Refereeing decisions

[BPC]

Just on that point I would like to see the referees take a far more strict view of attacking the head in the maul. At most mauls, especially from a lineout the defenders working their way through the maul are getting gripped around the head and neck to prevent them accessing the ball carrier. It should be blown up every time and perhaps even carded as it is a deliberate attack to the head.

Absolutely agree. I get annoyed every time I see an attacking player put a defender in a headlock to stop a legitimate attempt to break up the maul.

 

[suckerforred]

Just on that point I would like to see the referees take a far more strict view of attacking the head in the maul. At most mauls, especially from a lineout the defenders working their way through the maul are getting gripped around the head and neck to prevent them accessing the ball carrier. It should be blown up every time and perhaps even carded as it is a deliberate attack to the head.

Not only in the maul. I get sick to the stomach every time I see a player being cleaned out of a ruck by being grabed around the neck & being 'twisted' off the ball.

 

[Gnostic]

Diving over a ruck is a dive, head first with the arms in front or protecting the ball. Hurdling is studs first. A lot more potential for things to go wrong.

Sorry I didn't express myself properly, I have seen regularly players jump the ruck close to the line (but not close enough to dive for it) to make easy ground as they can go between the pillar defenders. To my mind it is exactly the same.

 

[BPC]

Sorry I didn't express myself properly, I have seen regularly players jump the ruck close to the line (but not close enough to dive for it) to make easy ground as they can go between the pillar defenders. To my mind it is exactly the same.

I agree that it is the same. I think that should be a yellow card for dangerous play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[yourmatesam]

Anyone seen the IRB direction regarding players not contesting at a maul formed from a lineout? Thoughts?

 

[Highlander35]

Is there a link?

 

[elementfreak]

Anyone seen the IRB direction regarding players not contesting at a maul formed from a lineout? Thoughts?

Yeah I have. It's interesting.

 

[Braveheart81]

Can one of you post it here?

 

[ruckhudson]

The ruling according to the law book should be a PK against team in possestion. The guidance gives the opportunity for the attacking team to use the ball they rightfully won and accidently got into an offside situation due to the action of the defending team. Good call i think.
If i was a coach, after the first instance, do not transfer the ball back then keep driving till the ref calls use it, after that front man detach and run at the splintered defence... the result would be a clear territorial gain with the next phase won easily. Dont think the opp will do it again after that.

 

[HJ Nelson]

Can one of you post it here?

3 videos and 1 PDF in this zip file

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12100054/Mauls.zip

 

[yourmatesam]

TBH, I don't agree with it but I think that this is the best outcome that the game can expect at the moment.

Rugby is a contest for possession and one team has actively chosen not to contest for possession in these instances. I think that the tactic is negative by the "defending" team and that as referees we should be rewarding positive play, not awarding penalties for teams who choose not to play the game.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

So what is your view on a lineout throw that is not contested?

Do you subscribe to the view that if the non-throwing team chose to not contest for the ball in the air, the straightness of the throw is not an issue?

Then we come to scrums. Many hookers choose not to hook for the ball because it is not rolled in to the scrum anywhere near the centre line of the scrum. There is no viable contest for the ball. If yappy cheating runt halfbacks actually fed the scrum in a manner that encouraged a contest, the #2's may have to relearn the lost art of striking for a tighthead.

 

[Highlander35]

No halfback feeds straight. This annoys me, but I can deal with it.

What I REALLY dislike is feeding it to the second row. The biggest Aussie infringer I've seen is Nick Frisby, went between the loosehead's legs more often than not.

Niko does it occasionally for Glasgow too. Really Irksome.

 

[barbarian]

So what is your view on a lineout throw that is not contested?

Do you subscribe to the view that if the non-throwing team chose to not contest for the ball in the air, the straightness of the throw is not an issue?

I think a bit more leniency should be given on uncontested throws, certainly. As long as it is within the outside shoulder of the recipient it should be play on.

Then we come to scrums. Many hookers choose not to hook for the ball because it is not rolled in to the scrum anywhere near the centre line of the scrum. There is no viable contest for the ball. If yappy cheating runt halfbacks actually fed the scrum in a manner that encouraged a contest, the #2's may have to relearn the lost art of striking for a tighthead.

I disagree, I think it's just the the nature of the contest has changed. I think the team feeding the ball should have some advantage, which is now the ability to skew the feed to your side. The opposition can still compete, but instead of having a chance on the strike they have to push the opposition off the ball.

It still happens at a frequent rate, so I think the set piece is achieving its aim- giving the team in possession some advantage but ultimately the other guys still have a chance if they are good enough.
.

 

[yourmatesam]

So what is your view on a lineout throw that is not contested?

Do you subscribe to the view that if the non-throwing team chose to not contest for the ball in the air, the straightness of the throw is not an issue?

Play on. No one came along to the rugby to watch me blow my whistle about a pedantic lineout call, get the ball into play and talk to the hooker on the run or at the next lineout. "You were lucky they didn't jump otherwise ball not straight".

Then we come to scrums. Many hookers choose not to hook for the ball because it is not rolled in to the scrum anywhere near the centre line of the scrum. There is no viable contest for the ball. If yappy cheating runt halfbacks actually fed the scrum in a manner that encouraged a contest, the #2's may have to relearn the lost art of striking for a tighthead.

Depends on the situation, there are a number of variables here but I believe the feed should be credible.

The answer to your questions HJ revolves around the material effect of the decision. With a lineout, the team chose not to contest, so they were never a chance of winning the ball. Having said that, the throw needs to be credible ie within the confines of the lineout.

Does the hooker choose not to hook or do they choose to have an 8man shove on a 7man pack? 11, 22, 33 calls etc etc? Have to look at these individually, but overall feed should be credible.

With regards to the team not contesting at the lineout, I've watched replays of the JWC and definitely don't agree with the PK against the attacking team for the defenders choosing not to engage. Why should the defending team be awarded for this tactic?

 

[Highlander35]

b) If they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the group, the
referee would tell them to "Use it" which they must do immediately...

c) If they drove forward with the ball at the back (and did not release the ball), the
referee would award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than PK for obstruction.

Good pair of clarifications. Not sure on the first bit, but think as long as its enforced, these are a good way to not penalise the attacking team for the defense "not-competing".

 

[yourmatesam]

The ruling according to the law book should be a PK against team in possestion. The guidance gives the opportunity for the attacking team to use the ball they rightfully won and accidently got into an offside situation due to the action of the defending team. Good call i think.
If i was a coach, after the first instance, do not transfer the ball back then keep driving till the ref calls use it, after that front man detach and run at the splintered defence. the result would be a clear territorial gain with the next phase won easily. Dont think the opp will do it again after that.

If the ball is at the front and the ball carrier is available, what's the problem? No need to call "use it", the maul can move down the field.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The problem is it's not a maul with no opponent. It's a "flying wedge".

 

[ruckhudson]

hence the ref alerting them to this by calling use it (they did not set up an intentional FW and unlike from a PK they are not at pace) and they react by front man detatch....play that on... into the defence; set up new maul, quick ruck ball, offload into an unstructured defensive line. doubt the op will do again until next game on a different op who may not be savvy enough to react.
All comes down to good coaching and captain.

 

[yourmatesam]

The problem is it's not a maul with no opponent. It's a "flying wedge".

My issue is that this is a neagtive tactic and there are a number of variables that the defending team would have to adhere to before I looked at penalising the attacking team in this instance. As with most areas of the game, there are any number of infringements that can be looked at and it just seems wrong for the attacking team to be penalised for the actions of the defending team.

The reality is that this is not going to happen very often and if it does, there is now a clear direction in place to deal with it.