Refereeing decisions

[Major Tom]

Cowards

 

[Sword of Justice]

For some reason it is back up on the Rugby World Cup official page.

 

[Strewthcobber]

A few phone calls pinging around WR (World Rugby) HQ lol

 

[Pfitzy]

Refereeing decisions: many in the Wallaroos game vs USA. So. Many.

 

[John S]

Refereeing decisions: many in the Wallaroos game vs USA. So. Many.

There were a few weren't there.

 

[Pfitzy]

There were a few weren't there.

More broadly: I don't think I've seen obstruction called at a maul once this whole tournament.

 

[John S]

No, I haven't seen it in the two Wallaroos games I watched. I noticed too, but I've now forgotten what it was, but there was something called in the US game that I don't often see called in the Men's game. I'm going to have to re-watch it to find out what it was.

 

[Pfitzy]

15 minutes into Wallaroos v England.

Referee finally found England's offside line

WR (World Rugby) needs to sink a lot of money into female officiating support. This RWC has been pretty ordinary, all things considered

 

[Pfitzy]

I've been trying to find time to watch the whole game. This morning I managed the last 10 minutes of the first half and I won't watch any more.

From minute 34 onward there were some absolute shockers IMHO. England don't really need the help. Nevertheless...

 

[Strewthcobber]

I've been trying to find time to watch the whole game. This morning I managed the last 10 minutes of the first half and I won't watch any more.

From minute 34 onward there were some absolute shockers IMHO. England don't really need the help. Nevertheless...

The lack of explanation from the ref was pretty noticeable, and something they will need to work on as women's rugby gets more eyeballs.

Eg. What was that scrum free kick for?

 

[Mr Pilfer]

Taranaki vs Otago NPC around 62nd minute, Otago number 10 scores a try. Ref called release because knees on ground so they release and he falls over try line

Been waiting for one of these to come up, not sure what defenders are supposed to do?

 

[dru]

Taranaki vs Otago NPC around 62nd minute, Otago number 10 scores a try. Ref called release because knees on ground so they release and he falls over try line

Been waiting for one of these to come up, not sure what defenders are supposed to do?

Give a penalty?

 

[Mr Pilfer]

Give a penalty?

Yeah I think that’s the only option which is pretty stupid and ref could give a yellow card as well

 

[Strewthcobber]

Give a penalty?

Penalty try + yellow card?

 

[Wilson]

Taranaki vs Otago NPC around 62nd minute, Otago number 10 scores a try. Ref called release because knees on ground so they release and he falls over try line

Been waiting for one of these to come up, not sure what defenders are supposed to do?

Best bet would be bring him down over the line without releasing the player so that it's held up, but you are very much putting yourself in the refs hands at that point. Looking at it though they probably would've got away with doing that (assuming they could've pulled it off, it's a tricky bit of business).

Either way the tacklers definitely screwed up in the first place though - they should've fallen back over the line once they had him in hand instead of trying to force him away from the line. We've had goal line drop outs for held up a while now but the lower levels have been slow to adapt.

 

[Rob42]

Probably about time for World Rugby to warn the Springboks again about their endless use of medics and waterboys to pass messages. Peak example was in the first half yesterday when one of the Springboks (Willemse, I think) was down with an ankle injury surrounded by three NZ medical staff whilst the Springboks "medic" is talking to the team huddle some distance away.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Or just be open about it and don't worry. If the refs just played on like super they wouldn't get those opportunities.

 

[John S]

Or just be open about it and don't worry. If the refs just played on like super they wouldn't get those opportunities.

I think it was one of the Lions games the ref was getting stroppy with all the water boys.

I think too I heard the ref in one of the SA v Aus games say either the player goes off or you do and we play on to the medic

 

[Strewthcobber]

All Blacks seemed to have found a way to counter the Springboks mid-field lineout maul.

What do we think? Was the ref's decision to play the knock-on correct here?

 

[Wilson]

Axelle Berthoumieu (French backrower) has her biting ban reduced from 12 weeks to 9 on appeal. The reasoning behind this change seems to set a pretty problematic precedent that can be applied elsewhere:

The player admitted committing an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 and that the act merited a red card. The Disciplinary Committee agreed and concluded that the appropriate entry point was mid-range. Therefore, the starting point is a suspension of 18 weeks. 

In considering mitigation, in light of the player’s admission, her clean disciplinary record, her remorse and public apology, the committee concluded that the player was entitled to full mitigation of 50 per cent.

The FPRC had taken a different view to the level of mitigation, stating: “Full mitigation was not given due to the seriousness of the player’s actions as it appeared from the video footage that the player appeared to nudge Ireland number seven’s forearm twice before she bit her, suggesting an intention to bite the Ireland player, and two opportunities to stop and not continue with a bite, not taken by the player.”

However, the committee decided that, pursuant to World Rugby Regulation 17, those factors are relevant to the assessment of the seriousness of the conduct (i.e. the entry point) but not to an assessment of the extent of mitigation. Therefore, the Disciplinary Committee discounted nine weeks, not six weeks, from the starting point of 18 weeks and imposed a final sanction of nine weeks.

Independent disciplinary process update: Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu (France) | World Rugby

France’s Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu have been suspended for nine and three (reduced to two on completion of the coaching intervention programme) matches respectively, after an independent Disciplinary Committee heard their appeals against sanctions for offences under Law 9.12 (biting)...

www.world.rugby

Reading regulation 17 the appeals committee appear to be correct in ignoring intent and the nature of the offense when determining mitigation, but it's really difficult to see how a 50% reduction for such a serious offense can be justified, particularly for a 25 year old player with years of test match experience (youth and inexperience are mitigating factors).

The flow on effect from this decision seems to be that players with an otherwise clean record can expect full 50% mitigation on any offense by admission of guilt and an apology alone. This is perhaps not anything too new with 50% discounts being more or less the norm for tackle offenses, but they are almost always seen as unintentional or reckless accidents. This may also change the way entry point is calculated going forward - if the committees were (incorrectly) assuming intent and nature of offense were to be applied both as part of entry point and in determining mitigation they may have come to lower entry point conclusions then they otherwise would have.

I haven't been a fan of the sanctioning process and the way mitigation is applied for some time, but this clarification makes it look much worse than I thought it was, particularly for the more serious offenses.