Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

But if the player in the maul is still held by an opposition player, as occurs in almost every maul situation the ends with the half back taking the ball out of the maul, is that obstruction?

……………………… really?

Remember the game is played by humans, not robots programmed to perform actions within micro seconds.

 

[Pfitzy]

But if the player in the maul is still held by an opposition player, as occurs in almost every maul situation the ends with the half back taking the ball out of the maul, is that obstruction?

No. Next question.

 

[JRugby2]

Yes - because the maul is over the moment the ball is removed, so it's just a simple case of a tackler, attempting to tackle a ball carrier. The "tackler" is onside as there were apart of the previous maul.

Should add after reading other thoughts on this - that with that 1m protection they’ll have while this was legal, it won’t be under this new interpretation - until the halfback has moved 1m from the breakdown.

ie: half back arrives and grabs ball from base of ruck or maul, effectively now has a free pass OR the moment they run they can be tackled. New laws prevent any defenders previously considered onside by the fact they were legally bound to ruck or maul from tackling them the moment the ball is picked up.

 

[Strewthcobber]

a) Conversion & Penalty: A player will have 60 seconds to kick at goal [conversion] from when a try is scored;

Has this one been trialled anywhere yet? 60 secs is a fair change from the 90s currently permitted

 

[Strewthcobber]

Should add after reading other thoughts on this - that with that 1m protection they’ll have while this was legal, it won’t be under this new interpretation - until the halfback has moved 1m from the breakdown.

ie: half back arrives and grabs ball from base of ruck or maul, effectively now has a free pass OR the moment they run they can be tackled. New laws prevent any defenders previously considered onside by the fact they were legally bound to ruck or maul from tackling them the moment the ball is picked up.

pick and goes don't seem to be affected? The players who were bound in the ruck can still tackle a player running from the base?

Although I always wondered what impact this clarification had on that being legal (Clarification 3/2021) - it suggests not, but appears to be routinely ignored

If a player is fully bound and they have moved beyond the offside line then they must return to be behind the hindmost foot before being able to be involved in play, once the ball is out or is played from the ruck.

 

[JRugby2]

Has this one been trialled anywhere yet? 60 secs is a fair change from the 90s currently permitted

In the u20s recently - a massive improvement IMO. 90 seconds is too much time. Also note that one of the other law trials of marks being allowed inside the 22m from restarts has not been adopted - shocker.

 

[JRugby2]

pick and goes don't seem to be affected? The players who were bound in the ruck can still tackle a player running from the base?

Although I always wondered what impact this clarification had on that being legal (Clarification 3/2021) - it suggests not, but appears to be routinely ignored

With the rationale – "all three measures allow the scrum half, or player in that role, to play the ball away cleanly from the phase of play without disruption." I would imagine it's play on (assuming that the defending players are legal) as, as soon as the ball is picked up and they take the PnG option, they'll have travelled a metre and they'd have had that opportunity to play the ball away cleanly.

Interesting clarification for WR (World Rugby) - I suppose it's up to the referee to determine on the spot whether that action was a genuine attempt to participate in the ruck or a nefarious attempt to get closer to the 9? What could go wrong?

 

[dru]

What could go wrong?

This.

 

[cyclopath]

Cue the howls from the NH regarding red cards.
I think the distinction between "really foul play" and no replacement after 20 mins, and "kind of foul play" where they can be replaced after 20 mins is going to cause some issues.

It has begun. Apparently this system will be used to target key players and take them out, and in the process "sacrifice" a player. Or so some voices from afar are suggesting.
Can't say I remember many instances of that in the trials so far.

 

[KOB1987]

It has begun. Apparently this system will be used to target key players and take them out, and in the process "sacrifice" a player. Or so some voices from afar are suggesting.
Can't say I remember many instances of that in the trials so far.

Logic would suggest there is a high chance of the proposed action to 'take out a player' being ruled deliberate, thus it would be a high risk strategy not only to play a quarter of the game a man down but potentially whatever is left of it. And said sacrificed player would need to be one that is not considered of enough value to play again in the short to medium term (unless there is a week full of internal trials in NZ's case), but valuable enough to play a large part of a test match. Textbook NH whingeing.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It has begun. Apparently this system will be used to target key players and take them out, and in the process "sacrifice" a player. Or so some voices from afar are suggesting.
Can't say I remember many instances of that in the trials so far.

I recall a lot of similar comments from posters here when the 20 minute red card was introduced. Hasn't happened of course.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It has begun. Apparently this system will be used to target key players and take them out, and in the process "sacrifice" a player. Or so some voices from afar are suggesting.
Can't say I remember many instances of that in the trials so far.

Blow their minds by telling them that AFL doesn't have a system for in-game send-off at all

 

[LeCheese]

Blow their minds by telling them that AFL doesn't have a system for in-game send-off at all

I've never thought about this before and you've ruined my Thursday

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I thought a full send off still exists for punching, gouging etc

 

[Dan54]

Not on ref's decisions etc, but just saw an interesting thing on Brkky tv here in NZ. A 13 yo boy who has got into reffing etc. He really looked to have it sorted, and was saying he has got to AR duties at prem level, all miked up etc. Bloody excellenet.
Best thing they asked him how he handle yelling parents or coaches etc, he said he tunes out and id they get too loud he will suggest they tone down. When asked how they handle it he said he had to approach a coach on weekend to do it. They asked him what the reaction was, he said good the coach was real embarassed really. Said he can go onto field and older kids look at him and go are you the ref? When he says yes they always real pleased and think it cool.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think this was an excellent bit of rugby innovation, but for the sake of a bit of non-Wallaby conversation.........

Was South Africa's second lifting maul actually a "flying wedge" - 9.22 in the lawbook, or two pre-latchers to use the other WR (World Rugby) terminology.

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates are latched on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

 

[JRugby2]

I think this was an excellent bit of rugby innovation, but for the sake of a bit of non-Wallaby conversation.........

Was South Africa's second lifting maul actually a "flying wedge" - 9.22 in the lawbook, or two pre-latchers to use the other WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) terminology.

The rationale behind outlawing it in the first place was it was unsafe for 1 defender try and tackle a 3 person wide pod (where do they put their heads?) BUT not applied at the Lineout-Maul as the force that could generated in the 1m gap between teams + the proximity of a (usually) equal number of defenders + predictability of the whole thing (jumper goes up, comes down with ball then maul immediately) significantly reduced that risk.

This is obviously different as a pass between the front and back is significantly less predictable - but then you could ask whether it's a 'defensive decision' to start moving people away from the front pod to the back to defend a likely maul rather than the attacking team putting the 1 defender left at the front at risk.

My feel is that the long term play here is not to run this move all the time (if at all) but to ensure that the front defending pod doesn't move from their position early to get a stop on the maul, leaving the back pod to get early momentum.

In terms of legality - no idea, hope this helps.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would argue that the lineout has not finished so the front pod players are effectively still competing to win the lineout.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I would argue that the lineout has not finished so the front pod players are effectively still competing to win the lineout.

Yeah, this is my thinking too. Everyone else involved (receiver, hooker, Kolhisi joining the front pod) are all completely legal too.

They are such a well coached team at the moment.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah, this is my thinking too. Everyone else involved (receiver, hooker, Kolhisi joining the front pod) are all completely legal too.

They are such a well coached team at the moment.

If you're man for man, a stronger team - it's almost un-defendable unless you can get a sack.