Berry refereed the second match which the Kings won 23-18.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Berry refereed the second match which the Kings won 23-18.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
haha! There you go. It's BS. Cheers for clearing that up.
T
Tip
Guest
Re: Appalling Refereeing decisions.
Placid's penalty was appalling. Both players are competing for the ball. One's argument that Placid never had a chance of competing for the ball is a complete fallacy. His arms are outstretched with eyes on the ball and had Hayward not jumped in the air he would have caught it.
The referee states that the it was dangerous play, and one must take due care when a player is in the air. It pains me to say this, but Marto was right. Placid had his eyes on the ball the whole time. Even the TMO recommended that no penalty be given.
If the referee is correct and said that Placid placed the Hayward in a dangerous position, the exact same can be said of Hayward. He jumped and lead with his knees when contesting for the ball, thus endangering competing players from the other team. Issy actually got penalised for this last year during the EOYT...
(In no way am I advocating a penalty against Hayward, just using the Referee's "logic")
There were two other penalties that really gave me the shits in the first half of that game. Hodgeson not releasing the tackled player and then the Force receiving a penalty in the first half. Blatant. I was screaming "NOT RELEASING" at the television, and then the Referee goes right ahead and pings the Reds for not releasing.
The second was the perplexing offside penalty against the Reds that lead to the score being 9-0 or 12-0. Harris was NOT offside, he just rushed out of the line to put pressure on the ball carrier. The referee turns around and was like, there's no way he can be onside because he's 1m infront of the rest of the D-line --> must be a penalty.
Cotrell's shoulder charge deserved a penalty. Nathan Charles should have been yellowed for punching Quirk. Punch thrown = yellow card. It's the law. Actually, the Law states it is an automatic Red Card but hey, we're playing Rugby not netball.
Placid's penalty was appalling. Both players are competing for the ball. One's argument that Placid never had a chance of competing for the ball is a complete fallacy. His arms are outstretched with eyes on the ball and had Hayward not jumped in the air he would have caught it.
The referee states that the it was dangerous play, and one must take due care when a player is in the air. It pains me to say this, but Marto was right. Placid had his eyes on the ball the whole time. Even the TMO recommended that no penalty be given.
If the referee is correct and said that Placid placed the Hayward in a dangerous position, the exact same can be said of Hayward. He jumped and lead with his knees when contesting for the ball, thus endangering competing players from the other team. Issy actually got penalised for this last year during the EOYT...
(In no way am I advocating a penalty against Hayward, just using the Referee's "logic")
There were two other penalties that really gave me the shits in the first half of that game. Hodgeson not releasing the tackled player and then the Force receiving a penalty in the first half. Blatant. I was screaming "NOT RELEASING" at the television, and then the Referee goes right ahead and pings the Reds for not releasing.
The second was the perplexing offside penalty against the Reds that lead to the score being 9-0 or 12-0. Harris was NOT offside, he just rushed out of the line to put pressure on the ball carrier. The referee turns around and was like, there's no way he can be onside because he's 1m infront of the rest of the D-line --> must be a penalty.
Cotrell's shoulder charge deserved a penalty. Nathan Charles should have been yellowed for punching Quirk. Punch thrown = yellow card. It's the law. Actually, the Law states it is an automatic Red Card but hey, we're playing Rugby not netball.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Automatic red card is u19 law and used in some states. It is not super rugby or international law. I am pretty sure that a yellow card is recommended but not mandatory.
For the Placid situation, the Law interpretation here is that you must contest the ball in the air in this situation, so I believe it was a correct Penalty. For mine, the Force player who jumps in the air is entitled to feel protected against an opposition player accidentally or on purpose making contact with his lower body. However he will be prepared to accept some contact if another player is competing with him in the air. If your interpretation is used, there would be many more injuries as jumping players would be flipped over regularly. IMO, a penalty here was a sensible and correct decision but I would not have complained if Placid had received a yellow card. A player of Placid's experience through age rep teams should know better.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
It pains me to say this, but Marto was right.
Of course Marto got it right. Sooner or later, it had to happen.
Put an infinite number of monkeys in an infinitely large room with an infinite number of word processors and give them an infinite length of time and at some time one of them will produce the Complete Works of Billy Shakespeare.
Of course Marto got it right. Sooner or later, it had to happen.
Put an infinite number of monkeys in an infinitely large room with an infinite number of word processors and give them an infinite length of time and at some time one of them will produce the Complete Works of Billy Shakespeare.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Is this written somewhere? I have looked and can't find it anywhere. I find it absurd that a player can be required to jump into the air to catch a ball.
I don't think Placid was under any obligation to contest the ball in the air, but that's where the contest happened and Hayward won it.
It was a dynamic situation and it went from general play with neither team in possession to Hayward being in possession as soon as he caught it cleanly.
At that point, Placid collides with him illegally as he took a player out in the air.
The fraction of a second between there being a contest (of which only one side effectively competed) and the Western Force being in possession is important. Similarly with late and early tackles, if you get your timing wrong, you get penalised. Placid got his timing wrong in this situation and instead of competing for the ball he took the player out who'd already won the ball.
Likewise in a lineout, competing jumpers can both go for the ball, but if one of them catches it and then the other tries to grab onto it in the air they'll be penalised for taking the man out in the air.
It's tough on Placid because his intentions were fine (and he got injured for his troubles), but that is also part of the game. Breaking the laws unintentionally still gets penalised.
It was a dynamic situation and it went from general play with neither team in possession to Hayward being in possession as soon as he caught it cleanly.
At that point, Placid collides with him illegally as he took a player out in the air.
The fraction of a second between there being a contest (of which only one side effectively competed) and the Western Force being in possession is important. Similarly with late and early tackles, if you get your timing wrong, you get penalised. Placid got his timing wrong in this situation and instead of competing for the ball he took the player out who'd already won the ball.
Likewise in a lineout, competing jumpers can both go for the ball, but if one of them catches it and then the other tries to grab onto it in the air they'll be penalised for taking the man out in the air.
It's tough on Placid because his intentions were fine (and he got injured for his troubles), but that is also part of the game. Breaking the laws unintentionally still gets penalised.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
or the works of billy conolley instead
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
So it's just the vibe of it then? All of what you say makes sense but none of it is backed up in law. In fact a number of your points can be countered with the laws.
This is a different circumstance to the one we're discussing and has no relevance. In a lineout though if a player catches the ball the opposing jumper can rip the ball from them in the air, they just can't pull on the player.
The laws you are applying here relate to a tackle situation which this was not. If anyone in this collision is breaking the law it is Hayward for striking another player with his knees. EDIT: I need to clarify, I don't think the application of this law is appropriate either, it is simply more appropriate than applying the tackle laws.
Placid would have arrived on time to catch the ball on the ground, instead he caught Hayward. There is nothing in the laws that automatically change his attempted catch into a tackle simply by virtue of another player catching it first. A tackle is a defined event. Placid did not tackle, nor attempt to tackle Hayward.
This is a different circumstance to the one we're discussing and has no relevance. In a lineout though if a player catches the ball the opposing jumper can rip the ball from them in the air, they just can't pull on the player.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Like everything to do with the laws this one comes down to interpretation. Whatever the text of the law says if you have two players both running forward to catch a high ball and one choses to jump and the other stays on the ground and takes out their legs - penalty. Why do you think some back 3 players jump when there is no need. It becomes a yellow when its not a timing issue and there is intent. Players are aware of this interpretation and you often see players who could get to the drop of the ball stop if the see the opposition will get there first and be able to jump. Rather than competing dangerously the stop and hit the player as he hits the deck
It is different if one player is stationary under the drop of the ball and the other player decides to jump over their head. Then it doesn't matter what happens as the jumper hitting the deck would be their own fault.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
It is different if one player is stationary under the drop of the ball and the other player decides to jump over their head. Then it doesn't matter what happens as the jumper hitting the deck would be their own fault.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I disagree. That's precisely why the interpretation is taken out of it as much as practicable. Using the 'interpretation' there is no material difference in the situation on the weekend and the one you describe in the second paragraph. In both instances, both players are looking up and probably aren't aware of what their opposition is doing. Yet in one, the player in the air is afforded every protection of the other player and is immune from any consequences and in the second, they accept all risk for their actions - in their mind, they are running with their vision skyward and jumping to catch a ball in both situations but have entirely different responsibilities and consequences depending on another player's (who they possibly aren't aware of) actions.
Rugby is a game where the ball is contested at almost every opportunity and the laws, I feel, are written with the aim of facilitating that. The way Law 10 is written, they have removed the need for interpretation in this situation. It is clear that foul play arises when one player tackles, or attempts to tackle the player in the air.
How would you interpret a situation where both players jump, but because of their separate abilities, one gets much higher than the other. The higher of the two, catches the ball and then falls over the other player in the air and comes down inverted? Is this a contest for the ball or a tackle?
Rugby is a game where the ball is contested at almost every opportunity and the laws, I feel, are written with the aim of facilitating that. The way Law 10 is written, they have removed the need for interpretation in this situation. It is clear that foul play arises when one player tackles, or attempts to tackle the player in the air.
How would you interpret a situation where both players jump, but because of their separate abilities, one gets much higher than the other. The higher of the two, catches the ball and then falls over the other player in the air and comes down inverted? Is this a contest for the ball or a tackle?
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Braveheart, while you and I are making similar points, I still think you have to be in the contest in the air in this situation. Otherwise under your interpretation, Placid's contact with Hayward would be OK if Hayward does not catch the ball and Placid is genuinely trying to catch the ball but does not jump. I just don't think this provides sufficent protection for the player in the air from contact from a player who remains on the ground.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
By virtue of the fact that he was off the ground?
The law we are talking about 10.4 (i) relates to dangerous play of tackling a player in the air in either the lineout or general play. It specifically lists all types of contact (a player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball) so it doesn't have to be an attempted tackle. It basically covers any contact.
I don't think it is really that different (and comes under the same law). In a lineout, if one player catches the ball, the player challenging for it can touch the ball but they have to be very careful. Any contact that isn't with the ball puts them at high risk of being penalised for playing the man in the air.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
And making a valid attempt at the ball. In my mind if you are not leaving the ground around the same time you run the risk of a penalty
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk