Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

I actually think the most problematic try was Ikitau's one awarded (correctly, under current interpretations) at 65 mins.

The ball is clearly still in the ruck, but for some reason we allow the attacking team to reach into the ruck, and advance the ball by handling in the ruck to score. We don't let the defending team ignore any laws to stop it.


Nowhere in the laws does it say you are allowed to handle if you aren't bound

But if you aren't bound, you're not a part of the ruck - and provided you're onside (behind the hindmost point), and the ball is available to be played (referee determination) - you're allowed to handle the ball.

Rucks can't occur in goal, so 15.16f doesn't apply, and so I interpret the real sequence of events here as:

- Len arrives, picks up ball - referee has interpreted this has the ball is available to be played (15.17 + .19)
- The moment the ball is picked up and Len starts advancing the ball towards the goal line, the All Blacks have an impossible moment in which they can also advance from their line to defend this.
- The ball is over the line, so no ruck - try scored.

In my eyes we allow a team to play the ball from deep inside the ruck/ under bodies because they are the team most able to recycle possession, rather than it being clearly won. Otherwise we have a scenario where by law we are demanding teams flood the ruck with bodies in an attempt to clear other players - most likely leading to more injuries, slower play and more unplayables (and then scrums).

 

[Strewthcobber]

But if you aren't bound, you're not a part of the ruck - and provided you're onside (behind the hindmost point), and the ball is available to be played (referee determination) - you're allowed to handle the ball.

There's nothing in the laws that permit this.

Like I said, it was correctly awarded, under current interpretations.

I'm happy enough that we let the halfback handle the ball in the ruck in the interests of letting a rugby game break out. This is by convention only.

I just don't think you should be able to handle the ball, which is still in the ruck, to advance it and score a try.

 

[Tomthumb]

There's nothing in the laws that permit this.

Like I said, it was correctly awarded, under current interpretations.

I'm happy enough that we let the halfback handle the ball in the ruck in the interests of letting a rugby game break out. This is by convention only.

I just don't think you should be able to handle the ball, which is still in the ruck, to advance it and score a try.

But Len is the halfback in this scenario, he's not part of the ruck

 

[Strewthcobber]

I understand that. But the ball is still in the ruck. The law says no player may handle the ball while it's in the ruck.

There's no exception for unbound players, or for halfbacks. No player may handle.

By convention we allow halfbacks to dig the ball out, it's still not allowed by the laws as they stand. I don't think you should be able to advance the ball while handling and score in this scenario, while the ball is still in the ruck.

 

[JRugby2]

Sure, but that convention you refer to can easily be extended to Len's try. He's the halfback, the ball was available and so he dug it out as you say. If the laws had words to reflect this commonly allowed convention - it wouldn't change anything, the try would still be fine. I get you're not trying to make a legal argument - but even from a simple pub test perspective I don't see anything wrong with it.

The moment the ball was lifted it was out of the ruck and he could have legally been tackled or played by the opposition (unless he was turning to pass, of course). I get that, that is pretty much impossible in this scenario - but he could have been.

He didn't return it to the ruck either, as it was over the try line.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The moment the ball was lifted it was out of the ruck and he could have legally been tackled or played by the opposition (unless he was turning to pass, of course). I get that, that is pretty much impossible in this scenario - but he could have been.

He didn't return it to the ruck either, as it was over the try line.

The ball isn't out of the ruck when it's lifted.

Or at least that's not what the law book says. (I know practically that refs say that it is, with conflicting guidance from WR (World Rugby) on this)

That's my issue with it. The ball never leaves the ruck until Ikitau places it on the try line

 

[Major Tom]

ad

The ball isn't out of the ruck when it's lifted.

Or at least that's not what the law book says.

That's my issue with it. The ball never leaves the ruck until Ikitau places it on the try line

This law would be impossible to adjudicate this way though. A halfback would have to rack the ball back with their foot until it’s passed the last man’s feet before picking it up. The ref would have to determine at every single breakdown whether the halfback has infringed by grabbing the ball too early.
When halfbacks rack the ball out with their hands it’s not really fair on the defence who don’t know if the halfback has grabbed the ball.

 

[Strewthcobber]

ad

This law would be impossible to adjudicate this way though. A halfback would have to rack the ball back with their foot until it’s passed the last man’s feet before picking it up. The ref would have to determine at every single breakdown whether the halfback has infringed by grabbing the ball too early.
When halfbacks rack the ball out with their hands it’s not really fair on the defence who don’t know if the halfback has grabbed the ball.

(I'm mostly being facitious now)

Under the laws of the game, the halfback would be ruled offside, for being in front of the last feet when they do this. Players bound in the ruck should be getting the ball back with their feet.

I would be more comfortable with the Ikitau try being permitted under a ball lifted is out interpretation if the refs took a far stricter approach to the attacking team (now no longer in a ruck) obstructing the defenders, the ball carrier not rolling away from the ball etc.

Generally I think we give the attacking team far too many liberties under the laws, and the defenders are not treated equitably

 

[Brumby Runner]

(I'm mostly being facitious now)

Under the laws of the game, the halfback would be ruled offside, for being in front of the last feet when they do this. Players bound in the ruck should be getting the ball back with their feet.

I would be more comfortable with the Ikitau try being permitted under a ball lifted is out interpretation if the refs took a far stricter approach to the attacking team (now no longer in a ruck) obstructing the defenders, the ball carrier not rolling away from the ball etc.

Generally I think we give the attacking team far too many liberties under the laws, and the defenders are not treated equitably

Although I have no issue with the try, I absolutely agree with this sentiment.

 

[JRugby2]

The ball isn't out of the ruck when it's lifted.

Or at least that's not what the law book says. (I know practically that refs say that it is, with conflicting guidance from WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) on this)

That's my issue with it. The ball never leaves the ruck until Ikitau places it on the try line

The wording of the law is purposely ambiguous ("The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the try line").

In some rucks, the ball isn't out until it's completely removed from bodies (despite it being lifted), in others - a lift is enough. Comes down to the interpretation of the referee.

I don't disagree that the ball doesn't leave the ruck until Ikitau plays it - but I don't think there is anything wrong with this scenario either. Pretty impractical to set this up on purpose.

 

[Dan54]

Bloody interesting watching Brendan O'Keeffe on tv the other night talking about reffing etc. There was an interesting thing in a NPC game a couple of weeks back where a player was running down sideline, stopped the ball going into touch by batting it back in with hand , and his foot was just touching sideline try was scored. Was checked etc and TMO gave it green light, and a bit of discussion moans on net etc. O'keeffe explained that it is perfectly alright in laws of game as long as the ball didn't cross line of touch and player didn't hold ball. Then went on to explain , if you are outside the field of play, and someone kicks ball through, you can actually reach back over line and press ball for a try. Interesting law, but as he said it something WR (World Rugby) had decided.
Also was interesting to hear how games are assessed for reffing performances. ie he said after every game he spends about 4 hours or so rewating game with the full package thing that coaches etc use where you get all camera angles etc (not just what we see), and next day will have a meeting with refs board (or assessor) and they will want explanations, and/or point out what they think you have missed etc. You also have to explain why you have not made decisions etc. He said he will quite often try to let things go if he feels it doesn't impact the game.
Also on the halfback playing ball back with hands then using foot to remove it from ruck, it was decided to allow that as often he ball is trpped and so needs to be in position they can play with foot.
As a nerd I enjoyed it, even down to him saying in pregame meetings they like a captain/coach telling them of some tricky play they may have so they can be aware that they need to stand in different position to keep out of way.

 

[Braveheart81]

Also was interesting to hear how games are assessed for reffing performances. ie he said after every game he spends about 4 hours or so rewating game with the full package thing that coaches etc use where you get all camera angles etc (not just what we see), and next day will have a meeting with refs board (or assessor) and they will want explanations, and/or point out what they think you have missed etc. You also have to explain why you have not made decisions etc. He said he will quite often try to let things go if he feels it doesn't impact the game.

This is a major reason why it would be pointless having the referee do a press conference after a test match.

There is a valid reason for them to discuss decisions etc. but it's completely pointless without them having had a chance to review footage etc.