Refereeing decisions

[Highlander35]

There doesn't need to be any Law Changes

1) Any team worth their salt will have their coach spend a little bit of time on it, and this will continue right up to the RWC

2) It's never going to work against teams like NZ. The intelligence and leadership of players like A & B Smith, Read, Perenara, Coles etc. would quickly respond after it became clear it was the dominant strategy.

3) If it does become a somewhat regular strategy for some teams, issuing clear clarifications on some scrappy instances, the big two of which seem to be: Is a tackler who rolled away but got trapped by the arriving players considered a ruck? And, is grabbing onto a defender who is not engaging at a breakdown creating a ruck, or tackling off the ball?

It was immensely satisfying hearing the boos from the Twickenham crowd, who clearly did not know their Laws at all.

As an aside, I can't believe that Mike Adamson struggles to get regular Pro12 games when John Lacey is a regular at International level. There was just no consistency whatsoever, and it wasn't even in a "let the game flow" way that allows superior teams to flourish. Lucky we were good enough to not let the game come down to his lottery based decision making.

 

[Dan54]

The Chiefs used it against the Waratahs last year. Palu figured they should just pick and go and the team followed suit. Ended up being the Waratahs best game of the season.

Yep Wayne Smith has said the Chiefs had it in a game plan a while ago, and as he said it not very hard to counter, just need to use a little bit of brain to do it! That said not favourite tactic I have seen, but I suspect if Eddie's boys had used their brains a little quicker we wouldn't of heard one word!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Given the length of time now permitted before a huddle of 3 or more players is called a maul, which has the (presumably intended) consequence of requiring the defenders to roll away when the tackle (ahem) collapses there is no off side line at the ensuing collapsed tackle.
Correct?

 

[yourmatesam]

Given the length of time now permitted before a huddle of 3 or more players is called a maul, which has the (presumably intended) consequence of requiring the defenders to roll away when the tackle (ahem) collapses there is no off side line at the ensuing collapsed tackle.
Correct?

Good point mate, World Rugby will need to clarify that one for sure!

The flipside of that is that (from a pure lawbook perspective) there are actually a lot more mauls in a game than are ever adjudicated as such.

The laws are just different shades of grey!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Good point mate, World Rugby will need to clarify that one for sure!

The flipside of that is that (from a pure lawbook perspective) there are actually a lot more mauls in a game than are ever adjudicated as such.

The laws are just different shades of grey!

They brought in this tackle/maul interpretation last year(?): I don't like it because a "collapsed tackle" still obliges the tackler to roll away when he may not be able to do so because, in fact, a maul has collapsed on top of him.
The only immutable law of rugby is the law of unintended consequences.

 

[yourmatesam]

They brought in this tackle/maul interpretation last year(?): I don't like it because a "collapsed tackle" still obliges the tackler to roll away when he may not be able to do so because, in fact, a maul has collapsed on top of him.

It's been a refereeing technique/game management strategy for some time now, the general term is to "let it breath" and create a clear picture about what the maul is. Generally this is to promote the flow of the game, otherwise every man and his dog is looking to kill the maul at every chance.

Tacklers are well aware that they need to allow the ball to be playable. The instances of players not being able to roll away are generally rare. The instances of players not rolling away on the other hand...

The only immutable law of rugby is the law of unintended consequences.

And there are plenty of them...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Tacklers are well aware that they need to allow the ball to be playable. The instances of players not being able to roll away are generally rare. The instances of players not rolling away on the other hand.

Perhaps they are rare - but Pocock got pinged for one in EOYT that he could not possibly have got away from.
IMO, anything that stops a maul is to be encouraged but the present interpretation rewards mauls.

 

[Braveheart81]

With Italy's tactics against England now causing much debate on those laws, how would World Rugby address them if they wanted to make it illegal?

If you created an offside line when a tackle was made it would mean that any linebreak would be very easy to score off as players running back to make a cover tackle would be offside.

I haven't thought about this much yet but it seems like it isn't a simple thing to outlaw.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

BH it would probably take a new definition of the tackle/ruck to cause a change. There would no doubt be unintended consequences to any alteration, but for instance, there seems to be some contradiction atm about which players are actively part of a ruck. It is apparently legit, at least is refereed this way, that a player standing within a 1 or 2 metre distance of a ruck is part of the ruck and is fair game to be cleaned out by the opposition. If that was formalised, so that a ruck is formed when an opposition player is within a nominated distance of the tackled player, whether or not there is any other player in contact, then it would cause a player staying or running to the offensive side to be off side where the defense simply lines up next to or in front of the tackled player.

That would have a downside that recognises that players not bound to the ruck are fair game to be cleaned out, which I think is a blight on the game atm, but it is what happens now in practice.

 

[Braveheart81]

So let's have at it from all the resident laws aficionados.

How do you make what Italy did illegal without adversely impacting other areas of the game. Clearly multiple laws can be rewritten but the simplest (or indeed any workable) response would be ideal.

I'm not sure how it can be achieved.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Think coaches will make the tactic fairly redundant soon enough without any law changes. We've already seen that happen down here in Super Rugby.

Shock moves like Pocock against Ireland might still work but surely nobody will go into a game without some plans to counter widespread use

 

[Strewthcobber]

And if there is a player standing between the half and five eigth, the latter should immediately run straight into him.

He may not be offside, but he can't play the ball and he's not entitled to prevent anyone else from playing the ball.

Make him get in the way. It's obstruction.

 

[Highlander35]

So Strewth, I think you're citing Law 10.1 (d), which states:

Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Most of this time this one gets pinged after a kick, when a player deliberately changes his angle to prevent an opposition chaser from contesting for the ball.

I can't find a definition of play the ball, playing the ball or played the ball in the laws, please point me to it if it's there.

But I would have thought, that for running into an onside player to be obstruction, both a) that the pass would have already have to been made (as a player couldn't play the ball at all if the scrum half is still in possession) and b) the opposition player didn't make a legitimate attempt at an interception.

 

[cyclopath]

So let's have at it from all the resident laws officiandos.

How do you make what Italy did illegal without adversely impacting other areas of the game. Clearly multiple laws can be rewritten but the simplest (or indeed any workable) response would be ideal.

I'm not sure how it can be achieved.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Is that when an aficionado gets Nandos delivered to the office?

 

[yourmatesam]

Is that when an aficionado gets Nandos delivered to the office?

There, they're, their. Don't be so pacific.

 

[cyclopath]

There, they're, their. Don't be so pacific.

I'm more over-Bering.

 

[Strewthcobber]

So Strewth, I think you're citing Law 10.1 (d), which states:

Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Most of this time this one gets pinged after a kick, when a player deliberately changes his angle to prevent an opposition chaser from contesting for the ball.

I can't find a definition of play the ball, playing the ball or played the ball in the laws, please point me to it if it's there.

But I would have thought, that for running into an onside player to be obstruction, both a) that the pass would have already have to been made (as a player couldn't play the ball at all if the scrum half is still in possession) and b) the opposition player didn't make a legitimate attempt at an interception.

Half doesn't pick up the ball. Flyhalf runs towards the ball to play it, but opposition is in the way

 

[Highlander35]

Half doesn't pick up the ball. Flyhalf runs towards the ball to play it, but opposition is in the way

Ok. Makes sense to the letter of the law.

Much like halfbacks deliberately running into or throwing the ball into retreating players, I don't see the refs paying it without specific direction from World Rugby.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I find this to be fairly interesting interpretation from World Rugby

Poite, therefore, would have clarified the situation for himself before the game and it transpires that World Rugby have informed referees that the attacking team cannot form a ruck by grabbing an opposition player.

Poite was simply acting exactly how referees have been told to handle this situation and it’s now clear that grabbing an opposition player does not constitute the formation of a ruck.
The defending team must actively look to engage for that to happen.

http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-on...d-owens-3261610-Feb2017/?utm_source=shortlink

 

[Braveheart81]

Is that when an aficionado gets Nandos delivered to the office?

Me fail English? That's unpossible.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk