Refereeing decisions

[Pfitzy]

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.

 

[dru]

Both stupid AND a haircut - the bloke is going down!

Thinking about it, if by some miracle he returns during this test series, it really would make a statement if he took the field entirely nude-headed.

 

[liquor box]

Both stupid AND a haircut - the bloke is going down!

Thinking about it, if by some miracle he returns during this test series, it really would make a statement if he took the field entirely nude-headed.

Bald forwards are more exciting, blood looks 10x better on a sweaty bald head. Oh how I miss David Croft.

 

[zer0]

WR (World Rugby) really needs to start sorting out clock management, particularly if the TMO is going to start going back further and further for things. The penalty offence against Tupou in the second AUS/ENG test, such as it was, occurs at 12:31 on the match clock. The TMO calls it to the ref at 12:59. Farrell is taking the kick at 14:22. Basically two minutes of play gone.

Maybe do something like reset the clock to the time of the penalty. 12:31, in the above example. In the case of a shot, do not resume it until the kicker begins advancing towards the ball to kick it. Have a separate shot clock (for want of a better word) to time the kicker to 60/90 seconds, or whatever it currently is. There's your two minutes of play back.

 

[qwerty51]

I really don't know why rugby is so opposed to stopping the clock. I'd do it after every scrum reset, try scored and opt for a penalty goal.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I'm not sure what is solves. If anything, the game would be slower and take forever to complete.

 

[qwerty51]

I'm not sure what is solves. If anything, the game would be slower and take forever to complete.

More rugby? Or just psychologically from a fan perspective you feel robbed seeing the clock tick and nothing is happening. It doesn't mean the game has to be slowed down, whilst the clock is off the ref should still encourage the game to be sped up. Shot clocks, form scrums quicker etc.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

More rugby? Or just psychologically from a fan perspective you feel robbed seeing the clock tick and nothing is happening. It doesn't mean the game has to be slowed down, whilst the clock is off the ref should still encourage the game to be sped up. Shot clocks, form scrums quicker etc.

So you want to have penalties for time wasting when no time is being wasted?

 

[qwerty51]

So you want to have penalties for time wasting when no time is being wasted?

No I want penalties for slowing the game down. It's not NFL. Fatigue and continuity need to be a factor.

 

[Marce]

Lose every contact in the first half is not the ref fault

 

[Eyes and Ears]

No I want penalties for slowing the game down. It's not NFL. Fatigue and continuity need to be a factor.

but you're suggesting a NFL style clock. My suggestion is that if you want more rugby, increase the half to 45 mins. My view is that stopping the clock will make the game worse.
For mine, the best way to get more rugby (although a bit too radical) is get rid of goal kicking. Rugby is a game of contests and then we waste 2 minutes watching one bloke have a free shot.

 

[liquor box]

but you're suggesting a NFL style clock. My suggestion is that if you want more rugby, increase the half to 45 mins. My view is that stopping the clock will make the game worse.
For mine, the best way to get more rugby (although a bit too radical) is get rid of goal kicking. Rugby is a game of contests and then we waste 2 minutes watching one bloke have a free shot.

I think kicks should stay, it give a reward for scoring under the posts.

I would move to a drop goal with an expectation it is taken quickly.

If you want to add some fun to the game, maybe the try scorer should kick their own conversion drop kick

 

[RugbyReg]

Lose every contact in the first half is not the ref fault

You know that’s off topic to this thread? Try to keep your ramblings to the right thread.

 

[Ignoto]

So you want to have penalties for time wasting when no time is being wasted?

But my time as a viewer is wasted.

We had a drinks break for crying out loud for no reason last night. Hell, even after an injury break, the English Physios and their water trays were still on the field for a good minute after the Ref blew his whistle.

Then we had English props going down for "treatment" after having an injury break.

After last night, I am not sure why we bother with Assistant Refs. The amount of offsides calls both missed was astronomical.

 

[John S]

But my time as a viewer is wasted.

We had a drinks break for crying out loud for no reason last night. Hell, even after an injury break, the English Physios and their water trays were still on the field for a good minute after the Ref blew his whistle.

Then we had English props going down for "treatment" after having an injury break.

After last night, I am not sure why we bother with Assistant Refs. The amount of offsides calls both missed was astronomical.

The NH teams are masters at that time wasting

 

[dru]

Not a ref question, more about the design of the game, ie the law logic. Rugby is meant to be about competition in every facet, it's sort of a policy that sets the game apart from pretty much every other code.

Has does the knock down rule work within that? I would have thought it should simple be either knocked on (penalty scrum) or OK.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Not a ref question, more about the design of the game, ie the law logic. Rugby is meant to be about competition in every facet, it's sort of a policy that sets the game apart from pretty much every other code.

Has does the knock down rule work within that? I would have thought it should simple be either knocked on (penalty scrum) or OK.

I am not sure I completely understand the rationale to your question but rugby is a close contact game as the offside line is the last feet so the A line and D line are very close together. There needs to be some disincentive to knocking the ball down or it would become a blight on the game. I think most would agree that it has gone too far but I don't think we have the answer as to how to pull it back without seeing other consequences. I would hate to see 5+ extra scrums (and subsequent scrum penalties) because we were way less harsh on deliberate knock ons.

 

[KOB1987]

I understand the intent of the knock down rule, and in its proper context it’s fine. Problem is that even at full speed it’s pretty easy to spot the difference between a deliberate knock down and a fumbled intercept attempt yet they go upstairs every fucking time and almost always rule it as the former. There are some instances that it might be necessary to go to the TMO but 9 out of 10 times common sense should prevail.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I understand the intent of the knock down rule, and in its proper context it’s fine. Problem is that even at full speed it’s pretty easy to spot the difference between a deliberate knock down and a fumbled intercept attempt yet they go upstairs every fucking time and almost always rule it as the former. There are some instances that it might be necessary to go to the TMO but 9 out of 10 times common sense should prevail.

But the debatable issue is whether sticking one arm out is ever going to result in anything other than a knock on. I am surprised that some of these players haven't figured out that they need to lead with 2 hands.

 

[KOB1987]

But the debatable issue is whether sticking one arm out is ever going to result in anything other than a knock on. I am surprised that some of these players haven't figured out that they need to lead with 2 hands.

If they made that, and/or downward force as the criteria it would be a vast improvement. On that basis Hill (assuming he was onside) & Perese were fine and Smith gets carded. I think most would be ok with that.