Refereeing decisions

[D-Box]

I would be interested I hearing the thoughts of everyone on the tree big calls from Sunday - the two dissalowed tries and the red card.

#1 karevi offside at the ruck - is probably technically the correct call but it seems a shame that he couldn't do it as NZ had pretty much decided not to defend. Perhaps a rule tweak is required here to keep more defenders close to the ruck

#2 korombeti no try. This is the call I disagree with. The mail splinters, korombeti comes out with, trips and crawls and as far as I can see is never Tackled once he leaves the mail. If not Tackled then surely he can crawl

Finally the red card. I think it is a card all day, particularly as there is active extension of the knee. People on FB are arguing that Barrett was tackled in the air but korombeti does appear to be stopped a full leg away at the point of contact

 

[Eyes and Ears]

#2 if you can't tackle a man on the ground, then the balance has to be that a player can't crawl. He has to get to his feet.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

#1 If it is a tackle, then he has to come through the gate and play the ball from behind the tackled player. If it is a ruck, why can he uses his hands from in front of the ball but no other player can use hands?

 

[Bullrush]

I would be interested I hearing the thoughts of everyone on the tree big calls from Sunday - the two dissalowed tries and the red card.

#1 karevi offside at the ruck - is probably technically the correct call but it seems a shame that he couldn't do it as NZ had pretty much decided not to defend. Perhaps a rule tweak is required here to keep more defenders close to the ruck

#2 korombeti no try. This is the call I disagree with. The mail splinters, korombeti comes out with, trips and crawls and as far as I can see is never Tackled once he leaves the mail. If not Tackled then surely he can crawl

Finally the red card. I think it is a card all day, particularly as there is active extension of the knee. People on FB are arguing that Barrett was tackled in the air but korombeti does appear to be stopped a full leg away at the point of contact

#1 I would have disallowed for the forward pass but I think it went back to the ruck infringement because that happened first. I’m with you though - I don’t actually have a problem with what Kerevi did.

#2 Easiest call of the night. No, you cannot crawl under a maul to the try-line.

#3 That was a yellow to me. But I think the new red card worked well and is much better for the game overall.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

#1 if it's a ruck he's not allowed to pick it up but was it a ruck? Didn't seem to be any AB over the ball in which case it's general play & he can pick it up?

#2 never on his feet so has to be no try & a penalty.

#3 defo a card & I'm actually glad it got called, too many guys extend their leg like that so a would-be tackler can't get them as they land. Not sure it's a Red but as Bullrush notes the 20-minute Law Variation worked really well in terms of punishing the offending player & his team without destroying the game as a contest.

 

[Ignoto]

With how poorly the Refs are watching the rucks, I reckon we just let McReight and Hooper start and re-ignite the Pooper. Way too many instances where the tackled player was never released, wasn't given a chance to place the ball as they had a defensive player over them who never went for the ball and was penalised.

 

[Derpus]

For the first non-try it didn't seem to be a ruck as there was no AB involved. I loosely recall someone smarter than me saying in that situation you can play the ball if part of you is behind it (like your foot for example). But i don't know shit. Also, there is no timeline or multiverse variant in which such nuance would be picked up by these refs.

Otherwise, i thought those three calls were all pretty much correct.

The spirit of the calls isn't, though. Forensic analysis of tries is dull and kills the mood. Clearly Barret #2 didn't mean to kick MK in the face (although it's hard to figure out what he was trying to do). Didn't really warrant a red but technically correct decision.

The forensic analysis thing also only ever seems to happen to Wallaby tries. There was a clear forward pass in the lead up to an AB try and they skimmed over it. I guess at that point they are probably just phoning it in anyway, as the game was long since over.

 

[dru]

#1 if it's a ruck he's not allowed to pick it up but was it a ruck? Didn't seem to be any AB over the ball in which case it's general play & he can pick it up?

#2 never on his feet so has to be no try & a penalty.

#3 defo a card & I'm actually glad it got called, too many guys extend their leg like that so a would-be tackler can't get them as they land. Not sure it's a Red but as Bullrush notes the 20-minute Law Variation worked really well in terms of punishing the offending player & his team without destroying the game as a contest.

#1 agree. Completely about whether there was a ruck formed (and maintained). Clearly a different interpretation in 7s and he got caught.
#2 penalty is fine. Pity.
#3 I really feel for Jordy here. He was simply maintaining balance, I've seen a lot worse from jumpers trying to dissuade tacklers. BUT like there are RCs for tackling in the air that I find frustrating - but can't disagree with - this is a card, and by the rules RC.

Thank goodness for the current allowance to return to 15 after 20mins.

 

[kiap]

With how poorly the Refs are watching the rucks, I reckon we just let McReight and Hooper start and re-ignite the Pooper. Way too many instances where the tackled player was never released, wasn't given a chance to place the ball as they had a defensive player over them who never went for the ball and was penalised.

Will be a pommy referee coming up, so that idea won't fly so well.

Having said that, overall, the Wallaby backrow ain't great. ABs have them covered and France A shaded them too.

 

[Braveheart81]

So the maul error that Luke Pearce made that Hooper was complaining about was at the 68:30 mark.

The Springboks catch the lineout and transfer it back to Marco van Staden. Van Staden drops the ball and Pearce signals that is was knocked back. That's fine, it was knocked back. The issue is from that point he can't pick the ball up and continue the maul. The maul is over once the ball is dropped.

 

[cyclopath]

So technically should have been a penalty for offside or obstruction?

 

[Braveheart81]

So technically should have been a penalty for offside or obstruction?

Yes. Or perhaps just a scrum for accidental offside.

Whatever happened though, it can't become a maul again.

 

[Pfitzy]

That was a bit of a clanger from Pearce. The other one was saying the ball was out when two of our forwards clattered into FdK, but then penalising them because he didn't have the ball - he did have the ball. It might actually have still been in the ruck.

But fuck him. He's a halfback.

 

[Derpus]

People loved how he carefully and methodically talked everything through and communicated clearly.

Didn't realise test match rugby was a school lesson. It was so fucking sloooow.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

People loved how he carefully and methodically talked everything through and communicated clearly.

Didn't realise test match rugby was a school lesson. It was so fucking sloooow.

Agree. IMO, he could have made all 4 YC calls without a replay.

 

[tragic]

Wasn’t really sure where to post this but it’s an interesting read from a sport’s law solicitor regarding the tackle framework.
Also reviews a lot of the red/yellow cards with explanations and judiciary findings including the Barrett card in game 3. Hopefully he’ll cover this weekends cards as well.
http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/0...020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/

 

[Tex]

Curious about the penalty awarded for lifting in the maul. Boks lineout jumper appeared to have both teams drive under him, rather than a defending forward specifically target his legs in an unsafe manner.

If anything it seemed to be a tactic from the Bok lineout to hold the player longer, triggering an early push call against the Wallabies.

 

[liquor box]

Curious about the penalty awarded for lifting in the maul. Boks lineout jumper appeared to have both teams drive under him, rather than a defending forward specifically target his legs in an unsafe manner.

If anything it seemed to be a tactic from the Bok lineout to hold the player longer, triggering an early push call against the Wallabies.

I think the ref have the bold a warning about holding the jumper up for too long during the second half of last week's game

 

[Bullrush]

Wasn’t really sure where to post this but it’s an interesting read from a sport’s law solicitor regarding the tackle framework.
Also reviews a lot of the red/yellow cards with explanations and judiciary findings including the Barrett card in game 3. Hopefully he’ll cover this weekends cards as well.
http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/0...020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/

This is exactly why the yellow card on Swinton was correct. The ref followed the framework and nothing in the framework notes anything about wrapping arms.

 

[cyclopath]

This is exactly why the yellow card on Swinton was correct. The ref followed the framework and nothing in the framework notes anything about wrapping arms.

It does if they're considering firstly whether an attempt at a legal tackle was made or not, i.e. a shoulder charge or not. At least part of the discussion at the time involved that.
Then it was about where first contact was made.
Etc.