Refereeing decisions

[yourmatesam]

So that puts paid to any thought of accountability being considered.

Cue howls from the stands for this...

Referees are held accountable. The Referee coaches tear their games to pieces in minute detail after reviewing their game in slow motion, they know when they've fucked up, they're not stupid. Their aim is to make sure the game is played in a safe, fun and fair fashion.

Their peers will also rip into them when they've stuffed something up. I'd be willing to bet that Angus Gardner is still copping it from refs about the Aaron Smith "oh yeah, you're right" moment last year.

Referees will make mistakes, they're only human. Just like players. Dropping them doesn't necessarily result in improvement. The focus should be on improving that area of their game and learning from the mistake.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

So that puts paid to any thought of accountability being considered.

I am happy to confirm that super rugby appointments are done a number of weeks in advance for logistical reasons. However changes are made when there are poor performances particularly repeat poor performances.

 

[Rugby Central]

Need a tap-kick and two players binding on either side of the ball carrier to create a flying wedge according to the laws.

Don't think there's any law against pre-binding. As long as the ball carrier is available to be tackled and then everyone follows the laws around releasing players at tackles, rucks etc then I don't thnk there's a particular issue with it.

That's not to say it couldn't be penalised, it would have to be clearly dangerous for it to be so, and most of the time it isn't.

Thanks Strewth,

I guess the Kiwis again know how to play just inside the laws, making the rest of us look silly

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Thanks Strewth,

I guess the Kiwis again know how to play just inside the laws, making the rest of us look silly

It's a latch or hammer and legal unless the latch/hammer goes to deck with the tackled player and seals the ball off preventing the contest

 

[boyo]

I was wondering if I could ask the learned scholars of Gaggerland a question on a point of (rugby) law.

In watching the Brumbies vs Highlanders match I noticed that often when a NZ forward was the first receiver a second forward would bind on before the contact. This meant two bound players would run into the tackler.

It happened with such frequency that I'm wondering if this is no longer an illegal play.

Is this now legal as it's almost the very definition of the flying wedge? Having 2 players charge into 1 is surely considered dangerous play.

Some RSA teams do it with monotonous regularity.

 

[Scoey]

One thing that came out of the Reds v Tahs game that has annoyed me for ages is the penalties for not releasing the ball. Most players these days get their hands on or near the ball and then just stay there until they get a penalty awarded not really making a big effort to actually retrieve the ball.
Smith would get his hands on the ball and then fucking work until he came away with it. A couple of times Hooper got in a strong position and on the ball but didnt look to be genuinely trying to win the ball, just the penalty. It's playing to the laws but it doesn't make it good.

I knows it's completely subjective but I'd prefer to see the refs not penalise if the ball is there to win but the player just doesn't pick it up. Joubert used to do this. Or maybe the penalty should be just half arm? The reward for it should be just possession. Not possession and territory.

Currently the reward is greater for not turning over the ball than is for actually turning the thing over. I know the flip side is that if you reduce the consequence for not releasing players may be more inclined just to hold on but there are other penalties for deliberately cynical play if deemed as such.

 

[Dan54]

I know what you are saying Scoey, I also dislike the penalties for not releasing the ball, but in another situation where they not given, and that is where I think too many players are getting away with being tackled and getting up when released, once your knee touches ground with tackler holding you I thought you were meant to release the ball, but it doesn't seem to be enforced too much, and then players that lie on ground for a bout 5 seconds then pass??

 

[Bullrush]

^^This has been a bug-bear of mine for the last few years. Guys getting up and running without letting go of the ball should be penalised.

The off-side line seems to be more of a guideline than a law this year too

 

[Brumby Runner]

And in similar vein, those who keep crawling or rolling along the ground after being tackled. Just meant to disrupt the set defense of the other side. Hit them with full arm penalties until they get the lesson.

 

[mst]

^^ôr pop back up and dive forward......

I can't work out why its all so hard for refs. once the player is tackled if his first action is not to release but roll, crawl or pop up then its a penalty.

As for Scoeys point above, unless the player over the ball is trying to pull upwards or back to get it out it shouldn't be rewarded. The amount of time players are just trapping the ball and making no effort to actually pull it out or back and wining a penalty for making no effort is ridiculous.

 

[Braveheart81]

As for Scoeys point above, unless the player over the ball is trying to pull upwards or back to get it out it shouldn't be rewarded. The amount of time players are just trapping the ball and making no effort to actually pull it out or back and wining a penalty for making no effort is ridiculous.

They would need to change the law then.

The penalty is for failing to release. There isn't any onus on the player on their feet to be trying their hardest to rip it out.

I certainly get the consternation with the way it plays out. Certainly lots of players only attempt to get in a strong position on the ball to win the penalty, rather than trying their hardest to wrestle it off the offending player. If you're trying to rip it out backwards, there's a greater risk of being cleaned out without the ball.

By the same token, if it is considered that getting the penalty is a bigger advantage than stealing the ball, players could release when they know they are beaten and are going to get penalised if they don't and that way the player on the ball will steal it because there will be nothing keeping them locked in that position and they will be easy to clear out (albeit with the stolen ball).

As with most of these things, I think the player offending is the one that needs to change their actions to make a difference. Not rewarding the player on the ball but not trying their hardest to rip it out gives leeway to allow the player on the ground not to release.

 

[mst]

I am not sure the rule would need changing. If the opposing player is merely positioned over the ball but trapping the ball by making no attempt to pilfer they they are in effect deliberately preventing a player relating the ball and preventing the ball being played?

If the player on the ground disconnectd his grip / contact ( from hands) of the ball while on the ground has he not released the ball as required? Where then is the penalty and how can a referee determine if the ball was not released if there is no action to indicate it's being held on to or if the ball has been trapped preventing a release?

The reality is unless there appears to be some effort by the opposing player to pull the ball bsck or upwards it how can a referee determine there was no release without guessing?

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think you really get that situation where the defender is on their feet and on the ball and they are holding the ball and stay in that position despite a cleanout.

The reason they can maintain that position despite the cleanout is that they are holding onto something.

Often that is the player on the ground and referees are generally wary (although there are mistakes) that sometime a player is awarded a penalty even though they were never on the ball.

I think it would be far harder for a referee to judge that the player on their feet is in fact not trying to steal the ball and the tackled player has released the ball and done everything legally.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I think it would be far harder for a referee to judge that the player on their feet is in fact not trying to steal the ball and the tackled player has released the ball and done everything legally.

Which leads us to the least penalised law in the book......

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.




Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

I don't think you really get that situation where the defender is on their feet and on the ball and they are holding the ball and stay in that position despite a cleanout.

The reason they can maintain that position despite the cleanout is that they are holding onto something.

Often that is the player on the ground and referees are generally wary (although there are mistakes) that sometime a player is awarded a penalty even though they were never on the ball.

I think it would be far harder for a referee to judge that the player on their feet is in fact not trying to steal the ball and the tackled player has released the ball and done everything legally.

15.5 (b)
After a tackle any players on their feet may attempt to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession.

Based on above if defender is on their feet and on the ball and they are holding the ball and stay in that position despite a cleanout are they are they actully trying to gain possession by taking the ball from the ball carrier’s possession by holding it on the ground?

If he is deemed to be, as your interpritaion, holding on to the ball then this should apply:

15.5 (e)
Any player who gains possession of the ball at the tackle must play the ball immediately by moving away or passing or kicking the ball.

So in a situation where the defender is on their feet and on the ball and they are holding the ball and stay in that position despite a cleanout, they must then play the ball immediately by moving away or passing or kicking the ball.

 

[yourmatesam]

This is all covered in the GMG, referees should be rewarding positive play and looking for a player to actively take possession of the ball.

 

[mst]

This is all covered in the GMG, referees should be rewarding positive play and looking for a player to actively take possession of the ball.

Thanks yourmatesam. From the GMG:

Post-Tackle
• ‘Driving out’ at the tackle must be near the ball – ie. 1 metre width either side of the ball. Players must not interfere with players on the fringes or past the ball who are not involved in the tackle/ruck.

• Any player on their feet who has their hands on the ball immediately after a tackle and before a ruck
forms (‘jackal’) is allowed to keep contesting for the ball even if a ruck forms around them. No other
arriving player at this point may play the ball with their hands.

• These ‘jackal’ players have one shot at the ball. If such a player is driven off the ball by the opposition
then their opportunity to play the ball with their hands has ceased.

• To earn a PK for ‘holding on’, arriving ‘jackal’ players must:

o Be in a position of strength (on feet, with no hands or elbows past the ball on the ground), and​

o Attempt to lift ball up, and​

o Survive the cleanout.​

​

​

Appers I do understand!

​

​

 

[Brumby Runner]

Thanks yourmatesam. From the GMG:

Post-Tackle
• ‘Driving out’ at the tackle must be near the ball – ie. 1 metre width either side of the ball. Players must not interfere with players on the fringes or past the ball who are not involved in the tackle/ruck.

• Any player on their feet who has their hands on the ball immediately after a tackle and before a ruck
forms (‘jackal’) is allowed to keep contesting for the ball even if a ruck forms around them. No other
arriving player at this point may play the ball with their hands.

• These ‘jackal’ players have one shot at the ball. If such a player is driven off the ball by the opposition
then their opportunity to play the ball with their hands has ceased.

• To earn a PK for ‘holding on’, arriving ‘jackal’ players must:

o Be in a position of strength (on feet, with no hands or elbows past the ball on the ground), and​

o Attempt to lift ball up, and​

o Survive the cleanout.​

​

​

Appers I do understand!

​

​

Looks like you have the law book on your side of the argument mst, but it would still be a matter for the referee to form an opinion, so it could, and will, go any which way.

I am also interested in the direction concerning cleaning out players on the fringe of rucks. While there is a guide of 1m from the width of the ruck, (which I think is excessive - should be limited to players actually bound imo) it seems to be quite explicit that no-one past the ball should be cleaned out. How many times do we see this particular action occur in almost every game, but go unpunished?

 

[yourmatesam]

How many times do we see this particular action occur in almost every game, but go unpunished?

And this is one of the greatest and most frustrating things about Rugby Union. There are plenty of infringements that a referee can pull up at any phase of the game.

The poor old referee needs to think about material effect at every facet of the game and determine if they need to blow a penalty there or can they attempt to manage this in some fashion.

If the players stopped cheating pushing the limits of the law, the referee's job would be much easier.

 

[Norfolk & Chance]

Simply go back to the law to clean up the ruck, I'm not quoting word for word but the following should happen at a tackle. (remember rugby is designed to be a contest for the ball, lineout, scrum, ruck etc)
1. Tackler immediately release and move away
2. Tackled immediately release or pass and move away
3. any player on their feet can contest the ball as long as they come from behind the ball.

So the attacking team should be there to get the ball, if they don't get there and the attacking team and defending team arrive at the same time, they come together and have a contest over the ball. Who ever wins that contest wins the ball, just like a scrum. (I know stating the obviously)

You just need to go back to points 1 and 2, did 1 happen penalty or play on, did 2 happen penalty or play on. With the jackal, i would say 99% of the time 1 hasn't happened, so penalty. If 1 happened did 2 happen, in 99% of occasions no, so penalty.

Imagine the speed of the game if you actually played it by the law.