Refereeing decisions

[Bairdy]

Before I comment on the Placid incident, I'll just say first that the referee's decision to yellow Cottrell was correct; while his right arm looked to have wrapped around the player, he led with his left shoulder in the contact and at no point did he look to wrap the left arm.

If you watch this replay it's clear that Placid should not have been penalised.

Placid actually jumps for the ball, Hayward merely jumps earlier.

So all this debate about taking the players legs out in the air are null, since Placid does make an attempt to compete for the ball in the air. He just jumps into Haywards knee..

That's funny because I could turn that statement around just by switching the order of the player's names, and propose that Placid did not in fact actually jump for the ball, but was merely in the process of doing so.

Not sure why some people continue to read only the heading of the law, and ignore the explanation that is written below it. No one is arguing that it is a tackle, which might've upgrade the offence to beyond a penalty. Players can make contact with one another without it being a "tackle".

Placid can contest in the air for the ball with Hayward, but he can't "push, pull or tap his foot or feet" from under him. By all means, contest each other for the ball in the air from the torso up, but don't endanger the jumper's attempt to land safely by pushing, pulling, or tapping their foot or feet while he's in the air!

This incident was referred to in this thread a page or two back:

The only differences between this and the Placid-Hayward clash is Goode was stretchered off, and Payne was uninjured, while both Placid and Hayward hurt themselves in the contest (Placid more so).

Would anyone's opinion be different if the players switched places?

 

[Scoey]

Looking at that replay I don't actually think that Placid was even going to jump. It looks more like he was going to try and catch it on the run. What is clear is that neither player had any idea that the other was where they were.

The comments that say what Placid did was careless, how is it any more careless than what Hayward did? Both players were trying to do the same thing except one jumped into the air.

@Bairdy I have based most of my argument on the heading of the law but I have not ignored the explanation that comes after. What I am finding frustrating is that people are reading the explanation of the law whilst seemingly ignoring the heading of it and subsequently, the aspect of the game to which it applies, which is a tackle.

As for your last sentence, I can't answer that. If I say no, then I will be accused of being full of shit, if I say yes, I am full of shit.

On the Cottrell issue, I think his problem was that his left arm was tucked against his chest IIRC. It's not possible to grasp a player with an arm that is tucked against your chest and so it's hard to argue that he was trying to grasp the other player. The reverse angle shot shown above makes it look a lot less an incident than what it was though still shots can do that.

 

[Scoey]

If it had been the other way around you could almost guarantee Marto would be calling it completely reckless and saying it warranted a card.

Almost certainly, but that says more about Marto being an idiot than it does about the legality of what Placid did.

 

[Slim 293]

If it had been the other way around you could almost guarantee Marto would be calling it completely reckless and saying it warranted a card.

Most definitely.........

One example from July 2012:

Greg Martin: Ita Vaea's tackle on Digby Ioane


Greg Martin: "I'll tell you what... you can't go hitting people with your forearm around the jaw."

Greg Martin:"He's in trouble in terms of citing if anyone's fair dinkum. You can't do that."

Greg Martin: "That's what breaks peoples jaws."

Greg Martin: "That's the end of Ita Vaea's season I reckon if you go around belting people like that."



Greg Martin: Quade Cooper's tackle on Berrick Barnes


Greg Martin: "It's only Quade."

Greg Martin: "I think he was apologising as he was hopping off him wasn't he?"

Greg Martin: "It was definitely high. Berrick ducked into it."

.........

Greg Martin: "No injuries... someone's still down...."

Greg Clarke: "Ah, it's Barnes still down."

Greg Martin: "He must've got him right on the chin."

Greg Martin: "Yeah, they'll bring in a lawyer or whatever they do because he was dropping in the tackle. But it was never gonna get him in the midriff was it?"

 

[gel]

Would anyone's opinion be different if the players switched places?

I'll have a go at answering that one:

Yes, most tah's brumbies and force fan's opinions would be changed to "Placid should exercise more care with his knees when he jumps for the ball, because what happened to the poor force guy who now has an injury to the sternum and hes lucky he isn't dead. Should have been a red card for Placid and life ban as well."

It not like others within this thread haven't completely changed their tune in the space of a year regarding taking out players in the air:

This thread:

I think the penalty and nothing more was the correct decision against Placid but it had to be a penalty. He alone put Hayward in a dangerous position because he was careless. He has an obligation not to take a player out in the air and that is exactly what he did and he was nowhere near competing for the ball.

I don't think Placid was under any obligation to contest the ball in the air, but that's where the contest happened and Hayward won it.

It was a dynamic situation and it went from general play with neither team in possession to Hayward being in possession as soon as he caught it cleanly.

At that point, Placid collides with him illegally as he took a player out in the air.

The fraction of a second between there being a contest (of which only one side effectively competed) and the Western Force being in possession is important. Similarly with late and early tackles, if you get your timing wrong, you get penalised. Placid got his timing wrong in this situation and instead of competing for the ball he took the player out who'd already won the ball.

Likewise in a lineout, competing jumpers can both go for the ball, but if one of them catches it and then the other tries to grab onto it in the air they'll be penalised for taking the man out in the air.

It's tough on Placid because his intentions were fine (and he got injured for his troubles), but that is also part of the game. Breaking the laws unintentionally still gets penalised.

The law we are talking about 10.4 (i) relates to dangerous play of tackling a player in the air in either the lineout or general play. It specifically lists all types of contact (a player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball) so it doesn't have to be an attempted tackle. It basically covers any contact.

I don't think it is really that different (and comes under the same law). In a lineout, if one player catches the ball, the player challenging for it can touch the ball but they have to be very careful. Any contact that isn't with the ball puts them at high risk of being penalised for playing the man in the air.

Last year:

Absolutely. You could potentially argue that Carter should have tried harder to ease him to the ground but the reality of that situation was that Carter was almost stationary and Higgers is running forward and then leaping further forward. His momentum was always going to see him end up upside down with any contact with Carter. Even if Carter pulls his arms away and just lets Higgers run into him, momentum is still going to cause Higgers to do a flip.

It is crazy that the Tahs are penalised for this. A player shouldn't be able to access the rules relating to protection in the air when they aren't fielding a kick. Even more so, Higgers had already knocked the ball forwards in the air and was essentially fielding his own knock on.

It might have been a dangerous situation but it was entirely caused by Higginbotham. That is the reason why the defender shouldn't be penalised. I am just glad that some sanity prevailed and Carter wasn't yellow carded or worse.

So a year ago, when it was a tackle that Tom Carter made, Higgenbotham should have no access to the rules relating to protection in the air when they aren't fielding a kick.

But now that it is a reds player, the rule basically covers any contact.

Having a go at Marto is a bit of an easy mark. Kearns, Cannon, Sharpy, Horan and Kafer all have their moments of bias - its just that Marto is a real bogan. He just sometimes goes full retard, and you never go full retard.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well played gel. That is both excellent memory and a great argument.

I agree with you that by the letter of the law, Carter was breaking the laws by tackling a player in the air.

I had been thinking about that incident in the context of this one.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

 

[Lindommer]

Payne got a 3 match suspension for his careless tackle on Goode. Placid could consider himself bloody luck if he doesn't cop a 3 match ban.

Read here: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/apr/09/ulster-jared-payne-ban-saracens-alex-goode-heineken

 

[suckerforred]

Lindommer I do think that there is a difference between the to incidences though.

 

[Braveheart81]

Lindommer I do think that there is a difference between the to incidences though.

I think there is a bit of a difference too in that Payne was every so slightly later to the contest than Placid.

It does show that when a player is going for a ball in the air, the player running through along the ground places the jumper in a very dangerous position if they collide with them as they take their legs out form under them and make landing on their head and neck a realistic possibility.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

Re: Mauls

My question is with the set up of a Maul, especially from a lineout. The way I've seen all amateur coaches instruct this set up seems to be an offside infringement.

Ball carrier turns, Sealer makes shoulder to shoulder contact and shifts the ball toward the back of the maul. Blockers left and right are encouraged to bind onto the ball carrier's back, effectively moving to the front of the Maul, having come around the outside of the formed Maul.

Shouldn't this be a penalty? Although you see it all the time at all levels, so maybe i'm missing something.

 

[Braveheart81]

Law 17.4 (c) says:

Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team-mate, the player is offside.

So you can legally join alongside the last player in the maul. Providing they have joined legally, there is nothing stopping them moving forward or the ball carrier shifting backwards.​

 

[Scoey]

They run a fairly fine line using the setup you describe @EatSleepDrinRuck and often, as you suggest, get the timing wrong, with the ball carrier sliding back and arriving players aiming to join alongside but often joining just ahead of the ball carrier. Personally though, I don't mind a little leeway here. Given how fluid mauls tend to be, I would hate for the offside tolerance to be close to zero.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

Thanks, that's my point: You commonly see players 'joining' the maul from in front of the hindmost player.

Further, 17.2c states:
'Placing a hand on another player in the maul does not constitute binding.'

Assuming binding is the only method of joining the maul (these laws are not tightly drafted at all) then when coaches are drilling:

1. tackled, keep feet, turn,
2. hammer on, seal off.
3. block left (binding on player 1)
4. block right (")

They are joining the maul illegally?

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

Awesome - thanks Scoey.

We're playing a team on the weekend who love a good maul so I'm just preparing things to put in the Ref's head.

Also going to try that 7's trick we saw recently - on their line out in their 22 the piggies will contest the lineout but won't wrap the jumper up on the ground if he's just going straight to ground to create a maul, just take a step back and look for runners to hit and wait for the penalty.

 

[boyo]

Re: Mauls

My question is with the set up of a Maul, especially from a lineout. The way I've seen all amateur coaches instruct this set up seems to be an offside infringement.

Ball carrier turns, Sealer makes shoulder to shoulder contact and shifts the ball toward the back of the maul. Blockers left and right are encouraged to bind onto the ball carrier's back, effectively moving to the front of the Maul, having come around the outside of the formed Maul.

Shouldn't this be a penalty? Although you see it all the time at all levels, so maybe i'm missing something.

IMO in a maul the player holding the ball should be in contact with 1 or more opposition players, otherwise it's obstruction.
I realise it's not current law, but maybe it should.

 

[Braveheart81]

IMO in a maul the player holding the ball should be in contact with 1 or more opposition players, otherwise it's obstruction.
I realise it's not current law, but maybe it should.

That would probably end mauling altogether. If a defender does come in contact with the ball carrier they're usually able to lock it up and force the turnover under the use it or lose it laws.

 

[Scoey]

IMO in a maul the player holding the ball should be in contact with 1 or more opposition players, otherwise it's obstruction.
I realise it's not current law, but maybe it should.

I don't like that at all. Love a good maul, done well and that would be the end of them altogether. Horrible thought.

 

[boyo]

Brett Papworth (on ABCTV) has frequently called the rolling maul "legalised obstruction".

 

[Scoey]

A couple of incidents tonight that were very similar to the Hayward/Placid one. In the Highlanders Bulls game about 47 mins in two players contest the ball in the air and the highlanders player is penalised. I have no idea how this one can be seen as anything but a contest. Crap call.
In the Reds Brumbies game (I forget what time it occurred) Rocket took out To'omua in the air. Correct penalty for sure. Just silly from Rod.
All three were penalised but I would be surprised if those arguing for Placids penalty thought the highlanders one was worthy of a penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChargerWA]

Agreed, the one in the Highlanders game was a poor decision to penalise. The player who was penalised had turned his back to the player coming forward and did jump to contest the ball, the player who went down jumped over him and took him self out in effect.