Kings vs Highlanders Sat 11th May

[Rassie]

You honestly don't think tha tit was blatant cheating though do you? and in any case i dont think it was that bad, mistakes were made but i dont think it was due to a biased nature

A referee can kill you. But I always believe when that happens stop doing what he is killing you with every time.
Like the RWC quarter final. We were getting killed in the break down especially in the final third of the pitch so stop taking it in. If in range drop it. 60 percent possession 70 percent territory the light bulb should go on and do a Jannie De Beer. When you dropped the will out of them then go for the try.

 

[Mank]

Neutral referees.

Why? Are you saying referees are biased?

 

[qwerty51]

The inexperienced ones are.

 

[Sidbarret]

The inexperienced ones are.

I think the situation is a little more complicated than that though.

There are serious differences between the way the game are refereed in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, particularly with regards to the actions of the tackler and the maul*. The more experienced the referee the more he referees according to the accepted middle-ground between the differing interpretations. Certain teams do things in the course of a game which are unremarkable in terms of the Australasian interpretation but will be called every time by South African referees (and to lesser extent visa versa).

One of the main gripes I have about Lyndon Bray's tenure as ref boss of SANZAR and O'Brien at the IRB is that they have failed to institute a uniform interpretation amongst their referees and it has lead to situation where teams need to adjust unnecessarily from one week to the next about certain fundamental aspects of the game.


*in my opinion the Australasian interpretation of the rights of the tackler and single defender of the maul plainly wrong and the middle-ground interpretation often used is simply a watered down version of an incorrect view.

 

[Rassie]

^Why are people worrying about the maul. SA use it now are you going to take that away from us as well?

 

[Sidbarret]

^Why are people worrying about the maul. SA use it now are you going to take that away from us as well?

The debate centres around the way teams go about countering the mauls. One of the legitimate counters to a mauls is for a defender to work his way through a maul to the ball-carrier, tying the ball up and so doing winning a scrum when the ball cannot be produced. Well when is a player going through a maul and when is he simply walking around the maul to the ball carrier. In the South African interpretation the defender needs to split the attacking maul, in other words go between attacking players, the New Zealanders believe it is enough to simply be touching maul while you swan around the outside of the maul (see the Stormers/Blues game where Ali Williams slips his way around an advancing maul, while his team was under a warning for maul offences, Pollock I believe gave a scrum to the Blues instead of a yellow against the Blues, in a one point game that was a massive call).

The other issue concerns truck and trailer. To be fair the referees have been consistent on not calling truck and trailer this season, but commentators and fans seem confused as to the rulings. If the defenders leave (or are split off) an advancing maul, the same maul is continued and no truck and trailer situation is possible (see Bulls/forces). If the ballcarrier leaves the maul with players ahead of him, the maul comes to an end and it is truck and trailers (first Sharks try against the Chiefs).

 

[Rassie]

The debate centres around the way teams go about countering the mauls. One of the legitimate counters to a mauls is for a defender to work his way through a maul to the ball-carrier, tying the ball up and so doing winning a scrum when the ball cannot be produced. Well when is a player going through a maul and when is he simply walking around the maul to the ball carrier. In the South African interpretation the defender needs to split the attacking maul, in other words go between attacking players, the New Zealanders believe it is enough to simply be touching maul while you swan around the outside of the maul (see the Stormers/Blues game where Ali Williams slips his way around an advancing maul, while his team was under a warning for maul offences, Pollock I believe gave a scrum to the Blues instead of a yellow against the Blues, in a one point game that was a massive call).

The other issue concerns truck and trailer. To be fair the referees have been consistent on not calling truck and trailer this season, but commentators and fans seem confused as to the rulings. If the defenders leave (or are split off) an advancing maul, the same maul is continued and no truck and trailer situation is possible (see Bulls/forces). If the ballcarrier leaves the maul with players ahead of him, the maul comes to an end and it is truck and trailers (first Sharks try against the Chiefs).

I said that with a tongue in the cheek as its the only thing we been doing recently.

Yes it is truck and trailing if the ball carrier is not bound.

The Blues have being comical trying to stop the mauls. They tried jumping on it. Dragging guys out. Going around the side. I think its more of a lack of not paying attention to some skills cause they were to busy over doing something else.

How do you stop a maul? Simple do not bind to it and it won't be a maul. IF they transfer the ball to the back run against it and it will be a obstruction penalty.

The Highlanders defended the maul pretty well. But then again the Sharks are not known for their mauling.

 

[Blue]

The problem with mauls is not the laws. The laws are clear. It's the inconsistency in refereeing.

Three problems mainly causing confusion with refs:

1. Mauls that splinter
2. Defenders coming in from the side
3. Pulling down

One ref's interpretation can be totally different to another.

Changing laws ain't going to help because there only way to make it crystal clear is to eliminate the maul.

Refs should work on consistency instead.

It's a fundamental of the game. Don't fuck with it.

There is another game to watch if you like one that stops when there's contact.

 

[Rassie]

The problem with mauls is not the laws. The laws are clear. It's the inconsistency in refereeing.

Three problems mainly causing confusion with refs:

1. Mauls that splinter
2. Defenders coming in from the side
3. Pulling down

One ref's interpretation can be totally different to another.

Changing laws ain't going to help because there only way to make it crystal clear is to eliminate the maul.

Refs should work on consistency instead.

It's a fundamental of the game. Don't fuck with it.

There is another game to watch if you like one that stops when there's contact.

I think the laws are pretty clear in those points.


1. Mauls that splinter - This one is easy. If it splinters is it still a maul?

Law 17 DEFINITIONS
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carrier’s team mates bind on the ball-carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball-carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.

2. Defenders coming in from the side - Law 17.2 (b) A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.

What confuses people there is the jargon used by referees like swimming on the side of the maul which actually means that he had released his bind to work his way up the maul and was neither bound to it nor caught up in it.

3. Pulling down - Law 17.3 (a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Law 10.4 (k) Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Law 10.5 (a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.
So the referee will tick him off, sin bin or red card him

Pretty clear that. But referee can only judge on what is clear and obvious