Refereeing decisions

[cyclopath]

Adamson/Jonker clearly had a brief to get the home nation home. Ignoring the string of sealing off infringements by Wales after we hit the lead as the home team advanced downfield until finally he found a reason to penalise us basically 10m in front of the sticks for I’m not sure what is testament to that.

Pretty hot take, not sure I'd be going there.

 

[liquor box]

Tompkins' try, I'm with Nigel on that one. Some of you may recall a flippant piece I put up on the referees' thread some years ago re balls going down from the hands in front of a player. I suggested refs carry a bricky's plumb weight (that solid bronze piece used to ensure courses of bricks are straight and vertical) and a length of string to ascertain if a ball travelled forward or backward from a players' hands when dropped. It is absolutely crucial to determine the point of dropping when said ball was dropped, NOT where the hands were when the ball hit the ground, that's where the ref had to hold the piece of string after unfurling it and attaching the plumb weight. Impossible. Same with slo-mos, by the time the ball hits the ground the recalcitrant player's hands are some distance forward of the position where they were when the ball was dropped, suggesting the balls travelled backwards when most times it didn't.

The solution is to presume ALL balls dropped in front of a player are a knock-on. In fact I'd suggest this be incorporated in a revision to the laws. Use a bit of common sense, iRB/WR (World Rugby).

Even simpler would be to have a dropped ball rule, doesn't matter if it is forward or backward, if you cannot control the ball then you do not deserve to keep it. The game is about controlling/retaining/obtaining possession and doing so successfully deserves the reward.

 

[Dan54]

Even simpler would be to have a dropped ball rule, doesn't matter if it is forward or backward, if you cannot control the ball then you do not deserve to keep it. The game is about controlling/retaining/obtaining possession and doing so successfully deserves the reward.

I wouldn't think that could ever come into play. You could then take out tap backs in lineouts, jumping for a high kick and tapping it back to supporting players, flicking a pass on to a player outside that we usually applaud as great skill.
I would prefer the law/rule that the ref is the sole judge and we accepted their decisions better as one that was followed! I would add I be happy if TMO was thrown out, as I believe we taking the human part of reffing the game , but not playing it!

 

[KOB1987]

Pretty hot take, not sure I'd be going there.

Yeah I got a bit worked up after watching that video on the match thread. I’ll retract the above inference and put it down to incompetence and partial blindness instead.

 

[Dan54]

Yeah I got a bit worked up after watching that video on the match thread. I’ll retract the above inference and put it down to incompetence and partial blindness instead.

C'mon KOB, you being a bit hard un yourself there

 

[Dan54]

Did anyone watch the Saracens/Sale Sharks game from weekend? Good game, but really interesting trick by Saracens. They go into a ruck and the last men goin into ruck would form behind each othe (ala caterpillar ruck) and would both twist around so lat man was actually almost past halfway around ruck waiting to put pressure on the 9 when ball came out. Didn't like it but nothing the ref could really do as it perfectly legal, you only have to join behind the last mans feet, and if you stay bound, you can then twist around and if you had enough players doing it (and time) you could be beside 9 as he got ball I suspect!!

 

[formerflanker]

I assume they can't go past the ball while it is in the ruck.
That might be an issue.

 

[Braveheart81]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1465037065607950341

Certainly lets the defender get much closer to the halfback who is about to kick.

 

[liquor box]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1465037065607950341

Certainly lets the defender get much closer to the halfback who is about to kick.

love it, if the offence can just add players to block then defence should be able to do this.

 

[Derpus]

love it, if the offence can just add players to block then defence should be able to do this.

Would certainly prefer neither could do it.

 

[Dan54]

I assume they can't go past the ball while it is in the ruck.
That might be an issue.

Yep, you can go past ball in ruck, or maul for that matter so long as you part of it. Just wonder how long before someone tries it in a maul to get around the back and stop ball coming out.

 

[barbarian]

Love it. The answer to shithousery by attacking teams should always be even greater shithousery by defending teams.

 

[formerflanker]

Is the answer to all this sophisticated rule bending a simple reversion to BRING BACK RUCKING?

 

[Dan54]

Is the answer to all this sophisticated rule bending a simple reversion to BRING BACK RUCKING?

Well as rucking has never been outlawed I would think the answer is no? This is a ruck that it is happening in.

 

[Brumby Runner]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1465037065607950341

Certainly lets the defender get much closer to the halfback who is about to kick.

That's precisely what Scotland and Wales did when defending the rolling maul. Not once penalised for it, but I'm sure it would be judged not pushing straight if done at scrum time.

 

[formerflanker]

Well as rucking has never been outlawed I would think the answer is no? This is a ruck that it is happening in.

"Bring back rucking" is a gentleman rugby player's way of saying "Ruck with the feet on bodies".
I'm sure you knew that.

 

[Pfitzy]

Love it. The answer to shithousery by attacking teams should always be even greater shithousery by defending teams.

Agreed.

Caterpillar rucks are a blight on the game.

Firstly, refs aren't calling "use it" early enough.
Secondly, refs aren't enforcing the 5 second rule.
Thirdly, as soon as "use it" is called, no more players should be allowed to join from the attacking side, the infrerence being the ball is available for play.
Fourthly, and most importantly: halfbacks rolling it back with hands should be snotted at the earliest opportunity.

 

[Dan54]

"Bring back rucking" is a gentleman rugby player's way of saying "Ruck with the feet on bodies".
I'm sure you knew that.

I did , but would make no difference to what was happening here. Actually you can ruck on bodies anyway, as long as it in a backwards motion it usually allowed, you just can't 'stomp' ie jump on bodies.

 

[swingpass]

rolling the ball back with the halfs hands is clear and the refs should universally enforce the law. the hands of the half on the ball means its available and therefore he's available to be tackled and should be enforced, otherwise he has put his hand on the ball in the ruck and its a penalty - cant have it both ways

 

[Dan54]

Agreed.

Caterpillar rucks are a blight on the game.

Firstly, refs aren't calling "use it" early enough.
Secondly, refs aren't enforcing the 5 second rule.
Thirdly, as soon as "use it" is called, no more players should be allowed to join from the attacking side, the infrerence being the ball is available for play.
Fourthly, and most importantly: halfbacks rolling it back with hands should be snotted at the earliest opportunity.

rolling the ball back with the halfs hands is clear and the refs should universally enforce the law. the hands of the half on the ball means its available and therefore he's available to be tackled and should be enforced, otherwise he has put his hand on the ball in the ruck and its a penalty - cant have it both ways

Agree with you 2 fellas so much. I really truly believe a 9 should be fair game as soon as his hands touch the ball, and Pfitzy's other points are all ones I agree with real strongly