Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

I would support the silly water breaks after 20 minutes if they banned water from the field, if you need a drink, go to the wing during the game and have a drink from a trainer. Water on the field should be to flush wounds or rinse blood from the mouth.

Just practically speaking you rarely see this anyway as usually there is a natural stoppage in the game anyway. Otherwise the laws of game specifically say this:

6.7. The referee gives permission for players to leave the playing area. However, a player may access water from their technical area, or from behind the dead ball line after a try has been awarded, without needing permission.

6.28. The following may enter the playing area provided they do not interfere with play:

1. Two nominated water carriers during a stoppage in play for an injury to a player or when a try has been scored. (Note: the hot weather guidelines may warrant a one minute break per half.)
2. Only when no tries are scored should a natural stoppage, in a neutral place on the pitch, be used to allow players to receive water. Where this coincides with an injury, water-carriers must leave the pitch as the medic leaves the pitch.

Re: injuries - in some cases (in say contact based head/neck injuries or even lower limb injuries) it may not be immediately obvious if the injury is serious or not, and they need assessment in place to determine the severity. Sure - that is exploited by teams who make players feign injuries to kill the game momentum, but if to counter that you start mandating that players be moved you open up a huuuuuuuge legal can of worms in who makes that decision, and what framework they need to follow in order to make that decision - the end result being that once a suitably qualified person goes through that process, you probably don't save any more time anyway.

Downtime in play is shit - no arguments there, but the practicalities of all of those suggestions fall down at the slightest bit of interrogation. I feel the game is better off exploring ways in which to increase the ball in play time from its abysmal 30-35mins per 80 that it is now, rather than through want you've suggested in order to increase the flow of the game.

I don't mind the shoelace thing - ultimately there will be a way around that too that no doubt teams will find, but that is literally the game teams have been playing since the dawn of the sport: "Here's a rule - lets find away around it"

 

[JRugby2]

Really interesting situation here: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/2j5aoSp6fip85v5E/ (or watch on stan from about 1:39:00 into the stream).

Unplayable maul. Someone injured - time off and mark set for scrum at 77:17 (game clock). NH down by 3 with attacking scrum on their 30m-ish mark.

Auckland make the ball a big bar of soap in the down time - so when the game eventually restarts, NH's Bryn Hall feels he needs to change the ball.
The clock restarts as the packs are getting set up for the scrum, and the auckland front row appeal for a time wasting free kick thats rewarded at 77:29 on the game clock - but almost a full minute after time off was called - and before the referee has called "crouch" to start the scrum.

To me this is so poorly managed by the referee.

1. Time is off for an injury and the game is going to restart with a scrum. Why does the clock need to start at all until "crouch" is called?

2. You have 30 seconds to set a scrum. The law doesn't explicitly say it's 30 seconds of game time or real time - but you can assume it's game time based on the inference of the law to kill set piece dead time. If I'm correct in my thinking there - the referee was also wrong as Bryn still had another 18 seconds to grab a new ball. He's also the 9 so not actually needed until we get to "set" anyway.

3. Ref and linesmen need to have better awareness here. This is a bit of a stretch - but out of the 3 match officials involved in a game surely one of them can loosely keep their eye on the ball to see the Auckland 9 fucking with it. I see no issue with what he did to the ball (this is page one of the B-Grade TRL kick off handbook) but it would provide context for the referee as to why he's darting off to get a replacement. Even so - manage the first 2 better and this one is irrelevant.

 

[Wilson]

Really interesting situation here: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/2j5aoSp6fip85v5E/ (or watch on stan from about 1:39:00 into the stream).

Unplayable maul. Someone injured - time off and mark set for scrum at 77:17 (game clock). NH down by 3 with attacking scrum on their 30m-ish mark.

Auckland make the ball a big bar of soap in the down time - so when the game eventually restarts, NH's Bryn Hall feels he needs to change the ball.
The clock restarts as the packs are getting set up for the scrum, and the auckland front row appeal for a time wasting free kick thats rewarded at 77:29 on the game clock - but almost a full minute after time off was called - and before the referee has called "crouch" to start the scrum.

To me this is so poorly managed by the referee.

1. Time is off for an injury and the game is going to restart with a scrum. Why does the clock need to start at all until "crouch" is called?

2. You have 30 seconds to set a scrum. The law doesn't explicitly say it's 30 seconds of game time or real time - but you can assume it's game time based on the inference of the law to kill set piece dead time. If I'm correct in my thinking there - the referee was also wrong as Bryn still had another 18 seconds to grab a new ball. He's also the 9 so not actually needed until we get to "set" anyway.

3. Ref and linesmen need to have better awareness here. This is a bit of a stretch - but out of the 3 match officials involved in a game surely one of them can loosely keep their eye on the ball to see the Auckland 9 fucking with it. I see no issue with what he did to the ball (this is page one of the B-Grade TRL kick off handbook) but it would provide context for the referee as to why he's darting off to get a replacement. Even so - manage the first 2 better and this one is irrelevant.

Hell of a lot of gamesmanship from Auckland there. I agree with most of your post around the refs time management and awareness but I do take issue with what Auckland did, I think they took the interference with the ball too far. Getting a bit of moisture on it from the jerseys/sweat is one thing, spraying it with the water bottles that have been run on is too far. Allowing that degree of interference opens a real can of worms as to what teams could try for in the future.

Ultimately there's no reason for Auckland to have the ball once the scrum has been called with North Harbour's feed, the law shouldn't give them any room to then interfere with it during an injury break.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Interesting discussion elsewhere on the internet on this one.

Ball kicked out by blue. Can blue players still in front of the kicker advance once the ball is out to tackle a red player who receives a quick throw in.

 

[LeCheese]

Interesting discussion elsewhere on the internet on this one.

Ball kicked out by blue. Can blue players still in front of the kicker advance once the ball is out to tackle a red player who receives a quick throw in.

I'd assume yes as it isn't a continued passage of play (technically a stoppage and restart)?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'd assume yes as it isn't a continued passage of play (technically a stoppage and restart)?

I actually have the guidance on it, so I know the answer, but one line of thinking is this rewards players who are offside.

Related question, is a quick throw-in a restart? It's not considered a set-piece by the law definitions

 

[LeCheese]

I actually have the guidance on it, so I know the answer, but one line of thinking is this rewards players who are offside.

Related question, is a quick throw-in a restart? It's not considered a set-piece by the law definitions

Understand that, but would be keen to hear the law and interpretation that would stop them advancing.

Re: a quick throw being a restart:
Law 18: The field of play has side boundaries known as touchlines. When play reaches a touchline, the ball is in touch and becomes dead.
Quick-throws and lineouts are methods of restarting the game with a throw after the ball or ball-carrier has gone into touch.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Very interesting, especially as the first dot point contradicts Section 6.9 of the laws.

Also please excuse the random head

 

[Derpus]

Prove to me that you can tell the difference between a player hinging and a player losing their feet at a scrum.

 

[cyclopath]

Prove to me that you can tell the difference between a player hinging and a player losing their feet at a scrum.

I think the word you meant is "assert". Proving it would be...improbable.

 

[Derpus]

I think the word you meant is "assert". Proving it would be...improbable.

Nah I want a mathematical proof. high bar.

 

[cyclopath]

Nah I want a mathematical proof. high bar.

I want syntax and punctuation, but I have learned to temper my expectations.

 

[Derpus]

I want syntax and punctuation, but I have learned to temper my expectations.

Yeah but mine relates to rugby football. Yours is simply misguided.

 

[dru]

Prove to me that you can tell the difference between a player hinging and a player losing their feet at a scrum.

?

Maybe I'm an idiot. Hinging and losing your feet are like the opposite spectrum of a prop failing. I don't see how you could get them mixed.

 

[Derpus]

?

Maybe I'm an idiot. Hinging and losing your feet are like the opposite spectrum of a prop failing. I don't see how you could get them mixed.

Yeah, absolutely. Looks the same on the screen.

 

[dru]

Yeah, absolutely. Looks the same on the screen.

Edit: I started a separate thread. My post here had little to do with refs.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah but mine relates to rugby football. Yours is simply misguided.

And you think rugby laws are transparent and can be definitively explained...

 

[John S]

And you think rugby laws are transparent and can be definitively explained...

I like to use a certain phrase when asked "can I do X?" By clients - and it applies to the laws of rugby.

"It depends"

 

[Derpus]

And you think rugby laws are transparent and can be definitively explained...

I guess that was broadly the point... who the fuck can tell the difference eh?

 

[Froggy]

Can I ask a question of the referees on here after watching last night's game from fairly high up.
Every time the Wallabies put up a (supposedly) contestable kick four AB's run in front of the guy who is to catch the ball, turn their back to the Wallabies, and then just hold their position forming a four man wall protecting the catcher. Now I am aware you are allowed to hold your position, but these four guys didn't just happen to be standing there when the ball was kicked, they run there so that they can then hold their position to protect the kicker.
Question: is that legal?
Two supplementary questions a) if not why isn't it penalised or b) if it is legal, why don't we do it?