Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

I'm disapointed in myself here

Don't be too hard on yourself here JR. Rhino is obviously a pretty old AI. Most posters on here are newer versions where you can't even tell

 

[Sully]

When will we hear about Cam Miller's citing for his high tackle against Moana?

 

[liquor box]

In yesterdays Reds v Force game near the end Hamish Stewart shoulder charged a Reds player to the head and play continued under advantage then Swain did a head high shot on HMP.

If the referee didn't determine that they were only penalties could both players be carded or only one?

I know that more than one player can get carded from a single incident but these were separated but have never seen what happened result in 2 cards

 

[Sully]

Both should have been carded. Swain clearly lowered his left arm to stop HMP. Ref wimped out. So should have Dolly for his hit on Lynagh.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Can card either or both, and the ref considered both incidents, but decided both were penalty only

 

[TSR]

I thought all three met the Yellow Card threshold.

However, whilst the lack on consistency is frustrating I’m actually happy the two cards at the end didn’t come out. The Reds had to beat 15 players and there can be no suggestion that they were given an unfair advantage of numbers by the ref.

 

[Sully]

There were a few high shots over the weekend that weren't picked up. I'll be interested to see if any get sent to the judiciary.

 

[liquor box]

Both should have been carded. Swain clearly lowered his left arm to stop HMP. Ref wimped out. So should have Dolly for his hit on Lynagh.

I agree, I guess my question was more about whether Swain can claim that his offence would not occurred if the referee actually blew the whistle.

Hypothetically it would be possible to have 15 advantages where every player gets carded but if the whistle was blown at the start only one player gets carded.

In this case I think both deserved cards but cannot resolve in my mind if Swain should really get one.

 

[LeCheese]

Don't really see it any differently to an act of foul play being committed during a period of penalty advantage - that situation could result in a card, so Swain's could as well.

 

[JRugby2]

I agree, I guess my question was more about whether Swain can claim that his offence would not occurred if the referee actually blew the whistle.

Hypothetically it would be possible to have 15 advantages where every player gets carded but if the whistle was blown at the start only one player gets carded.

In this case I think both deserved cards but cannot resolve in my mind if Swain should really get one.

It wouldn't be a credible defence at a judiciary, put it that way.

 

[Rhino_rugby]

if the whistle had gone earlier, does Swain even commit the offense? In theory, repeated advantages could lead to multiple cards, but early intervention changes the outcome. I agree both deserved cards here, but it does raise a fair question about how timing impacts discipline."

 

[Dctarget]

Brother I like the cut of your jib, want to get a beer with me sometime?

 

[Wilson]

 

[JRugby2]

if the whistle had gone earlier, does Swain even commit the offense? In theory, repeated advantages could lead to multiple cards, but early intervention changes the outcome. I agree both deserved cards here, but it does raise a fair question about how timing impacts discipline."

It's not a fair question really, because it ignores the realities of how the game is played and officiated. Not withstanding you can't commit dangerous acts at any time, that theory ignores advantage law and application. If there is an opportunity to play on, the referee will under advantage - if we start blowing things immediately the game probably becomes unplayable, let alone watchable.

It also assumes that the referee saw and acknowledged the first act of foul play and was able to accurately adjudicate on it in real time - which (rightfully) doesn't really happen in professional rugby where there is an appointed TMO anymore (for foul play anyway). Just have to go back to the ANS last year to why why that is the current process, where James Doleman jumped at a few shadows and blew penalties for "foul play" only to then have to give the ball back to the team in possession when it was shown to be a non-event.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Jumping over the tackle X 2 this week

3:08 - try stands for Moana

Try disallowed for Wales

 

[Wilson]

I think they got these right in the end. The law is specifically that a player must not do anything "reckless or dangerous to others including ... jumping into, or over, a tackler."

That clearly applies in the Welsh case where he jumps directly towards and over the tackler, whereas the tackler is coming at Taumoefolau from the side and he jumps away/out of the way. I don't think what he does is reckless or dangerous - there's no leading knee or foot to create risk given where the tackler is, so the try should stand (as it did).

 

[Braveheart81]

24.50 in the Crusaders vs Reds game, the ball is being passed along the Reds backline inside their 22. The pass goes astray in the Blackadder tackle and then Blackadder while on his knees gathers the ball and places it back on his side.

Sevu Reece scores on the next phase.

Shouldn't this be a penalty to the Reds for the Crusaders player playing the ball on the ground?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Depends if you think he...

a) went to ground to gather the ball, in which case he's legal if he immediately releases it (which he does) (13.1)

or

b) was on the ground in the field of play, without the ball, in which case he can't play it (13.3)

 

[Derpus]

Think that one is a straightforward miss. I'm more interested in how they managed to talk a driving tip tackle onto head/neck into penalty only.

 

[Braveheart81]

He was already on the ground. He made a tackle (which caused the ball to come loose), was on his knees and never got to his feet before playing the ball.