CAS Rugby 2023

[Snort]

Touch judges overturn onfield decisions all the time.

No, they don't. They just don't have the power, at least not if you're playing under Rugby Union laws. The referee can decide to consult them and can decide to accept their views, or not, at which point the decision rests with the referee. If you can point me to anything in the laws of the game that says something different, go ahead.

Point being, whatever the touch judge's intervention was today, he didn't "overrule" the ref. The ref may have changed his decision based on a touch judge's report, but that's not the same thing. And if the touch judge intervened without being asked by the referee, he exceeded his authority and the ref should have sent him back to the sideline.

 

[Snort]

Sorry, just to be precise: yes, sometimes touch judges intervene "to take away points scored". They have two express powers to do that, under the Laws: if the ball has gone into touch before the score, or if there has been foul play before the score. But there is no general power at all to stroll on to the field and tell the ref that a penalty decision was incorrect.

I'm not saying, by the way, that what happened today was wrong. I wasn't there. I don't know. If the ref asked the touch judge for some information, and changed his decision based on that information, then there's nothing irregular or improper about that.

 

[Snort]

Side issue, and not aimed at anyone here: people need to know the Laws of the game properly. You'd be amazed how many players don't (I remember that Waverley player who threw the ball into touch a few years back, gifting a penalty to the other side, from which they scored to win the match).

 

[Eyes Up Footy]

It's not though. Here's Law 6: "Assistant referees and touch judges are responsible for signalling touch, touch in-goal and the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. In addition, assistant referees provide assistance as the referee directs, including the reporting of foul play." And:

6.13 The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

6.14 The referee may alter a decision after a touch judge or an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch, touch-in-goal or an assistant referee has signalled foul play.

So, there's nothing in the Laws that empowers a touch judge to overrule a referee. The touch judge may only intervene if there's foul play, touch or touch in goal. Otherwise, the referee may choose to consult a touch judge and may choose to change a decision based on what he's told. But a touch judge can't just run on and say, "no, that wasn't a penalty", any more than a spectator can.

Don’t worry mate I’m agreeing with you. Bit of a misunderstanding there

 

[Eyes Up Footy]

And if the touch judge intervened without being asked by the referee, he exceeded his authority and the ref should have sent him back to the sideline.

That is what happened

 

[rod skellet]

No, they don't. They just don't have the power, at least not if you're playing under Rugby Union laws. The referee can decide to consult them and can decide to accept their views, or not, at which point the decision rests with the referee. If you can point me to anything in the laws of the game that says something different, go ahead.

Point being, whatever the touch judge's intervention was today, he didn't "overrule" the ref. The ref may have changed his decision based on a touch judge's report, but that's not the same thing. And if the touch judge intervened without being asked by the referee, he exceeded his authority and the ref should have sent him back to the sideline.

That is what happened

That is not true

 

[BlackBlue]

How was Jonathon Ryan not initially selected in CAS firsts?

Has he been the standout to that level on the field for Knox so far this year, or was todays game an anomaly?

How was Jonathon Ryan not initially selected in CAS firsts?

Has he been the standout to that level on the field for Knox so far this year, or was todays game an anomaly?

Ryan will be a star of the future..he has a motor very few can match

 

[rod skellet]

It's not though. Here's Law 6: "Assistant referees and touch judges are responsible for signalling touch, touch in-goal and the success or otherwise of kicks at goal. In addition, assistant referees provide assistance as the referee directs, including the reporting of foul play." And:

6.13 The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play and timekeeping, and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties.

6.14 The referee may alter a decision after a touch judge or an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch, touch-in-goal or an assistant referee has signalled foul play.

So, there's nothing in the Laws that empowers a touch judge to overrule a referee. The touch judge may only intervene if there's foul play, touch or touch in goal. Otherwise, the referee may choose to consult a touch judge and may choose to change a decision based on what he's told. But a touch judge can't just run on and say, "no, that wasn't a penalty", any more than a spectator can.

The referee chose to consult the touch judge, which this referee chose to do on multiple occasions during this game. There is no doubt Cranbrook got the rub of the green for the majority of the game.

 

[rod skellet]

And the lack of Barker accountability continues. There is always a ‘valid’ excuse.

What lack of Barker accountability are you specifically referring too????

 

[Snort]

The referee chose to consult the touch judge, which this referee chose to do on multiple occasions during this game. There is no doubt Cranbrook got the rub of the green for the majority of the game.

If the ref chose to consult the touch judge, and then made a decision, there's obviously no problem (although it makes the ref look like a bit of a goose if he blew for a penalty before deciding to consult).

 

[BlackBlue]

Agree 777, the Knox 7 and 13 were terrific but what people didn't know was that this Waves age has never lost a CAS game all through the ages, and it was only numerous injuries v Newington and View etc, and until recently, that camouflaged their ability.

The CAS selections are nearly always a joke because of agendas.

Waves won all ages, except the 16as, and a clean sweep in the 1sts, 2nds and 3rds.

Knox 16A,B&C won….

 

[Snort]

Barker v Trinity could be a pretty good game next week - the two sides seem more evenly matched than they have been for a while.

 

[rod skellet]

Barker v Trinity could be a pretty good game next week - the two sides seem more evenly matched than they have been for a while.

Barker need to improve otherwise Trinity are a very real chance of winning.

 

[Hercules Von Grimmelshaus]

And the lack of Barker accountability continues. There is always a ‘valid’ excuse.

So no rules broken!!

 

[CAS_Rugby]

Well done to Knox and Waverley today in a great game of schoolboy footy.

Hats off to both teams for a great display of tough hard footy and great sportsmanship.

I believe man of the match was the Knox 7, even in a losing team, he has a big future in the game of rugby.

For Waverley, the most impressive thing from the team is the defense. They tackled on their line against Knox for 15 minutes and didn’t let them cross. They did the same against Barker and Cranbrook. They surely did a great job as a team to succeed as they have so far.

I know I have harped on about it, but to me it also highlights the issues with the CAS selection process, which then also impacts on gen blue selections.

Waverley had the fourth most selected kids but have now beaten the three teams with more selections ahead of them. Putting a mockery to the whole process. I have already highlighted some obvious errors so won’t highlight them again, and I don’t know how it is fixed for the future, but there must be some consideration to change the process in the future.

I think it also highlights a great rugby program at Waverley when Knox had 7 gen blue players and Waverley had 0. But Waverley were victorious.

To me that is a great point that could be discussed further.

Great post.

Thats the issue with a gen blue program selecting kids when they are 14 years old to be the next superstars.

It then becomes hard for them to change those selections even though they say it’s performance based program. If it really was performance based Waves would have more in gen blue in the next selection process..

 

[Ziggy]

Knox 16A,B&C won….

you missed 4th XV ... but thats alot to celebrate when you win 4 from 17

score in 13A was something like 100-0 - with Waverley being told to take the foot off the gas at half time and then to the point where front rowers having shots at drop goal in the 2nd half.

under 13's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 225-5
under 14's aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 219 - 35
under 15's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 74 - 37
under 16's aggregate scores from 3 games - Knox 74 - 24
opens aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 62 - 36

 

[RedOrDead]

you missed 4th XV ... but thats alot to celebrate when you win 4 from 17

score in 13A was something like 100-0 - with Waverley being told to take the foot off the gas at half time and then to the point where front rowers having shots at drop goal in the 2nd half.

under 13's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 225-5
under 14's aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 219 - 35
under 15's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 74 - 37
under 16's aggregate scores from 3 games - Knox 74 - 24
opens aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 62 - 36

How gracious you are Ziggy.

You've made your point. Move on.

 

[RedOrDead]

It sounds like today they put a Barker players dad at touch to help over turn a game deciding decision. That won their firsts the game.

Recent news has surfaced as the linesman that overturned the refs decision from a Cranbrook penalty to a Barker try was the Barker hookers father (Keegan Daly, 2).

In my opinion, this is not acceptable for a match of such high calibre. Surely this says something about the consistency of CAS rugby, this is a first XV game that is being co-reffed by dads and associates of the home school…

You don’t need an earpiece to understand this.

It gets worse. I actually read in my book of excuses that the other touch judge was Headmaster Phillip Heath. And they actually brought back Rev Henry Plume from the dead to ref the game... Grrrr Barker. Look. This isn't the place for delusional conspiracy theories when your team loses. Move on.

Congrats Waverley. I imagine CAS teams, and the forum's predictions would have looked very different if they weren't plagued with injury from the beginning.

There is far too much focus on the CAS selections being wrong. We've known that the teams are selected far too early in the season since they moved the representative games forward from the end of the season. Since they have done this, players have always been picked based on a pre-medidated reputation, and not their actual form on the season. I promise you, this isn't an anti-Waverely/Cranbrook agenda. It was simply just a struggling Waverley team (due to injuries) in the pre-season, leading to Waves being under-represented. Is this fair? Does this lead to the correction selections? No. But that's how it will always be until they change it.

I guess the theme of this post is stop beating the dead horse.

 

[Snort]

There is far too much focus on the CAS selections being wrong. We've known that the teams are selected far too early in the season since they moved the representative games forward from the end of the season. Since they have done this, players have always been picked based on a pre-medidated reputation, and not their actual form on the season. I promise you, this isn't an anti-Waverely/Cranbrook agenda. It was simply just a struggling Waverley team (due to injuries) in the pre-season, leading to Waves being under-represented. Is this fair? Does this lead to the correction selections? No. But that's how it will always be until they change it.

I guess the theme of this post is stop beating the dead horse.

This is true.

Also this: I remember one year at school when the 1sts were pushing for the premiership. There was a player who the coaches needed to play in a particular position so that the best fifteen players could be fitted into the team. He thought that playing in another position would enhance his prospects of CAS selection. One of the coaches told him, "If you play CAS, no one will remember it. But if we win the premiership, everyone will remember that."

I think Waverley will remember this season.

 

[RugbyBot]

you missed 4th XV ... but thats alot to celebrate when you win 4 from 17

score in 13A was something like 100-0 - with Waverley being told to take the foot off the gas at half time and then to the point where front rowers having shots at drop goal in the 2nd half.

under 13's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 225-5
under 14's aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 219 - 35
under 15's aggregate scores from 3 games - Waverley 74 - 37
under 16's aggregate scores from 3 games - Knox 74 - 24
opens aggregate scores from 4 games - Waverley 62 - 36

This post doesn't make you look as good as you think it does.