Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
IIRC Part of the tackler was so he is fine.Ah but in this particular case was he ever "in goal"?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Ah but in this particular case was he ever "in goal"?
Line ball.
Also know as a Hunt ball.
Sorry.... not really, it doesn't get old for me while he has a contract.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
A tackle can only take place in the field of play.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15.1
Therefore there is no"tackler" and no "tackled player" in goal.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
So what is it in goal then? Just a wrestle and contest for possession?
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
I think the answer to that may be very simple. The implication of the laws involving penalty tries is that they are only awarded where a try has not been scored (referring to a probable try being prevented). Scoring a try trumps a penalty try. Not the other way around.
If it was found to be no try, then the penalty try aspect comes into it.
Mind you, I suspect this is right. I'm not 100% sure.
Chris McCracken
Jim Clark (26)
It just means the normal laws for the tackle aren't needed because the possible outcomes are different.
If it was covered by the tackle laws, you would have to roll away, so you wouldn't be able to hold up a try. Other than that, the rest of the tackle laws are defunct in goal, anyway because when the ball is touched down, there are different outcomes.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Basically yes, however once it cannot be grounded a 5m scrum applies.
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=22
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Actual Law
When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try, an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Interestingly, that's the part in Law 15 but not quite the same in Law 22 - and there is a crucial part to it that was missed
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
But it depends where the play takes place.
i.e. If the player is brought to the ground in the field of play, then it is a tackle and (e) and (f) would apply.
However, if the player is bought to the ground in the in-goal area, then the tackle law doesn't apply so players don't have to be on their feet to prevent the try being scored.
Brendan Hume
Charlie Fox (21)
Yeah agree - it just takes so long for the TMO to adjudicate sometimes. If the initial tackler had released as required (both were in the field of play, both were off their feet), Burger never arrives and Kurindrani scores. A cursory view and an awarding of the try should be fine - play on!!!
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/115761
Extremely poor form from the Powers That Be to publicly hang out Joubers to dry like this, and in doing so they only refer to one decision, that after multiple viewings of freeze frame shots from multiple angles they determine was in error.
What about the rest of the game? There were multiple occasions where many felt that Joubers rulings were in error.
Are we going to see statements made by IRB (Whirled Rugby) about EVERY referees performance in EVERY game, after exhaustive multiple camera angle, frame by frame, analysis or is this just sour grapes?
There is a process in place involving Referee Coaches who assess games, and provide feedback to the individual referees post game. One assumes that this same process would be applied to even the best referees on the IRB Test match panel.
Why did they feel necessary to make a public statement like this?
The Refereeing fraternity prides itself on being consistent. This very selective, very public and highly inappropriate statement has drawn the Referees into the Judiciary space which is characterised by selectivity and inconsistency, and has re-opened them to the same accusations of bias and partiality that were bought to light after Paddy O'Brien's personal visit to Graham Henry's hotel to appease him after Stu Dickenson refereed NZL v ITA back in 2009.
Come on Joël Jutge, where are your statements on Pythagoras Marler and rest of the England Scrum and how that has been refereed so far? What about commenting on the referee and other match officials poor performance in not issuing a Red Card to Michael Hooper for his clean out on Brown? The Judiciary and Citing Bloke certainly determined it had crossed the Red Card threshold.
TL: DR. Public comment on referee performance from the Head of Referees is very poor form but if it is going to happen, then be consistent and comment on all clangers not just the ones that the Star Chamber decide warrants comment.
It is the referee version of Coach Sacking 101. "The Board has complete faith in Coach X and we are looking forward to continuing the strong working relationship we have for the rest of their contract".
Extremely poor form from the Powers That Be to publicly hang out Joubers to dry like this, and in doing so they only refer to one decision, that after multiple viewings of freeze frame shots from multiple angles they determine was in error.
What about the rest of the game? There were multiple occasions where many felt that Joubers rulings were in error.
Are we going to see statements made by IRB (Whirled Rugby) about EVERY referees performance in EVERY game, after exhaustive multiple camera angle, frame by frame, analysis or is this just sour grapes?
There is a process in place involving Referee Coaches who assess games, and provide feedback to the individual referees post game. One assumes that this same process would be applied to even the best referees on the IRB Test match panel.
Why did they feel necessary to make a public statement like this?
The Refereeing fraternity prides itself on being consistent. This very selective, very public and highly inappropriate statement has drawn the Referees into the Judiciary space which is characterised by selectivity and inconsistency, and has re-opened them to the same accusations of bias and partiality that were bought to light after Paddy O'Brien's personal visit to Graham Henry's hotel to appease him after Stu Dickenson refereed NZL v ITA back in 2009.
Come on Joël Jutge, where are your statements on Pythagoras Marler and rest of the England Scrum and how that has been refereed so far? What about commenting on the referee and other match officials poor performance in not issuing a Red Card to Michael Hooper for his clean out on Brown? The Judiciary and Citing Bloke certainly determined it had crossed the Red Card threshold.
TL: DR. Public comment on referee performance from the Head of Referees is very poor form but if it is going to happen, then be consistent and comment on all clangers not just the ones that the Star Chamber decide warrants comment.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
#justiceforjoubert
I want refs to make these calls. He saw what he saw and he made a decision. Isn't that what we want from our referees? You can go through just about any penalty and pull it apart and argue about it and come up with a different outcome. I expect the governing body to manage these situations better than hanging the poor bloke out to dry. I don't want NFL or NRL style reviews, get on with the game and let the ref make the call.
I want refs to make these calls. He saw what he saw and he made a decision. Isn't that what we want from our referees? You can go through just about any penalty and pull it apart and argue about it and come up with a different outcome. I expect the governing body to manage these situations better than hanging the poor bloke out to dry. I don't want NFL or NRL style reviews, get on with the game and let the ref make the call.
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
If the review committee watched the incident in slow motion,they shouldn't have,because the ref could only see it in real time-and that should be the only way to review it
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
and they should watch it from a ground level camera too - preferably one in which Joubert is between the lens and the ball.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Kaplan's take:
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Forget that angle @Inside Shoulder, How about they rely on "evidence" collected from refcam to retroactively humiliate a referee, and most likely end their career via the court of public opinion?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
It's really bad form from World Rugby on any number of levels.
The chairman of the referee selection panel should never have allowed that to be made public.
The fact that it's John Jeffrey (Scotland) makes it an even worse look
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
The chairman of the referee selection panel should never have allowed that to be made public.
The fact that it's John Jeffrey (Scotland) makes it an even worse look
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Maybe World Rugby just felt they needed to chastise him because the plan is that he referees the final if South Africa doesn't make it.