Refereeing decisions

[dru]

NRL insists it’s not open slather as judiciary code changes for Origin, finals

The changes announced on Friday afternoon will make it harder for a player to miss a grand final, while a separate disciplinary record for representative matches will be created.

www.smh.com.au

As much as I find some referees decisions and judiciary rulings odd, I find it bizarre that the NRL is going to change the threshold for going to a judiciary and have time off

This is a rugby thread. Try here: https://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/forums/everything-else/

 

[Rugbynbeers]

I know it's a topic that's been done to death, but in the Tahs/Blues game last Saturday we saw another example of where one scrum establishes an early dominance, they get the rub of the decisions from then on. After Holtz was clearly popped by his opposite number the Blues scrum could do no wrong. On two occasions the Blues THP clearly over-extended and 'pancaked', but the ref just let it go, and another time both Holtz and the Blues hooker came up out of the scrum at exactly the same time, but Holtz was penalised.
Perhaps the referees director could have a quiet word about trying to look at each scrum objectively and on its' own merits.

Agree, see this problem from school footy all the way up.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

NZ women have had a try disallowed for "latching" (pre-binding we used to call it) which I didn't think was going to be an offence until 1 July - presumably the Pac4 nations have agreed to adopting it early? I found a coupla things interesting:

1. They actually did it twice in the same movement, the first instance going to ground & setting up the ruck from which the second resulted in an on-field try.
2. The TMO initially called out the second instance & had to be talked round by the ref into saying it was the first that was the problem, ref insisting that latching is OK if it results in a try being scored. If correct this seems odd.

Personally I'd rather they said latching by one or two players is always OK & that rolling mauls are always obstruction as at least with latching there's a ball-carrier you can actually get to & effect a tackle on or try to hold up.

 

[Braveheart81]

ref insisting that latching is OK if it results in a try being scored. If correct this seems odd.

I can't find any reference to that in any of the documentation I have found about the law trial.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ that might explain why TMO was tying himself in verbal knots to agree with Ma'am! Also I think both ref & TMO made mention of "double-latching", what does the info you've found say in that regard? One player latching OK, two or more not?

 

[Braveheart81]

^ that might explain why TMO was tying himself in verbal knots to agree with Ma'am! Also I think both ref & TMO made mention of "double-latching", what does the info you've found say in that regard? One player latching OK, two or more not?

One player latched on is fine.

They have to stay on their feet though as they are refereed like the first arriving player at a breakdown.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ interesting.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

The non-try happens at about 1.15:

 

[Pfitzy]

The new GMGs have the latching as a thing - one player max, stay on your feet (degree of understanding given if you immediately clean someone out). My issue with it is material effect - one of the two players didn't really bind and then the other separated pretty much immediately on contact.,

I put that decision on equal terms with Foketi being offside at a scrum on TMO review where he had no material effect on proceedings - the game continued just fine without it.

That tackle decision was a fkn joke tho - should have been penalty try and yellow card.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ which tackle? High shot on 11 Black?

 

[Pfitzy]

^ which tackle? High shot on 11 Black?

Yeah the first BF try

 

[Old High Boy]

That tackle decision was a fkn joke tho - should have been penalty try and yellow card.

It could not have been a PT, as the BF player grounded the ball for the try - a PT is only considered when a try is not scored AND was not scored probably due to foul play occurring.

I agree that a YC should have been awarded for the high shot by the Oz lass though..

 

[Braveheart81]

It could not have been a PT, as the BF player grounded the ball for the try - a PT is only considered when a try is not scored AND was not scored probably due to foul play occurring.

I agree that a YC should have been awarded for the high shot by the Oz lass though..

Law 8.3.

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.

I guess the try was only ever going to be scored in the corner so even though there was foul play, I assume that is the reason why it isn't given a penalty try.

It is hard to work out a situation where the try does get scored but would have been scored in a more advantageous position without foul play though.

 

[Old High Boy]

or scored in a more advantageous position..

These are the key words you have written above... and this will be an interpretation by the referee on the day.

So if an attacking player is in the process of scoring the try (i.e. - launching themselves to place the ball down in-goal) AND they get collared AND they still score, then a PT will not be awarded.
However if an attacking player is in the process of running around towards the posts to score so as to make the conversion easier AND they get collared AND they still score, then a PT should be awarded...

clear as mud, eh?

 

[Dan54]

Not really a ref decision, but a man that I would enjoy having a beer with, and the rugby world needs more of!
350 prem games plus a couple of years at lower grades!!!

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

I doff my cap sir!

 

[Derpus]

So 9.27 says that a player must not pull hair with the low end sanction being two weeks. Does this mean it was a red card offence?

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

@Pfitzy

 

[LeCheese]

So 9.27 says that a player must not pull hair with the low end sanction being two weeks. Does this mean it was a red card offence?

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

@Pfitzy

Note: Any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or the neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction. (5)

(5) The note does not apply to the following Laws whose low-end entry points already take into account head contact being a potential feature or consequence of such breach reaching the red-card threshold: 9.12 (biting, contact with eye(s)/eye area and, striking with head and tripping), 9.18 and 9.27 (hair pulling).

By how this footnote read to me, the specified Laws constitute a red, even for a low-end offence. Anyone fluent in Lawyer got a different translation?

 

[Derpus]

By how this footnote read to me, the specified Laws constitute a red, even for a low-end offence. Anyone fluent in Lawyer got a different translation?

I read that as meaning the automatic mid-range suspension doesn't apply to hair pulling (i.e. hair pulling must involve head contact because that's where most hair is and so that element of the offence has already been considered in deciding it warrants 2 weeks at minimum).

However, I am confused as to whether something that is citable and deserving of suspension after the match is automatically a red card in the match.

 

[Pfitzy]

Book the fluffybunny.

Just for his haircut, to start.

 

[liquor box]

Book the fluffybunny.

Just for his haircut, to start.

I must admit that my first thought when his hair was pulled was if he had a decent hair cut it wouldn't have happened. This is probably because I am a bald middle aged man so everyone has long hair in my opinion.