Refereeing decisions

[Scotty]

Yeah I saw that, but that is based on the assumption that the player has jumped into the air to catch the ball.

Pretty sure it's illegal if you have the ball and you have your feet on the ground, to jump into a tackle. I know that's not what Hegs was trying to do but it is what he did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you've hit on Turners mistake - he started to go for the tackle on the assumption that Hegarty wasn't going to jump, then he put a little jump in at the last minute which stuffed Turner's timing.

Still a fair yellow - player in the air needs to be protected so we should be forcing tacklers to be more cautious in these circumstances.

 

[Scoey]

This is sort of what I'm getting at as these types of incidents often get analysed due to the almost always YC.

Often people will agree that in these incidents there is no malice in the tackle or attempt and that it was simply poor timing. Yet the response is always, "but the player in the air should always be protected."

I haven't looked it up but I believe there is a law that prohibits a player jumping into a tackle. If I'm correct then there is most certainly a scenario where the player in the air is not protected by the laws in fact they are penalised.

What makes last nights case curious is that it wasn't poor timing on the tacklers part, it was poor timing on the tackled players part. Hegarty ballsed up his catch and timed his jump so poorly that he still had one foot on the ground when he caught the ball. Turner appears to check his run just before he arrives at the tackle, I assume because Hegarty looks like he is going to jump. When he doesn't, Turner lines him up and as the ball is caught Hegarty is still on the ground and Turner is committed.

I'm not saying that the YC was an outrageous call, I was expecting it as much as the next person but there is clearly a line between Turners liability ending and Hegarty's liability beginning.

It made me think so I thought I throw it out there to see what others thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[qwerty51]

For me it's simple,

interfere with the man in the air = penalty
interfere and not land him safely = yellow

 

[It is what it is]

A player retrieves the ball from touch and readies for a quick throw-in.
An opposition player stands infield (legally) in line with the thrower.
Question - although a full line out has not yet formed, can the thrower baulk or throw a dummy pass to bluff that opposition player, and then throw it to a team mate, or is it a penalty/free kick?
The reason I ask is that a French winger did it twice in the 3rd Wallaby test and got away with it.

 

[ruckhudson]

help clear a debate please??

at a conversion kick can u start the charge standing between the posts???

i always thought you couldnt but on looking in the law book i cant find mention of it.

 

[thecow]

A player retrieves the ball from touch and readies for a quick throw-in.
An opposition player stands infield (legally) in line with the thrower.
Question - although a full line out has not yet formed, can the thrower baulk or throw a dummy pass to bluff that opposition player, and then throw it to a team mate, or is it a penalty/free kick?
The reason I ask is that a French winger did it twice in the 3rd Wallaby test and got away with it.

To be honest I don't think it's worth penalising. In most instances the reason they dummy is because they realise there isn't enough time and space to take advantage of by taking a quick throw. Cause and effect? Hasn't had any material effect on the game to be honest.

 

[thecow]

help clear a debate please??

at a conversion kick can u start the charge standing between the posts???

i always thought you couldnt but on looking in the law book i cant find mention of it.

Yes you can start charging from between the posts. It is a rugby league rule that you can't stand between the posts that has infiltrated our game.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Found this rather intriguing short on ESPNScrum.com:

"Scientists in American have developed a rugby ball that will allow referees to determine whether a try has been scored even if it is under a pile of players.
The new ball has a transmitter fitted which will send a signal to antennas on the side of the field via low-frequency magnetic fields. These allow the ball's movements to be monitored and referees will know its precise location, something that will help them make calls over whether a ball has been grounded or not.
At present the technology is focused on use in American Football but Dr David Ricketts, who is spearheading the team from North Carolina State University and Carnegie Mellon University, believes it could be used in rugby in the future.
"This would work in rugby, as well as other sports - it's just a matter of designing the right transmitter and making it robust for the specific sport," Dr Ricketts told the Daily Mail. "Low frequency magnetic fields don't interact very strongly with the human body, so they are not affected by the players on the field or the stadium environment. This is part of what makes our new approach effective."

Thoughts?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Found this rather intriguing short on ESPNScrum.com:

"Scientists in American have developed a rugby ball that will allow referees to determine whether a try has been scored even if it is under a pile of players.
The new ball has a transmitter fitted which will send a signal to antennas on the side of the field via low-frequency magnetic fields. These allow the ball's movements to be monitored and referees will know its precise location, something that will help them make calls over whether a ball has been grounded or not.
At present the technology is focused on use in American Football but Dr David Ricketts, who is spearheading the team from North Carolina State University and Carnegie Mellon University, believes it could be used in rugby in the future.
"This would work in rugby, as well as other sports - it's just a matter of designing the right transmitter and making it robust for the specific sport," Dr Ricketts told the Daily Mail. "Low frequency magnetic fields don't interact very strongly with the human body, so they are not affected by the players on the field or the stadium environment. This is part of what makes our new approach effective."

Thoughts?

To be effective, the device would need to show an image of the complete ball. How many times is it a question of whether the pointy end of the ball touched a blade of grass while a defender's arm appears to be under the balll separating it or most of it from the ground.

A much more complicated issue than a touchdown in gridiron.

 

[Scoey]

Sounds very interesting and whilst I love this sort of stuff, trying to achieve precision in an imprecise environment will potentially just cause more angst than it resolves. I'm not even certain that the TMO ruling on tries adds value to the game. Leave it to the on field guys I reckon.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Found this rather intriguing short on ESPNScrum.com:

"Scientists in American have developed a rugby ball that will allow referees to determine whether a try has been scored even if it is under a pile of players.
The new ball has a transmitter fitted which will send a signal to antennas on the side of the field via low-frequency magnetic fields. These allow the ball's movements to be monitored and referees will know its precise location, something that will help them make calls over whether a ball has been grounded or not.
At present the technology is focused on use in American Football but Dr David Ricketts, who is spearheading the team from North Carolina State University and Carnegie Mellon University, believes it could be used in rugby in the future.
"This would work in rugby, as well as other sports - it's just a matter of designing the right transmitter and making it robust for the specific sport," Dr Ricketts told the Daily Mail. "Low frequency magnetic fields don't interact very strongly with the human body, so they are not affected by the players on the field or the stadium environment. This is part of what makes our new approach effective."

Thoughts?

I heard an elite soccer referee talk once about a trial of this type of technology when he went to an international soccer tournament. The technology would send a message to their watch when the ball cross the goal line. They were not actually using the technology just trialling it for accuracy. According to his watch, there were more than 60 goals scored in the game where he was the referee. I hope the technology has improved.

 

[barbarian]

What about this one- legal or illegal?

I am torn, can see arguments either way. Ultimately I think it's a penalty, under law 10.4.m. It has the potential to be very nasty and isn't really in the spirit of the game.

 

[Scoey]

What about this one- legal or illegal?

I am torn, can see arguments either way. Ultimately I think it's a penalty, under law 10.4.m. It has the potential to be very nasty and isn't really in the spirit of the game.

That's precisely what I was talking about in my post above (Post #562). @Qwerty51 's reply to my post suggests that it is a blanket rule that if you interfere with a player in the air then you are penalised. There are numerous other replies to similar discussions that assert the same thing. This is a prime example of why this is not always the case.

What the ball runner did in that situation could've been very nasty both too himself and the tackler and should have been penalised.

 

[terry j]

What about this one- legal or illegal?

Illegal I think, or should be. Some bloke coughing and spitting right next to you, disgusting.

Unless you were talking about the method of the try?

 

[Braveheart81]

The same incident was penalised in this game:

I think Barbarian is right and it just comes under 10.4 (m) as it is dangerous play/

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

What about this one- legal or illegal?

I am torn, can see arguments either way. Ultimately I think it's a penalty, under law 10.4.m. It has the potential to be very nasty and isn't really in the spirit of the game.

Penalty to Red & a warning to the 'quin, dangerous play every day of the week & twice on game day. Had contact been made, RC or YC depending on whether with the head/ neck area (red) or elsewhere (yellow). It's not NFL FFS.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

To be effective, the device would need to show an image of the complete ball. How many times is it a question of whether the pointy end of the ball touched a blade of grass while a defender's arm appears to be under the balll separating it or most of it from the ground.

A much more complicated issue than a touchdown in gridiron.

Pretty much my thoughts too, but I guess you've gotta start somewhere (provided of course you wanna start at all - plenty of evidence that things like crickets Hawkeye aren't always as good as their proponents would have us believe).

 

[Gnostic]

The same incident was penalised in this game:

I think Barbarian is right and it just comes under 10.4 (m) as it is dangerous play/

Just to be pedantic how is it different to jumping over the top of a ruck and grounding the ball. Seen that a fair few times. Just because it takes place in the open shouldn't make it different.

Just on that point I would like to see the referees take a far more strict view of attacking the head in the maul. At most mauls, especially from a lineout the defenders working their way through the maul are getting gripped around the head and neck to prevent them accessing the ball carrier. It should be blown up every time and perhaps even carded as it is a deliberate attack to the head.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Just to be pedantic how is it different to jumping over the top of a ruck and grounding the ball. Seen that a fair few times. Just because it takes place in the open shouldn't make it different.

Just on that point I would like to see the referees take a far more strict view of attacking the head in the maul. At most mauls, especially from a lineout the defenders working their way through the maul are getting gripped around the head and neck to prevent them accessing the ball carrier. It should be blown up every time and perhaps even carded as it is a deliberate attack to the head.

If you're going to allow the attacking player to go airborne then surely you have to also allow the defender to tackle him in the air? Recipe for disaster IMO.

On your other point, agree 100%, it's the only time you can get away with making deliberate contact with a player' head/ neck & is certainly dangerous but given there's seldom anything else to grab hold of I don't see how it can be otherwise legally defended.

My pet hate in respect of lineout drives etc is when it splits into 2 pods & the front pod effectively runs interference for the 2nd but leaves so small a gap that no defender can possibly enter legally. IMO as soon as 2 pods form those in the front one are offside & must be required to immediately retreat & allow the defending side to bind without having to come in from the side.

 

[BPC]

Just to be pedantic how is it different to jumping over the top of a ruck and grounding the ball. Seen that a fair few times. Just because it takes place in the open shouldn't make it different.

Just on that point I would like to see the referees take a far more strict view of attacking the head in the maul. At most mauls, especially from a lineout the defenders working their way through the maul are getting gripped around the head and neck to prevent them accessing the ball carrier. It should be blown up every time and perhaps even carded as it is a deliberate attack to the head.

Diving over a ruck is a dive, head first with the arms in front or protecting the ball. Hurdling is studs first. A lot more potential for things to go wrong.