Refereeing decisions

[Derpus]

Actually saw a good one that would wind everyome up the other day from NH . The TMO went back to a direct contact to head. the ref (rightly in my opinion) said he had gone as low as he could, and said it was just a rugby incident. The TMO came back again, as did the ARs and said but he made contact with head. Ref said again he was as low as he could be in a tackle and so he didn't penalise him even. Was good to see a ref being in charge and making right call in my opinion!

Change in body height is a mitigating factor, yes.

In last nights game yellow committed a textbook shoulder charge, basically a carbon copy of SBW's against the lions, and the ref argued that he was 'wrapping' rather than suggesting there was a mitigating factor. Absolute nonsense. There was clearly no attempt to wrap and even if there was, he didn't say there was any mitigating factor. So how the could it be anything other than Red?

If they are serious about player welfare that ref should be sanctioned. The Kiwi refs simply do not know the rules.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm sure they do know them D. They just better know how to apply them to NZ or Aus sides.

 

[formerflanker]

That penalty try decision against Hegarty was "interesting" to say the least.

They're basically saying Hegarty was not trying to ground it. But that Laumape probably would have grounded it if Hegarty hadn't been a naughty boy.


Yeah ok.

Hegarty's action was clearly an attempt at a downwards place. The ref's decision was abominable.

 

[Pfitzy]

Hegarty's action was clearly an attempt at a downwards place. The ref's decision was abominable.

My argument is that if Hegarty couldn't ground it based on his body position and actions, then neither could Laumape.

Thefore a try "probably" would not have been scored.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

50/22 & goal line dropout (but not Red Card replacement after 20min) Law Variations to apply to all comps world wide from 1 August on a one-year trial:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/a...nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions

Didn't really see much of the 50/22 in action, how do people think it will affect Test footy?

 

[zer0]

Seems like the decision is back-to-front tbh.

 

[Wilson]

50/22 & goal line dropout (but not Red Card replacement after 20min) Law Variations to apply to all comps world wide from 1 August on a one-year trial:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/a...nrl-inspired-rule-changes-in-all-competitions

Didn't really see much of the 50/22 in action, how do people think it will affect Test footy?

I like the 50/22 but I know not everyone does. It should help limit the back and forth kicking duels you see sometime with more reward on offer for finding touch. For the most part though it offers only the occasional big moments for teams to make a play and swing momentum with a 50/22, the big pay off is really in the changes to defensive lines, it'll be interesting to see how the test sides adapt to that.

Looks like England and France have blocked the red card change which I guess shouldn't be surprising but is bloody disappointing.

 

[Pfitzy]

Didn't really see much of the 50/22 in action, how do people think it will affect Test footy?

I think it is a great initiative to reward accurate and smart kicking, and territorial play in general. It carries an element of risk as well in that you'll give up territory if you fluff it.

I saw Kearney pull off a few for the Force during SRAu and it was a good tactic - get the ball to your best kicker just inside your own half and drill it down into the 22. As Wilson says above: changes the defensive lines.

It'll be tough to adjudicate in park footy tho

 

[Pfitzy]

Looks like England and France have blocked the red card change which I guess shouldn't be surprising but is bloody disappointing.

 

[Dctarget]

I'm really surprised goal line drop outs are coming into play, I hate them. There'll be some very, very upset fans soon.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I'm really surprised goal line drop outs are coming into play, I hate them. There'll be some very, very upset fans soon.

Initially my position was it should be a 10m tap but I've certainly changed my tune due to the side effects of reduced pick and drive plays and more wider attacking/exciting plays.

 

[Serge]

Saw what appeared to be a bewildering decision in the Reserve Grade match between GPS and Easts in Brisbane last weekend. A GPS player following play knocked the ball a long way backwards towards his own goal line when an Easts player attempted to pass it to another Easts player - while all three players were running towards the GPS try line. The Referee penalised the GPS player and yellow carded him for an intentional knock down. When I was referee and my reading of the current Laws indicates that it is only foul play when the ball is intentionally knocked on. Is there something I'm missing? Has there been an interpretation change or was the referee just simply massively in error?

 

[Derpus]

Saw what appeared to be a bewildering decision in the Reserve Grade match between GPS and Easts in Brisbane last weekend. A GPS player following play knocked the ball a long way backwards towards his own goal line when an Easts player attempted to pass it to another Easts player - while all three players were running towards the GPS try line. The Referee penalised the GPS player and yellow carded him for an intentional knock down. When I was referee and my reading of the current Laws indicates that it is only foul play when the ball is intentionally knocked on. Is there something I'm missing? Has there been an interpretation change or was the referee just simply massively in error?

Seen BB penalised for that in Super Rugby. If you just slap the ball down without trying to take possession i think its omnidirectional.

 

[Dan54]

Seen BB penalised for that in Super Rugby. If you just slap the ball down without trying to take possession i think its omnidirectional.

So you can't knock the ball back down in lineout? I really thought you could knock it down back towrds your own line so long as it not over touchline or deadball line.

 

[Braveheart81]

This seems like a mistake by the referee to me.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Definitely an error. If you can't deliberately knock the ball backwards, it would be very hard to pass the ball.

 

[Derpus]

Guess i'm wrong. Maybe it was BB knocking it back from on offside position that i remember.

 

[Braveheart81]

Guess i'm wrong. Maybe it was BB knocking it back from on offside position that i remember.

I think that was it. If you are coming from an offside position it would clearly be a professional foul.

 

[liquor box]

Definitely an error. If you can't deliberately knock the ball backwards, it would be very hard to pass the ball.

I always thought it was about deliberately not trying the control possession of the ball?

 

[liquor box]

Law 11
KNOCK ON
1. A knock- on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.
5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if: a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down). b. A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.