Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
^^^^^^^^
I take your point Sully, but how many times do we hear a ref say to the TMO to check "try or no try" when the attacker is over the goal line and may be held up—and he adds that if it's "no try" he's bringing play back to give a penalty to the attackers.
Many times in such cases, if not most, the prior infringements are more than ten seconds before.
I'm glad for the Pumas but I think France was dudded from having another go.
The rebuttal is, as always, that the referee is the sole judge of matters, including advantage, but if it happened to the Wallabies and they lost we would be banging on the keyboard still.
.
I take your point Sully, but how many times do we hear a ref say to the TMO to check "try or no try" when the attacker is over the goal line and may be held up—and he adds that if it's "no try" he's bringing play back to give a penalty to the attackers.
Many times in such cases, if not most, the prior infringements are more than ten seconds before.
I'm glad for the Pumas but I think France was dudded from having another go.
The rebuttal is, as always, that the referee is the sole judge of matters, including advantage, but if it happened to the Wallabies and they lost we would be banging on the keyboard still.
.
Tordah
Dave Cowper (27)
Craig Joubert did the same thing - maybe even worse - in Bled 3.
Just before Fekitoa scored what turned out to be the winning try, Joubert signalled advantage to the ABs for offside from some Wallabies forward at the ruck that led to the pass which set Fekitoa free, and Joubert called advantage over about 2 seconds after that, when Fekitoa got away from Foley but was not in the in goal yet.
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
i think the short answer is yes. the times i've seen the "mauling" team penalised is when the opposition do not contest the lineout. in the argentina vs france game, the argies jumped in the lineout and then did not contest the ensuing maul so the french simply drove on downfield. at least thats my summation. in the JWC a couple of teams successfully milked penalties for obstruction at the lineout by not contesting either the throw or the ensuing drive
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
There is no maul because it takes a defender (and at least two attackers) to participate in the movement for it to be become a maul. It doesn't have a name but let's call it the "Tank".
There is no obstruction because you need a defender to attempt to stop the Tank and thus be obstructed.
If a defender tries to stop the Tank there is still no obstruction recognised if the ball is carried in the front of the Tank.
You see a variation of the Tank in most games - near the goal line an attacker A1 attempts to get close to and maybe over the goal line with the ball, and is latched onto by team mate A2 from behind trying to shove A1 forward into contact with a defender. The latch run formed before contact is hard to stop by one tackler.
After the latching poor old defender D1 tries to stop the latch run or at least slow it down until D2 and D3 assist him - or tackle A1 around the legs to chop the latch run down.
Referees do not recognise this as an infringement of dangerous play, or of anything else - it's one of the several conventions they follow, nearly all of the time.
The Tank is just a bigger version of the latch run.
There are laws against using a "Cavalry Charge" or "Flying Wedge" and you can argue that Tanks or latch runs can sometimes be these things, usually after a tap-kick, and are therefore illegal, but don't bother quoting them because they are hardly ever invoked.
If all the referees in all the world clamped down on on these two quaintly worded movements - different story. But it's like the crooked throws in rugby - if they are 15 metres long or more to a lineout they are pinged; if they are one metre long into a scrum they are not.
That difference is another convention observed by referees and has nothing to do with the law which proscribes both crooked throws.
Thus it is with the Tank and the latch runs: convention allows them, whether we think they are dangerous or not. Defenders should just run around the the back of the Tank to get the ball if it is smuggled back at the start - but make sure it is at the back. If it is still in the front the Tank can just mosey over the line unchecked.
Stop Lee you are rambling on and you mention this at least once a year - take the blue pill son - and you're talking to yourself again.
Okeydoke.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
it will in some quarters
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
Under the new directive the ball needs to stay at the front. If that happens then the "maul" can advance as the ball carrier is still accessible, it's when the ball is transferred to the back that we have an issue.
Baldric
Jim Clark (26)
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
I guess it depends on the speed of the "wedge/maul/whatever the term people want to call it".
However I completely understand your point.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
The definitions of "Flying Wedge" and the "Cavalry Charge" in the laws are imprecise and always have been. One wonders why the law makers, who seem conspicuously conscious of crossing the "ts" and dotting the "is", let such loosely worded terminology prevail in the laws.
The terms are probably a holdover from the old days. There are are few old provisions still in there: did you know that players are not allowed to pick up the ball in the ruck with their legs?
Better to get rid of that old terminology about the "Flying Wedge" etc from the handbook, because they are hardly ever invoked - and to add an item to the Dangerous Play provisions of Foul Play to cover the action such as:
10.4 (o) Other dangerous play. Any other action deemed to be dangerous by the referee.
After all it is only the dangerous play aspect that referees should be concerned about - not whether or not it is technically a Flying Wedge or Cavalry Charge.
.
Baldric
Jim Clark (26)
Going back to the unopposed lineout.
One team jumps, get the ball and forms a maul. Ball held in the front of the "ruck". The other teams stands back and does not engage.
No maul, on only one team bound.
Its still a lineout as the ball has not moved beyond the of touch.
That would then make the defending team offside as the must either join the ruck or get back 10m.
One team jumps, get the ball and forms a maul. Ball held in the front of the "ruck". The other teams stands back and does not engage.
No maul, on only one team bound.
Its still a lineout as the ball has not moved beyond the of touch.
That would then make the defending team offside as the must either join the ruck or get back 10m.
Baldric
Jim Clark (26)
OK, a maul then. Its not a maul, because there are no defenders, but then the people from the oppo lineout have no right to stand around as spectators.