Refereeing decisions

[yourmatesam]

There's too many laws in the game full stop. There are that many loose ends it's not funny.

Did you know that any infringement by the opposing team at a free kick results in another FK only? 21.8 (h)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Yes, but the second FK is taken 10 metres up field (unless it is within 5 m of the try line). That gives the non-offending team an advantage of sorts, but it does seem to be a little inconsistent with other rulings on offside play.

 

[Scoey]

Article on law reform on the front page here. It covers maul law interpretations moving forward.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ Excellent article. I have noticed that the directive has been enforced at the current Junior RWC, although it seems that some coaches and players (and keyboard warriors) may not have had time to adjust to the directive.

 

[Lindommer]

There are far too many laws, yms. What about the one calling for a penalty if a player falls on a ball emerging from a ruck, 16.4 (e)? More honoured in the breach than the observance. Nice to see crooked feeds pinged, though.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Article on law reform on the front page here. It covers maul law interpretations moving forward.

Really good article and always better when the powers-that-be insist on the existing laws be policed rather than drafting new ones. Provided the refs get with WorldRugby's programme, RWC may not be the kick- & maul-athon that seemed likely.

 

[yourmatesam]

There are far too many laws, yms. What about the one calling for a penalty if a player falls on a ball emerging from a ruck, 16.4 (e)? More honoured in the breach than the observance. Nice to see crooked feeds pinged, though.

Same for a scrum too mate and don't get me started on the touch laws.

 

[Quick Hands]

There are far too many laws, yms. What about the one calling for a penalty if a player falls on a ball emerging from a ruck, 16.4 (e)? More honoured in the breach than the observance. Nice to see crooked feeds pinged, though.

Same applies at a scrum - that rule is enforced even less than the one at rucks.

Law 20 9(e)

All players: No falling on the ball. A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of the scrum

 

[Brumby Runner]

I have seen some players penalised for falling on the ball. The quicker thinking players simply rake the ball back with their hands as they fall. I haven't seen that situation penalised and presume it is in accordance with the relevant laws.

 

[Pusser]

I have been pondering the "pop pass". On the weekend the highlanders halfback gets tackled and falls to the ground rolling onto his back. He is flat on the ground but throws a pop pass. Why is that not playing the ball off your feet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[yourmatesam]

I have been pondering the "pop pass". On the weekend the highlanders halfback gets tackled and falls to the ground rolling onto his back. He is flat on the ground but throws a pop pass. Why is that not playing the ball off your feet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That's legal as cousin.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
15.5 (b)

A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.​

 

[Strewthcobber]

That's legal as cousin.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
15.5 (b)

A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.​

Not only that

15.7 (a)

No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.

which along with 15.7 (b)

No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.

are some of the more interesting laws in the book......

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Doesn't matter, it started before he scored.

As a point of law, it couldn't be a pen on halfway. It could have been a YC.

If there was foul play after the ball was dead there should be a penalty at the place where the game would ordinarily restart.
Perhaps you could quote the law that says anything about when it started.

 

[Grant NZ]

If there was foul play after the ball was dead there should be a penalty at the place where the game would ordinarily restart.
Perhaps you could quote the law that says anything about when it started.

The law says foul play after the try was scored. The foul play was a dangerous tackle. Are you honestly trying to argue there was a dangerous tackle, or indeed any real foul play, after the try was scored? Naholo made contact with the head while making the tackle, that's a penalty for sure. He maintained that contact very briefly and not at all dangerously after the try was scored.

It'd not tiddlywinks, bro.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The law says foul play after the try was scored. The foul play was a dangerous tackle. Are you honestly trying to argue there was a dangerous tackle, or indeed any real foul play, after the try was scored? Naholo made contact with the head while making the tackle, that's a penalty for sure. He maintained that contact very briefly and not at all dangerously after the try was scored.

It'd not tiddlywinks, bro.

You might need to look at it again. Anyway the head s off limits and the face doubly so.
Not tiddly winks eh cuz?
Jacpot was carded for something you'd see in a knitting group.

 

[Grant NZ]

You might need to look at it again. Anyway the head s off limits and the face doubly so.

The impact had already occurred, the only danger would be if Naholo went near the eyes which I don't recall him doing.

Jacpot was carded for something you'd see in a knitting group.

It was on the lighter side of dangerous tackling for sure, but given it was a PT situation the card comes more into play.

 

[fatprop]

The law says foul play after the try was scored. The foul play was a dangerous tackle. Are you honestly trying to argue there was a dangerous tackle, or indeed any real foul play, after the try was scored? Naholo made contact with the head while making the tackle, that's a penalty for sure. He maintained that contact very briefly and not at all dangerously after the try was scored.

It'd not tiddlywinks, bro.

Pretty well every try where there is heavy contact at the try line has some illegality. Especially in slow motion

I look forward to seeing many player now hitting the naughty seat in the future as the refs clean up the game

 

[Grant NZ]

Pretty well every try where there is heavy contact at the try line has some illegality. Especially in slow motion

I agree, but this one was more obvious than most. It wasn't intentional obviously, but the end result was a forearm smash straight to the jaw. Once it was reviewed they're always gonna call that.

It's just a flow on effect from the TMO protocol, sometimes they're gonna spot things that'd be let go in real time - e.g. Naholo's also high tackle. A similar example was in the Canes v Brumbies game - Barrett indulges in some fairly soft rucking to a Brum lying on the ball. Would have been let go but for the fact that it was close to the line and the ref checked if Goodes had scored a try.

As for the 'naughty seat' it was a bit unfortunate, but the Laws seem to indicate refs have to be a bit harsher when it's a PT situation.

 

[fatprop]

I agree, but this one was more obvious than most. It wasn't intentional obviously, but the end result was a forearm smash straight to the jaw. Once it was reviewed they're always gonna call that.

It's just a flow on effect from the TMO protocol, sometimes they're gonna spot things that'd be let go in real time - e.g. Naholo's also high tackle. A similar example was in the Canes v Brumbies game - Barrett indulges in some fairly soft rucking to a Brum lying on the ball. Would have been let go but for the fact that it was close to the line and the ref checked if Goodes had scored a try.

As for the 'naughty seat' it was a bit unfortunate, but the Laws seem to indicate refs have to be a bit harsher when it's a PT situation.

I have no issue with the premise, or the penalty really. (apart from pulling it out of their arse in a semi final)

The only proviso I have, is a want for the refs to be consistent.

 

[Grant NZ]

I have no issue with the premise, or the penalty really. (apart from pulling it out of their arse in a semi final)

The only proviso I have, is a want for the refs to be consistent.

It's not completely out of their arse, there was a PT & YC incident in the Chiefs v Canes final round match and it was a much much lower probability of a try being scored in that one (more obvious penalty though).

As for consistency, the best you can hope for is the same ref being consistent in the same match and sometimes not even that (see Buckman v Phipps).