• 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

LeCheese

Greg Davis (50)
Outside of the new review/upgrade process, TMO can't give a card (or make any decision for that matter), simply provide evidence to the on-field team with a suggested course of action. This is then conferred and a decision agreed upon. We've seen it before where TMO has proposed a card and on-field team has disagreed and gone with penalty only - an instance with Angus Gardner seems to ring a bell.

So, long story short, no.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
Not if they are using the same protocol as Super Rugby

  • The TMO will have 8 minutes to either uphold a 10-minute Yellow Card decision or upgrade it to a 20-minute Red Card, in which case the player will not return to the field, but can still be replaced.
  • Referees will now also have the power to issue a full Red Card for deliberate foul play, in which case the player will not return to the field and cannot be replaced.
 

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
I think it's going to have to be extremely obvious foul play for a ref to give a straight Red & risk being overturned by the Judiciary. Otherwise they'll just do the "on report" thing & make it the TMO's problem. I do think the TMO should then be able to upgrade to either a 20-minute or rest-of-game Red depending on severity.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Feels like its a separate set of infringements that get a straight red - striking, biting, gouging, etc. There are some tackles that I believe should be, but I can I can see how they don't get there when you introduce that ambiguity around intent and severity.
 

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
Wilson has sorta beaten me to it but stomping, biting & gouging for sure - pretty much anything that can only have been premeditated.

I agree "deliberate" is hard for a ref to judge without stopping the game for an inordinate amount of time but should be easier for TMO if he's got the time to study multiple replays?
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Because it's too inconsistently run at 1 phase. I'd be happy for it to stay at that, but if increasing it to 3 is needed to get the penalty advantage period locked in I'd take that trade. Again though, it's a maximum of 3 phases and the ref has to make a call one way or the other. There's nothing stopping them making it earlier.
 

RemainingInTheGame

Herbert Moran (7)
I'd push back on a law that puts additional work on the referee - counting phases and then having to make a snap decision sounds like a small addition, but it's all ready one of the hardest games to officiate. Also, at least with current law the ref rarely gets it wrong!
 

Eyes and Ears

Bob Davidson (42)
Sorry I would have to disagree re knock on advantage. I think it is very consistently applied across all levels of the game. I wouldn’t be tinkering with this. I understand the rationale to provide more of a framework for penalty advantage.
 

elementfreak

Trevor Allan (34)
What are people's opinions on the on field yellow given to the South African Loosehead in the U20s game?
Pretty sure the U20s is using the same protocol as SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) so it would have been upgraded within the 10 minutes. That's what happened right, I was watching it and the referee gave a YC and did the arms crossed thing, then at the next lineout he delivered a RC. If it was a straight RC then it's a full game one, vs the 20 minute one for an upgrade.
 

Highlander35

Steve Williams (59)
For those which were asking @Derpus here is the footage: (starts at 00:18)


There's sort of two parts to my query in my head.

Firstly: are we happy in general about the refs choice to give an on-field yellow? To my mind, that was an always illegal action that comfortably met the threshold of on field red, without need for the 3-4 minutes of alternative angles and such that line ball calls take. It's U20s so leeway has to be given, but surely the lead officials should be empowered to give them when the criteria is met.

Secondly: "should" the TMO have the authority to up grade these actions to an on field red when appropriate? We can hem and haw about 20 minutes probably being fair for this incident with a suspension almost certainly coming (has come?) but it does feel like a missing part of the process to myself, if there is an egregious on field error.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I thought straight red was for serious foul play (striking, gouging, nutshots etc) and illegal clean outs don't quite reach that level. So a yellow upgraded to a red seems fine.

Probably have to review the rules for a legit interpretation. I'll have a squiz after lunch.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
I'm in two minds about this one, there's definitely an argument it meets the on field red threshold, but i still don't think we have clarity around where that is set compared to the other infringement types like striking which are clear and obviously a full red. Also there's no way they'd come to that decision without going through the video.

I do agree the video ref should have that capacity to upgrade to a full red and not just 20 minutes though. But I suspect the vote on the 20 minute red card this year won't get up and so the we'll all go back to all reds being full reds, but with the video review model being maintained and the point will be moot.
 

Wilson

Phil Kearns (64)
Unfortunately it needs 75% to vote for it and there doesn't seem to be any interest in the North.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Mouth breathing neanderthals.

Can Super Rugby continue with the 20 minute rule or do we have to fall in line?
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
There's sort of two parts to my query in my head.

Firstly: are we happy in general about the refs choice to give an on-field yellow? To my mind, that was an always illegal action that comfortably met the threshold of on field red, without need for the 3-4 minutes of alternative angles and such that line ball calls take. It's U20s so leeway has to be given, but surely the lead officials should be empowered to give them when the criteria is met.

Secondly: "should" the TMO have the authority to up grade these actions to an on field red when appropriate? We can hem and haw about 20 minutes probably being fair for this incident with a suspension almost certainly coming (has come?) but it does feel like a missing part of the process to myself, if there is an egregious on field error.

I'm happy with it.

We're saying that the overwhelming majority of red cards are 20 minute red cards now. It's really just the Frank Lomani type incidents that are straight red cards for the remainder of the match.

I personally think the system works quite well. I think it is way better being able to make a quick decision than having the referee and TMO stop play for 3+ minutes watching a lot of replays before a decision is made.
 

JRugby2

Bob Loudon (25)
The off field review process in my view is easily the best innovation in the professional game that I've seen for some time. For rugby-related red cards (I'm talking dangerous tackles/ clean outs here mostly as opposed to punching, stomping, eye-gouging etc etc) there is now absolutely zero benefit to either the referee or the game for them to be judging that a red card on field.

Ultimately we need to have a simple, repeatable protocol that all stakeholders of the game can follow - so while this incident was a clearly red from the first replay, lots of others aren't - and having this system in place is a godsend compared to the long and arduous stoppages we were having before when a broadcaster couldn't supply video fast enough, coupled with the on field referee needing to make up their mind as to what the sanction was. The on field process is significantly quicker and we're getting more accurate decisions. Any delays are almost always caused by the broadcaster and can be dealt with without interrupting the game.
 
Top