• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Wilson

Tim Horan (67)
Law 9.7a means penalty, right?
Yes.

Also worth noting Italy actually had the option to have South Africa re-take the kick here because the ball didn't go 10 (rather than straight to the scrum for in front of the kicker). I went back and watched the game and the ref does appear to give them this option, but I wouldn't blame them for not realizing given he asks via rising inflection ("Scrum? We Scrum?") instead of a clear question ("Scrum or retake kick off?"). They may also have just figured a scrum was still better than giving SA another kick off, but I'd expect anyone would be wise to this in the future if the boks got their timing right trying to pull this off.
 

Dctarget

David Wilson (68)
the Bokke are also just shit stirring, if they wanted the same outcome without the drama they could've 'accidentally' kicked it dead or made the timing less obvious.
 

Strewthcobber

Michael Lynagh (62)
Can’t believe the ref didn’t ping him for offside. SA player literally kicked the ball to his own player it was that deliberate. Common sense prevails.
Sanction for in-front of the kicker from a kick-off is a scrum
Law 9.7a means penalty, right?
Yep

1752800232378.png


Although in typical rugby union fashion, the online version of the laws was unclear and didn't have a sanction (!?!). Checking now, it looks like it's been fixed in the last day :D

The downloadable pdf has the same sanction for 9.7 a, b and c
 

Strewthcobber

Michael Lynagh (62)
It's classic rugby that in front of the kicker can only be a scrum whereas other kick-off infractions (ball not going 10 or out on the full etc.) do provide the option of retaking the kick.

Out on the full also provides the option of a lineout.


I just checked my history book - it looks like until around 1885 any kind of kick-off infraction was always just a re-kick. In around 1885 the scrum, or lineout options were added in, and another law added for in-front-of-the-kicker, which was only a scrum

So it's been that way for a blong time!

Kind of hillarious we still are beholden to some old blazer in a Victorian-era pub with a lot of this stuff. They did that simplification of the laws in 2018(?). There are so many more opportunities to get anomalies like this straightened out.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
I just checked my history book - it looks like until around 1885 any kind of kick-off infraction was always just a re-kick. In around 1885 the scrum, or lineout options were added in, and another law added for in-front-of-the-kicker, which was only a scrum

So it's been that way for a blong time!

Kind of hillarious we still are beholden to some old blazer in a Victorian-era pub with a lot of this stuff. They did that simplification of the laws in 2018(?). There are so many more opportunities to get anomalies like this straightened out.
Lol even more hilarious , I think all the original rules etc were written up by schoolboys. They made them up as they played and 3-4 senior boys would have a pencil and paper in pocket to write them down as they came up with them during games. :D
 

wamberal99

Cyril Towers (30)
Talking about match officials, it seems pretty obvious that the Wobbs will need to adjust pretty quickly, and creatively, to whatever weird interpretations are foisted on them. A lot of weight on Wilson's shoulders to manage the ref.
 

Pfitzy

Phil Waugh (73)
It's classic rugby that in front of the kicker can only be a scrum whereas other kick-off infractions (ball not going 10 or out on the full etc.) do provide the option of retaking the kick.

Out on the full also provides the option of a lineout.

That's why it is a shit game to watch some days and a shit one to try and adjudicate most
 
Top