Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Sir Ruchie - is that you?
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
He never bent the rules. It’s not his fault that the refs couldn’t see him though the cloak…
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
I don't think gentlemen want a return to rucking, mountaineering is another matter!
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
There is always that advantage Drew!! Suppose there always a positive!!!
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Nigel Owens even said so on a twitter convo where I asked the question - that was the directive given to referees.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
Imagine the increased speed of the game if "use it" and "hands on the ball = in play" were both refereed strictly.
Even non-breakdown players would have to move quickly, just to get into position.
Obviously that's why NH officials don't want it to happen.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Actually saw Pearce reffing a Premiership game earlier in year, and he was getting the 9 to use it, but seemed to let it drift later in comp.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
NRL will be trialling technology to rule on forward passes this year:
www.smh.com.au
Can it determine "forward out of the hands"?
The new technology that could end contentious forward pass calls
The forward pass remains the most contentious part of the game, but that could all change due to a revolutionary technology trial during NRL pre-season and NRLW premiership matches.
Can it determine "forward out of the hands"?
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
Maybe the rules should be about passing to a player who is behind you when the pass is made, similar to onside rule when a kick is made. As long as the receiver is behind you when the ball leaves your hands then let it go. It would not be hard to project a digital line on the field and have no argument in a shot amount of time if it is reviewed.NRL will be trialling technology to rule on forward passes this year:
The new technology that could end contentious forward pass calls
The forward pass remains the most contentious part of the game, but that could all change due to a revolutionary technology trial during NRL pre-season and NRLW premiership matches.
Can it determine "forward out of the hands"?
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
This tech was around 5 years ago, but failed the tests of the trial comps.
5 years is a long time in the tech world but I’m not expecting big things (will probably eat my words).
5 years is a long time in the tech world but I’m not expecting big things (will probably eat my words).
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Yep unfortunately that would immediatley open to just tossing forward passes at will as long as it was to a pacey player.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Just been watching Galagher Shield game on tv was interested to hear the explanatin the new axis laws being trialed in 6N , so almost certainly be in force this year. Basically hookers have to set up with one foot forward of other, at the moment they have both feet back and so are actually using their heads to get early advantage ie forcing other hooker back with head. I see the point actually because there a lot of pressure on necks etc.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Have to say in the test from Murrayfield, I was pleased to see O'Keefe didn't get sucked into handing out penalty in last scrum, there appeared to be shenagins from both sides and he just kept resetting it, was in extra time anyway, so noone was running down the clock. Thought his whole game management was bloody good actually, real clear with what he was laying down etc!
We’ve got to talk about the penalty try though. Is there a ruling whereby if there is a professional foul, then you take him out of the game when considering the penalty try? As in what would happen if he’s not there? Because that’s what people are suggesting and that seems ludicrous.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
That does seem to be the way it's been ruled recently. Is there an alternative? I mean, how do you determine whether a try would "probably" have been scored without the professional foul, if the player had done the right thing?
In this instance, the English hooker was, ironically, in a pretty good position to mark the ball. Even if he fumbles, he would have made it difficult for the Scottish player. So you could argue the "probable" outcome was no try without the foul play.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I not even sure why there any discussion, the English hooker leapt up and knocked the ball both forward and into touch, without seemingly making any attempt to catch the ball, there was noone else anywhere near the play to prevent a try. And yes RR that is the law, if you have commit a professional foul the Refs have to assume you are not there.
That's like saying if someone makes a dangerous tackle to prevent a try, you couldn't award a PT because if he had tackled legally it wouldn't probably be a try. You would take PTs out of game altogether I think.
Same as in 2017 when SBW slapped a ball back over deadball line, clearly if he had just fallen on it no try, but I think everyone on here agreed 100% that it was a PT because the ref had to assume he wasn't there because of the illegal act. It's pretty simple really!
Where does it say that? All I can find is the below:
A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.
So while it was a professional foul, the very fact the Pom got the ball and was able to control it into touch, surely that means there was no guarantee of the Scotsman scoring. I am in no doubt its a yellow card, but can't see how it is a penalty try. Unless there is this mystery 'invisible man' interpretation.
Almost all forward passes currently thrown would involve the receiving player being behind the passer when the ball is passed.
This one is in the middle for me. I disagree with the concept of pretending the player that committed the foul play doesn't exist and what would have happened instead. In my view it creates more issues than it solves.
In this instance I think the penalty try is reasonable because you have to assume that the player took the action they did because they didn't see any other action as being possible. Obviously they could have tried to catch the ball with both hands above their head instead of batting it. The fact that they didn't has to be looked at as them doing it out of desperation rather than due to not knowing the laws.
I can't remember this one specifically but this is the sort of one where I think it is silly to assume that the player doesn't exist. Let's say there is a player in goal with the ball and the closest attacker is 20 metres away and there is no other teammate around. If the player with the ball throws it over the dead ball line rather than placing it down I really don't think it should be a penalty try because you assume they weren't there. That concept is ridiculous.
You're looking at whether a try would have been scored without the foul play and in that case no, it wouldn't have because there were lots of other options available to prevent a try (just that they were all by the player who committed the foul play).
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I think this is the key part here - it was specifically act of foul play that prevented the try being scored, so the question becomes "if he didn't commit that act of foul play (bat the ball away) would a try have been scored?" not "If he only acted in a legal way would a try have been scored?". It's a small difference but it does effectively mean the player who committed the foul is otherwise removed from consideration. Certainly he could've done something legal instead to prevent it, but that's the same as if it was a high tackle to prevent a try where a normal tackle would have also prevented it - something that I think most would agree should be a penalty try.