Refereeing decisions

[dru]

James Dolman had a shocker tonight.

Just watching the Brumbies Reds game now and whilst I don't think the calls favored either team I've never seen a larger shit show at the ruck and so many knock ons called play on.


Isnt he normally a TMO?

No complaints on "equality" of poor decisions. Just it would be good to avoid them.

The ruck was a shit fest. I know we often call the scrum a lottery, but geez, and I do think that the Brumbies were unlucky there. Might have gotten more out of the the ruck free for all though.

Dolman needs to improve.

 

[Brumby Runner]

No complaints on "equality" of poor decisions. Just it would be good to avoid them.

The ruck was a shit fest. I know we often call the scrum a lottery, but geez, and I do think that the Brumbies were unlucky there. Might have gotten more out of the the ruck free for all though.

Dolman needs to improve.

Understatement of the year Dru.

 

[molman]

James Dolman had a shocker tonight.

Just watching the Brumbies Reds game now and whilst I don't think the calls favored either team I've never seen a larger shit show at the ruck and so many knock ons called play on.


Isnt he normally a TMO?

It didn't favour either team especially, though maybe the Reds a little as they thrive more on an unstructured game in comparison to the Brumbies, but it did swing the game in places where poor execution was just allowed to run ramped/slide by. Like I said in the match thread, it was entertaining at least.

It's one area where the Northern Hemisphere referees are just collectively better at, at the moment. The breakdown. I watch the way referees like Luke Pearce and his AR's, TMO, whole team work together and communicate. It's just at a higher standard in this area. They are just so clear, and precise. They interact much better than the teams down here seem to and their communication with players is top notch.

The amount of hands on ground, over-extension/not supporting body weight jackles that are still getting rewarded I don't understand. The gate seems to almost have some side doors at times. People playing the ball on the ground seems to get overlooked at other times. It doesn't help our players refine their skills to the standards they'll be scrutinized by come the RWC.

 

[LeCheese]

On a separate but somewhat related note, they had comms issues in both the Drua/Saders and Brums/Reds games, and I feel like I heard mention of it in the Force/Moana game too. I wonder if they’ve changed some hardware?

Regardless, definitely doesn’t help the situation.

 

[molman]

On a separate but somewhat related note, they had comms issues in both the Drua/Saders and Brums/Reds games, and I feel like I heard mention of it in the Force/Moana game too. I wonder if they’ve changed some hardware?

Regardless, definitely doesn’t help the situation.

Yes. There did seem to be some comms issues.

The Drua/Crusaders game you can somewhat understand with Fiji sometimes lacking some of the infrastructure to the same standard as AU/NZ (some of the broadcasting/camera work has been a little poor in the past), but the Brumbies/Reds & Force/Moana game definitely had issues too.

As an aside, why 'all' live games don't have referee comms over the ground speakers I still don't understand. Makes the live experience so much lesser in this area.

 

[LeCheese]

Yes. There did seem to be some comms issues.

The Drua/Crusaders game you can somewhat understand with Fiji sometimes lacking some of the infrastructure to the same standard as AU/NZ (some of the broadcasting/camera work has been a little poor in the past), but the Brumbies/Reds & Force/Moana game definitely had issues too.

As an aside, why 'all' live games don't have referee comms over the ground speakers I still don't understand. Makes the live experience so much lesser in this area.

If I understand correctly, the people and hardware being used for the Drua’s home games are the same as every other Super game, so only scope for issues should be those local to the stadium (eg power supply) - which is what makes me think it was a broader hardware issue.

Getting live ref comms through stadium speakers can be a bit of a nightmare from what I’ve heard. Obviously achievable, but requires added investment and production staff.

 

[molman]

If I understand correctly, the people and hardware being used for the Drua’s home games are the same as every other Super game, so only scope for issues should be those local to the stadium (eg power supply) - which is what makes me think it was a broader hardware issue.

Getting live ref comms through stadium speakers can be a bit of a nightmare from what I’ve heard. Obviously achievable, but requires added investment and production staff.

I couldn't say, but there is more to it than just hardware to any site prep for communications tech.

It is more work, but it's very achievable if there is a will and investment to make it happen. The feed exists because it's pumped out to broadcast.

 

[RugbyReg]

Lawrie is going all Rassie.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634728582454063104

No mention of Tom Wright taking out McReight before Whites try.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Lawrie is going all Rassie.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634728582454063104

No mention of Tom Wright taking out McReight before Whites try.

Or JOC (James O'Connor)'s huge forward pass in Jordan's second try.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Lawrie is going all Rassie.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634728582454063104

No mention of Tom Wright taking out McReight before Whites try.

I did see that, on replay, Reg. It doesn't look good but looks to me to be no different to clean outs beyond the ruck that occur numerous times in every game. To me it looks more like obstruction than some of the shenanigans teams get up to in rolling mauls. In most cases those clea outs simply take a defender who is close to the ruck out of the game and often open up a passage for the ball carrier to the tryline.

 

[Wilson]

Lawrie is going all Rassie.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634728582454063104

No mention of Tom Wright taking out McReight before Whites try.

The thing I'd like to know about this whole passage of paly is why was the advantage so long? Brumbies advance 30+ metres from the original penalty and then play multiple phases in control of the ball. I can't see how the advantage hadn't already been played out by the time the knock on (either Swain or Ikitau) occurred.

This has been an issue for a while now with a lot of "dead play" under periods of advantage. Really wish they'd come out and define really clear boundaries for knock on and penalty advantage, and then apply them. The 3 phase law variation used in some of last year's trials would've been a great option.

 

[Adam84]

Yep a 15phase advantage for holding the opposition halfback in the ruck is a bit much.... Laurie doesn't have an issue with that one though, he just wants to find the knock-on...

I find the tweet a little concerning, what is Laurie hoping to achieve by tweeting this? He has video analysts in his team. There are official channels for taking issue with the official's performance, we don't need Rassie repeats.

 

[molman]

I'm not sure one coach pointing out potential issues in refereeing that impact their team is all that surprising (they're hardly going to point out the things that did go their way), so I'm not sure what point some of you are trying to make by pointing out things that impacted the Reds. The way that game was officiated there was many things that could have been better both ways so you could be here awhile.

I do agree with those of you saying that it should be dealt with through the official channels. Unless those channels have been utilised and they are not happy with the responses. Calling Laurie Rassie is a bit insulting though, not sure this is anywhere near that level.

The thing I'd like to know about this whole passage of paly is why was the advantage so long? Brumbies advance 30+ metres from the original penalty and then play multiple phases in control of the ball. I can't see how the advantage hadn't already been played out by the time the knock on (either Swain or Ikitau) occurred.

This has been an issue for a while now with a lot of "dead play" under periods of advantage. Really wish they'd come out and define really clear boundaries for knock on and penalty advantage, and then apply them. The 3 phase law variation used in some of last year's trials would've been a great option.

Agree regarding some of the inconsistency with advantages. Some referees seems to use phases, some seem to use forward progress/distance traveled, where the advantage is called seems to influences how long they let it run also.

I don't mind the idea of a certain number of phases, have someone else other than the referee track.

 

[Ignoto]

I'm not sure one coach pointing out potential issues in refereeing that impact their team is all that surprising (they're hardly going to point out the things that did go their way), so I'm not sure what point some of you are trying to make by pointing out things that impacted the Reds.

Seems most Reds fans are saying shit decisions went both ways and if he wants to scrutinise those 50/50 decisions that went the Reds way, he best be up to the 50/50 calls that went the Brumbies way to come under fire.

If I was a Brumbies coach, I'd be more worried about why the fans aren't watching the team rather than complaining about a call or two we didn't get.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm guessing when the ref calls it, probably from when the tee is with the kicker. I was watching that myself.

Saw at least one on the weekend when the ref called the 60 and the tee wasn't there yet. With which I have no problem since they had indicated they wanted a kick some time before so why doesn't the runner get the tee out faster?

 

[cyclopath]

What I noticed over the weekend (did not watch all games, so no TOTW effort from me!) is the disparity from ref to ref with respect to time for a tackled player to release the ball, and the variance in tacklers releasing players before latching.
Obviously players have to play the ref but it's hard from match to match to get this right with such a spread in officiating. It really does change the vibe and tempo of a game.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Saw at least one on the weekend when the ref called the 60 and the tee wasn't there yet. With which I have no problem since they had indicated they wanted a kick some time before so why doesn't the runner get the tee out faster?

I've noticed some teams (Brumbies have done it) stand around the ref debating which kick to take, imo giving the tee runner a good amount of time to get ready to bring it onto the field and not take time off the kicker.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The thing I'd like to know about this whole passage of paly is why was the advantage so long? Brumbies advance 30+ metres from the original penalty and then play multiple phases in control of the ball. I can't see how the advantage hadn't already been played out by the time the knock on (either Swain or Ikitau) occurred.

This has been an issue for a while now with a lot of "dead play" under periods of advantage. Really wish they'd come out and define really clear boundaries for knock on and penalty advantage, and then apply them. The 3 phase law variation used in some of last year's trials would've been a great option.

The ref was very clear in his explanation why the game went back to the advantage.

The penalty advantage expired when the touch judge (not AR imo) claimed he saw a Brumbies knock on (which is the matter that Laurie is questioning). The coms link between the touchie and the ref was down at the time so the ref wasn't aware that the advantage had been voided as he didn't see any knock on. When it was brought to his attention after the try had been scored, he rightly decided to go back to the original penalty. He had indicated a later penalty advantage a couple of metres from the tryline, but ruled that that one could not be acted upon because the previous advatage had already expired according to the touchie.

The way it played out, the advantage only applied for a couple of phases at most but being unaware of any incident the ref had allowed play to continue.

 

[Wilson]

The ref was very clear in his explanation why the game went back to the advantage.

The penalty advantage expired when the touch judge (not AR imo) claimed he saw a Brumbies knock on (which is the matter that Laurie is questioning). The coms link between the touchie and the ref was down at the time so the ref wasn't aware that the advantage had been voided as he didn't see any knock on. When it was brought to his attention after the try had been scored, he rightly decided to go back to the original penalty. He had indicated a later penalty advantage a couple of metres from the tryline, but ruled that that one could not be acted upon because the previous advatage had already expired according to the touchie.

The way it played out, the advantage only applied for a couple of phases at most but being unaware of any incident the ref had allowed play to continue.

My point was advantage should have played out by the time the knock on occurred, so the correct call would have been to pack the scrum (which probably would've been to the Brumbies advantage the way it played out). Instead he considered the advantage still in play which seems crazy for a gain of that size. I had a look back and couldn't see what the second penalty would've been - he mentions 9 not rolling away but Tate is never on the deck in that passage, so I can only assume he was referring to the original infringement which I thought was 6 (Wright) not rolling away and had the number confused.

Also, just to be clear when I say it was the Assistant Referee that called the knock on I am referring to the "touch judge", but the correct term is Assistant Referee.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It is uncertain when and where the knock on occurred. Doleman's ruling would indicate it must have been early in the phases and probably with little or no territory gain by the Brumbies. If it was the dropped ball near the tryline then clearly it was a bad call by the TJ as that incident was in plain sight of the Ref and he ruled "play on". So I think it was earlier in the phases and only seen by the TJ even after many viewings of the replay. That of course is what Laurie is on about in his comment.

BTW I do know the sideline runners are officially called Assistant Referees but there was no evidence that either of them in this game had any knowledge of the Laws. Hence my objection to calling them ARs.