Ref blew it for Brumbies: SANZAR

[Nusadan]

I didn't see the match live and had read about the above first before finally watched a replay, and my first instinct was that the ball went straight down and not forward at all...actually I did think it went slightly backwards.

(In reference to CD's post on Steyn's 'knock forward'

 

[Lindommer]

The Steyn incident. Images extracted. Does that look if it hit the ground straight down or forward?

Without seeing where and when it hit Steyn's hands and where it bounced it's difficult to tell from those still shots. I watched a replay in motion and it was a knock-on for me.

CD brings up an interesting point here over which I've often pondered. A ball may hit a player's outstretched hands and then fall BEHIND the vertical to the ground, ie. not towards the opponents' goal-line. However, these would be very rare instances as players running forward at speed, as Steyn was, invariably propel the ball forward as they touch it, making it a knock-on. I imagine referees would have some difficulty carrying a piece of string with a bricky's plumb weight to ascertain the line of fall; they'd have to call a halt in play to determine the spot where the ball touched the player as well as the exact spot where the ball hit the ground. In the interests of accuracy I feel the various referees' associations should make arrangements with their local Bunnings to have all refs issued with string and weight. We also need eagle-eyed video operators who can assist refs to determine the exact spot where he should hang his string. The VO's assistant could then simultaneously mark the spot where the ball touched the ground and, with a tape measure, declare it back, or not. I could confidently say about 0.05% in cases when the ball fell in front of a player would be found to have been inaccurately adjudicated.

When I did my initial referee's course this possibility was touched upon; the wise convenor suggested ALL instances of the ball going down in front of a moving player should be called knock-ons. I'm still perplexed why the three officials at Loftus didn't see it that way.

 

[yourmatesam]

In the interests of accuracy I feel the various referees' associations should make arrangements with their local Bunnings to have all refs issued with string and weight. We also need eagle-eyed video operators who can assist refs to determine the exact spot where he should hang his string. The VO's assistant could then simultaneously mark the spot where the ball touched the ground and, with a tape measure, declare it back, or not. I could confidently say about 0.05% in cases when the ball fell in front of a player would be found to have been inaccurately adjudicated.

I like this idea Lindo and will be bringing this up with my local association. However, with the advent of LASER TECHNOLOGY and with the dawning of the technological age, I suggest all referees be equipped with the Lufkin LCL4 as per attached image.

The LCL4 is a self levelling laser and providing the referee is running ball line, he/she will be able to accurately see whether the ball has gone forward or backward by using the vertical plumb line of the LCL4.

 

[Cave Dweller]

On a rereading of the Laws the decision to disallow the try was correct. Law 10.1 (c) mentions blocking the tackler (nothing about obstruction being in FRONT of the ball carrier, that's the (b) bit), Carter intentionally moved into a position wich prevented the Bulls player from tackling the ball carrier. Penalty.

(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of
a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball
carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick

SANZAR’s official view is:

Obstruction Call by which Carter is penalised for obstruction. Carter made the pass and then fell into support role, behind ball-carrier - NO obstruction - play on!
.

So obstruction is either playing the man without the ball or being in front of the player so it should have been awarded.

The Sharks vs Blues game there were 3 tries that were awarded which were not tries. 2 for the Blues and 1 for the Sharks

 

[Lindommer]

I like this idea Lindo and will be bringing this up with my local association. However, with the advent of LASER TECHNOLOGY and with the dawning of the technological age, I suggest all referees be equipped with the Lufkin LCL4 as per attached image. The LCL4 is a self levelling laser...

Settle down young fella, enough of this technological claptrap. I've only recently progressed from refereeing matches with a white cane and a seeing eye dog. And that was a step up from touching and feeling...

 

[Cave Dweller]

Settle down young fella, enough of this technological claptrap. I've only recently progressed from refereeing matches with a white cane and a seeing eye dog. And that was a step up from touching and feeling...

I think the IRB law book and regulations state you need to be accompanied by a guide dog

Also the cellphone should be close by as a back up device.

May I suggest not using a Iphone as I think its hard to see its battery lasting for 80 minutes.