• 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

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
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?
The AA foul play overrides the ruck infringments. The Mapimpi foul play was after the try (as you detailed) - how O'Keefe handled this is as per the Law Book.
 

drewprint

Dick Tooth (41)
Also in that run of SA penalties was the De Jager shot where he brained Valetini in the head with his shoulder. No look from TMO, who was utterly focused on AAA.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
I wish O'Keefe would just wait one or two more seconds to blow the whistle for things like 'holding on' or let teams play the advantage more. He really does just have a habit of taking all the flow out of games.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
Also, I really wish the 'not straight' rule at line-out time was relaxed when the opposition jumpers don't even get into the air. Let the game continue. So many bloody stoppages.
 

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
Oh ok. Thanks. No chat about a penalty try?
I don't think it was reviewed by the TMO - I think they made the call live after the try. In their minds, a penalty try was probably moot after an actual try was scored but it may have been a very rare example of the penalty try case of where a try would probably have been scored in a better position.
 

Grant NZ

Bill Watson (15)
I agree too - some Refs do this (let the game flow at LO time) at the Community level, but not at test level - which is a shame
I feel like they trialled this in the NPC a few years back. I think maybe it might be something that should still be at the ref's discretion rather than being written into the laws, I wonder if some teams might figure out some sort of advantage to be had if they know the other team is unlikely to contest (eg when defending a 5m lineout).
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Also, I really wish the 'not straight' rule at line-out time was relaxed when the opposition jumpers don't even get into the air. Let the game continue. So many bloody stoppages.
Agree completely - the throw on a quick line out can be as far backwards as you want, if the opposing team doesn’t jump it should be deemed a non contest.
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
Agree completely - the throw on a quick line out can be as far backwards as you want, if the opposing team doesn’t jump it should be deemed a non contest.
I agree up to a point, but you will find a lot of jumpers don't actually jump when a ball is so far to one side they have no chance to get it, so not sure what answer is.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Some pretty bizarre calls - I'm still trying to figure out what he was talking about when he stopped the Boks from taking that quick throw in.

That was a clear mistake.

I think O'Keefe's ruling initially was that there couldn't be a quick throw because he thought it was going to be a Wallabies lineout because of the Springboks player dropping it (and he thought the ball hadn't crossed the plane of touch).

So the quick throw should have been allowed which was then kicked out on the full and would have been a Wallabies lineout in a similar spot however because he blew it up, they had to go back to the initial lineout.
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Caterpillar ruck "blocker" : last feet is last feet. Player can stand where they want provided they're behind last feet. They often aren't.

Are caterpillar rucks a blight on the game? Fuck yes.

What is even worse: refs give the "use it" command and don't blow the whistle when the 5 seconds has elapsed. Happened in ABs v Pumas. At one point, Smith took 7 seconds from the time "use it" was called to get the ball out, and that should be a short arm to the Pumas inside the AB 22.

And supplementary to this: ref calls "use it" and another caterpillar participant shows up. I think that that point they should call ball out and let the halfback get mullered for crimes against rugby.
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think O'Keefe's ruling initially was that there couldn't be a quick throw because he thought it was going to be a Wallabies lineout because of the Springboks player dropping it (and he thought the ball hadn't crossed the plane of touch).

From memory there was comms with the AR to that effect. I think they both contributed.
 

zer0

John Thornett (49)
What is even worse: refs give the "use it" command and don't blow the whistle when the 5 seconds has elapsed. Happened in ABs v Pumas. At one point, Smith took 7 seconds from the time "use it" was called to get the ball out, and that should be a short arm to the Pumas inside the AB 22.

And supplementary to this: ref calls "use it" and another caterpillar participant shows up. I think that that point they should call ball out and let the halfback get mullered for crimes against rugby.

That was a particularly egregious case. Two 'use it' calls, the second well over five seconds after the latter. Should've just let the Puma forwards have a free swing at Sex Pest Smith.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
Caterpillar ruck "blocker" : last feet is last feet. Player can stand where they want provided they're behind last feet. They often aren't.

Are caterpillar rucks a blight on the game? Fuck yes.

What is even worse: refs give the "use it" command and don't blow the whistle when the 5 seconds has elapsed. Happened in ABs v Pumas. At one point, Smith took 7 seconds from the time "use it" was called to get the ball out, and that should be a short arm to the Pumas inside the AB 22.

And supplementary to this: ref calls "use it" and another caterpillar participant shows up. I think that that point they should call ball out and let the halfback get mullered for crimes against rugby.
I was thinking they shouldn’t police the blockers on midfield bombs/box kicks so vigilantly. It’s a negative tactic that every team has adopted as a go to because there’s a chance of retrieving the kick, forcing a knock on to get a scrum or a penalty for retreating players changing their line. If it’s not so viable an attacking tool maybe teams would shelve it? I know rugby is a game of contests for the ball and I’m sure I’ve missed something, but as you say, it’s a blight on the game.
 

stillmissit

Peter Johnson (47)
That was a particularly egregious case. Two 'use it' calls, the second well over five seconds after the latter. Should've just let the Puma forwards have a free swing at Sex Pest Smith.
Ah! There are many here, including me, who would love to be known as a sex pest. Too old is my defence......
 
Top