

John Thornett (49)
If there was no TMO, the host broadcaster would have had no issue replaying that (and other decisions) because the decision had been made by the referee.

That's my issue with having a TMO. It absolutely brings the broadcaster into play and power. There's no question that they have their own feed, but they choose when and how to use that feed. Broadcasters influence that choice by what they elect to show or not show.

If that had been an Australian ruck and kick for touch, the broadcaster would have replayed it until the TMO paused the match to review every fucking angle to determine if the grass had grown 0.1 or 0.2 of a millimetre and found some obscure law to justify their own existence in the game.

At the moment, If there is no reason to review something and the referee is controlling the match, TMOs just can't help injecting themselves in where it's just not wanted and fucking up the match. They just find something so they are relevant
I don't like that occurs, but isn't that just part of the home ground advantage?
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
This doesn't matter. Likewise if you are kicking out you can have part of your plant foot outside the 22 as long as part of it is on the line.

The sideline law is different.

I am disagreeing with your understanding of the law, not what took place on the field. I completely agree that the ball carriers legs were outside the 22 and I'm saying that per the laws, that doesn't matter. When the tackle was completed his body and the ball was inside the 22. The fact that part of his body (his legs) were still outside the 22 isn't relevant.
I can't reply to this.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
I'm really enjoying the Munster v SA game on in the background at work. Pedantic question, if you are off your feet, can you play at the ball at all?
The Saffa player is on the ground and bats it away at roughly the 33:40 minute mark.

 

Slim 293

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm really enjoying the Munster v SA game on in the background at work. Pedantic question, if you are off your feet, can you play at the ball at all?
The Saffa player is on the ground and bats it away at roughly the 33:40 minute mark.


I'm guessing it's ok as a ruck had not formed in that situation...
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
I think it's borderline. Technically you can't play the ball while on the ground but the fact that he was only just going to ground and competing for a loose ball suggests that few if any referees would penalize it.
 
Top