Refereeing decisions

[yourmatesam]

I'm more over-Bering.

I new you wood say that.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

Unintended consequence: a player shadowing a ball carrier running between the ball carrier and his support

 

[MonkeyBoy]

A series of pick and goes would've nullified the tactic, rugby is meant to be a cerebral game. Eddie should let his players think for themselves and it wouldn't have been an issue. Any law change would create different opportunities and problems, the simplest answer is be smarter and play on.

 

[yourmatesam]

A series of pick and goes would've nullified the tactic, rugby is meant to be a cerebral game. Eddie should let his players think for themselves and it wouldn't have been an issue. Any law change would create different opportunities and problems, the simplest answer is be smarter and play on.

I can't believe that wasn't the message from the coaches box in that match! Surely as an International Level coach, you're across those things and you have spoken to your team about them. If not, get the message out there to nullify the tactic. A few strong linebreaks would have resolved that for the Poms.

 

[Dan54]

Very interested to hear Gus Gardiner explaining refs decisions on high shots last night on rugby show. Thought it was very well explained and made a lot of sense to me, although I suspect if your team was the one penalised etc you will still think the refs were wrong!

 

[Brumby Runner]

Careful Dan, it could well be a Savea or other Canes' player in the firing line next week.

 

[Dan54]

Careful Dan, it could well be a Savea or other Canes' player in the firing line next week.

Lol could well be Brumby, I not sure I still like how the law is now ruled on, but I do like the fact that I understand it (well a little better anyway )

 

[dru]

Not a ref decission, but this seems the place for a rule query. How does the clock work for yellow cards?

OK, that sounds silly, but what about "extra time". If the game continues after 40mins, say to 45 mins. The game clock stopped at 40 (kind of) but I presume the yellow card is counting down during that extra 5 min.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not a ref decission, but this seems the place for a rule query. How does the clock work for yellow cards?

OK, that sounds silly, but what about "extra time". If the game continues after 40mins, say to 45 mins. The game clock stopped at 40 (kind of) but I presume the yellow card is counting down during that extra 5 min.

You can only rejoin the game during a break in play so it is difficult to get back on after 80 minutes.

I am not sure whether you can come back on if there are scrum resets after 80 minutes or a penalty kick goes into touch and then there is a break in play before the lineout.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Not a ref decission, but this seems the place for a rule query. How does the clock work for yellow cards?

OK, that sounds silly, but what about "extra time". If the game continues after 40mins, say to 45 mins. The game clock stopped at 40 (kind of) but I presume the yellow card is counting down during that extra 5 min.

Short answer is it's based on game time, so if your carded at 36mins and 5 mins of extra time is played (no stoppage to end the half) you should be starting the second half.

It's not always that simple though as you're only allowed back on at a stoppage so you may be off for much longer than 10 depending on the game.

Long thread on the Rugby refs forum going through lots of the scenarios here

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-19359.html

 

[Strewthcobber]

You can only rejoin the game during a break in play so it is difficult to get back on after 80 minutes.

I am not sure whether you can come back on if there are scrum resets after 80 minutes or a penalty kick goes into touch and then there is a break in play before the lineout.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You should be allowed back on at any stoppage where the ref would allow a substitution, so quick lineouts - no. Lineouts - maybe. Scrums - probably.

The team with the ball in all of these cases is going to get more leeway.

 

[Hawko]

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.

I'd HATE to see that implimented. Clean-outs on players off the ruck is, IMO, blatant foul play and should be carded.

 

[Hawko]

In the Waratahs game last night the referee seemed to decide that it was illegal to attempt to sack the lineout as the maul was forming. To my eye, there goes one of the few effective defences to a lineout maul 5 metres out. Did anyone else see it the same way? What was going on there?

 

[mst]

In the Waratahs game last night the referee seemed to decide that it was illegal to attempt to sack the lineout as the maul was forming. To my eye, there goes one of the few effective defences to a lineout maul 5 metres out. Did anyone else see it the same way? What was going on there?

Sacking is fine. The issue was who they were sacking. Going anywhere near the lifters as they did repeatedly will always attract the ref's attention.

 

[dru]

Sacking is fine. The issue was who they were sacking. Going anywhere near the lifters as they did repeatedly will always attract the ref's attention.

Seemed to me that the lifter was approached after the jumper was on the ground.

 

[dru]

Short answer is it's based on game time, so if your carded at 36mins and 5 mins of extra time is played (no stoppage to end the half) you should be starting the second half.

It's not always that simple though as you're only allowed back on at a stoppage so you may be off for much longer than 10 depending on the game.

Long thread on the Rugby refs forum going through lots of the scenarios here

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-19359.html

Thanks Stewth.

 

[mst]

Seemed to me that the lifter was approached after the jumper was on the ground.

The explanation he provided was that the jumper was not yet grounded and I believe you are supposed to sack the bloke with the ball. Sacking or tackling the blokes around him that don't have the ball general leads to a penalty for collapsing / side entry / tackle with out the ball etc.

 

[dru]

The explanation he provided was that the jumper was not yet grounded and I believe you are supposed to sack the bloke with the ball. Sacking or tackling the blokes around him that don't have the ball general leads to a penalty for collapsing / side entry / tackle with out the ball etc.

MST, reffing is not my strength. But I would have thought that they attacked the lifter (after the jumper was on the ground) because the lifters were now blockers and you couldnt get to the ball.

There were also timing issues, where the sack was allowed when I thought it was a mall, but not at other times.

Happy to be shown my knowledge is lacking, but it just adds to the confusion that non-tragics must feel.

For me, those calls were confusing and lacked consistency. At best. (Didnt all work one way though).

 

[mst]

I am certainty not claiming any expertise, I am working primarily off what I believe the referee told Hooper.

The issue was taking out a lifter on each occasion before the maul was formed.

I believe you need to sack the maul immediately, but to do so you can only sack the jumper once he lands and if he has the ball.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Piece on 1news (NZ) tonight trying to explain the reckless/ dangerous tackle in the air interpretation, apparently if the hips of the jumping or higher jumping player get above the shoulders of the non- or lower jumping player the latter will be held accountable for how the former lands. Brief interview with Rennie saying all coaches were made aware of this late last year.