Refereeing decisions

[SteveWA]

Interested in knowing whether the likelihood of the receiving player (England 11 in the above example) actually getting the ball is factored in, along with whether the pass was forward in the first place?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Forward pass would be first offence. Receiving player impacts line break and penalty try considerations.

 

[tragic]

“Following World Rugby’s review of the first Test Ireland received clarification on several contentious issues in that defeat including the acknowledgment that All Blacks Scott Barrett and Rieko Ioane committed yellow card offences and that Joey Carbery ought to have been awarded a penalty try.”

anyone know where these reviews are reported or is it a leaked internal communication?

 

[cyclopath]

“Following World Rugby’s review of the first Test Ireland received clarification on several contentious issues in that defeat including the acknowledgment that All Blacks Scott Barrett and Rieko Ioane committed yellow card offences and that Joey Carbery ought to have been awarded a penalty try.”

anyone know where these reviews are reported or is it a leaked internal communication?

I'm going with the latter. Given the widespread discussion, particularly about Barrett, and comparisons to other events that weekend, I doubt WR (World Rugby) want this being too obvious, as they kind of end up looking like arses coming out with this stuff 10 days later. It does beg the question as to what Citing Commissioners actually do.

 

[Froggy]

Accepting then that the ruling was right by the laws, the laws are basically incorrect. By that I mean, that the fact that the ball lands beyond the players reach means it was not a genuine attempt at an intercept is simply not true. The law here is trying create a definition of an intentional knock-down that simply doesn't mesh with reality. It's a bit like saying that if I am trying to tackle my opposite number and he steps me and I don't get a hand on him, I wasn't attempting a tackle.
Why this irritates me is that going for an intercept is a genuine attacking play, made with a view to advance your team up the field and possibly score a try, whereas a deliberate knock-down is a cynical attempt to disrupt the oppositions attack by breaking a law. By making this simple but, in my mind, wildly inaccurate attempt to define a deliberate knock-down, you are yellow carding a player for making genuine attacking play but not quite nailing it. It's not much different to yellow carding a player for throwing a shit pass when on attack.

 

[Bullrush]

I'm going with the latter. Given the widespread discussion, particularly about Barrett, and comparisons to other events that weekend, I doubt WR (World Rugby) want this being too obvious, as they kind of end up looking like arses coming out with this stuff 10 days later. It does beg the question as to what Citing Commissioners actually do.

There's no way the Carbery one should have been a YC and penalty try. This is just getting ridiculous. And Nigel owens agrees - he talks about this tackle from about 3:30.

This guy was considered the best ref rugby had for a while and if he's apparently getting it wrong after reviewing the video - what hope is there for the rest of us?

 

[tragic]

The quote I posted was from the Irish times - it might also be wishful thinking with no way of confirming.

 

[Derpus]

Man why do WR (World Rugby) even get revisionist on games? If someone asks for a rule clarification, fine, clarify.

What's to be gained selling your refs down the river by admitting to all their inevitable faults after the fact? 1000 decisions get made a game and a bunch are gunna be wrong.

 

[LeCheese]

Man why do WR (World Rugby) even get revisionist on games? If someone asks for a rule clarification, fine, clarify.

What's to be gained selling your refs down the river by admitting to all their inevitable faults after the fact? 1000 decisions get made a game and a bunch are gunna be wrong.

It’s about transparency and consistency between WR (World Rugby), referees, and the teams. There’s a reason it’s not done in the public eye - pretty poor of whoever it was in the meeting that leaked it

 

[cyclopath]

There's no way the Carbery one should have been a YC and penalty try. This is just getting ridiculous. And Nigel owens agrees - he talks about this tackle from about 3:30.

This guy was considered the best ref rugby had for a while and if he's apparently getting it wrong after reviewing the video - what hope is there for the rest of us?

Sorry, I was referring mostly to the Barrett incident - hadn't seen the Carbery one. But having seen it now, I agree.

 

[Bullrush]

Sorry, I was referring mostly to the Barrett incident - hadn't seen the Carbery one. But having seen it now, I agree.

Yep....Barret incident should have been a red.

 

[Old High Boy]

Accepting then that the ruling was right by the laws, the laws are basically incorrect. By that I mean, that the fact that the ball lands beyond the players reach means it was not a genuine attempt at an intercept is simply not true. The law here is trying create a definition of an intentional knock-down that simply doesn't mesh with reality. It's a bit like saying that if I am trying to tackle my opposite number and he steps me and I don't get a hand on him, I wasn't attempting a tackle.
Why this irritates me is that going for an intercept is a genuine attacking play, made with a view to advance your team up the field and possibly score a try, whereas a deliberate knock-down is a cynical attempt to disrupt the oppositions attack by breaking a law. By making this simple but, in my mind, wildly inaccurate attempt to define a deliberate knock-down, you are yellow carding a player for making genuine attacking play but not quite nailing it. It's not much different to yellow carding a player for throwing a shit pass when on attack.

I feel your pain...

What you are seeing, or commenting on, is what us long-timer refs have noticed for some time now – changes emanating from World Rugby and how they want to control rugby games…

• When World Rugby recognise a particular negative action or negative element in the game, they come up with rule amendments or changes to deal with it – and that’s their attempt to remove it entirely from the game.
• Remember those tip tackles – or Lifting Tackles as WR (World Rugby) call them (or worse – spear tackles) that blighted the game some 10+ years back? World Rugby (circa 2011) changed the laws to make us refs deal with them harshly when we saw them in our games. They have not been totally eradicated, but their occurrence is significantly less observant these days – especially within Community Rugby.
• World Rugby did the same for those actions impeding the catcher under the high ball (or termed “Challenge in the air”)…circa 2018
• World Rugby also did the same for those actions at ruck time called - Dangerous Clean outs or how they tried to eliminate the practice of dangerous clear outs at the breakdown (circa 2019)
• World Rugby did the same for high tackles….. you get the picture

Seeing the pattern here? When the law changes for deliberate knock-ons came down, we heard along the referee grapevine that World Rugby wanted to – you guessed it – wanted to eliminate the negative action of needless intercept attempts – hence the law change.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yeah, it's gunna be a total lottery.

 

[Braveheart81]

Accepting then that the ruling was right by the laws, the laws are basically incorrect. By that I mean, that the fact that the ball lands beyond the players reach means it was not a genuine attempt at an intercept is simply not true. The law here is trying create a definition of an intentional knock-down that simply doesn't mesh with reality. It's a bit like saying that if I am trying to tackle my opposite number and he steps me and I don't get a hand on him, I wasn't attempting a tackle.
Why this irritates me is that going for an intercept is a genuine attacking play, made with a view to advance your team up the field and possibly score a try, whereas a deliberate knock-down is a cynical attempt to disrupt the oppositions attack by breaking a law. By making this simple but, in my mind, wildly inaccurate attempt to define a deliberate knock-down, you are yellow carding a player for making genuine attacking play but not quite nailing it. It's not much different to yellow carding a player for throwing a shit pass when on attack.

The law isn't about knock-downs though. The law is about intentionally knocking the ball on.

Perese's was a classic example of breaking this law. He stuck his hand out intentionally and knocked the ball on. The only ways this doesn't happen are if the pass miraculously "sticks" to his hand and he completes a clean one handed catch which is a million to one at that speed or secondly, the option he is trying to achieve is that the ball stays in the air long enough after he knocks it forward and stays within reach such that he can catch it on the second attempt and prevent the knock on because the ball doesn't hit the ground.

Fans and particularly commentators need to stop referencing the fact that someone was attempting an intercept. It's irrelevant to the law. Their attempt at an intercept involves a deliberate knock on that can only not happen if they complete the catch on the second attempt which is a really low percentage chance.

I have less issues with this law than most fans because I do see it as a professional foul where a player has been beaten and then tries to cover that up by stopping the pass.

 

[Rebel man]

The law isn't about knock-downs though. The law is about intentionally knocking the ball on.

Perese's was a classic example of breaking this law. He stuck his hand out intentionally and knocked the ball on. The only ways this doesn't happen are if the pass miraculously "sticks" to his hand and he completes a clean one handed catch which is a million to one at that speed or secondly, the option he is trying to achieve is that the ball stays in the air long enough after he knocks it forward and stays within reach such that he can catch it on the second attempt and prevent the knock on because the ball doesn't hit the ground.

Fans and particularly commentators need to stop referencing the fact that someone was attempting an intercept. It's irrelevant to the law. Their attempt at an intercept involves a deliberate knock on that can only not happen if they complete the catch on the second attempt which is a really low percentage chance.

I have less issues with this law than most fans because I do see it as a professional foul where a player has been beaten and then tries to cover that up by stopping the pass.

But you haven’t deliberately knocked the ball on if you have tried to intercept it.

 

[LeCheese]

But you haven’t deliberately knocked the ball on if you have tried to intercept it.

It's semantics - if you make an intentional play at the ball, which then falls in a way where you have no chance of regathering, that is a knock-on as a result of your deliberate actions.

 

[Braveheart81]

But you haven’t deliberately knocked the ball on if you have tried to intercept it.

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

It is a knock-on by the definition and they have done it intentionally.

The only way that it doesn't become a knock-on is if they complete the catch so there is no knock-on.

The attempted intercept involves a deliberate knock-on. There is no reasonable expectation that the hand being stuck out results in a clean catch where the ball doesn't get propelled forward off the hand.

 

[Rebel man]

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

It is a knock-on by the definition and they have done it intentionally.

The only way that it doesn't become a knock-on is if they complete the catch so there is no knock-on.

The attempted intercept involves a deliberate knock-on. There is no reasonable expectation that the hand being stuck out results in a clean catch where the ball doesn't get propelled forward off the hand.

No they haven’t that’s no different to dropping any other ball.

Using your own logic a standard drop fits the definition and they have made an intentional play at the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

No they haven’t that’s no different to dropping any other ball.

Using your own logic a standard drop fits the definition and they have made an intentional play at the ball.

"It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession."

If your team is already in possession I think the interpretation would be that there is a reasonable expectation that they could gain possession from a pass from their own teammate which makes it incredibly unlikely it could be an intentional knock-on.

 

[Pfitzy]

"It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession."

If your team is already in possession I think the interpretation would be that there is a reasonable expectation that they could gain possession from a pass from their own teammate which makes it incredibly unlikely it could be an intentional knock-on.

And that's a key part of why they say "one arm" when looking at intent. If you're in the line and about to receive a pass from a team mate, nobody tries to catch that one-armed.

So the secret is to attempt intercepts with 2 arms at all times.