Refereeing decisions

[liquor box]

Any referees of experts in scrum binding that can assist with a question?

How long does the bind have to remain at scrum time. Last night in the Reds v Rebels game in the first half there was a scrum reset where Zander (Reds 1) appeared to complain to the referee about the bind being made by Fa'amausili (Rebels 3). The referee moved to their side of the scrum and on the repack Fa'amausili took a bind on the jersey of Zander and then once contact was made with the Reds he let go of the jersey and moved his hand to hook under Zander's armpit.

The Referee had no issue with it (I assume he saw this happen) and this continued for most of the scrums from then on during the game.

Near the end of the game Toupou was also hooking his hand in his opponents arm pit.

Is this allowed? What is the point of binding if you can just let go and place your hand anywhere?

Is it a penalty?

 

[Pfitzy]

Law 19
11 ENGAGEMENT
(c) Each prop binds by gripping the back or side of their opponent’s jersey.
(d) All players’ binding is maintained for the duration of the scrum.

rule of thumb is you should not alter your bind once the scrum is square and steady i.e. once the ref is happy to call "engage" then don't move your bind.

In practice, you might let it go if there is no material effect, *provided* it is on the back or side.

In the Tahs v Brumbies game the binds were horrendous from all sides - elbows pointing to ground in a lot of cases, indicated they were in danger of collapse and don't have enough functional movement in their shoulder joints.

 

[Pfitzy]

Righto - Tahs v Ponies in Canberra, the two lineout penalties that stood out:

1) Pete Samu walking around into the Tahs lineout and disrupting the maul. That one would be pretty clear cut ordinarily, as the lineout is over once it passes the 15. The real question is whether Samu had crossed the line before it reached the 15 - not many refs would have let that go I might add, as it was a bad look and split-second timing.

2) HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) running around the back of the Ponies' attempted maul around 37:30 game clock, and getting pinged for it. Was it the right decision? Was the lineout actually over?

Again, this is down to timing. A lineout ends when the ball exits the line of touch or the 5m/15m lines, so we're going for the first one and ignoring the latter. If a ruck or maul had formed, the ball would still be in the lineout, but this isn't the case.

The Brumbies jumper definitely passes it back, so the lineout ends at that point. The issue is HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) has timed his run just as the jumper is being brought back to ground by his lifters, and not after the ball is passed back.

In fact if the Tahs just held their ground for a second more, then contacted the Brumbies players, it would have been truck n trailer. Right decision.

 

[Braveheart81]

On the HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) one, I thought the comment was that Jack Dempsey had put a hand on one of the Brumbies players thereby creating an offside line that HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) then crossed.

 

[John S]

On the HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) one, I thought the comment was that Jack Dempsey had put a hand on one of the Brumbies players thereby creating an offside line that HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) then crossed.

Yeah, that's what I recall - I think they basically said Dempsey just needed to wait a bit longer, but the Tahs had the right idea

 

[Pfitzy]

On the HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) one, I thought the comment was that Jack Dempsey had put a hand on one of the Brumbies players thereby creating an offside line that HJH (Harry Johnson-Holmes) then crossed.

I'll have to look at it again - note that putting a hand on someone does not constitute a bind, which therefore does not constitute a maul, and therefore an offside line has NOT been created

If that's what Berry ruled, he's wrong Jana. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree Pfitzy, but it is as good a bind as many by backrowers at scrum time. Think the law has changed through common usage.

 

[Dctarget]

I liked the new red card rule and appreciate what it's trying to do but don't think it's quite there yet. Admittedly only thought this after it happened to the Rebels, so I'm biased here. But I think maybe there needs to be an orange card in between the two, and does what the current RC does. 20 minutes off, can't come back on but can be replaced. Use it for calls that are red but no malice/or serious injury, reserve the full red card for serious stuff.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when the opposition gets to incapacitate your best ball runner for the rest of the game and for weeks after, then gets replaced 20 minutes later. Though I do expect AAA will be given a few weeks off for that.

Other thing is I think with the rucks and mauls the refs are forgetting the spirit of rugby: constant competition for the ball. When a pilferer gets over the ball and head straight down, like last week with Hardwick, it removes any chance of legal competition. He should've been pinged.

Same thing with maul defence. The current rules make it very difficult for the defence to legally compete for the ball. The attacking team is given way too much leeway when shifting the attack, splintering, binding etc. Whereas the defence is ruled super strictly, don't make much sense.

Anyway, apologies for the salty post from the salty fan who just lost.

 

[Pfitzy]

I agree Pfitzy, but it is as good a bind as many by backrowers at scrum time. Think the law has changed through common usage.

No, the Law is still the same. Berry pinged the Tahs back row the other week for coming off their bind even after he called the Brumbies scrum to "use it" then let them have a second shove.

Inconsistent refereeing doesn't mean a law has changed. It just means the ref is getting it wrong.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So, I assume you don't see the inevitable crooked feed to just about every scrum now being the acceptable standard throughout the whole of world rugby? Or is it just that referees around the world are being consistently inconsistent?

 

[Pfitzy]

So, I assume you don't see the inevitable crooked feed to just about every scrum now being the acceptable standard throughout the whole of world rugby? Or is it just that referees around the world are being consistently inconsistent?

Every does it, and it is rubbish IMHO, but it is consistently ignored. Therefore it is consistently ruled upon.

Going back to my original point: Law hasn't changed, just the interpretation of it.

Someone at the ref's meeting in Sydney last week was a little incensed by it, I might add.

 

[barbarian]

The red card rule is a revelation and it's working every bit as well as I thought it would.

With four RCs in six games, under the regular system the discussion of Super AU would be dominated by the refereeing. Are the refs killing the game? We'd be replaying RC incidents ad nauseam, saying it's added an asterix to each win etc etc etc.

Instead, we've had four RCs but also a series of cracking matches that have come down to the last five minutes, with no asterixes in sight. Yes there has been ref chat, but focussed more on interpretation around the ruck than anything else.

Now if there is a red card in the first half, instead of groaning and reaching for the remote, I stay engaged in the game. It's great and it needs to be permanent.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

I liked the new red card rule and appreciate what it's trying to do but don't think it's quite there yet. Admittedly only thought this after it happened to the Rebels, so I'm biased here. But I think maybe there needs to be an orange card in between the two, and does what the current RC does. 20 minutes off, can't come back on but can be replaced. Use it for calls that are red but no malice/or serious injury, reserve the full red card for serious stuff.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when the opposition gets to incapacitate your best ball runner for the rest of the game and for weeks after, then gets replaced 20 minutes later. Though I do expect AAA will be given a few weeks off for that.

Under your own system here, surely this would have been an orange card and a replacement could have come on after 20 minutes.

It hurt the Rebels to lose Fa'amausili but realistically he'd probably be replaced 10 minutes after halftime anyway.

AAA has been suspended for 3 weeks.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

Under your own system here, surely this would have been an orange card and a replacement could have come on after 20 minutes.

It hurt the Rebels to lose Fa'amausili but realistically he'd probably be replaced 10 minutes after halftime anyway.

AAA has been suspended for 3 weeks.

Not really the point though, is it?

I actually don't mind the orange card idea for when a tackle, cleanout, taking a player in the air, etc goes pear shaped. Red cards should still apply for genuine foul play..... punching, gouging, spear tackles, etc. I don't think Ready should have been able to be replaced, even if it was just a love tap.

It will be pretty disappointing though if Pone is out for longer than AAA.

Should AAA's post-game ball fondling be investigated, ala Marler's grope of AWJ?

 

[Braveheart81]

Not really the point though, is it?

Should AAA's post-game ball fondling be investigated, ala Marler's grope of AWJ?

No, it's not the point in relation to the card. I did see a similar argument put up on twitter though about the Rebels losing a key ball runner.

While it's irrelevant to the fact that he could have stayed on the field for another 40 minutes if not injured, it's not reasonable analysis in terms of the overall match to suggest that it contributed significantly to the Rebels performance given he wouldn't have stayed on the field much longer.

As for AAA's nut taps, he really can't do this and it puts everyone in a difficult position. I know they will all say that it's just banter and all of them are fine with it, but this is also their workplace. If someone did make a complaint it's hard to work out how the Brumbies wouldn't be forced to fire him.

 

[barbarian]

Should AAA's post-game ball fondling be investigated, ala Marler's grope of AWJ?

Honestly? Yes. The AFL had issues with this last season, with team-mates groping each other during the team song. It could be construed as sexual harrassment.

If it happened in the NRL and AFL it would be an issue, given rugby only has three or four full-time journos it will probably pass by un-noticed. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

Honestly? Yes. The AFL had issues with this last season, with team-mates groping each other during the team song. It could be construed as sexual harrassment.

If it happened in the NRL and AFL it would be an issue, given rugby only has three or four full-time journos it will probably pass by un-noticed. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

It has been noticed.... I saw it on Rugby Dump.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

*snip
As for AAA's nut taps, he really can't do this and it puts everyone in a difficult position. I know they will all say that it's just banter and all of them are fine with it, but this is also their workplace. If someone did make a complaint it's hard to work out how the Brumbies wouldn't be forced to fire him.

I think firing the guy over it would be a bit OTT but being stripped of the captaincy shouldn't be out of the question.

On the subject of "banter", I would like to see RA issue some kind of directive to the players about the nonsense that goes on when the camera is showing them sitting on the bench.

I agree that licking your finger and sticking it in your mates ear is hilarious (if you're four years old) but seriously. Watching Tupou pretending to wipe snot on his team mates and then pretending to eat his own snot is pretty pathetic. Those images are broadcast all over the world, revealing that our star players have the maturity levels of pre-schoolers.

<!-- end old man rant -->

 

[Braveheart81]

I think firing the guy over it would be a bit OTT but being stripped of the captaincy shouldn't be out of the question.

It's a workplace. If you went through your office and tapped 3 people on the dick on your way past and people complained, it's really hard to see how an employer can do anything but fire the person.

This is where the players need to be a lot smarter and realise/accept that they are doing a job first and foremost.

 

[dru]

It's a workplace. If you went through your office and tapped 3 people on the dick on your way past and people complained, it's really hard to see how an employer can do anything but fire the person.

This is where the players need to be a lot smarter and realise/accept that they are doing a job first and foremost.

In any environment including a rugby environment it is 100% power dominance behaviour, intentionally involving sexual organs. The veneer of "humour" is so thin it isn't there. I can't see on any level that it is not harassment let alone sexual harassment.

Absolutely it should be called out and acted on.