RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions

[Lee Grant]

I never thought B. Lawrence was a very good ref generally, though he has good games. I thought he was good in the Argentina v. England match, for example. Others didn't, and that's OK.

Whatever the article said, refereeing didn't have anything to do with our loss. Lawrence missed stuff and made wrong decisions, but he did it for both sides.

 

[elementfreak]

6. Lineouts. The place for the hooker to stand is in the middle, and he must then throw the ball down the middle. Some hookers stand closer to their own line. Again get the ass reff to manage this.

The throw only has to go down the "inside shoulder" of the gap, if the gap is wider then it will appear a crocked throw when really it is.
Also law 19.11 doesn't say anything about standing in the middle of the lineout, he can move to his side of the gap as long as he is in the gap it's all good.

 

[Baldric]

Freakster - not entirely correct. The laws do not state that the person throwing in must stand in the middle of the lineout but it does say the following;

19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN

The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

The ball must travel along the line of touch and the line of touch by definition is the middle of the lineout. It would be impossible to stand anywhere else but in the middle of the lineout for this to happen. There is no mention of inside shoulders in the laws.

 

[Lee Grant]

Correct - it is a convention established by referees, and goes to credibility. Not a bad convention either else more lineouts would be pulled up.

 

[Mica]

Watching the game against Ireland on the weekend, does anyone else think the penalty awarded to Ireland for Genia / Kepu obstruction against POC should have gone the other way? Watching the game it appeared that POC had rushed out of the line before Genia had passed the ball from the ruck denying Genia the opportunity to pass to his flyhalf forcing him to have a snipe, hence he surely would have been offside.

Even if POC wasn't offside I wasn't sure that it was a penalty, as Genia didn't cross (run behind) Kepu.
If I recall correctly POC came off the D line in the channel between Kepu and the next player (McCalman I think).
Genia propped and came back through the scrum half channel.

He did actually push Kepu out of the way and I thought Lawrence might have got Kepu for accidental offside, though this is a scrum so that couldn't have been the ruling.
Also he didn't run into the back of him so it would be a pedantic to the point of incorrect ruling.

The point of conjecture that needs to be clarified in my opinion is regarding the obstruction rule.
Is it fair to say that because Genia never ran behind Kepu it cannot be obstruction?
I don't think that there is any debate that Kepu impeded POC from making a tackle, but from my opinion it is because he over read the play and Genia was elusive enough to step back into his (scrumhalf) channel to evade POC.
Effectively he ran behind Kepu but in the plane of touchline to touchline, not goal line to goal line.

For those interested it happens at 64:28 on the clock.
Not sure if the full replay is up on the rugbyworldcup website yet but check it out and see what you think.
I'm sure my mate Jay will have an opinion and he seems to be pretty well versed in the finer points of the laws.

 

[Jay]

Obstruction is a weird one cause although the law says it's the player that obstructs that is penalised, it's almost always the actions of the ball carrier that actually cause the obstruction. I haven't been able to have a good look at the incident other than a drunken viewing on Saturday, but will have a look at the recording later.

 

[Mica]

Some further info about the Genia/Kepu/POC penalty.
Relevant section in the IRB Laws is 10.1 (see below)

10.1
OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player
must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of
a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball
carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents
an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e) Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run
into team-mates in front of that player.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Looks like the application that B-Law applied is either 10.1(c) or possibly 10.1(e).
It does use the word "intentionally" and would rely on this interpretation.
I don't think the use of Kepu as a block was intentional, more a fact that POC took away the space that Genia wanted to use.
Also if POC went straight at Genia rather than going outside in, he would have forced Genia to either take the tackle or run behind Kepu and I would be happy with an obstuction call in this case as he ran behind his own player (goal line to goal line).

Cheers

Mica

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Anyone seen this yet?

Telegraph

Pretty pathetic criticism. Journo's just don't go to any effort anymore. Probably because they don't know what they are talking about in the first place.

Before anyone has a go at me. I'm just saying i'd rather read constructive criticism of his performance rather than "he was bad because i say so" crap. It just makes people less informed about refereeing.

 

[Braveheart81]

My memory of this incident might be a little hazy, but I thought that part of the reason why Genia didn't pass and ran for the obstruction instead was because Bryce Lawrence was partially in the way of his pass.

Is that at all supported by those who have watched it a few times?

 

[Mica]

My memory of this incident might be a little hazy, but I thought that part of the reason why Genia didn't pass and ran for the obstruction instead was because Bryce Lawrence was partially in the way of his pass.

Is that at all supported by those who have watched it a few times?

No Braveheart, B-Law is about three players off the ruck near the defensive line.
See attached screen cap.

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks for that. As I said, I couldn't remember clearly.

I haven't been game to watch a replay yet.

 

[RuckinGoodStats]

I decided to start coding the side of the field in the RWC that the ref award penalties that end up being a shot at the posts. Seems so far that some refs favour one side of the field more than another. Some of them are on the right and some on the left, so its not a "easier to pass to the left effect". Any ideas on why this is so? It should be a bit more random than it is...

 

[Lee Grant]

Am not sure - the only thing I am sure about is that wingers prefer to play on the left wing because of a preponderance of right handed backs - unless they have a better right foot step than off their left..

 

[DPK]

Am not sure - the only thing I am sure about is that wingers prefer to play on the left wing because of a preponderance of right handed backs - unless they have a better right foot step than off their left..

Or if they're left footed. I'm pretty sure the Wallabies play open/blind wingers at the set piece, though.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

I decided to start coding the side of the field in the RWC that the ref award penalties that end up being a shot at the posts. Seems so far that some refs favour one side of the field more than another. Some of them are on the right and some on the left, so its not a "easier to pass to the left effect". Any ideas on why this is so? It should be a bit more random than it is...

That is generally interesting.

 

[RuckinGoodStats]

Yeah it werid, but think a few more gameswill flesh it out. If so it might be a bit of forum cannon fodder if the refs in question end up with quarter finals etc

 

[Jay]

Ok - having looked at the Genia/Kepu/O'Connell incident, I'm not sure that obstruction is a correct call, as at the time of the obstruction Kepu is actually closer to Ireland's tryline than O'Connor. Perhaps it technically does fit the description, but it's not what you usually see called.

However, Kepu is loitering offside and makes no effort to get onside and does actually end up interfering with play so perhaps Bryce reached a decent result despite his own poor call.

O'Connell is well onside, whoever thought he wasn't is dreaming.

 

[Aussie D]

I may be dreaming but I think you need to take a look at the pic Mica posted. It shows Kepu to be in line with the middle of the ruck and POC moving forward with Genia reaching in to get the ball. POC looks to be a step in front of the hindmost feet of the last Irish feet in the ruck judging from the angle and where the rest of the Irish players are standing.

 

[barbarian]

I watched the game again and have to say... Lawrence was not that bad. Most calls he made were correct. Most of the scrum collapses were clearly our fault. Obviously he got a few wrong but that is rugby. I tip my hat to you Bryce. I suppose even a broken watch is right twice a day...

 

[Jay]

I may be dreaming but I think you need to take a look at the pic Mica posted. It shows Kepu to be in line with the middle of the ruck and POC moving forward with Genia reaching in to get the ball. POC looks to be a step in front of the hindmost feet of the last Irish feet in the ruck judging from the angle and where the rest of the Irish players are standing.

The ball is well clear in that shot - O'Connell is a half step in front of the hind-most foot, but he's had more than enough time to get there legally. The ball actually squirted out the back - at which time it was out - and Genia had to turn around to pick it up. O'Connell stayed onside till the ball was out.

Kepu is standing in front of the hindmost foot and as he was never bound, that's an offside position - ask Scarfman. Watching it again, it's a close run thing if he adopted that position before or after the ball squirts out the back (if he did it after the ball was clear then it's obviously not offside) but he does get there while the ball is in the ruck.