Refereeing decisions

[Sidbarret]

Law question

Team A team kicks a ball that finds touch just outside Team B's 22. Team B collects the ball out of the field of play and then steps back into his 22 for a quick throw in to another player who kicks the ball out of the full. Was that taken back?

No idea what the official position is, but...

A quick line can be taken at any point behind where the ball went into touch. In your scenario the quick line out is taken legally and behind the 22, therefor that is where the game restarted. Not taken back is my feeling.

Compare that with where the throw is taken in front of the line, but the receiver is behind the line. There the game restarted outside the twenty two and therefor carried back.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Law 19.1

(b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

 

[elementfreak]

Law question

Team A team kicks a ball that finds touch just outside Team B's 22. Team B collects the ball out of the field of play and then steps back into his 22 for a quick throw in to another player who kicks the ball out of the full. Was that taken back?

It's taken back into the 22m and the LOT is where the ball was kicked from.

 

[FilthRugby]

Hey fellas,

Sensational interpretation of the rules, in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

[Man on the hill]

It's taken back into the 22m and the LOT is where the ball was kicked from.

Agree - BUT - if the ball was already "behind" the 22 - play on

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Hey fellas,
<media clip cut>
Sensational interpretation of the rules, in my opinion. Thoughts?

Already discussed on Page 30 of this thread, post #585 onwards.
It is possible that the clip you post pre-dates the recent ruling, or may even have been the catalyst for the production of the ruling.

Anyone seen the IRB direction regarding players not contesting at a maul formed from a lineout? Thoughts?

3 videos and 1 PDF in this zip file


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12100054/Mauls.zip

 

[Dctarget]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I didn't fully understand it when it was discussed a few pages back. It seems even after the directive from the IRB, that all a defending team has to do is stand there, not move back and get a scrum. Because, IMO I doubt that the attacking team will ever wait to see what the opposition does before sending the ball to the back of the maul. So surely this is still a potent way of diffusing a maul?

 

[FilthRugby]

Sorry, Hugh. I'm behind the eight ball. More than welcome to delete it if you want. I know regurgitation of an already discussed issue can be irritating.

 

[Wilson]

the Samoan U20's side did it a fair bit in this years JWC

 

[Hugh Jarse]

@FilthRugby,
Do you have a "date stamp" for the video?
Does it pre or post date the issue of the ruling from the IRB?

It could be that there remains some confusion in the ranks of the refereeing fraternity, or that the message hasn't been communicated and understood as well as intended.

Wouldn't be the first time that that has happened.

 

[Bardon]

I didn't see the game but judging by the kits and the fact it's from BT Sport I'd say that clip is from the Bath v Sarries game played last Saturday.

 

[Quick Hands]

How does a referee, an AR and a TMO get this so wrong?

 

[qwerty51]

Why has there been no presser about this from the NRC. TMO should not step on another rugby pitch. Disgraceful.

 

[Quick Hands]

Why has there been no presser about this from the NRC. TMO should not step on another rugby pitch. Disgraceful.

All 3 officials are part of the bungle. IMO it's what can happen with the overuse/unecessary use of technology.

For what reason did the referee send it to the TMO in the first place?

He appeared reasonably close and there wasn't an attacking player with 1-2 metres of the ball.

He seemed to consult the AR and it wasn't that far from the touchline - surely between the two of them they could have worked it out. I can live with them missing the defensive player grounding the ball and awarding a lineout where the Rays kicked the ball out.

But the referee sends it to the TMO for try or no try. What seems to have happened is the TMO checks for grounding and no doubt in the back of his mind, the ref has seen the ball grounded by an attacker and is checking to see if the ball was grounded on or over the line. In a case of tunnel vision he neglects to see what is quite clear to everyone else watching - a defending player grounded the ball on the line for a 5m scrum.

Also less than effective captaincy from the Rays captain. While it was all going on, he should really have mentioned to the referee "it was our player who grounded it - could you ask the TMO to check that as well"

The whole incident reflects poorly on the officials - I think they've been fortunate that the Wallaby's problems have sucked all the media oxygen this week.

Maybe the ARU should have gone out and made something of this to take a bit of heat off the Wallabies in the media.

 

[elementfreak]

Agree - BUT - if the ball was already "behind" the 22 - play on

It's not though.

Here is a clip of the scenario in question and it's the right way to handle it.

 

[Man on the hill]

It's not though.

Here is a clip of the scenario in question and it's the right way to handle it.

If you watch the clip carefully you will observe the AR signal touch and then take his flag down and play on – he got it right.

Law 19.1(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22 . . . This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

It may be that it has come back for a bit of pendency, coz he’s wrong if he came back otherwise.

e) An incorrect quick throw-in occurs when:
· blah, blah, blah

· The thrower steps into the field-of-play when throwing the ball.

Mind you both the AR & Ref were poorly positioned to make that call! ​

​

​

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?&language=EN

​

 

[boyo]

e) An incorrect quick throw-in occurs when:
·blah, blah, blah

·The thrower steps into the field-of-play when throwing the ball.

Most hookers are guilty of this.

 

[elementfreak]

If you watch the clip carefully you will observe the AR signal touch and then take his flag down and play on – he got it right.

Law 19.1(b) When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22 . This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

It may be that it has come back for a bit of pendency, coz he’s wrong if he came back otherwise.

e) An incorrect quick throw-in occurs when:
·blah, blah, blah

·The thrower steps into the field-of-play when throwing the ball.

Mind you both the AR & Ref were poorly positioned to make that call!


http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?&language=EN

You're misunderstanding the situation.

The lineout should have taken place outside of the 22m line, yet they took the QTI inside the 22m so they have taken the ball back in. The AR rightly put his flag down as the QTI was fine, the issue was the fullback kicked the ball out on the full so we come back to where he kicked it from.

It's not that difficult to grasp.

 

[mxyzptlk]

TBH, I don't agree with it but I think that this is the best outcome that the game can expect at the moment.

Rugby is a contest for possession and one team has actively chosen not to contest for possession in these instances. I think that the tactic is negative by the "defending" team and that as referees we should be rewarding positive play, not awarding penalties for teams who choose not to play the game.

Not sure if there's not a contest for possession with an uncontested lineout -- it's just the contest has shifted from the air to a tackle situation. From the attackers' perspective, they just have this other dimension to consider; if their lineout isn't contested in the air or as soon as they land (maul), it'll be contested with an immediate tackle from the edge, which requires them to come up with some other response.

The contest is still there, it's just shifted positions.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Question: Who has the right to hook the ball in a scrum? I always assumed it was the hooker, but Sam Cane hooked the ball from the flanker position against Scotland.

Law 20.8 says any front row player can hook the ball backward. Is a flanker considered part of that front row? I wouldn't think so, since the rest of that section refers to the front row forming the tunnel, and the flankers aren't part of that.

Scotland is penalized in that scrum, but I'm just wondering if Cane is legal hooking the ball back like that.