Refereeing decisions

[Hugh Jarse]

Wasn't it reported that a Sefrikan told Pocock that he was going to snap his (Pocock's) neck in a Tri Nations game a while back?

In the days when a "fetcher" could dominate the breakdown, the fetcher/jackel was continually attacked around the head to get them off the ball. Now that the tackler has to give a clear release, and the tackled player seems to have an extra 1/2 second or so before they have to exercise their options, this rather dubious act has become less prevalent in the ruck/breakdown contest.

 

[ChargerWA]

Wasn't it reported that a Sefrikan told Pocock that he was going to snap his (Pocock's) neck in a Tri Nations game a while back?

.

Dr Du Plessis no less.

In a Force/Sharks match.

 

[swingpass]

i agree with Scott Fardy, the use of the TMO has become problematic. like the review system in cricket was originally deigned to avoid egregious howlers, but is being used to decide anything potentially controversial for the ref. the TV director shows umpteen views, the TMO gets in the Ref's ear and we lose 5 minutes of play. use it for "way forward" passes not seen in the build up to a try, use it for foul play, perhaps use it when the ref is unsighted in a grounding but otherwise TMO, shut the F up !

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Is this another attempt by commentators to "introduce" a new law interpretation?

At 38:00 in Bulls vs CruSadists game, Sir Richie GOAT leaps up to contest a Kickoff restart but is unable to get to the same height as the Bulls player. Sir Richie manages to tap the ball back his way, and the Bulls Player falls awkwardly.

Saffer commentators call for the Yellow Card for the GOAT on the basis that it is the responsibility of the player who leaps the least highest to bring the player who leaps the highest in the contest safely to ground.

Penalty Kick to the Blues was awarded.

In this instance both players seemed to have their eyes on the ball throughout the jumping contest. I know there are player safety issues when a player leaps for the Ball, but are we about to lose the contest for the ball in the air?

To improve player safety, should jumping for the ball be banned? It would remove the chance for a player to be contacted whilst airborne, and potentially injured.

 

[Brumby Runner]

As I understand the laws, a tackled player can place the ball once in any direction after the tackle has been effected.

In yesterday's game between the Tahs and the Blues, at about the 48 minute mark, Potgeiter gets tackled about half a metre short of the tryline, and he then places the ball towards the tryline but is still a few centimetres short. He then places the ball behind him to allow the Tahs to protect their possession. In my book, he should have been penalised.

I'm singling this incident out because it was so obvious, but it seems to happen almost every game when a player is still short of the line on first placing the ball.

Is there an error in my interpretation I wonder?

 

[Brumby Runner]

i agree with Scott Fardy, the use of the TMO has become problematic. like the review system in cricket was originally deigned to avoid egregious howlers, but is being used to decide anything potentially controversial for the ref. the TV director shows umpteen views, the TMO gets in the Ref's ear and we lose 5 minutes of play. use it for "way forward" passes not seen in the build up to a try, use it for foul play, perhaps use it when the ref is unsighted in a grounding but otherwise TMO, shut the F up !

There were two instances in the Tahs/Blues game where the home ground TV producer seemed to have an influence again in critical decisions, including in the yellow card call for the tackle on Dennis that I thought was perfectly legal and reminiscent of Dennis' own tackles in the past two games that were widely lauded.

 

[cyclopath]

As I understand the laws, a tackled player can place the ball once in any direction after the tackle has been effected.

In yesterday's game between the Tahs and the Blues, at about the 48 minute mark, Potgeiter gets tackled about half a metre short of the tryline, and he then places the ball towards the tryline but is still a few centimetres short. He then places the ball behind him to allow the Tahs to protect their possession. In my book, he should have been penalised.

I'm singling this incident out because it was so obvious, but it seems to happen almost every game when a player is still short of the line on first placing the ball.

Is there an error in my interpretation I wonder?

Technically, he probably should have been. Application of this seems to be rather lax. How often do we see players tackled and half-turned, who then add an extra roll after they have stopped to protect the ball? The player tackled in tight pick and go situations who is stationary but wriggles around to put the ball back.
But yes, Potgieter seemed to play the ball twice, in opposite directions.

 

[Wilson]

There were two instances in the Tahs/Blues game where the home ground TV producer seemed to have an influence again in critical decisions, including in the yellow card call for the tackle on Dennis that I thought was perfectly legal and reminiscent of Dennis' own tackles in the past two games that were widely lauded.

Pretty sure that tackle was flagged at the time by a ar or the ref, there was a penalty not long after so they spent a while playing advantage but they were always going to go back once play stopped.

I also thought that tackle was at least a penalty and a yellow card was not at all uncalled for. If we're serious about addressing the dangers posed by concussion than that sort of tackle which directly attacks the head of a player needs to be stamped out.

 

[cyclopath]

Pretty sure that tackle was flagged at the time by a ar or the ref, there was a penalty not long after so they spent a while playing advantage but they were always going to go back once play stopped.

I also thought that tackle was at least a penalty and a yellow card was not at all uncalled for. If we're serious about addressing the dangers posed by concussion than that sort of tackle which directly attacks the head of a player needs to be stamped out.

One of the ARs brought it to Peyper's attention, I believe. It was always going to be reviewed. I don't believe the tackle warranted a yellow card - the damage was an accidental head clash, and the height of the tackle was influenced by Dennis ducking at the time of the tackle a little. Penalty at most I would think.
Brumby Runner is just tilting at Tah windmills claiming the ground announcer influenced the TMO or ref.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Kaino didn't directly attach the head. He went in for a legal tackle and Dennis shifted at the last instant. I understand there is little discussion of intent in rugby law, but geez, that seemed absolutely accidental. Penalty should have sufficed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wilson]

I'd need to watch it again but I don't think there was too much ducking from Dennis, either way there has to be some onus on the defender to avoid those clashes, same as playing the man in the air or going over the parallel in the tackle.

 

[barbarian]

As I understand the laws, a tackled player can place the ball once in any direction after the tackle has been effected.

In yesterday's game between the Tahs and the Blues, at about the 48 minute mark, Potgeiter gets tackled about half a metre short of the tryline, and he then places the ball towards the tryline but is still a few centimetres short. He then places the ball behind him to allow the Tahs to protect their possession. In my book, he should have been penalised.

I'm singling this incident out because it was so obvious, but it seems to happen almost every game when a player is still short of the line on first placing the ball.

Is there an error in my interpretation I wonder?

You are allowed to reach out and attempt to score a try once you are tackled. I believe you also then have the right to place the ball back if you are unsuccessful in doing this.
.

 

[Bullrush]

I'd need to watch it again but I don't think there was too much ducking from Dennis, either way there has to be some onus on the defender to avoid those clashes, same as playing the man in the air or going over the parallel in the tackle.

So why is there no onus on the attacker? If the ball-carrier ducks or slips into the tackle, how is that the defender's fault?? Seems like all the onus is on the tackler and the defender has all the onus to not only look after and protect himself but the ball carrier as well?? The ball-carrier has no thought for the defender's safety...

 

[Scoey]

In this instance both players seemed to have their eyes on the ball throughout the jumping contest. I know there are player safety issues when a player leaps for the Ball, but are we about to lose the contest for the ball in the air?

This is becoming a bugbear of mine. Yes player safety needs to be paramount but it does get abut ridiculous from time to time.
I didn't see this particular incident but if as you describe, there was a genuine contest for the ball and it got ugly, then I think it needs to be chalked up to being just a rugby incident. It's a contact sport.
If a player jumps into the air they should so so knowing that there's a risk involved. Yes the should be protected from foul play but two players contesting the ball in mid air isn't foul play, it's Rugby.

 

[Scoey]

You are allowed to reach out and attempt to score a try once you are tackled. I believe you also then have the right to place the ball back if you are unsuccessful in doing this.
.

I think this is a common misconception. Pretty sure the laws simply state that once tackled you may place the ball once in any direction. If you pass or roll the ball it must be backwards.
Could be wrong but it's certainly an area that isn't overly clear amongst players, spectators and commentators in any case.

 

[wamberal]

Could be wrong but it's certainly an area that isn't overly clear amongst players, spectators and commentators in any case.

If the IRB or Whirled Rugby, or whatever they want to be known as these days, want the game to prosper, they should clear up ALL areas of the game which are not clear to anybody at all. Including the bloody match officials (I refer specifically to the adjudication of scrum penalties).

 

[boyo]

As I understand the laws, a tackled player can place the ball once in any direction after the tackle has been effected.

In yesterday's game between the Tahs and the Blues, at about the 48 minute mark, Potgeiter gets tackled about half a metre short of the tryline, and he then places the ball towards the tryline but is still a few centimetres short. He then places the ball behind him to allow the Tahs to protect their possession. In my book, he should have been penalised.

I'm singling this incident out because it was so obvious, but it seems to happen almost every game when a player is still short of the line on first placing the ball.

Is there an error in my interpretation I wonder?

I think that you may be correct, but I'm prepared to consider other opinions. It seems to be two bites of the cherry.

 

[swingpass]

(I refer specifically to the adjudication of scrum penalties).

good luck with that one !

 

[Quick Hands]

If the IRB or Whirled Rugby, or whatever they want to be known as these days, want the game to prosper, they should clear up ALL areas of the game which are not clear to anybody at all. Including the bloody match officials (I refer specifically to the adjudication of scrum penalties).

Interestingly, the only scrum infringment that isn't enforced is the easiest one to understand - half back putting the ball in the middle.

As for most of the others, I've always said about 1/3 of the time the ref is right, about 1/3 he is completely wrong and the other 1/3 the penalty could have gone either way. And this is how matches are decided right up to test level.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Saffer commentators call for the Yellow Card for the GOAT on the basis that it is the responsibility of the player who leaps the least highest to bring the player who leaps the highest in the contest safely to ground.

I heard something similar in the 6N, with one of the Scotland games -- can't recall which one now, either Scotland against Wales or Ireland (pretty sure Ireland). One of the commentators made a weird point about how whoever jumps the highest has rights to the ball, which basically means if you don't jump as high as your opponent you either have responsibility to bring that person down safely or will be penalized. But I'm not sure how you're supposed to be a spotter for the opposition when you're also supposed to keep your eye on the ball or risk being penalized.

And then you run into situations where someone jumps for the ball, has his eyes on the ball, then sees the opponent's knee about to hit his face, so he turns his head -- and is penalized, if not carded.

I know there's a bit of a gray area between keeping your eye on the ball and taking out the opponent, but some common sense needs to be applied -- if a player turns to protect his face at the last fraction of a second, and that results in an awkward collision, maybe a free kick, but cards seem overly-harsh and remove incentive to challenge for the ball in the air. And the argument about who jumps higher seems ridiculous on its face. What about timing? If the same were applied to basketball, there'd never be a jump ball contest.