Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
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
David Codey (61)
Strewthcobber
David Codey (61)
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.
Rhino_rugby
Herbert Moran (7)
Great..........very informative
Rhino_rugby
Herbert Moran (7)
Good things
Rhino_rugby
Herbert Moran (7)
what is thatLol 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.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
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
Vay Wilson (31)
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
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
David Codey (61)
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
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
Herbert Moran (7)
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.
Refs are cracking down on dummy runners, and defenses are smartly exploiting it either stopping the ball carrier or drawing the penalty.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
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
David Codey (61)
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
JRugby2
Vay Wilson (31)
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.
There is a middle ground we can reach.
Strewthcobber
David Codey (61)
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.
Attacking teams get away with far more of the latter than defenders ever do.
Last edited:
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.
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.