Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

I have a very interesting book on the history of the laws of rugby union up to 1945.

It's interesting mainly to see how many of our current laws come from a bunch of drunk ex-public schoolboys sitting in a pub writing down how they thought an almost completely unrecognizable game should be played before Australia was even a nation

Sorry was this Australia's federation or laws of rugby?

 

[Dan54]

I have a very interesting book on the history of the laws of rugby union up to 1945.

It's interesting mainly to see how many of our current laws come from a bunch of drunk ex-public schoolboys sitting in a pub writing down how they thought an almost completely unrecognizable game should be played before Australia was even a nation

The first laws were actually written by players during the game (at Rugby School), 4-5 senior boys apparently played with pencils and paper in pockets and wrote down laws/rules as they made them up. Up until about 1870s there were no refs even, with either the capatains or a couple of senior players from each side deciding what when an offence was commited.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Up until about 1870s there were no refs even, with either the capatains or a couple of senior players from each side deciding what when an offence was commited.

I love this old stuff

 

[Rob42]

I love this old stuff

So, the confusion between different officials isn't new, by the sound of that .

 

[Strewthcobber]

Before 1896, opposition players had to appeal, just like in cricket if they wanted the referee to make decision

 

[Braveheart81]

Before 1896, opposition players had to appeal, just like in cricket if they wanted the referee to make decision

Little known fact is that in that era teams could field as many scrum-halves as they wanted to bolster their ability to appeal for a decision.

 

[Dan54]

One of first test series between England (and I think) Scotland, one of English players played well 1st test, dropped 2nd test and was referee in 3rd test!

 

[Dan54]

Little known fact is that in that era teams could field as many scrum-halves as they wanted to bolster their ability to appeal for a decision.

First test betwwen England and Scotland was 20 aside too!

 

[Rhino_rugby]

The first laws were actually written by players during the game (at Rugby School), 4-5 senior boys apparently played with pencils and paper in pockets and wrote down laws/rules as they made them up. Up until about 1870s there were no refs even, with either the capatains or a couple of senior players from each side deciding what when an offence was commited.

Great..........very informative

 

[Rhino_rugby]

I love this old stuff

Good things

 

[Rhino_rugby]

Lol mate, I know boring shit etc. I just got back from trip to UK, where I was absolutely stoked to visit the Rugby School, and the women who ran shop could see either me or MrsDan (not sure who ) was a real rugby nerd, and in 7th heaven, so took us over and gave us a personal visit through their museum. She was showing us some real interesting bits where it is all written down etc. Alsowas interested to learn a bit more about William Webb Ellis, including he a good cricketer, became pretty religeous (already a saint for me) and is buried in France.

what is that

 

[Dan54]

Got a question. Just been thinking as I been watching NH rugby etc a bit this last few weeks, and seem to notice a few players being tackled without ball etc, especially with missed passes etc are happening. I not saying it an axcuse or anything, but I get impression/idea that players are committing more to tackle having to bend etc,to get low enough to avoid head contacts? Just a thought, and as I said not excusing players, just I get impression it happening more, and wondered.

 

[JRugby2]

Got a question. Just been thinking as I been watching NH rugby etc a bit this last few weeks, and seem to notice a few players being tackled without ball etc, especially with missed passes etc are happening. I not saying it an axcuse or anything, but I get impression/idea that players are committing more to tackle having to bend etc,to get low enough to avoid head contacts? Just a thought, and as I said not excusing players, just I get impression it happening more, and wondered.

Not watching a lot of rugby of late so no real insight as to what your seeing, but -

It may be a new coaching trend - in that coaches are instructing players to commit to the tackle regardless of whether that player receives the ball or not to remove them from that play.

You see this pretty regularly that coaches will begin to exploit a seemingly lack of awareness or attention on a particular area of the game from referees where there team can get an advantage. With the amount of video analysis teams do on each other, it's not usually too long before the whole competition picks up on it, which is then usually followed by a memo/ crackdown by the competitions referees some time later.

For any confusion, the law is 9.14 - A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball, though in practice there is some leeway.
- eg if the tackle happens momentarily after someone has passed/ kicked/ dropped the ball, or
- if they were a dummy runner and never received the pass AND the tackle had nil effect on the game, wasn't dangerous, or disadvantageous to the team in possession

 

[Strewthcobber]

As is often the case, I reckon the rugby league influence around obstruction is starting to flow in to union.

Refs have been a bit more willing to penalize the team with the ball for dummy runners etc who get in front of the ball, so the defense has been more willing to tackle the lead runners because they either take down the ball carrier who gets the short pass, or they end up with the penalty for obstruction

 

[Rhino_rugby]

As is often the case, I reckon the rugby league influence around obstruction is starting to flow in to union.

Refs have been a bit more willing to penalize the team with the ball for dummy runners etc who get in front of the ball, so the defense has been more willing to tackle the lead runners because they either take down the ball carrier who gets the short pass, or they end up with the penalty for obstruction

Agreed, rugby league's influence on obstruction rulings seems to be creeping into the union.
Refs are cracking down on dummy runners, and defenses are smartly exploiting it either stopping the ball carrier or drawing the penalty.

 

[Dan54]

I genuinely think the dummy runner has been happening for years. Kind of irritated me, being as old as I am, and when I played, virtually noone from attacking team was allowed between ball carrier and opposition. Dummy runners weren't allowed at all, but I think have been for a while now. I mean the whole pod system looks like players are off side when they go to back players.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I do think law 10 is one of the most lightly used in the game by refs. Of course, we do occasionally want some rugby to break out, but so often players in the modern game are in breach of this law by design, to impact defenders

Offside and onside in open play
10.1 A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes:

a. Playing the ball.

b. Tackling the ball-carrier.

c. Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish.

d. Loitering in an offside position.

 

[JRugby2]

I do think law 10 is one of the most lightly used in the game by refs. Of course, we do occasionally want some rugby to break out, but so often players in the modern game are in breach of this law by design, to impact defenders

Agreed - but I wouldn't want to go as far as the NRL has and crack down on the slightest bit of contact lead runners may make with a defender who has almost no chance of effecting a tackle anyway. Some of those tries that are disallowed in the NRL every week are dumfounding.

There is a middle ground we can reach.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Agreed - but I wouldn't want to go as far as the NRL has and crack down on the slightest bit of contact lead runners may make with a defender who has almost no chance of effecting a tackle anyway. Some of those tries that are disallowed in the NRL every week are dumfounding.

There is a middle ground we can reach.

Maybe. I do think we need to reframe the thinking around a lot of these lead runner discussion/decision though, from "a possible obstruction", to "an offside player preventing the opposition from playing as they wish".

Attacking teams get away with far more of the latter than defenders ever do.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree with Strewthcobber here. The NRL went down the strict path they did with obstructions to try and remove as many subjective decisions as possible (i.e. a pass behind a player has to be caught on the outside of the decoy runner and a decoy runner can't come into contact with a defender). There are still issues there with some questionable calls but on the whole the strict, black and white view of the issue is quite good.

Multiple lines of attackers and decoy runners have become more and more prevalent in the modern game and I think we should go further than we currently have on policing those decoy runners. If they are reaching the defensive line then the onus needs to be on them to avoid contact.

It needs to be about manipulating defenders into making incorrect decisions, not about trying to get in the way of defenders so it's harder to defend.