Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

I'll be interested to go back to the replay and see what the line markings looked like at the start of the game. Were the NRL markings just as obvious or was it after more rain during the game that they started showing up more heavily to add to the confusion?

It was an unfortunate mistake that should have been looked at after the kick had gone out and Hoffman said that it was taken back.

 

[boyo]

A word from the wise, Rohan: if you ever find yourself whistling a match in Sydney, or Brisbane or Canberra or NZ, where league may've been played at some time, have a bloody good look at the ground markings. It's difficult to believe you didn't notice them in your pre-ground inspection.

And Melbourne, RL is played at AAMI stadium

 

[Hugh Jarse]

One thing that really grinds my gears and gets me annoyed is Barrett (who I think is a tremendous player and great to watch) taking each and every kick for touch about five steps in front of the mark. He gets the ball, marks a divot with his foot, takes one or two steps back, then a four or five step run up for the kick. Only a small thing I know, but annoys me.

This annoys me too. Forwards work their buttocks off for every millimetre they gain and when they get penalised for being 1/2 centimetre offside at a breakdown, some slick haired spiv of a back kicks for touch 5 metres further upfield from where the penalty was awarded.

Meanwhile if an attempted quick tap isn't taken within Surveyors cadastral precision of where Sir has awarded the penalty, the attacking side is brought back to the precise spot, allowing the Defence amply time to recover and realign.

 

[Scoey]

Meh. The 'mark' is fairly subjectively placed and probably more subjective again is where the touchie decides that the ball crossed the plane of touch and then how accurately transfers that point to the ground. Of all the gripes we may have about the game, this one has to rank pretty low on the scale. Both teams have the same opportunity to exploit this.
And this is coming from a forward.

 

[TheHam]

I'll be interested to go back to the replay and see what the line markings looked like at the start of the game.

Look at the clock then Click to zoom.

Were the NRL markings just as obvious or was it after more rain during the game that they started showing up more heavily to add to the confusion? It was an unfortunate mistake that should have been looked at after the kick had gone out and Hoffman said that it was taken back.

Obviously the decision should have been reversed. Is there anyone left even arguing that?

There's a lot of watering down and excuses on this thread for the incompetent preparation of the ground.

All this talk about rain making it "impossible" to have the correct markings is so much eyewash.

This is not the suburban verge where people take their dogs to have a shit. It's a billion dollar stadium where they applied enough advertising paint to cover a house in the changeover between the games.

 

[Braveheart81]

There's a lot of watering down and excuses on this thread for the incompetent preparation of the ground.

All this talk about rain making it "impossible" to have the correct markings is so much eyewash.

This is not the suburban verge where people take their dogs to have a shit. It's a billion dollar stadium where they applied enough advertising paint to cover a house in the changeover between the games.

There was an absolutely insane weather event in Sydney between two and three hours before kick off.

If the line painting method is to paint over the NRL lines in green (I genuinely don't know) and then painting the rugby lines in white then the green could have got washed away and the fresh white rugby lines got partly washed away making all lines visible and less bold than usual.

Whether it is ANZ or Allianz, there are many Waratahs games where there was NRL the evening before and their lines aren't visible. Seeing as this doesn't normally happen, I'm more inclined to put it down to the weather causing the issue than incompetence by ground staff.

At the end of the day, I think the referee made a howler and it should have been corrected before the lineout was taken in the wrong place.

 

[Wilson]

That is the other end of the field, so it's probably not the best comparison. I've no idea what the actual process involved with painting the ground is, but for some further information Wayne smith said in todays Australian that they hadn't been able to hose the markings off as usual because they wanted to spare the already water logged ground another drenching.

 

[TheHam]

Other end of the field

they hadn't been able to hose the markings off as usual because they wanted to spare the already water logged ground another drenching.

So removing a couple of 4 inch wide lines would've left the ground "water logged" - - -

While removing more than 200 square meters of advertising did not?

If the line painting method is to paint over the NRL lines in green (I genuinely don't know) and then painting the rugby lines in white then the green could have got washed away and the fresh white rugby lines got partly washed away making all lines visible and less bold than usual.

Yeah, fortunately the "Asteron Life Insurance" was painted with sterner stuff.

They used a house worth of marine paint (for underwater applications) to paint the ads.

When those ads faded in the downpour they used another house worth to touch them up in the 3 hours before kickoff.

By that stage there was no time left to check the rugby field markings.

And besides, they only had water pastels left in stock.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

A few obstructions in lineout rolling mauls were penalised in this round of Super Rugby games. Still some inconsistency in those rulings across the officialdom but good to see that some appear to have read and understood Lyndon Bray's directive.

 

[Wilson]

Haven't watched all this week's games, but I thought the refereeing of mauls was all over place in the chiefs rebels game. I like that they've acted this week and are trying to get things right and consistent in the lead up to the world cup, but the stream of directives/changes from on high must make it difficult for the last referees and teams to understand where things are at. I'm not really sure what the solution is but it they need to find a better way to get things right from the start of the season.

 

[Brumby Runner]

A few obstructions in lineout rolling mauls were penalised in this round of Super Rugby games. Still some inconsistency in those rulings across the officialdom but good to see that some appear to have read and understood Lyndon Bray's directive.

Can't say that I saw any maul penalised for attacking players joining in front of the ball carrier though, and I saw quite a few occasions where it did occur.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Refs seemed to be onto it in the Saffer games.

 

[Brendan Hume]

The mauls from line outs after half time in the Chiefs Canes game all seemed pretty illegal to me. Holding the player in the air to prevent the sack and handing off prior to hitting the ground. Also allowed more time for the Canes to set their maul. Such a messy part of the game that seems ridiculously difficult to referee with any consistency.

 

[Gnostic]

The mauls from line outs after half time in the Chiefs Canes game all seemed pretty illegal to me. Holding the player in the air to prevent the sack and handing off prior to hitting the ground. Also allowed more time for the Canes to set their maul. Such a messy part of the game that seems ridiculously difficult to referee with any consistency.

This should be penalised as all the players in front of the receiver are offside. You can't form a maul from a bloke in the air, as he cannot be legally bound. So by the time he hits the deck and no longer has the ball to be legally bound he and others are in front of the ball carrier preventing tackling.

 

[Brumby Runner]

This should be penalised as all the players in front of the receiver are offside. You can't form a maul from a bloke in the air, as he cannot be legally bound. So by the time he hits the deck and no longer has the ball to be legally bound he and others are in front of the ball carrier preventing tackling.

Agree. And to compound the illegality, the ball receiver as often as not is not bound at the back when he gets the ball as well. Stands to reason, doesn't it; if the ball is thrown down from a height, the receiver could hardly catch it if he is legally bound to the back of the forming maul.

 

[Dctarget]

Only a few minutes ago, in the Crusaders V Hurricanes match, Fruean hammered Milner Skudder with a brilliant tackle hitting him pretty much on his chest. The hit was so hard Skudder was up ended and hit his head on the ground. Completely legal tackle but Fruean got yellow carded for a reckless tackle. It's pretty disappointing that they're basically killing these great tackles.

 

[Slim 293]

Nah, it was the correct decision...........

He's wound up past the horizontal and landed on his head........ as the ref stated - "reckless."

Penalty. Yellow card.

100%

 

[Dctarget]

Nah, it was the correct decision.....

He's wound up past the horizontal and landed on his head.... as the ref stated - "reckless."

Penalty. Yellow card.

100%

surely they only use the horizontal requirement when it's a lift tackle? If the hit was hard enough that he was flung off his feet isn't that a separate issue.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Nah, it was the correct decision.....

He's wound up past the horizontal and landed on his head.... as the ref stated - "reckless."

Penalty. Yellow card.

100%

Freuan's arms were at Milner-Skudder's chest, he hit him directly in the chest, there was no shoulder charge, and Freuan was out of the contact before Milner-Skudder up-ended and bounced his head off the turf.

The ref isn't yellow carding the player in this case, he's yellow carding physics. Freuan just took the rap.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I was interested in a ruling from the Italian Referee in the AUS v SCO under 20 match at the Jnr RWC.

There was an attacking lineout on the 5m line, AUS throw. A couple of book ends were in place to set the line, and the jumping pod walked up to the line of touch and they put a jumper up as soon as they reached the line of touch, simultaneous with the throw from the AUS hooker. Pretty much a stock standard "default" lineout option that most teams have in the playbook.

They were penalised (short arm IIRC) and Sir said words to the effect of you can't walk in and jump. I can only presume that AUS was adjudged to be in breach of Law 19.10 (f) Jumping, supporting or lifting before the ball is thrown. A player must not jump or be lifted or supported before the ball has left the hands of the player throwing in.


The "default" lineout option is used thousands of times every weekend without sanction, and this one didn't seem to be too different from any of those. As a bonus on a difficult day for the AUS U20 lineout, the AUS hooker actually appeared to throw the Gilbert straight and actually hit his jumper. We should have got extra consideration for this rare event.

What also brought a smile to my face was the two penalties against the AUS #9 for not feeding the scrum straight. BRING IT ON, I say. How good would it be if this became a key focus point for ALL referees?

Finally on the subject of lineouts, I have noticed many teams are now using a loose forward as a "receiver"/halfback in defensive lineouts. As soon as the ball is thrown in and before the lineout has ended, this "receiver" gallops infield, beyond the 15 metre line, to line up on the attacking team flyhalf. It seems that coaches are using this as a tactic to counter quick ball off the top of the lineout to their halfback, with the defensive lineout not contesting the ball in the air.

This seems to be in breach of law 19.14(f). Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player taking part in the lineout may run infield beyond the 15-metre line as soon as the ball leaves the hands of the player throwing in. If this happens, an opponent may also run infield. If a player runs infield to take a long throw in, and the ball is not thrown beyond the 15-metre line, this player is offside and must be penalised.

Shrewd coaches seem to be exploiting what appears to be a referee blindspot to get a deny the attacking team space by giving a defender a 10 metre headstart before the lineout has ended.

IMHO, there are too many lineout laws for the Match Officials to effectively police, and some effort should be made to simplify the laws to make it easier for Referees to police the remaining laws.