• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
The match thread is now (rightfully) locked, so...

www.smh.com.au

Bundy Bar rides again: Waratahs plan to revive party zone at new Allianz

NSW Rugby bosses want to bring the crowds back to Waratahs games by drawing in young punters, and those who loved Leichhardt Oval as well.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

And that tackle? It fired up South Africa, but our inquiries have determined there was no formal complaint from the tourists, and the SANZAAR citing panel determined there was an attempt to use arms and was not “reckless″⁣ enough to warrant an off-field yellow, let alone a red (and therefore a charge). World Rugby also had no problems with it.
Click to expand...

Case closed.
 
liquor box

liquor box

Peter Sullivan (51)
I really hat box kicks and the ridiculous time it take to kick the ball, one thing that has bugged me for a while is the player who stands next to the ruck but does not bind and is there to block attempts by the defensive team from getting the the 9 who is about to kick the ball.

If a ruck is formed, should he be retreating if he is not binding on, if he claims he is about to bind then he is coming in from the side of the ruck. Why is he not deemed to have been to be blocking the defence just like someone changing their line when running, his only purpose is to stop defensive efforts. Should the blocker be forced to turn around and retreat for a second after the ball is kicked?

Can anyone with a knowledge of the rules explain why a blocker can just stand there and not be penalised? Why not just put a blocker near the back of a scrum to protect the 9 there as well?
 
Grant NZ

Grant NZ

Bill Watson (15)
liquor box said:
I really hat box kicks and the ridiculous time it take to kick the ball, one thing that has bugged me for a while is the player who stands next to the ruck but does not bind and is there to block attempts by the defensive team from getting the the 9 who is about to kick the ball.

If a ruck is formed, should he be retreating if he is not binding on, if he claims he is about to bind then he is coming in from the side of the ruck. Why is he not deemed to have been to be blocking the defence just like someone changing their line when running, his only purpose is to stop defensive efforts. Should the blocker be forced to turn around and retreat for a second after the ball is kicked?

Can anyone with a knowledge of the rules explain why a blocker can just stand there and not be penalised? Why not just put a blocker near the back of a scrum to protect the 9 there as well?
Click to expand...

It's totally offside/obstruction, but other than every now and then when WR (World Rugby) asks refs to explicitly police it, it just gets ignored 99% of the time.
 
Ignoto

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
I'm still confused at how O'Keefe handled two 'foul play' incidents.

The Wallabies had multiple penalty advantage in the second half, only for Alan to do a high clean out. O'Keefe overturned our penalty advantage.

Mapimpi scores, gets carded for foul play. But, O'Keefe lets the try stand as the foul play occurred after the try had been scored.

So, what am I missing in terms of why one could be overturned but not the other?
 
tragic

tragic

John Solomon (38)
liquor box said:
I really hat box kicks and the ridiculous time it take to kick the ball, one thing that has bugged me for a while is the player who stands next to the ruck but does not bind and is there to block attempts by the defensive team from getting the the 9 who is about to kick the ball.

If a ruck is formed, should he be retreating if he is not binding on, if he claims he is about to bind then he is coming in from the side of the ruck. Why is he not deemed to have been to be blocking the defence just like someone changing their line when running, his only purpose is to stop defensive efforts. Should the blocker be forced to turn around and retreat for a second after the ball is kicked?

Can anyone with a knowledge of the rules explain why a blocker can just stand there and not be penalised? Why not just put a blocker near the back of a scrum to protect the 9 there as well?
Click to expand...
Actually the offside line at a ruck is at the feet of the hindmost player. So if the blocker is behind there he’s fine. And he doesn’t need to move out of the way. He just can’t change his line to block the charging player. So if he stands still behind the hindmost feet he’s fine.
You could also do it at a scum if you were behind the offside line but who would do it? A forward can’t detach from the scrum prematurely so it would have to be a back, in which case you’d be leaving yourself short.
 
RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
In the lead up to the Samu try was there not a fairly clear deliberate knock down by a Bok? As in not an attempt to catch the ball? Was that reviewed by the TMO?
 
Grant NZ

Grant NZ

Bill Watson (15)
Ignoto said:
I'm still confused at how O'Keefe handled two 'foul play' incidents.

The Wallabies had multiple penalty advantage in the second half, only for Alan to do a high clean out. O'Keefe overturned our penalty advantage.

Mapimpi scores, gets carded for foul play. But, O'Keefe lets the try stand as the foul play occurred after the try had been scored.

So, what am I missing in terms of why one could be overturned but not the other?
Click to expand...

I mean, that's not inconsistent - a try being scored is different to advantage. Refs will often reverse a penalty if the second offence is more serious (ie, foul play vs offside).
It's not very well written, but the advantage law does address this -
The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)
Click to expand...
That last sentence is key & if the subsequent infringement is for foul play, the ref will call that one.

I don't recall the incident, but if he was playing advantage for a non Law 9 penalty, the right call is to call advantage over & penalise Aus.


The Mapimpi one was different though - the try was scored, it was dead ball when he committed his foul play. There's no mechanism for 'reversing a try' if a subsequent offence happens, the appropriate decision is to award a pen where the restart would have occurred.
 
Grant NZ

Grant NZ

Bill Watson (15)
BTW, for me the most baffling call yesterday was no review of that head on head contact that lead to Paisami going off for an HIA. Looked pretty similar to the tackles that lead to Red & Yellow cards respectively in the Ire v NZ series.
 
Drew

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
Grant NZ said:
BTW, for me the most baffling call yesterday was no review of that head on head contact that lead to Paisami going off for an HIA. Looked pretty similar to the tackles that lead to Red & Yellow cards respectively in the Ire v NZ series.
Click to expand...
Maybe Ebzebet gave Okeefe the crazy eyes in the tunnel and he was scared to rule against his team
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top