Refereeing decisions

[Dismal Pillock]

I reckon the rugby league influence around obstruction is starting to flow in to union.

Refs have been a bit more willing to penalize the team with the ball for dummy runners etc who get in front of the ball, so the defense has been more willing to tackle the lead runners because they either take down the ball carrier who gets the short pass, or they end up with the penalty for obstruction

Agreed, rugby league's influence on obstruction rulings seems to be creeping into the union.
Refs are cracking down on dummy runners, and defenses are smartly exploiting it either stopping the ball carrier or drawing the penalty.

 

[JRugby2]

The current law posted above outlaws this anyway - but I disagree that its a massive problem that needs a crackdown beyond what is already being called.

One of the best things about rugby is there is always room for nuance in application of the law, in that a referee can look at a situation as say "10 Red was prevented from defending/ playing how they wish by 12 Blue - but it wouldn't have made a difference anyway because the pass was too long/ player catching it was already in space/ etc etc.

We probably see more of an impact from people being held back at breakdowns that lead runners obstructing someone.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We probably see more of an impact from people being held back at breakdowns that lead runners obstructing someone.

I agree with this, and absolutely should be a crack down on this as it's an intentional offense.

Some teams who shall remain nameless may never score another try again

 

[Rhino_rugby]

hey, anybody know about the upcoming rugby match?

 

[John S]

Anyone have an opinion on the penalty against Maro Itoje in the Ire/Eng game? I know you can t touch a jumping player in the air in the lineout, but looking at the replay, it looked a bit soft and as much as I hate to say it, Maro looked hard done by.

 

[Dan54]

Thought it looked tough to John. Looked like it was AR call, and may of looked a little worse from his angle.

The decisions I thought that were also worth a a look is the screen French used for DuPont to run behind at times. I thought Welsh players could of actually run and made contact with some of them and hopefully get them called for it. I know no calls seem to be made ever without contact, but players seem to be running a screen regardless, happens almost all time, and nothing is ever done without actual contact, which is wrong.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Around 54:00 on the game clock

I reckon if you push a lineout jumper in the air, even just a little, and the end result is your opposition spit out to the side and miss the lineout take on the side of the push then you probably can't complain too much. Don't give the ref an excuse.

 

[JRugby2]

Yep, and FWIW they also had a closing the gap called against them and were warned several times to stay on their side.

 

[Sully]

Digging deep into my memories I believe it's incredibly easy to move someone who's jumping in a lineout a few inches.

 

[John S]

Yeah, fair enough. I do recall them being warned about minding the gap. To my non-playing brain it seemed soft. But I can see it was deserved, and totally Maro's fault for putting it into the ref's hand.

TBF, I reckon BOK didn't actually have that bad a game.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Shamelessly stolen from a refs forum, but anyway.....

Ball is passed from 10 to 12 who fumbles it forwards. Without hitting the ground, it bounces off the posts and back into 12s hands who catches it and scores the try.

Would you award the try?

 

[Wilson]

My instinct is no because controlling the ball with the posts is the same as controlling the ball with the ground, so as soon as it touched the post it became a knock on. That's assuming it went forward into the posts, if it somehow went backwards into them then it's fine.

 

[Derpus]

I don't know the actual answer but if that is a try they should fix that shit up because that's super dumb.

 

[JRugby2]

Try time

and if this is how Australia wins back the Bledisloe Cup I'll shamelessly defend the integrity of the lawbook

 

[Strewthcobber]

Are the posts part of the "total area"?

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, I believe so:

 

[Strewthcobber]

If they are part of "the ground" under law 1, then wouldn't they be captured by the knock-on law?

 

[JRugby2]

I think if the definition of a Knock on was referring to Law 1: The Ground in the wording - rather than the literal ground - then they would have capitalised "The Ground" or put something in like "... and the ball touches the ground (refer to Law 1) or another player..."


and I hate myself for typing that sentence

 

[Strewthcobber]

It does give the ref a nice way of escaping what would be a plainly ridiculous situation!

 

[Derpus]

Does a ref even need an excuse it this situation? If he called it a knock on absolutely no one would question it.