Refereeing decisions

[John S]

Scrum feeds? Bigger hills to die on IMO. If we broadly accept that in every aspect of the game, players will try and rig the moment in favour of their team and push the boundaries of law - then we understand this is going to happen and probably continue to happen even in a crack down. The likely result, to me anyway, will just be more whistle with no long lasting benefit.

I don't get the hate behind caterpillar rucks either? What do people so strongly dislike about them? Attacking team has 5 seconds from a use it call - provided they actually use the ball in that time who cares what happens in the interim? Maybe the issue is referees need to be dishing out a use it call quicker.

The 20min red card argument is a bit dead now I think, and the author of that article is just rehashing the same argument thats come from opponents to the policy from the start. Obvious pros and cons to it, but until we get hit with actual data that it is increasing the incidents of foul play I can't see it going away.

True - I think more consistency with the "use it" calls from refs needs to happen. And penalties - I'm sure I've seen heaps of rucks where the refs called use it, and the scrum half has waited another 30 seconds before doing anything.

As I said - looks to be a fair amount of NH tears this morning

 

[liquor box]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

 

[Sword of Justice]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

I agree that it looks terrible but there could be some implications if that isn’t allowed given its very common for a nine or a forward to have to grab the ball and wrangle it out of a ruck. The caterpillar is still technically a ruck. As Strewthcobber mentioned in this thread there is no wording in the laws that deal directly with when a tackle offside line vanishes if there’s no ruck contest and the tackler has rolled away from something that vaguely looks like the team in possession sealing off.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah in this context not being allowed to roll the ball backwards with your hands, but your feet is ok seems like a arbitrary ruling that achieves nothing.

I agree that it looks terrible but there could be some implications if that isn’t allowed given its very common for a nine or a forward to have to grab the ball and wrangle it out of a ruck. The caterpillar is still technically a ruck. As Strewthcobber mentioned in this thread there is no wording in the laws that deal directly with when a tackle offside line vanishes if there’s no ruck contest and the tackler has rolled away from something that vaguely looks like the team in possession sealing off.

There's not really any clear wording on this for rucks and mauls either - beyond the assumption that the offside line vanishes when the ruck or maul ends.

For tackles, there is wording that is consistent with that however.

14.10 Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the try line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the try line, the offside line for that team is the try line.

4.11 (c) The tackle ends when: The ball leaves the tackle area.

So in laymans - tackle occurs, supporting attacking player arrives and creates offside lines. Tackler rolls away and rest of defense stand off, set up a line but don't compete. More supporting players form caterpillar so ball remains at the tackle (we still have an offside line at hindmost point). Ball picked by 9 - offside line disappears.

 

[Pfitzy]

My biggest issue with the caterpillar is the 9 being able to roll the ball back with their hands, to me, once they touch it with their hands, they should be fair game for the defence.

At one point they were enforcing this. But like most little things, it was discarded when the next round of interpretations were raised for focus

 

[Braveheart81]

My understanding is that the halfback can use their hands to make the ball accessible in the ruck without it leaving the ruck. Once it is accessible they then need to roll the ball back with their feet.

My view of that article is that it should (and probably was) written several years ago.

1. Scrum feed - there was a crackdown on this a few years ago and halfbacks were made to put the ball into the middle of the scrum. That made it clear that the scrums are too low for hookers to actually hook and we had multiple scrums where neither team could strike for the ball and it just sat there. My view is that modern scrums are low and powerful and that doesn't combine with a genuine hooking contest for the ball. This hasn't really been part of the game for a long time anyway. Tight heads are won by driving over the opposition, not with a good piece of work by the hooker.

2. The caterpillar ruck isn't great but it has been actively sped up and in my view isn't an issue worth focusing on now. Just continue to push the halfback to use the ball in a timely manner.

3. The 20 minute red card is good and we haven't seen any evidence to suggest it is making referees make poor decisions. It's pretty clearly here to stay.

 

[Strewthcobber]

My bigger issue with the caterpillar is the 9 is offside when they are handling. I wouldn't have a problem if they enforced the half standing behind the back feet instead of just arbitrarily letting one player break one of the fundamental laws.

If you want to setup a caterpillar that's fine, but make it hard

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah in this context not being allowed to roll the ball backwards with your hands, but your feet is ok seems like a arbitrary ruling that achieves nothing.



There's not really any clear wording on this for rucks and mauls either - beyond the assumption that the offside line vanishes when the ruck or maul ends.

For tackles, there is wording that is consistent with that however.



So in laymans - tackle occurs, supporting attacking player arrives and creates offside lines. Tackler rolls away and rest of defense stand off, set up a line but don't compete. More supporting players form caterpillar so ball remains at the tackle (we still have an offside line at hindmost point). Ball picked by 9 - offside line disappears.

I would love a clarification confirming that tackles, rucks and mauls still exist when all players are off their feet, and then confirmation what a player entering a tackle, maul or ruck can actually do.

 

[Sword of Justice]

I would love a clarification confirming that tackles, rucks and mauls still exist when all players are off their feet, and then confirmation what a player entering a tackle, maul or ruck can actually do.

Additionally what is the tackle area? Is it anyone bound to the person on their feet over the ball? I guess it must be under the current interpretation.

 

[JRugby2]

I'd just rather argue the miniature of a stupid children's sport that adults get paid to play for some reason, than do any work

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Wilson]

So Sheehan cops a 4 match ban (down to 3 with tackle school) despite not admitting fault, with the ban set to be served over 3 URC games (1 pre-season):

British and Irish Lions: Dan Sheehan receives four-match ban for clearout in third Test

Hooker Dan Sheehan has been banned for four matches, which will be reduced to three if he completes World Rugby's coaching intervention, for his clearout in the British and Irish Lions' final Test defeat by Australia.

www.bbc.com

Surely something has to change with the way we manage the judiciary? Certainly the discount for tackle school (coaching intervention program) needs to end, professional players should be required to do the work before they commit an offense and if they need remedial training it should not come with a discount on their ban.

I'd like to see much more significant changes though - bans should come with a points system based on the level they were earned at alongside a minimum number of matches. So a test match ban might be 100 points for one week, super rugby in competition (or equivalent pro comp) 75 points and friendlies and semi-pro/amateur club games 50 points. So a 3 match ban would be 300 points and that could be served as 3 test matches, 4 super rugby games, 6 club games or some combination equaling (or exceeding) 300 points.

For a 3 match ban at super level it would be 225 points, so it could be served by 3 super rugby matches or 5 club games but still 3 tests as it would still require a minimum of 3 matches served for the ban. Something like 2 tests and club would also be acceptable as it meets both the match and point threshold. This way the minimum matches served prevents serious bans at lower levels being burned down quickly via test matches.

The point values here are somewhat flexible and potentially you'd have a maximum match amount set at something like 1.5-2x the minimum, but it'd make it much harder for players and teams to take the piss with trial games they wouldn't ever have been likely to play, without the complications of forcing players to serve a ban at the level they earned it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Interesting that all submissions are in writing with no appearance by the player as well

 

[Dan54]

Interesting that all submissions are in writing with no appearance by the player as well

Yep it's a new thing so as not to waste time I believe, the judiciary sits without having to wait for player to return home etc.
On the sentence etc, I thought the 4-6 weeks would be about it with no guilty pea etc to lighten it. I think perhaps the week off for tackle school should actually work opposite way. If you get 4 weeks or whatever and DON'T attend tackle school, add another week or 2, so no time off.

 

[Italophile]

So Sheehan cops a 4 match ban (down to 3 with tackle school) despite not admitting fault, with the ban set to be served over 3 URC games (1 pre-season):

British and Irish Lions: Dan Sheehan receives four-match ban for clearout in third Test

Hooker Dan Sheehan has been banned for four matches, which will be reduced to three if he completes World Rugby's coaching intervention, for his clearout in the British and Irish Lions' final Test defeat by Australia.

www.bbc.com

Surely something has to change with the way we manage the judiciary? Certainly the discount for tackle school (coaching intervention program) needs to end, professional players should be required to do the work before they commit an offense and if they need remedial training it should not come with a discount on their ban.

I'd like to see much more significant changes though - bans should come with a points system based on the level they were earned at alongside a minimum number of matches. So a test match ban might be 100 points for one week, super rugby in competition (or equivalent pro comp) 75 points and friendlies and semi-pro/amateur club games 50 points. So a 3 match ban would be 300 points and that could be served as 3 test matches, 4 super rugby games, 6 club games or some combination equaling (or exceeding) 300 points.

For a 3 match ban at super level it would be 225 points, so it could be served by 3 super rugby matches or 5 club games but still 3 tests as it would still require a minimum of 3 matches served for the ban. Something like 2 tests and club would also be acceptable as it meets both the match and point threshold. This way the minimum matches served prevents serious bans at lower levels being burned down quickly via test matches.

The point values here are somewhat flexible and potentially you'd have a maximum match amount set at something like 1.5-2x the minimum, but it'd make it much harder for players and teams to take the piss with trial games they wouldn't ever have been likely to play, without the complications of forcing players to serve a ban at the level they earned it.

And Jonker escapes scot-free for missing what everyone else saw. Not only at the time but in subsequent replays.

 

[John S]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...6St4eTufq7Lh0wsiOw_aem_NAvgf6v4tOGFlVPVuPD-Mw - this came up in my feed. Fair crack of the sav, the north is still carrying on about Tizanno's "dive".

To save people a waste of five minutes:
- the northern press have recruited John Kirwan to wade in on "that tackle"
- JK while not saying Carlo dived said that he tried to "milk" a penalty
- JK basically accused WR (World Rugby) of being too scared to back up the referee and come out with their support of his decision, and their stance on diving.

Funnily enough, nearly everyone commenting never read the article and told him to stop whining, and the game and series were won by the Lions. They were lumping him in with us "whinging Aussies"

 

[Dan54]

@John S , makes me laugh when they label JK a, Aussie, maybe because he commented on a Wallaby test and he from SH. same as I read on a NH rugby forum giving a NZ opinion of the Lions, in an article by Ian Payten from SMH, because it was also published on NZ stuff.

 

[Major Tom]

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport...6St4eTufq7Lh0wsiOw_aem_NAvgf6v4tOGFlVPVuPD-Mw - this came up in my feed. Fair crack of the sav, the north is still carrying on about Tizanno's "dive".

To save people a waste of five minutes:
- the northern press have recruited John Kirwan to wade in on "that tackle"
- JK while not saying Carlo dived said that he tried to "milk" a penalty
- JK basically accused WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) of being too scared to back up the referee and come out with their support of his decision, and their stance on diving.

Funnily enough, nearly everyone commenting never read the article and told him to stop whining, and the game and series were won by the Lions. They were lumping him in with us "whinging Aussies"

The more they carry on about it, the more it goes into the history book as an asterisk.
This is the same team that deliberately smashed lynagh in the head with an illegal clean out. If they’re truly concerned about the game then I suggest they focus more on protecting player heads than looking at player staging.

 

[Dan54]

Always seems interesting it seems even more ref complaints from Lions tours. I looking back at tour to NZ 2017, a few decisions , not leats the final one of final test were complained about. In SA 2021 we had Rassie's famous video about Nic Berry, and now again we seem to have them. It's almost a relief it's over so we can all catch breath.

 

[Rebel man]

I feel with Sheehan’s suspension it’s really quite simple. You should serve the ban at the level you are playing or a higher level.

But is you get a 4 game ban in a test match that should result in 4 tests

 

[Wilson]

I feel with Sheehan’s suspension it’s really quite simple. You should serve the ban at the level you are playing or a higher level.

But is you get a 4 game ban in a test match that should result in 4 tests

Thats not workable though - either you see a 1 or 2 game ban in the final game of an EOYT rub one of our guys out for an entire season because they have to wait for a test to serve it, or you see a guy playing back for his club while ostensibly on a test ban committing the same offence and potentially badly injuring a player raising a massive liability issue for World Rugby.