Refereeing decisions

[liquor box]

I agree, I for the life of me can't see how that was a yellow with other decisions we have had.

Didn't a Tahs player get a yellow last week for the same tackle, but with a hand between the legs??? Can remember who it was, pretty sure it as a forward.

 

[D-Box]

At the end of the Force v Reds game last night the Reds crossed the line trying to score a try and there was a maul that crossed the goal line. The result was a 5m scrum with a Force feed.

Why is this not being held up in the in goal area and a goal line drop out as per the Super Rugby AU variations?

For what it is worth, Reds should have taken the three points.

I would guess the ref ruled that while the maul crossed into the end goal at the end when it collapsed the ball was back in the field of play.

 

[Brumby Runner]

A maul can only take place in the field of play (area between the try lines and the touch lines). Once the ball is over the try line the maul ends. The correct decision (without the Super Rugby AU variations) would have been held up in goal, 5m scrum to the Reds. With Super Rugby AU variations, a goal line drop out should have been the outcome.

Not sure but it looked to me that the play (call it a maul or tackle) was pushed back into the field of play and that the correct decision was applied.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Didn't a Tahs player get a yellow last week for the same tackle, but with a hand between the legs??? Can remember who it was, pretty sure it as a forward.

Swinton. Hand between the legs increases the severity of the penalty I believe.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not sure but it looked to me that the play (call it a maul or tackle) was pushed back into the field of play and that the correct decision was applied.

I think this is it.

A maul is meant to end as soon as the ball crosses the goal line so potentially the referee has decided that hasn't happened but regardless, the ball quickly gets pushed back into the field of play.

From a technical perspective if the ball has crossed the goal line then while the maul is technically over, the attacking team has a right to try and place the ball before it is called held up. Prior to having enough time for that opportunity to play out, the ball gets pushed back into the field of play so can't be anything other than a maul that is unplayable with a scrum to the defending team.

 

[liquor box]

I think this is it.

A maul is meant to end as soon as the ball crosses the goal line so potentially the referee has decided that hasn't happened but regardless, the ball quickly gets pushed back into the field of play.

From a technical perspective if the ball has crossed the goal line then while the maul is technically over, the attacking team has a right to try and place the ball before it is called held up. Prior to having enough time for that opportunity to play out, the ball gets pushed back into the field of play so can't be anything other than a maul that is unplayable with a scrum to the defending team.

I would assume that once the ball crosses the line that the attacking team is trying to score a try, surely if you push them back you have held them up, unless they are not trying to score.

I would have thought that if the ball crosses the line, remains in possession and you don't score, then it should be classed as being held up

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would assume that once the ball crosses the line that the attacking team is trying to score a try, surely if you push them back you have held them up, unless they are not trying to score.

I would have thought that if the ball crosses the line, remains in possession and you don't score, then it should be classed as being held up

It looked to me that while the ball was held up in goal it was still under control by the Tahs. They would have been looking to get it to ground for a try. Imagine the stink had it been called held up if they were in the process of getting the ball down. I reckon Berry got that one right.

 

[Froggy]

That may seem logical BR, however the law is clear, once the ball is over the line the maul is over.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would assume that once the ball crosses the line that the attacking team is trying to score a try, surely if you push them back you have held them up, unless they are not trying to score.

I would have thought that if the ball crosses the line, remains in possession and you don't score, then it should be classed as being held up

I think it was a case of it getting pushed back into the field of play prior to being there long enough to be held up.

I guess you can't be held up if you're not in goal.

That may seem logical BR, however the law is clear, once the ball is over the
line the maul is over.

I feel like they got this one right. Before a decision could be made to say the ball had been held up, the ball was no longer in the in goal.


It isn't clear to me in the laws that this should still be considered held up.

 

[Pfitzy]

however the law is clear

 

[Sully]

1/5/21 Blues v Chiefs about 35 minutes first half.

Chiefs ruck forms close to the Blues line and all players are onside. Chiefs pass to the left and one player drops the ball behind him. Another player runs back and picks up the ball and from the resulting plays the chiefs score.
TMO intervenes and the Chiefs player is called offside because he was in front of the guy who dropped it.

AFAIK this is play on as no offside was set and it's general play. If I'm right I can't believe four super rugby level refs got this wrong and stuck with their obvious mistake after the Chiefs captain pointed out the flaw in their ruling.

Ps; I'm right.

 

[zer0]

Seemed to me like the ref and one of the assistants panicked when Gatland correctly raised the issue so just dismissed him and tried to carry on instead of thinking about it for a bit longer. Was a situation ripe for Perenara's rules lawyering/ref pestering.

 

[Derpus]

From what I've seen the refereeing quality in Ao is even worse than Aus. They let a clear obstruction try through last night off the back of a maul that was textbook. A bit of a concern.

 

[Sully]

 

[zer0]

Huh. There we go. If they knew they were in the right then the officials definitely didn't show it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not sure what conclusion you have drawn Sully. But to me it was offside, no question.

It was inconclusive I think whether the ball traveled backwards or towards the opponents' goal line when spilt, but it did then bounce towards the goal line. The player who picked it up was in front of the last player to touch the ball and actually picked it up in front of that first player. Came from an offside position and picked the ball up in an offside position imo.

 

[D-Box]

In the Force Brumbies game when the ball hit the Bumbies trainer - should it not have been a Force scrum rather than a Bumbies?

 

[Braveheart81]

In the Force Brumbies game when the ball hit the Bumbies trainer - should it not have been a Force scrum rather than a Bumbies?

What minute approximately?

Were they on the field attending to an injured player? If so, possession would remain with the team that had the ball.

 

[Derpus]

What minute approximately?

Were they on the field attending to an injured player? If so, possession would remain with the team that had the ball.

Who has possession when it's been kicked away? The Brumbies kicked it but it's a stretch to suggest they were still in possession given they wern't even close to recovering the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

Who has possession when it's been kicked away?

Somewhat at the referee's discretion there I would suggest depending on where the ball is. It may come back to the team that just kicked from the location where they kicked from.