Refereeing decisions

[RugbyReg]

Bit of a black eye for our insistence of the 20 minute red, the Kolby incident in the SA ABs test. Really ugly incident that the offending team deserved to lose a player for the duration. I’d be happy with an Orange card (our current version of red) for the incidental head knocks, etc and keep a red for reckless, dangerous, stupid play.

I maintain that the team doesn’t deserve to suffer. The judiciary just needs to make a point now. He deserves a long break.

 

[Drew]

Kurt-Lee Arendse wasn’t it, not Kolbe? Absolutely agree - that was one of the worst in a while

I only saw the highlights. Yes, got my little, fast SA wingers in headgear confused

 

[Drew]

I maintain that the team doesn’t deserve to suffer. The judiciary just needs to make a point now. He deserves a long break.

I realize there are arguments for and against and understand you’re point of view. I just think it adds more fodder for the NH/RWto hold their ground on this red card issue

 

[Ignoto]

Is anyone aware of a law at scrum time, that forces the team with a ball at the back to play it? That call against the Wallabies where they were penalised for holding it into the scrum and the Argies folded yet the Wallabies were pinged was an odd one.

 

[qwerty51]

I maintain that the team doesn’t deserve to suffer. The judiciary just needs to make a point now. He deserves a long break.

There's always the case too, especially during a competition that for the All Blacks now having him banned negatively impacts them as he's missing against Argentina and Australia and now SA are weakened in a competition format after having played the All Blacks.

Obviously, I agree with bans after the game but maybe some more personal punishment is necessary too. Fines etc.

 

[RugbyReg]

Is anyone aware of a law at scrum time, that forces the team with a ball at the back to play it? That call against the Wallabies where they were penalised for holding it into the scrum and the Argies folded yet the Wallabies were pinged was an odd one.

 

[Ignoto]

TIL - thanks Reg. Hopefully we'll see Maul's have the same urgent use it applied!

 

[Drew]

In the lead up to that scrum penalty. Did we opt for a scrum? Or is that the law? Scrum and not a penalty for a kickoff not going 10?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

In the lead up to that scrum penalty. Did we opt for a scrum? Or is that the law? Scrum and not a penalty for a kickoff not going 10?

You either take a scrum or make the other team retake the kickoff.

 

[Drew]

You either take a scrum or make the other team retake the kickoff.

Ok, obvious choice then. I had it my head it was a penalty (guess I’m outed as a follower of league too) and couldn’t understand Hodge not taking the 3 or kicking for touch.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

TIL - thanks Reg. Hopefully we'll see Maul's have the same urgent use it applied!

they do but in the mauls, you have to be stopped twice ie one restart is allowed after the first stop

 

[swingpass]

Ok, obvious choice then. I had it my head it was a penalty (guess I’m outed as a follower of league too) and couldn’t understand Hodge not taking the 3 or kicking for touch.

penalty in 7's

 

[Drew]

penalty in 7's

Aha. Thanks

 

[D-Box]

penalty in 7's

I think just. Free Kick

 

[swingpass]

I think just. Free Kick

Ok my confusion, yes free kick not penalty

 

[Braveheart81]

Bit of a black eye for our insistence of the 20 minute red, the Kolby incident in the SA ABs test. Really ugly incident that the offending team deserved to lose a player for the duration. I’d be happy with an Orange card (our current version of red) for the incidental head knocks, etc and keep a red for reckless, dangerous, stupid play.

It happened with 5 minutes to go.

My biggest argument in favour of the 20 minute red card is to better equalize the punishment for the incident.

If that happened in the first 10 minutes of the game should the punishment be far harsher than it happening in the last 10 minutes? Why should a red card in one game be a far greater punishment than another just because of when it happened in the match?

The NH make the argument that the 20 minute red card increases the number of red cards because the punishment for the team isn't as high but if there was an element of teams deliberately partaking in dangerous play because the punishment is lower we would see more red cards later in games in the Northern Hemisphere. It is an absolutely ludicrous take. No one is doing dangerous/foul play intentionally.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

It happened with 5 minutes to go.

My biggest argument in favour of the 20 minute red card is to better equalize the punishment for the incident.

If that happened in the first 10 minutes of the game should the punishment be far harsher than it happening in the last 10 minutes? Why should a red card in one game be a far greater punishment than another just because of when it happened in the match?

The NH make the argument that the 20 minute red card increases the number of red cards because the punishment for the team isn't as high but if there was an element of teams deliberately partaking in dangerous play because the punishment is lower we would see more red cards later in games in the Northern Hemisphere. It is an absolutely ludicrous take. No one is doing dangerous/foul play intentionally.

Plus I think the referees are reluctant to give Red Cards if it is a full match red as it can ruin the game eg Wayne Barnes in the third test.

 

[Drew]

I understand where everyone is coming from. To me, 10 minutes in/10 minutes left shouldn’t dictate how the action is approached. If it was an incidental head clash? Sure 20 minute red. If it was a reckless, taking the legs out of a player in the air making the victim land on their head, I think the player should be off for the duration with no substitute. I understand others see it a different way. Just the way I’d like to see it. And I just think an ugly incident like that (as opposed to a mistimed clean out) gives World Rugby more reason to dig in their heels on this issue.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I know I am repeating myself - the challenge with introducing an additional orange card is that we will then face a lot of consistency issues as we debate yellow vs orange vs red. I haven't seen the one from the All Black test but often these situation are accidental (having eyes for the ball) but with highly dangerous impact. I am all for these situations being Red Cards but I don't think they are as intenational as kicking someone in the head or hitting someone from behind. This will cause a significant debate on Red vs Orange.

 

[Rob42]

I maintain that the team doesn’t deserve to suffer. The judiciary just needs to make a point now. He deserves a long break.

But World Rugby takes a different view - they believe that if the team suffers, that if coaches realise there's a chance they'll lose a Test match because a lazy tackle, there's a stronger incentive to coach better technique.

I get that version, but it places too much pressure on referees and TMOs to make a game-breaking, often subjective, decision in the moment, on the field. And then be challenged by a judiciary that has hours to examine every angle, consider precedent, etc. It's unfair on the ref, and ruining games with too many stoppages. I agree Reg, let the judiciary provide the punishment - though the ref has to hold the standard on the field higher than the NRL, where anything short of decapitation just goes "on report".