Refereeing decisions

[Spruce Moose]

I agree if Kerevi is starting to get pinged then we should apply all the rules and Wales should be pinged everytime they hold up the tackler then collapse the resulting maul. If you are collapsing a maul from a lineout its a penalty but if you collapse it from a held up ball carrier then its scrum to the tackling team.

In all the hub bub I had forgotten Poite was useless two other times as well:
1. If Hooper hadn't scored that try in the 2nd half I assume Poite would have gone back for the penalty and likely issued a YC due to repeat cynical offsides however because a try was scored all was forgiven.

2. The first scrum penalty when he decided it was for wallabies then the assistant said something then he reversed it, if there is confusion perform a short arm or do a reset how can a ref be so sure the AR is right and he is wrong? He had 0 problems doing resets at the death when wales were engaging early then releasing pressure to collapse, it was obvious to my son sitting on the couch that wales were doing it on purpose to play out the clock and yet Poite seems to have 0 situational awareness.

 

[tragic]

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere else

 

[Shaker]

Intrigued by alot of people being unhappy with the Samoan second yellow but a player has to make a genuine attempt with the arms surely? Clear yellow for mine.

 

[Bullrush]

Intrigued by alot of people being unhappy with the Samoan second yellow but a player has to make a genuine attempt with the arms surely? Clear yellow for mine.

What would you have liked him to wrap his arms around? The entire pitch? Maitland dived early - how do you tackle a player sliding across the turf? How many drills are there to teach that?

The reffing against Samoa was shit but that's to be expected for Island nations at RWC now I guess.

 

[molman]

The reffing against Samoa was shit but that's to be expected for Island nations at RWC now I guess.

I didn't think the ref was too bad. I agree it was a harsh call, but it felt like one of those unfortunate letter of the law things. What other aspects of the refs performance did you feel were poor?

The bit I found odd was when Nigel Owens convinced the ref that he'd seen the ball touch the line when Scotland were driving forward for a try. There was no way I could see how Nigel could have clearly seen that from the sideline. Though it didn't matter in the end because a penalty try was awarded, if that camera behind hadn't had a clear view a try would have been awarded where it shouldn't have.

 

[Bullrush]

I didn't think the ref was too bad. I agree it was a harsh call, but it felt like one of those unfortunate letter of the law things. What other aspects of the refs performance did you feel were poor?

The bit I found odd was when Nigel Owens convinced the ref that he'd seen the ball touch the line when Scotland were driving forward for a try. There was no way I could see how Nigel could have clearly seen that from the sideline. Though it didn't matter in the end because a penalty try was awarded, if that camera behind hadn't had a clear view a try would have been awarded where it shouldn't have.

I don't know why he felt it necessary on EVERY kick to tell Samoans to stop and yet nothing to the Scots - and yes, they would go forward as well. Off-side not reffed at all. Line-out throws. Samoan players with rights to the ball not getting the penalty. A hard hit having to be looked at by TMO.

None of these things by themselves cost Samoa the game - their shit ball handling, some poor individual skills and missed tackles had little to do with the ref but I'm tired of Island nations not getting the 'rub of the green' at RWCs. First we tackle too high, now it's too low.When you look across the international game, the Island nations contribute more than anyone else when you compare population, resources etc but we have some of the biggest hurdles. Officiating is just what we see on the field.

Our players have been asked to choose between club and country. Moves to allow former Test players from Tier 1 teams to represent their heritage are blocked by the same Tier 1 teams who would have to face those players. With the little money and time our teams have we put together squads which have caused some of the biggest upsets and even as they try to take away one of the few advantages we have - our instinctive nature for aggressiveness and physicality - we still provide top players for almost every other Tier 1 nation.

Yeah - sorry for the rant. That was a hard game to watch

 

[Braveheart81]

BH is this correct? I understand the definition of a fend is that the arm must be extended. But it also must be with an open hand, so on that count Kerevi was probably at fault. Also, my reading of the matter was that he was penalised for his hand (closed fist) working up off the point of impact with the chest and ended up contacting the neck which again is a penalty.

It was very soft, and worse happens in almost every game, but the letter of the law probably means the penalty was correct.

You can only fend off with an open hand. There is a new-ish law that came in around 2018 (9.24) that says that "a ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used."

My understanding of this law is that it made it possible to penalise a fend off that was closer to a strike with the butt of someone's hand.

Kerevi wasn't fending off though. At the point of contact his arm is tucked against his body. He's allowed to do that and it is legal for his forearm or shoulder to contact the tackler as the first point of contact provided his arm is against his body. Clearly Kerevi won that contact and Patchell goes backwards and Kerevi's arm naturally separates away from his body and remains in contact with Patchell which is why Kerevi ended up getting penalised. My take is that Kerevi probably shouldn't be penalised here because the contact is not direct nor with impact and if we are looking at any points during a tackle where contact is made with the head/neck area then we will be reviewing and penalising constantly.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ed Fidow's second yellow card last night was an interesting one. I agree with it but it is one of the difficult situations where the player has no legal option to try and prevent the try and potentially no way to avoid committing foul play.

Sean Maitland dived for the corner well before the line to score as Fidow came across in cover. Fidow slid into Maitland with his knees and Maitland lost the ball (unclear whether he would have anyway. It was an early dive with not a lot of slide. It seemed like the ball might have come loose regardless).

It was a very smart piece of play from Maitland because he effectively made it impossible to defend. He's on the ground so he can't be tackled/dived on and given he's done it immediately before the covering tackle, Fidow has an almost impossible job of avoiding Maitland altogether.

The last point is where I think there needs to be some changes in the laws. How to address contact that is unavoidable? Currently you have the situation where you can't tackle a player without the ball but it's more illegal to run into that player without attempting a legal tackle. The Michael Hooper tackle on Biggar is exactly the sort of situation I'm talking about. He was very lucky not to be carded but there was absolutely no way to avoid contact with Biggar. It does seem like rugby needs to address this issue. We need to accept that Hooper is going to come into contact with Biggar and that he needs to be in that position in that he is going to make a legal tackle if Biggar doesn't pass. How do you weigh up between making it better for Hooper to make a conventional tackle there on a player who has already passed (and therefore open up the potential that committed defenders can legally take out a potential support player) versus that being a safer option than not trying to make a tackle and just bracing for impact (which essentially ends up in a shoulder charge which is more dangerous and more likely to end up with a yellow card).

 

[Eyes and Ears]

A PK only against Fidow would have been a better decision. The knees weren't the cause of the knock on plus PK only would have saved a RC. Scotland didn't deserve a try as Maitland made a mistake.

 

[Braveheart81]

A PK only against Fidow would have been a better decision. The knees weren't the cause of the knock on plus PK only would have saved a RC. Scotland didn't deserve a try as Maitland made a mistake.

I don't see how you can only give it a penalty. If you penalise Fidow it has to be a yellow card and a penalty try. Maitland hadn't lost the ball before the contact started and you can't make the argument that he would have lost it regardless because there is no evidence that would be the case (although I tend to think it probably would have happened, that's not how the law works).

 

[Bullrush]

Braveheart is right though - what is Fidow supposed to do to try and stop the try? It shouldn't be a penalty at all.

I don't mind the game being strict on things like head contact where the interests of the player are paramount but this is fucked. This is 3 times worse than the Hodge incident in terms of making the game 'soft'. This and the Kerevi penalty are almost as bad as the red card Paul Williams got in 2011.

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart is right though - what is Fidow supposed to do to try and stop the try? It shouldn't be a penalty at all.

The answer here is he isn't able to do anything. I don't think you can say it shouldn't be a penalty because he didn't have another option. The other option is to be in a better position so you can make a legal tackle.

Effectively he's already been beaten and his only avenue is to commit foul play so he shouldn't do it.

I don't think we can say that foul or dangerous play is acceptable because there wasn't another option.

 

[Dan54]

Yep I thought it a little bit hard, but it begs the question, do we allow players to slide in with knees into body? One way or another that could open a can of worms because then we back to saying he did it on purpose or accident depending which team you support on the day. It getting awful hard to decide what is the right way to go in an awful lot of the laws of the game because as player protection is meant to be paramount.

 

[Braveheart81]

It getting awful hard to decide what is the right way to go in an awful lot of the laws of the game because as player protection is meant to be paramount.

This is the key question in my opinion.

I think we need to decide that 'rugby collisions' are inevitable and need to be allowed. We just need to work out how to minimise the risk in that situation (trying to reduce the no arms tackle occurrences that are actually dangerous).

What should we be teaching the tackler to do in a situation where the ball is passed/kicked shortly before contact but not soon enough to avoid the collision altogether.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I don't see how you can only give it a penalty. If you penalise Fidow it has to be a yellow card and a penalty try. Maitland hadn't lost the ball before the contact started and you can't make the argument that he would have lost it regardless because there is no evidence that would be the case (although I tend to think it probably would have happened, that's not how the law works).

A penalty try requires a judgment as to whether a try would probably have been scored. Your own words were that it probably would have been knocked on anyway. Therefore I think it is more than appropriate for the referee to argue that a probable try was not prevented.
I am strong believer that referees should use the Laws and the context of the situation to make the best possible decision and PK only is both in accordance with Law and the best decision for this situation.

 

[Bullrush]

The answer here is he isn't able to do anything. I don't think you can say it shouldn't be a penalty because he didn't have another option. The other option is to be in a better position so you can make a legal tackle.

Effectively he's already been beaten and his only avenue is to commit foul play so he shouldn't do it.

I don't think we can say that foul or dangerous play is acceptable because there wasn't another option.

I don't think he was beaten. If Maitland had continued running and had dived where he would have realistically been in a position to slide to the line, Fidow had him. Did anyone really expect Maitland to try and slide over from that far away in the dry?

If there is nothing you can do to stop the try then why bother playing in the last 3 metres. Just let players dive on the ground and see if they can make it over the line.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think he was beaten. If Maitland had continued running and had dived where he would have realistically been in a position to slide to the line, Fidow had him. Did anyone really expect Maitland to try and slide over from that far away in the dry?

If there is nothing you can do to stop the try then why bother playing in the last 3 metres. Just let players dive on the ground and see if they can make it over the line.

If Maitland just gets low rather than diving onto the ground completely it is also very hard to make a legal tackle. We often see a tackler coming across and making a high tackle in this situation because it is about the only place they can really grab onto.

It is a difficult situation to reconcile. We want players to be able to make an effort to try and stop a try but there are situations like this where the probability will be very high that whatever the defender attempts will be foul play and if the ball carrier doesn't score, it will be as a result of that foul play and a penalty try and yellow card.

 

[Tex]

It looked suss from the outset. You just can't lead with knees into a player regardless of the circumstances. Maitland had him beaten and Fidow absolutely shouldn't have attempted to stop the try that way. I don't agree that the act of the "tackle" stopped the try - that looked like Maitland misreading the surface, but if it's a penalty in the act of scoring then isn't a penalty try and yellow card regardless?

 

[Tex]

I've made my peace with the two key Poite calls from Sunday. All I want is consistency from here on in.

One call still stands out as hamfisted and that's the offside whistle on Kepu. Yes, he shot out misreading the pass, but he immediately pulled himself up, rejoined the line and had no impact on the play. Given the context of the game I thought Poite pulled a hair-trigger when he could have acknowledged the self-policing of the player and respected that.

 

[molman]

You can only fend off with an open hand. There is a new-ish law that came in around 2018 (9.24) that says that "a ball-carrier is permitted to hand off an opponent provided excessive force is not used."

My understanding of this law is that it made it possible to penalise a fend off that was closer to a strike with the butt of someone's hand.

Kerevi wasn't fending off though. At the point of contact his arm is tucked against his body. He's allowed to do that and it is legal for his forearm or shoulder to contact the tackler as the first point of contact provided his arm is against his body. Clearly Kerevi won that contact and Patchell goes backwards and Kerevi's arm naturally separates away from his body and remains in contact with Patchell which is why Kerevi ended up getting penalised. My take is that Kerevi probably shouldn't be penalised here because the contact is not direct nor with impact and if we are looking at any points during a tackle where contact is made with the head/neck area then we will be reviewing and penalising constantly.

This was my understanding of the situation. I'd read about some of the incidents in the europe comps, but in this incident Kerevi is not leading with his forearm as it is tucked, it is only after the contact when he is pushing Patchell away that there is seperation and even here the contact to the kneck is secondardy are Patchell is falling at which point Kerevi's arm slides up his chest. I honestly didn't think it even warranted a penalty and like I said before fear that becuase the whole incident 'looked dramatic' thats why it got called up.