Refereeing decisions

[Bruwheresmycar]

@ruckhudson - So you are suggesting that because "another player" - being the team mate behind the man who "knocked the ball on" has touched the ball before the original player has "caught" it, a knock on has occurred?

That's an interesting view, a well thought out one at that. However, all referee associations I know of would agree that tapping the ball backwards to your team-mate constitutes a pass and hence the ball has been caught at some point, even if you couldn't find a freeze frame in which the player is clearly holding the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know, but I am going from the wording of the laws and how I perceive that and how they are refereed in professional rugby.

My assumption is that knocking the ball forwards then backwards whilst it hasn't touched the ground or another player but the last knock is backwards means it is a knock back and you don't need to catch it.

 

[refugee]

Next question
How far can a player be 'cleaned out' over a ruck. Some teams going 5 to 10 metres.

 

[Pfitzy]

Next question
How far can a player be 'cleaned out' over a ruck. Some teams going 5 to 10 metres.

Then it becomes obstruction. Once its no longer a ruck (i.e. players not over the ball) then you're in general play.

This is really too complex to discuss on a forum, because the Laws suck. I'd talk to your local union refereeing body.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Yeah, it's a tackle off the ball/obstruction if it goes beyond reasonable distance/force. I would have thought 1-2m is getting extreme. Something maybe to talk about locally though I agree, there is no law reference.

 

[refugee]

Watch England and New Zealand work at the breakdown and cleanout

 

[Lindommer]

ANYTHING the Soap Dodgers and ABs do off the ball is penalisable. Simple, really.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Lifting above the horizontal.

Given the emphasis on player safety, this has become a hot topic of late.

There seems to be different opinions as to the correct on field sanction. Some seem to rule it is an automatic Red card regardless of intent or outcome of the tackle, others seem to rule that it starts at automatic yellow, with an option of red if the player is not safely returned to ground, again the intent of the tackling playeer is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, some tackles clearly above the horizontal, where the tackler seems to recognise that the tackle could go pear shaped and stops their actions, and brings the player safely to ground go unpunished.

There surely isn't different guidance issued to referees with respect to this infringement, depending on the respective competition managers, but this seems to be the case.

The Acme Thunderer was been hung up a year or two back, so I plead knowledge obsolescence. Things change fast in the directions/guidance issued from Referee Central.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The directives are in the game management guidelines, sent to all teams and referees before the season (hopefully).

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/22/2014 Laws/2014 Game Management Guidelines.pdf

On the last page emphasized in red:

• Lifting tackles that place players in danger of injury must have serious consequences. The onus is on the tackler to complete the tackle safely. Dropping or throwing tackled players once they are in a dangerous position is to be strongly sanctioned.

• Any time a tackled player's legs are lifted above horizontal it should result in a yellow card as a minimum.

• If the tackled player is lifted and lands on his shoulder or head area it should result in a red card. A tackled player placing a hand down at the last second to stop a 'head or shoulder area landing' should not influence this sanction

 

[yourmatesam]

The directives are in the game management guidelines, sent to all teams and referees before the season.

As a "community level" referee it is amazing the number of coaches and players who have never heard if the game management guidelines!
They are a really good coaching tool/handout for players and I would argue mandatory reading for all captains.

 

[Evelyn]

Lifting above the horizontal.

Given the emphasis on player safety, this has become a hot topic of late.

There seems to be different opinions as to the correct on field sanction. Some seem to rule it is an automatic Red card regardless of intent or outcome of the tackle, others seem to rule that it starts at automatic yellow, with an option of red if the player is not safely returned to ground, again the intent of the tackling playeer is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, some tackles clearly above the horizontal, where the tackler seems to recognise that the tackle could go pear shaped and stops their actions, and brings the player safely to ground go unpunished.

There surely isn't different guidance issued to referees with respect to this infringement, depending on the respective competition managers, but this seems to be the case.

The Acme Thunderer was been hung up a year or two back, so I plead knowledge obsolescence. Things change fast in the directions/guidance issued from Referee Central.

During the AR2 course I did earlier this year Ron Mancell summed it up along these lines - once the tackle goes past the horizontal there are three possible scenarios:
a) is brought down safely by tackler - penalty
b) dropped on "flat bits" - yellow card
c) dropped on "pointy/dangerous bits" - red card

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

That's somewhat proving HJ's point though. The ARU documents indicate it's an automatic YC for lifting past the horizontal, whereas other places of authority stick to the "if they bring them down safely it's ok" interpretation.

 

[ruckhudson]

@ruckhudson - So you are suggesting that because "another player" - being the team mate behind the man who "knocked the ball on" has touched the ball before the original player has "caught" it, a knock on has occurred?

That's an interesting view, a well thought out one at that. However, all referee associations I know of would agree that tapping the ball backwards to your team-mate constitutes a pass and hence the ball has been caught at some point, even if you couldn't find a freeze frame in which the player is clearly holding the ball.

Thank you for that rationale as is the only response with a definative set images to process on the run, the idea a tap back constituting a pass hence the original player catching the ball makes sense enough for me.
Thanks

 

[ruckhudson]

During the AR2 course I did earlier this year Ron Mancell summed it up along these lines - once the tackle goes past the horizontal there are three possible scenarios:
a) is brought down safely by tackler - penalty
b) dropped on "flat bits" - yellow card
c) dropped on "pointy/dangerous bits" - red card

I like this line of thinking as although the directive of anything above horizontal is yellow doesnt allow for discretion.
For instance peoples bodies bend so therefore a dangerous position can change to safe in an instant and vice versa. Also there is no scope to take into account how basic physics and actions by the ball carrier affect the outcome of the bodies position.
Then there is the scenario of a nice clean front on tackle where a player engages his shoulder just above the hips and hooks around the top of the legs and drives. Half the time the legs end up higher than the hips but the player lands on their hips, under the directive this should be a yellow but is in no way dangerous just a great tackle that dominates with both technique and strength and that is what rugby is all about.

 

[ForceFan]

Then it becomes obstruction. Once its no longer a ruck (i.e. players not over the ball) then you're in general play.

This is really too complex to discuss on a forum, because the Laws suck. I'd talk to your local union refereeing body.

Check out the Crusaders vs Force game from last weekend.

The Crusaders continually stood beyond the breakdown, after the cleanout and holding onto the Force player but Mike Fraser didn't penalise them from from go to wo.

 

[ForceFan]

I continue to find the lack of rulings re head-high tackles confusing.

Constantly we see players at the breakdown being wrenched away by arms around the head or neck. In any other instance a player's head/neck is protected.

Similar for the use of shoulder charges in the cleanout.

In a recent Force game Hodgson was cleaned out by a shoulder charge from the opposition No 7 with no use of arms and hit with his head down trying to get the ball. Happened right in front of ref and even checked by TMO with no penalty etc.

Surely this is more of a coward's blow than a shoulder charge during the normal run of play as the guy being hit is stationary and head down (and in my view deserves some protection)???

 

[ruckhudson]

The directives are in the game management guidelines, sent to all teams and referees before the season (hopefully).

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/22/2014 Laws/2014 Game Management Guidelines.pdf

On the last page emphasized in red:

So if you penalise for a lifting tackle where legs go above the horizontal it has to be an automatic yellow.
If all referees apply that directive it will take it out of the game like the shoulder charge which you may only see once a game even at grassroots level where the skill and knowledge is lacking..
Interestingly enough I had a game on the weekend where a under 13s team were continually penalised for high tackles, as it was low skill level I tried to manage and educate and it took at least eight highs before a yellow card (in the 18th minute of the game). After the yellow only 1 more high tackle was detected for the rest of the game. I summised the yellow card educated better than the captain pleading with his players and me sanctioning them.

 

[WTF?]

We had a referee on the weekend who gave out penalties for every lifting tackle that was performed in the U11's. I did not see one case where the body went beyond the horizontal, it was just that the front on tackler got low enough to drive the other kid backward (obviously off his feet). He penalised probably 5 times and each time said "sorry, I do not have a choice, that is an illegal tackle as he was off his feet" WTF?

 

[ruckhudson]

The game modifications dont state this but the comp rules may have something in them that rules out any lifting??.

 

[Pfitzy]

Check out the Crusaders vs Force game from last weekend.

The Crusaders continually stood beyond the breakdown, after the cleanout and holding onto the Force player but Mike Fraser didn't penalise them from from go to wo.

And that was why Deysel stomped a guy's face.

Folau did it to one of the Chiefs and a try got called back. I agree that such situations are what the TMO is for, but you need to apply it globally.

On that incident: Horrell was the Chiefs player I think, and he actually grabbed Folau a couple of times in an effort to get to the halfback. I think then that Folau has every right to bind to the guy as part of the ruck