Refereeing decisions

[Mr Pilfer]

Some refs seem overly harsh on this extra “roll” penalty at the moment. Half the time the tackler has not released them and they are just trying to present the ball back to their team.
The ones that come to mind are the tahs one at the end and James Lowe in Ireland v Scotland this weekend. Cost his team 3 points for something a lot of refs would have ignored

 

[RugbyReg]

A minor one. In the Randwick v Brothers game on the weekend, Randwick scored late and in order to get the restart happening quickly just went for a drop kick for the conversion. But it was charged down by Brothers.

I thought I could remember some random law that you couldn’t attempt to charge down drop kicked attempts at goal. Anyone verify that? Or did I dream it?

 

[Strewthcobber]

A minor one. In the Randwick v Brothers game on the weekend, Randwick scored late and in order to get the restart happening quickly just went for a drop kick for the conversion. But it was charged down by Brothers.

I thought I could remember some random law that you couldn’t attempt to charge down drop kicked attempts at goal. Anyone verify that? Or did I dream it?

No difference in the laws as to what the opposition can do whether it's a place kick or drop kick.

It is different in sevens, and I have vague memories of a law trial here recently where what you said applied, but I think that was only for a limited amount on time in one comp

 

[Wilson]

Some refs seem overly harsh on this extra “roll” penalty at the moment. Half the time the tackler has not released them and they are just trying to present the ball back to their team.
The ones that come to mind are the tahs one at the end and James Lowe in Ireland v Scotland this weekend. Cost his team 3 points for something a lot of refs would have ignored

I think it's a great change, the extra crawl/roll in the tackle has always pissed me off as both a fan and a player and it tends to make a mess of the ruck. I hope it's not just a flash in the pan focus for a month or two then back to normal, but the fact it's being looked at in more than one competition gives me hope.

 

[Braveheart81]

Penalties for (goal line) offside based on hand position (i.e., feet on-or-behind the line, but a hand/hands in front) popped up in the Highlanders vs. Brumbies, and Moana vs. Drua in week 2. Can anyone tell me where in the laws it says offside includes hand positions? I couldn't find anything and I've always known it to be feet.

I think it's just the standard offside law at the ruck.

15.4 Offside at a ruck

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

If your hand is on the ground over the goal line then you are in front of the offside line. You have to be behind the last feet. It's not where your feet are as the potentially offside player.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think it's just the standard offside law at the ruck.

15.4 Offside at a ruck

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

If your hand is on the ground over the goal line then you are in front of the offside line. You have to be behind the last feet. It's not where your feet are as the potentially offside player.

Unfortunately (as per usual) it doesn't appear to be quite that simple BH.

The laws define what you need to do to be behind the offisde line, which is where the "hands in front" gets a bit grey.

Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Unfortunately (as per usual) it doesn't appear to be quite that simple BH.

The laws define what you need to do to be behind the offisde line, which is where the "hands in front" gets a bit grey.

Hands on the ground in front of the goal line being the offside line was a big issue two or three years ago. As I recall, the outcome was that any part of the body, including the hands, in front of the line was interpreted to be offside.

 

[liquor box]

It looks like some law changes may be coming soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/19/world-rugby-plans-speed-up-sport-broaden-appeal

World Rugby is considering reducing the tackle height in the elite game and a global trial of the 20‑minute red card as part of a radical plan to broaden the appeal of the sport.

The governing body will also examine the possibility of reducing the number of replacements and reassess use of the television match official as it seeks to speed up the game and improve it as a spectacle

More immediate changes include cracking down on the use of water carriers and encouraging referees to call “use it” and ensure scrum-halves play the ball more quickly from rucks

A specialist working group will be established to assess the results of the community tackle height trials across 11 unions and “consider appropriateness for elite rugby”

Another working group will also be tasked with looking at research into the impact of fatigue and the number and timing of replacements in the elite game “to determine options that might create more space on the field while improving injury rates”

World Rugby also wants to overhaul the TMO protocol which has come under widespread criticism for bringing too many lengthy stoppages to the game.

From Tuesday, as part of the first phase of the plan, players will be expected to use the ball more quickly when the ball has been secured at a ruck/breakdown. In effect, it is an attempt to bring to an end the dreaded caterpillar ruck. Hookers will also be expected to maintain a full brake foot to aid scrum stability and safety during the engagement sequence while there will be a move to limit the number of times water carriers enter the field of play.

World Rugby has also recommended a number of law changes to be approved in May, including the closing of a loophole – known as “Dupont’s Law” – which aims to “reduce kick tennis”. The current relevant law states that players in front of the kicker are adjudged onside once the kick receiver has passed the ball or moved five metres with it. France’s Antoine Dupont has exploited it in the past but doing so leads to lengthy kicking battles. Removing the scrum option from a free-kick at a scrum and outlawing the “croc roll” are also among the amendments to be recommended.

Unions and competition owners will be encouraged to implement a series of closed law trials including using a shot clock for scrums and lineouts, marking the ball inside the 22m line from a restart, insisting the ball must be played after a maul has been stopped once, rather than twice, greater protection for the scrum‑half and allowing the referee to play on if a lineout is not straight if it was not contested.

Most of these seem reasonable to me, one change I would love that I know would be unpopular would be to allow a player to place his hands on the ground for 1 second (while maintaining his own weight and not leaning on the tackled player) prior to trying to steal the ball. It would lead to more turnovers which would add excitement.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Looking forward to weeks of online discourse explaining how these law changes are proof that Australia somehow controls WR (World Rugby)

 

[Wilson]

Looking forward to weeks of online discourse explaining how these law changes are proof that Australia somehow controls WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)

The gymnastics that went on with Northern hemisphere fans complaining 50/22s would ruin the game to realising they were actually a great spectacle was all time.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Looking forward to weeks of online discourse explaining how these law changes are proof that Australia somehow controls WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)

I'm sure I read somewhere that it's NZ...

 

[Wilson]

Looking forward to weeks of online discourse explaining how these law changes are proof that Australia somehow controls WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)

And it has begun:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770055998331367716

 

[Dctarget]

And it has begun:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770055998331367716

T2 Rugby must be the most miserable person around. For someone so engaged he's so salty and jaded.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So far it seems to be NZ controlling WR (World Rugby) for the red card change, and Australia controlling WR (World Rugby) for the scrum FK change

 

[Wilson]

T2 Rugby must be the most miserable person around. For someone so engaged he's so salty and jaded.

1000%.

I do really love when he goes on his anti O'Gara rants though, so much hatred for a great player who just seems like a normal likeable guy. Incredible to watch.

 

[Braveheart81]

A lot being said in the media about Tate’s hip drop tackle.

Interesting the different alignments with different codes. NRL do nothing about careless head on head contact but have been binning players for hip drops since last year. Whereas in rugby it hasn’t really been discussed.

Moving this over to here to discuss it further.

I think we've seen far less of them in rugby due to the style of tackle we generally have.

This was very much of the classic hip drop tackle scenario where Tate grabbed hold of Lonergan higher up his body, unweighted his legs and then twisted so he came down on top of Lonergan's lower limbs.

I'm not arguing there was malice involved but the way the tackle was carried out had a high likelihood of serious injury and that's exactly what we saw eventuate.

I think rugby needs to look at these and bring it under the foul play laws.

 

[Wilson]

Moving this over to here to discuss it further.

I think we've seen far less of them in rugby due to the style of tackle we generally have.

This was very much of the classic hip drop tackle scenario where Tate grabbed hold of Lonergan higher up his body, unweighted his legs and then twisted so he came down on top of Lonergan's lower limbs.

I'm not arguing there was malice involved but the way the tackle was carried out had a high likelihood of serious injury and that's exactly what we saw eventuate.

I think rugby needs to look at these and bring it under the foul play laws.

Yeah, there was no malice in it and from what I can tell our game just doesn't produce too many opportunities for them, but with them having been outlawed in similar sports it looks like a no brainer for us to follow suit.

Given how rare they are it shouldn't really have a negative impact on the game, though exactly what level the sanction comes in at I'm not sure, given they generally don't look to be intentional.

 

[Derpus]

Looking forward to weeks of online discourse explaining how these law changes are proof that Australia somehow controls WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)

The NRL controls world rugby because its a clear and unfavourable juxtaposition.

 

[John S]

This is now a high tackle in Shute Shield … and coaches believe it will improve rugby

In its 101st year, the Shute Shield starts this weekend using a trial law to lower the legal tackling height to the sternum. The eyes of the world will be on the results.

www.smh.com.au

Not sure if this is the best place but looks like Shute Shield is moving the tackle height from the Shoulder to the Sternum this year - will be interesting to see how this goes.

 

[elementfreak]

This is now a high tackle in Shute Shield … and coaches believe it will improve rugby

In its 101st year, the Shute Shield starts this weekend using a trial law to lower the legal tackling height to the sternum. The eyes of the world will be on the results.

www.smh.com.au

Not sure if this is the best place but looks like Shute Shield is moving the tackle height from the Shoulder to the Sternum this year - will be interesting to see how this goes.

Everyone in community rugby is. It's a global law trial.