Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

It has been queried though, the CEO is on record with this

And World Rugby did come out and confirm the Ref got it wrong in the 2015 QF Australia vs Scotland, so there is indeed precedence

What silence does = is confusion for all involved

Not in the official channel. Accepting I'm wrong with your point 2015 - we still likely need to see something like this, as there have been countless moments like that since that haven't been clarified publicly. Safe to say the fact they lost one of their most experienced referees shortly after doing so may have influenced their future actions.

World Rugby Passport - Law Clarifications

passport.world.rugby

Sure it creates confusion - but confusion is an inevitable outcome because there isn't universal agreement right now as to what is the correct call. Say WR (World Rugby) did clarify this - anyone who previous believed the opposite to whatever position WR (World Rugby) landed on in this hypothetical will be confused as to why.

Trying to achieve absolute black in white in a game so dynamic is folly.

 

[JRugby2]

I'd be happy for that to be adjudicated separately when I see it happen. In a more likely scenario we do often see the ball carrier change height at the last second and head contact is made, but it is generally only mitigated down to a penalty. We're referring specifically to law 9.20 here - the determining factor would be if it was deemed reckless, and all head contact in a tackle situation usually is.

Then we can't accept the black and white premise that all head contact is foul play and a penalty minimum. Any time we see that scenario penalised, its because the referees have seen actions in the tackler (eg: never low enough in the first place to mitigate the risk of danger to the ball carrier).

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'd be happy for that to be adjudicated separately when I see it happen. In a more likely scenario we do often see the ball carrier change height at the last second and head contact is made, but it is generally only mitigated down to a penalty. We're referring specifically to law 9.20 here - the determining factor would be if it was deemed reckless, and all head contact in a tackle situation usually is.

(Edit - as JR2 mentions below - he's refering to the hypothetical, not the specific Tizzano incident) We are talking about ruck entries here not tackles, which require different thinking as every ruck involves at least two players engaging shoulder to shoulder (or at least that's what the laws assume happens). It's almost impossible for a ruck engagement with proper binding to happen without head contact - even if it's low force and obviously not worth a penalty.

So clearly not all contact to the head results in a penalty. For evidennce, look at almost every ruck in every game and WR (World Rugby)'s diagram of what a ruck looks like above.

This is why step two of the head contact process asks the refs to decide if there's foul play - because often there isn't.

 

[JRugby2]

We are talking about ruck entries here not tackles, which require different thinking as every ruck involves at least two players engaging shoulder to shoulder (or at least that's what the laws assume happens). It's almost impossible for a ruck engagement with proper binding to happen with without head contact - even if it's low force.

So clearly not all contact to the head results in a penalty. For evidennce, look at almost every ruck in every game and WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)'s diagram of what a ruck looks like above.

This is why step two of the head contact process asks the refs to decide if there's foul play - because often there isn't.

View attachment 22867

In fairness I gave them that hypothetical...

 

[KOB1987]

No I think we can - I only said that because the example you presented is so unlikely to happen, at least at the top level. Again we are talking specifically about Law 9.20, which states: "A player must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto another player." It also states that "making contact above the line of the shoulders with an opponent is a dangerous play and is prohibited". It's a bit like a try that has been awarded - the onus is to prove otherwise. I was saying that a penalty had to be given otherwise they're saying it's OK to ignore the law.

 

[KOB1987]

(Edit - as JR2 mentions below - he's refering to the hypothetical, not the specific Tizzano incident) We are talking about ruck entries here not tackles, which require different thinking as every ruck involves at least two players engaging shoulder to shoulder (or at least that's what the laws assume happens). It's almost impossible for a ruck engagement with proper binding to happen without head contact - even if it's low force and obviously not worth a penalty.

So clearly not all contact to the head results in a penalty. For evidennce, look at almost every ruck in every game and WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby)'s diagram of what a ruck looks like above.

This is why step two of the head contact process asks the refs to decide if there's foul play - because often there isn't.

View attachment 22867

I will concede that if the players had arrived at the same time (as the referee said they did) and that Morgan had stayed on his feet, even for a short time, then you could say no foul play had occurred. However the replay clearly showed that Tizzano arrived first, and even if Morgan did not have time to adjust he still charged in, hit Tizzano in the neck and made no effort to stay on his feet. That's why it needs to at least be a penalty, otherwise they're endorsing hitting rucks this way.

 

[wamberal99]

I will concede that if the players had arrived at the same time (as the referee said they did) and that Morgan had stayed on his feet, even for a short time, then you could say no foul play had occurred. However the replay clearly showed that Tizzano arrived first, and even if Morgan did not have time to adjust he still charged in, hit Tizzano in the neck and made no effort to stay on his feet. That's why it needs to at least be a penalty, otherwise they're endorsing hitting rucks this way.

What they are endorsing is anything that ensures that the Loins win. Italian referee.........

 

[KOB1987]

What they are endorsing is anything that ensures that the Loins win. Italian referee.........

That's sort of the whole point - it's not just confined to this event, there's the jumping over the defenders try earlier in the game, as well as the three clear illegal plays that were ignored in the first test.

 

[JRugby2]

I will concede that if the players had arrived at the same time (as the referee said they did) and that Morgan had stayed on his feet, even for a short time, then you could say no foul play had occurred. However the replay clearly showed that Tizzano arrived first, and even if Morgan did not have time to adjust he still charged in, hit Tizzano in the neck and made no effort to stay on his feet. That's why it needs to at least be a penalty, otherwise they're endorsing hitting rucks this way.

He's on his feet at the collision point - that's the only requirement for arriving players (excuse the shit photo but it still shows in the moment before contact Jac's on his feet).

He hits Tizz in the neck - the only points of conjecture are the timing, and by extension does Jac need to do more to avoid the neck (yes, IMO).

We have to accept that hitting rucks this way is legal if the contact point is different.

 

[Tomthumb]

He's on his feet at the collision point - that's the only requirement for arriving players (excuse the shit photo but it still shows in the moment before contact Jac's on his feet).

He hits Tizz in the neck - the only points of conjecture are the timing, and by extension does Jac need to do more to avoid the neck (yes, IMO).

We have to accept that hitting rucks this way is legal if the contact point is different.

View attachment 22868

This is it in a nutshell. Morgan got there after Tizzano (despite what the refs led by BOK said on the night), connected with his neck and considering he is not looking at the ruck at any stage before he dives into it, its most certainly reckless and avoidable

So I guess I don't understand how it's even contentious. What argument could you possibly have that it's not a penalty?

 

[JRugby2]

This is it in a nutshell. Morgan got there after Tizzano (despite what the refs led by BOK said on the night), connected with his neck and considering he is not looking at the ruck at any stage before he dives into it, its most certainly reckless and avoidable

So I guess I don't understand how it's even contentious. What argument could you possibly have that it's not a penalty?

Yeah agree but playing devils here, the argument is in real speed whether the timing is simultaneous or not. If it's simultaneous and Jac is arriving at the breakdown legally (ie on feet) and Tizzano suddenly appears - then Jac's done nothing wrong (or can't be expected to do more) and we have no foul play.

That's an aside from my point in this debate though, in that - unless we hear otherwise from an official channel we can't say that WR (World Rugby) is endorsing identical or very similar scenarios to be called the same way.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So I guess I don't understand how it's even contentious. What argument could you possibly have that it's not a penalty?

If there is high contact (probably), but he has entered the contest legally (not a charge/binding), but Tizzano has dynamically changed position in the time that you can't expect the Lions player to make an adjustment (eg lowered his head), then it would not be considered reckless, wouldnt be foul play and would be play on.

 

[Tomthumb]

Yeah agree but playing devils here, the argument is in real speed whether the timing is simultaneous or not. If it's simultaneous and Jac is arriving at the breakdown legally (ie on feet) and Tizzano suddenly appears - then Jac's done nothing wrong (or can't be expected to do more) and we have no foul play.

That's an aside from my point in this debate though, in that - unless we hear otherwise from an official channel we can't say that WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) is endorsing identical or very similar scenarios to be called the same way.

The argument kind of fall apart when you realize the only thing that kept Jac Morgan on his feet for any period of time was Tizzano's neck. If Carlo wasn't there he just dives off his feet and illegally seals off the ruck, understand your playing devil's advocate with it

 

[Tomthumb]

If there is high contact (probably), but he has entered the contest legally (not a charge/binding), but Tizzano has dynamically changed position in the time that you can't expect the Lions player to make an adjustment (eg lowered his head), then it would not be considered reckless, wouldnt be foul play and would be play on.

He didn't though, so while it's an argument for a hypothetical issue, it's not for this one

 

[JRugby2]

The argument kind of fall apart when you realize the only thing that kept Jac Morgan on his feet for any period of time was Tizzano's neck. If Carlo wasn't there he just dives off his feet and illegally seals off the ruck, understand your playing devil's advocate with it

Yep, but again change the contact point and it's play on - no question.

We don't determine someone is off feet because they would have been if not for the person they hit hard - when they otherwise arrived legally. If that were the case every time someone removed someone else from a breakdown and fell afterward would be penalised.

I probably dont have much more to add, good debate

 

[Champagne Rugby]

The argument kind of fall apart when you realize the only thing that kept Jac Morgan on his feet for any period of time was Tizzano's neck. If Carlo wasn't there he just dives off his feet and illegally seals off the ruck, understand your playing devil's advocate with it

Refs regularly allow for players to dive off their feet into or over rucks and make no contact with players when a defender pull out of ruck at the last minute.

 

[Strewthcobber]

He didn't though, so while it's an argument for a hypothetical issue, it's not for this one

I just don't agree on that. And it's kind of the crux of the issue.

When the ref talks about arriving simultaneously, this is what he is talking about - the changing dynamic of where Tizzano's head is through the entry to the contest. This change of height happens literally in the blink of eye

 

[Tomthumb]

I just don't agree on that. And it's kind of the crux of the issue.

When the ref talks about arriving simultaneously, this is what he is talking about - the changing dynamic of where Tizzano's head is through the entry to the contest. This change of height happens literally in the blink of eye

Tizzano's dip was the only reason Morgan hit him on the back of the neck and not square in the head. At no point is he ever low enough to avoid head or neck contact

 

[KOB1987]

Anyway I’m going to leave it alone, it’s all getting a bit technical. The original premise was that they have penalized hitting rucks like that forever and a day, and that we’re all interested to hear how WR (World Rugby) are going to articulate that it’s all good to put slides up of this instance with the green tick while we’re teaching kids how to play rugby.

 

[Rebel man]

There's lots of info on World Rugby's website as to what they consider to be foul play.

Start here

World Rugby Passport - Foul Play

passport.world.rugby

View attachment 22864

He has dived in off his feet his action is never legal