Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

You want to speed up the game, not extend it. The stoppage is what ruins the flow and the watchability of the game. Stopping the clock will lead to players taking a breather ruining the flow even more. Laws around time wasting just need to be enforced (specifically around scrum, lineout, restarts and "injuries")

I don't see how stopping the clock at a scrum reset increases the stoppage. You stick to exactly the same protocol as with an existing scrum reset you just aren't losing time off the clock.

The TMO changes with the yellow/red card review have been great at reducing stoppages.

Players going down injured is very tricky. I don't think the referee can do much there because it's not within their domain to decide whether someone is actually injured and forcing them to play on with an injury could be disastrous. I think players have to change that behaviour. I'm not sure how else you deal with it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't see how stopping the clock at a scrum reset increases the stoppage. You stick to exactly the same protocol as with an existing scrum reset you just aren't losing time off the clock.

The danger will be refs not pushing or enforcing time wasting at the reset if the players aren't actually wasting any time

 

[KevinO]

I would like all kicks to be 60 seconds, but I would also like it to be only 10/15 seconds from when time restarts if the ref has been checking something. Nothing pisses me off is watching a kicker take over a minute when the clock was already stopped for 2 giving them plenty of time to set up for the kick.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would like all kicks to be 60 seconds, but I would also like it to be only 10/15 seconds from when time restarts if the ref has been checking something. Nothing pisses me off is watching a kicker take over a minute when the clock was already stopped for 2 giving them plenty of time to set up for the kick.

The 90 seconds for a conversion should be reduced to 60 seconds if the clock was stopped to check something.

90 seconds is only reasonable when that timer has started the second the whistle is blown and the kicker could theoretically be 30 metres away.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I don't see how stopping the clock at a scrum reset increases the stoppage. You stick to exactly the same protocol as with an existing scrum reset you just aren't losing time off the clock.

The TMO changes with the yellow/red card review have been great at reducing stoppages.

Players going down injured is very tricky. I don't think the referee can do much there because it's not within their domain to decide whether someone is actually injured and forcing them to play on with an injury could be disastrous. I think players have to change that behaviour. I'm not sure how else you deal with it.

The law basically says 1min up or off for injury. So the ref could say if you aren't up you will need to be replaced. If they don't want to be replaced continue with the game.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The law basically says 1min up or off for injury. So the ref could say if you aren't up you will need to be replaced. If they don't want to be replaced continue with the game.

So the law actually says

5. Time
5.5 The referee may stop play and allow time for:
A) Player injury for up to one minute. If a player is seriously injured, the referee has the discretion to allow more than one minute for that player to be removed from the playing area.

 

[Th0mo]

10 mins feels too long. Thinking of junior basketball which stops clock for last 2 mins in 40 min games, 5 mins would be closer to equivalence. Would also have less impact on overall game time. But maybe even just trial last 2 mins. Would stop the issues with running the clock on kicks at the end, scrum resets wasting time and the debacle with Foley and Raynal would have never happened.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Angus Gardiner becomes the most capped Super Rugby ref of all time tonight.

Great effort. Great servant to the game and may we see many more

 

[Strewthcobber]

Highlights of Reds v Force. Ryan's sensation first try. Tate had the ball like this for 2 or 3.seconds(?)

If you were a ref, would you consider this to be out of the ruck? (Force players didn't advance, so they didn't think so)

 

[RugbyReg]

Highlights of Reds v Force. Ryan's sensation first try. Tate had the ball like this for 2 or 3.seconds(?)

If you were a ref, would you consider this to be out of the ruck? (Force players didn't advance, so they didn't think so)

If I was? Yes. I’d let Tate do what he wants.

 

[rapt]

Highlights of Reds v Force. Ryan's sensation first try. Tate had the ball like this for 2 or 3.seconds(?)

If you were a ref, would you consider this to be out of the ruck? (Force players didn't advance, so they didn't think so)

This is a tough one that depends on interpretation, some would say thats still in a ruck, others might argue cause bodies are on the ground etc and Smith is doing god knows what that the ruck is over balls out. I think the ball should be considered “out” the instant once a hand touches the ball to either pass or pick and drive.

One from the weekend I thought was rather harsh (Chiefs glasss on here), was the match winning penalty for the Hurricanes in Fridays game, was a technicality by the laws but lacked feel for the game and I think if an attacker gets to have the leeway for releasing due to the defender needing to make a clear release, the defender should be allowed something to show making an effort to roll away where Jacobson was pinned in the ruck within seconds by 2 props and was flailing his legs around more than a jail rugby (nrl) player.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Highlights of Reds v Force. Ryan's sensation first try. Tate had the ball like this for 2 or 3.seconds(?)

If you were a ref, would you consider this to be out of the ruck? (Force players didn't advance, so they didn't think so)

I noticed that live, and would have called it out. Like @rapt says, I also think the ball should be considered out once a hand is laid upon it. Otherwise it should be ruled as hands in the ruck and penalised.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ didn't it used to be "live when touched" but changed to "lifted" 'cos smart-arse 9s were touching it when the ref wasn't looking then letting go & bleating "awww ref" when a defender came around to play it?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I noticed that live, and would have called it out. Like @rapt says, I also think the ball should be considered out once a hand is laid upon it. Otherwise it should be ruled as hands in the ruck and penalised.

Not on the ref to announce the ball is out though? The defensive players have to take action don't they?

 

[Strewthcobber]

^ didn't it used to be "live when touched" but changed to "lifted" 'cos smart-arse 9s were touching it when the ref wasn't looking then letting go & bleating "awww ref" when a defender came around to play it?

There's no "halfback is allowed to handle the ball in a ruck" exemption in the laws.

There is a lot of convention in how refs handle the ruck. I would like to see more definition around exactly when it's out.

 

[Sully]

I'm no ref but, is it their job to call the ball out of a ruck?

 

[Wilson]

^ didn't it used to be "live when touched" but changed to "lifted" 'cos smart-arse 9s were touching it when the ref wasn't looking then letting go & bleating "awww ref" when a defender came around to play it?

Yeah, the ball is not out until it has been removed from the ruck, laying hands on it is not enough. Here is the clarification from 2014:

Law Application Guidelines | World Rugby Laws

Law application guidelines for the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

When a scrum half attempts to retrieve the ball from a ruck, the ball is not out until that player has picked the ball up from the ground.

That article includes a helpful video in which Scotland are penalised for taking Genia out in this exact situation.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not on the ref to announce the ball is out though? The defensive players have to take action don't they?

I'm no ref but, is it their job to call the ball out of a ruck?

I have no issue with that. If a defensive player sees the halfback touching the ball at or near the back of a ruck, he ought to be within his rights to play on. If he is then penalised it should be regarded as an error by the ref not the player.

 

[rapt]

I have no issue with that. If a defensive player sees the halfback touching the ball at or near the back of a ruck, he ought to be within his rights to play on. If he is then penalised it should be regarded as an error by the ref not the player.

I played as a scrumhalf in my younger days, look more like a front rower now. Back then you use to have to clear scrums etc under so much pressure cause once a hand was on that ball the opp 9 was trying to pressure your pass, I use to love that battle.

 

[Wilson]

I have no issue with that. If a defensive player sees the halfback touching the ball at or near the back of a ruck, he ought to be within his rights to play on. If he is then penalised it should be regarded as an error by the ref not the player.

The ball is not out when the half touches the ball, the law is clear that would be a penalty and not an error from the ref in awarding it.