Looking at the assistants named it definitely seems World Rugby have looked at younger, up and comers for those positions.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Highly likely that ARs are potential 2027 referees. If Damon missed out this time, they probably don't see him as a 2027 option. Therefore Jordy Way and the others have likely been selected as ARs before Damon for that reason.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
2 refs, an AR and a TMO is a good result for Australia. Not quite as good as England but still very good.
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
There are several things to upset the average punter in our game but the one that is beginning to grate with me is the never ending advantage. There was a knock-on advantage in the Tahs match and someone kicked the ball and Murphy called the game back for original knock on.
I didn't realise this had changed in the rules.
I didn't realise this had changed in the rules.
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
Quite right too. He is the lesser of our refs.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
Reds v Cheifs game. 1st half why wasn't Cambells kick a 50/22?
Possession started in the Chiefs half from the breakdown after McReight got tackled. (27:30 mark of the game.)
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Jsut a couple of ideas I have heard on tv in last couple of weeks on if the maul etc need tidying up what would you do?
Ben O'Keeffe suggested he thought maybe maul only stopping once would be an idea
Jason Ryan (AB forwards coach) says he would just make it only the 6 or so players (from each team) in lineout could be involved and backs couldn't join etc.
Ben O'Keeffe suggested he thought maybe maul only stopping once would be an idea
Jason Ryan (AB forwards coach) says he would just make it only the 6 or so players (from each team) in lineout could be involved and backs couldn't join etc.
I think both ideas have merit, especially as the refs don't really police the structure of the maul very much at all, apart from the recent blitz on "offside" lifters. Players swimming up the maul, joining in front of the ball carrier etc.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
This is not so much a tidying up suggestion but just what I would like to see.
A try can only be awarded if the ball is passed off the back of a maul as this allows for a chance to contest the ball which is what the game should be about.
A try can only be scored if the maul starts more than 15m from the line, this way it has to be established correctly and cannot be just be a matter of being close to the line and calling in backs to push the maul over, it would require correct techniques and structure rather than just extra weight.
Given that ball generally marks the offside line in rugby, I don't really see why you can have an artificially defined 3-4m space between defenders and the ball carrier that cannot be crossed. As you say, rugby is about a contest for possession, and the maul currently is opposite to that. Most of the tweaks they make to it seem to make it even harder to oppose it without risk of a penalty and/or yellow card. I think defenders should be able to join at any point on their side of the ball carrier.
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
The maul would be fine if reffed to the rules, the ball is never passed back when players are reentering the maul for the attacking side. They join over the top of the ball carrier and are never called offside.
I was also confused in the Rebels v Tahs game when they were penalized for collapsing a maul that they didn't contest. The maul ran into a defender 5 meters ahead of the lineout which made the whole pack offside.
I was also confused in the Rebels v Tahs game when they were penalized for collapsing a maul that they didn't contest. The maul ran into a defender 5 meters ahead of the lineout which made the whole pack offside.
Holloway never passed the ball back so was always at the front of the pod of Waratahs players.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I have no objections to how it was reffed: that's the way it has been viewed consistently over the last few years.
But I think that if you're having a serious discussion about mauls, the orientation of the first player into contact in "open play" is one worth considering. The upright and "retreating" set up of the ball carrier, combined with the pre-bound players, who are not "offside" restrict or heavily increase the danger of a significant number of defensive options.
If you obligated the carrier to face the direction he's travelling towards "pre-contact" in situations like that (obviously when the defense makes immediate contact with the jumper it's not penalised) I think it would make a positive change to options at maul time: it's not as easy to pass the ball back, and easier for the defenders to create a tackle situation.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The law mentions that you can't have more than one player pre-bound (or possibly that was just a recent trial variation), and I thought the Tahs could have been penalised for that. But I don't think a "must face forward" law would make any difference - 99% of the time the maul starts straight from the line-out, where it wouldn't be relevant. And if the ball-carrier's facing back in open play, they're wide open for a low chop tackle to stop the maul forming.
Proud Pig
Tom Lawton (22)
The issue with the Maul as it stands, is that they have removed any real options for the defensive side to compete from the lineout.
The attacking side takes the ball and the lifters immediately do a fold in approach whereby they put their bodies between the ball taker and the defensive team. Then the ball taker passes the ball back to create a further buffer between the defender and the ball carrier. To my mind as soon as the lifters fold in it should be called obstruction because until the defensive team bind a maul has not been formed and as such having a ball carrier behind an effective wall is obstruction.
The other option is that if you are between the ball carrier and the defense, the defender should be allowed to tackle you and take you down as if you are the ball carrier. It would result in a lot of collapsed mauls but it might bring the fair contest back into the game.
The attacking side takes the ball and the lifters immediately do a fold in approach whereby they put their bodies between the ball taker and the defensive team. Then the ball taker passes the ball back to create a further buffer between the defender and the ball carrier. To my mind as soon as the lifters fold in it should be called obstruction because until the defensive team bind a maul has not been formed and as such having a ball carrier behind an effective wall is obstruction.
The other option is that if you are between the ball carrier and the defense, the defender should be allowed to tackle you and take you down as if you are the ball carrier. It would result in a lot of collapsed mauls but it might bring the fair contest back into the game.
This has been penalised quite a lot this season.
Proud Pig
Tom Lawton (22)
Well I am pleased to hear that because I have seen plenty of tries where it hasn't.
This is quite unbelievable that there was no sanction during the match.
It has correctly been cited and the Pumas player will almost certainly be suspended.
Unbelievably reckless from the Pumas player.
