Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Wales No 8 joining the maul following a line out before the line out had ended.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Every GAGR's favourite AB prop got sin-binned this morning for tackling the Scots 9 before he picked the ball up but IMO after he'd touched it. What's the ruling on putting a hand on the ball but not actually picking it up? Should be fair game IMO as they get enough protection as it is. I'd class it as essentially the same as a hooker faking a lineout throw or a 9 faking a scrum feed (or are they allowed to do that, too?).
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
It's one I think the convention should be changed on: hands on ball should be open for business, and any adjustments in the ruck should be made by the foot.
Having said that, the penalty was fully correct under the current interpretations, and the yellow card fully deserved given the position on the field and the consistent infringments.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Having said that, the penalty was fully correct under the current interpretations, and the yellow card fully deserved given the position on the field and the consistent infringments.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^^^^^^^^^^ was always fair game back in my day (early '80's) but I do recall some rats I mean 9's milking penalties by distracting the ref, touching the ball & taking their hand off it in time for the ref to see them getting taken out by an otherwise legit 7. Used to piss me off no end, if they changed it (as I assume they did, Sir today seemed to have a pretty decent handle on things) I'd think it was to stop that but has had the possibly unintended consequence of actually giving the 9 more protection than before. Kinda undermnes the contest for possession, IMO, but if them's the rules then, yes, Crockett had to go.
Halfback can have hands on for as long as they want, as long as they don't pick the ball up and carry it clear of the ruck.
I don't mind the rule, as it protects halfbacks and ensures a more open game. A halfback who has to dig for the ball and extract it is toast if you went back to the 'hands on' rule.
.
I don't mind the rule, as it protects halfbacks and ensures a more open game. A halfback who has to dig for the ball and extract it is toast if you went back to the 'hands on' rule.
.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^^^^^^^^^ I'm with H35 & tradition on this one: dig for it with your foot all you like (incl giving the oppo flanker holding onto it a wee "fuck off" nudge) but once you put a hand on it it's live & you're liable to be smashed. Possession should always be contestable.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Current game management guidelines
Ball out and collapsed ruck
• The ball is only out of a ruck (or scrum) when it is totally exposed or it is clear of bodies.
• If the ball is being dug out (after being won) or is under the feet of players at the back of the ruck, the scrum-half cannot be touched until the ball is clearly out of the ruck. The benefit of any doubt must go to the scrum-half.
• Players cannot step through or over the middle of a collapsed ruck before the ball is cleared or the ball is completely clear of bodies. These players are unbound and in front of the last feet and are therefore offside.
• Zero tolerance on defending players at the ruck who target the scrum-half before he has the ball, even if the ball is out of the ruck. Any onside player must play the ball and not the man.
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Ball out and collapsed ruck
• The ball is only out of a ruck (or scrum) when it is totally exposed or it is clear of bodies.
• If the ball is being dug out (after being won) or is under the feet of players at the back of the ruck, the scrum-half cannot be touched until the ball is clearly out of the ruck. The benefit of any doubt must go to the scrum-half.
• Players cannot step through or over the middle of a collapsed ruck before the ball is cleared or the ball is completely clear of bodies. These players are unbound and in front of the last feet and are therefore offside.
• Zero tolerance on defending players at the ruck who target the scrum-half before he has the ball, even if the ball is out of the ruck. Any onside player must play the ball and not the man.
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I don't think he was offside when he was obstructed - ie he had got behind the hindmost foot of the previous ruck
It's pretty line ball, but I don't think he has got back onside (i.e. behind the last feet of the previous ruck) when he starts becoming involved with the play. Last feet is about 2m out from the try line. Robshaw is 5m out form the try line when he angles his run towards Koroibete and Moore to try and become involved in the play. I think he is probably onside by the time the actual obstruction happens but is certainly offside prior to that and attempts to get involved in the play which he isn't allowed to do.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
I think the biggest issue on the weekend is the difference in how technology is being used. We see in the Aus game tries being disallowed on technical but correct calls where in the Scotland game we see a probable try prevented after the ref misses illegal play with then no sanction
Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Not quite sure where to put this, but we're getting a whole new law book on January 1
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/299688
https://www.worldrugby.org/news/299688
Sceptical of that last line - as always it will be the unintended consequences that make all the difference
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Angles are everything!
Watching Benetton vs Scarletts? on BeIN, classic tip tackle by the Benetton 6. The player landed on his shoulder and head pretty much simultaneously but clearly hit his head very heavily. TMO spent a lot of time convincing ref that it was yellow because shoulder hit the ground first. Ref then had one last look and pulled out his red card. I pretty much agreed with that decision - if you do a tip tackle and the shoulder hits the ground first but there is heavy contact on the head then I think red is appropriate. The whole point of the law is to prevent serious head injuries.
Watching Benetton vs Scarletts? on BeIN, classic tip tackle by the Benetton 6. The player landed on his shoulder and head pretty much simultaneously but clearly hit his head very heavily. TMO spent a lot of time convincing ref that it was yellow because shoulder hit the ground first. Ref then had one last look and pulled out his red card. I pretty much agreed with that decision - if you do a tip tackle and the shoulder hits the ground first but there is heavy contact on the head then I think red is appropriate. The whole point of the law is to prevent serious head injuries.
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
what is worse is that the directive is head or shoulder contact or the tacklee using his own arm to prevent = RC "go home TMO you're drunk"
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Watched the Leinster/Munster game this morning and have to say although I try to not ever make comments on reffing it was a case of superb refereeing by Nigel Owens I thought. He reffed the game as it should be, no overuse of YC but looked at everything I thought he should and mad excellent decisions. Would be hard pressed to find a better ref at moment I thought, it was the case of a very good ref having a very good game!
I'd say he's the best going around right now.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
Kerevi no try against the brumbies, utter howler.
Trying to somehow justify if by stating the obvious that after the ref fucked up he couldn’t fix it (blowing the whistle before kerevi dotted down and/or holding his arm out like a plonker and miming knock on advantage to no one but not verbalising) winds me up.
After he saw it on the big screen 15 time he could and should have at least a given the reds the feed in the scrum.
Trying to somehow justify if by stating the obvious that after the ref fucked up he couldn’t fix it (blowing the whistle before kerevi dotted down and/or holding his arm out like a plonker and miming knock on advantage to no one but not verbalising) winds me up.
After he saw it on the big screen 15 time he could and should have at least a given the reds the feed in the scrum.
Why? Pocock knocked it backwards.
I know it sucks, but once he blew the whistle (before Kerevi put it down), he can't. That's how it works.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
Because he saw he had made an error on calling a knock on. How can he give the brumbies the feed after seeing the footage??
Edit: he should’ve said sorry guys just saw that. Reds feed
Yeah, I'm not sure the laws include a sympathy scrum feed clause.