Refereeing decisions

[MonkeyBoy]

Strict application of law would kill the game, as you can tell listening to the crowd there is an "offence" at nearly every facet of the game.
At present the referees:
1. see that something looks wrong
2. determine it is an offence
3. determine whether the game needs a penalty
4. determine whether it has a material effect
5. determine whether there is likely to be an advantage
6. determine whether sufficient advantage has been gained
7. determine whether the offence was a cynical offence
8. etc. etc.

hardly surprising different referees see the game differently, all you can aim for is accuracy on the clear and obvious and consistency throughout the game... I think Barnsey's game lacked consistency this time.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Strict application of law would kill the game, as you can tell listening to the crowd there is an "offence" at nearly every facet of the game.
At present the referees:
1. see that something looks wrong
2. determine it is an offence
3. determine whether the game needs a penalty
4. determine whether it has a material effect
5. determine whether there is likely to be an advantage
6. determine whether sufficient advantage has been gained
7. determine whether the offence was a cynical offence
8. etc. etc.

hardly surprising different referees see the game differently, all you can aim for is accuracy on the clear and obvious and consistency throughout the game. I think Barnsey's game lacked consistency this time.

Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly

 

[swingpass]

hardly surprising different referees see the game differently, all you can aim for is accuracy on the clear and obvious and consistency throughout the game. I think Barnsey's game lacked consistency this time.

exactly, its not the interpretation that screws teams or fans, it's the consistency with which it is applied in any game. the same "todays law interpretation is" must apply to both teams

 

[elementfreak]

When did 21.4 (d) come into effect? I can remember Andy Irvine among others place-kicking penalties to touch esp in windy conditions. Back then, of course, you were conceding the throw by kicking to touch hence wanting to gain as much ground as possible.

Just out of interest, if the ball hits the post & goes out on the full, presumably the lineout is set back where the kick was taken from?

Not sure, it's been around for a good 10-15 years IIRC.

 

[Slim 293]

Just following on from this wtf moment posted in the women's rugby thread........

There was also this brainfart in the Pro12.............

 

[Quick Hands]

In the decision in the women's match, it should be a penalty for Australia for either of two reasons:

1. If the referee deems that a ruck has formed then the NZ player is offside at the ruck. By the way that the referee is ordering the NZ defenders back to the last feet o/s line, she seems to think it's a ruck?

2. If the referee has deemed that no ruck has formed that the NZ player has not entered through the gate and it offside.

The decision in the European game is certainly one of the most ridiculuous ever seen. Just plain wrong on any viewing of it (including in real time)

 

[The torpedo]

There was also this brainfart in the Pro12.....

Jesus that is honestly one of the worst decision I've seen.

As an aside, I like the little countdown clock for the time left in the bin

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Wow. It'd be nice to think that the Blues guy missed touch on purpose as a "sorry about that".

 

[Dan54]

Good to see the Reds still won the game! So bad decision wasn't used as an excuse.

 

[Grant NZ]

Jesus that is honestly one of the worst decision I've seen.

As an aside, I like the little countdown clock for the time left in the bin

The thing that makes it for me is even if Warburton was the one tackling off the ball, why would that be a yellow card?

 

[papabear]

In the decision in the women's match, it should be a penalty for Australia for either of two reasons:

1. If the referee deems that a ruck has formed then the NZ player is offside at the ruck. By the way that the referee is ordering the NZ defenders back to the last feet o/s line, she seems to think it's a ruck?

2. If the referee has deemed that no ruck has formed that the NZ player has not entered through the gate and it offside.

The decision in the European game is certainly one of the most ridiculuous ever seen. Just plain wrong on any viewing of it (including in real time)

Well didn't she just enter through australia's gate instead of NZ gate.

Though, there would be a rule saying you must enter through your own teams gate?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well didn't she just enter through australia's gate instead of NZ gate.

Though, there would be a rule saying you must enter through your own teams gate?

There is indeed

15.6(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

 

[saulityvi]

In the womens game, there is clearly a ruck, a tackler gets cleared and the clearer is on her feet and bound to an opponent over the ball. It was just a plain mistake.

It doesn't matter that the tackler is flapping her hands in the air while being cleared, and trying to act like she isnt part of the play.

 

[Sully]

Nigel Owen thinks we are using the TMO too much.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1115/832023-ref-owens-calls-for/

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Nigel Owen thinks we are using the TMO too much.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1115/832023-ref-owens-calls-for/

Are we using it too much, or does his TMO interject with shit decisions that should have been play on making Nigel look poor when he follows them

 

[Twoilms]

"Empathy is essential to good refereeing. You understand why something has happened but you might have decided it didn't impact on what was happening, but then it's on the big screen in isolation, the crowd's seen it, you've seen it, you can't ignore it and your hands are tied somewhat."

Gee i wonder what he's talking about there.

 

[Lindommer]

There's a lot to be said for a referee making a sensible judgement on the material effect of a transgression: if it's not foul and doesn't affect play, play on. And that includes instances like a player with a foot offside one side of a scrum, talking about denying a scrummie the option of taking play either side is overly, and unnecessarily, pedantic.

In my considered opinion refs who play good advantage and bring material effect into their decisions are the best refs.

 

[swingpass]

Nigel Owen thinks we are using the TMO too much.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1115/832023-ref-owens-calls-for/

i finally agrree with nigel on something.

 

[swingpass]

Are we using it too much, or does his TMO interject with shit decisions that should have been play on making Nigel look poor when he follows them

both imo

 

[Strewthcobber]

A few Frenchman out there (not here!) think they were robbed by the TMO for Kurindrani's try.

Here it is
https://streamable.com/5tky

Here's the law

22.12 Ball or player touching a flag or flag (corner) post

If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against a flag post.

What do you reckon?