M
Muttonbird
Guest
I thought the vibe was that the tackler should play the man, not the ball. Imagine the spectacle if defenders went for the ball punch 24/7.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Not wishing to start a Cooper-bash, but two seasons ago when he was getting a lot of flack for his tackling, he often went for a ball strip leaving one of his teammates to bring the player down. Worked occasionally, but it proved to have a low success rate.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I don't think a "rip" is defined. All that matters is that if the ball is lost forward in the tackle, but the tackler clearly caused it to go forward. Play on.
JK said he'd get this clarified in the middle of a rant about how they've been done over 3 weeks in a row now. He'll just be forwarded to the IRB website where this was clarified years ago. I don't know what it is with the Blues and their terrible attitude, there is just no sense of responsibility from their captains/coaches some weeks. Hence my signature.
JK said he'd get this clarified in the middle of a rant about how they've been done over 3 weeks in a row now. He'll just be forwarded to the IRB website where this was clarified years ago. I don't know what it is with the Blues and their terrible attitude, there is just no sense of responsibility from their captains/coaches some weeks. Hence my signature.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Oh right...so in one breath you say that a 'rip' hasn't been defined and in the next, you say the IRB website clarified this years ago?!
Terrible call - in damn near every other instance here a player loses the ball in contact, it's called a knock-on. Sir JK has every right to feel hard done-by on that call.
IMO - a 'rip' is where the tackler actually targets the ball. As @Hawko said, this was something that QC (Quade Cooper) used do a lot......when it worked, I don't ever remember it not being called a knock-on.
Up the Blues! (I don't care if I'm biased about this one....I'm RIGHT!! LOL)
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
For better or worse the IRB doesn't define every word of their publications regarding law, it's generally at the refs discretion. This has been clarified though, in an obvious case of the ball ripped by the defender a knock on should not be called against the attacker. That's generally the picture we've been looking at here.
Maybe the reason QC (Quade Cooper) stopped was because he got the memo
Maybe the reason QC (Quade Cooper) stopped was because he got the memo
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
For better or worse the IRB doesn't define every word of their publications regarding law, it's generally at the refs discretion. This has been clarified though, in an obvious case of the ball ripped by the defender a knock on should not be called against the attacker. That's generally the picture we've been looking at here.
Maybe the reason QC (Quade Cooper) stopped was because he got the memo
Haha....maybe
Or maybe one of his coaches or one of his loosies told him to stop playing around with the opposition and just fkn hit him!
Again - I think a 'rip' is a pre-determined action a defender takes to try and get possession and purposefully targets the ball.
Otherwise, I think it's the ball carrier's responsibility to look after the ball.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
For better or worse the IRB doesn't define every word of their publications regarding law, it's generally at the refs discretion. This has been clarified though, in an obvious case of the ball ripped by the defender a knock on should not be called against the attacker. That's generally the picture we've been looking at here.
Maybe the reason QC (Quade Cooper) stopped was because he got the memo
Yeah, nah
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
From the Super Rugby website http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/referee-update-lyndon-bray/
Lyndon Bray's expination of some situations discussed in this thread including stating the rip in the Lions Blues game should have been no try
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
Lyndon Bray's expination of some situations discussed in this thread including stating the rip in the Lions Blues game should have been no try
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
So what Bray's really saying is the Blues got dudded. Twice. And people wonder why us kiwis don't trust sethfricken TMOs. Hopefully karma takes care of the Bulls & Lions & sees to it that Blues get a coupla square-ups (and the Crusaders get different, competant TMOs when they go west).
That was the only leg I got wrong in my multi bet. Would have made almost $100 if the Blues had won.
suckerforred
Chilla Wilson (44)
I like the comments that Lyndon Bray has made here. I understand the whole 'double movement' thing now and what it should be. If the Ref's call it that way in the future is entirely another matter....
One thing about Clip 6 - Yes the correct call was made re the disallowed try, but surely since there was clear obstruction then there should have been a penalty to black? Jaco specifically asks about interference but of the black defender but this seems to be forgotten in trying to determine if the ball was grounded.
Don't worry WOB I think that Aussies are in the same boat with the TMO calls.
One thing about Clip 6 - Yes the correct call was made re the disallowed try, but surely since there was clear obstruction then there should have been a penalty to black? Jaco specifically asks about interference but of the black defender but this seems to be forgotten in trying to determine if the ball was grounded.
Don't worry WOB I think that Aussies are in the same boat with the TMO calls.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Super Rugby - The comp where you can knock the ball on without actually knocking it on!
Only joking, the important thing is they've given all refs a guide from here on in.
Only joking, the important thing is they've given all refs a guide from here on in.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Man this is pissing me off....just reading Lyndon Bray, you really have to wonder how the fuck the TMO gets it so wrong.
Even the SA commentators in both the 'tries' against the Blues were calling double-movement and knock-on.
Lyndon Bray:
You could take that try, put in a fuckn text book under 'Double Movement' with a caption:
'Very good example of where a player quite clearly moves his body in order to be able to place the ball'
F.M.L
Even the SA commentators in both the 'tries' against the Blues were calling double-movement and knock-on.
Lyndon Bray:
You could take that try, put in a fuckn text book under 'Double Movement' with a caption:
'Very good example of where a player quite clearly moves his body in order to be able to place the ball'
F.M.L
EatSleepDrinkRuck
Larry Dwyer (12)
M
Muttonbird
Guest
Clip 2. I started a great thread somewhere around here asking, is the TMO no longer required? The gist of it was complaining about the change in decision-making authority between the ref and the TMO when the refs could use the big screen. Clip 2 is an example of this change. The TMO has clearly ceded authority to the ref when the ref starts leading his answers and pressuring him into a decision. Ref doesn't look at the screen. TMO asks him about the double movement, but doesn't tell him, which is the way it should be.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Super Rugby referees panel set for change
IAN RANSOMMar 21, 2014. updated: 05:42pm
CONTROVERSIAL CALL: South African referee Stuart Berry awarded a controversial try to Lions fullback Coenie van Wyk in their victory over the Blues. Sanzar later admitted it was a mistake. - Getty Images
Advertisement
Super Rugby governing body SANZAR will conduct a purge of the competition's referees in the wake of a series of controversial blunders by match officials in the opening rounds of the season.
Lyndon Bray, SANZAR's referees co-ordinator, said the 18-member team of referees was set for change.
"Within the next week or two we will be making decisions that will keep our team extremely accountable," Bray said in comments published by The Australian newspaper on Friday.
"There is a lot of pain to go for referees ... The fact is, they're either going to get dropped out of the team, which is a significant consequence obviously, or suffering from the point of view of number and quality of appointments.
"It will be a strong statement in terms of those who are currently refereeing at the top of our team and those that are clearly moving in that direction and those that aren't."
The standard of officiating came under heavy scrutiny last weekend, with coaches from several franchises fuming after contentious decisions.
Bray was moved to clarify a number of them this week, including a controversial try awarded by South African referee Stuart Berry to Lions fullback Coenie van Wyk during the Johannesburg-based team's 39-36 win at home to the Auckland Blues.
With help from South African television match official Johan Greeff, Berry awarded the try despite video footage showing Van Wyk's team mate Deon van Rensburg had lost the ball forward in a tackle on the try-line.
Queensland Reds coach Richard Graham said he would contact Bray after some "bewildering" decisions in his team's 35-20 loss against the Sharks in Durban, while New South Wales Waratahs coach Michael Cheika also grumbled about scrum penalties in his team's loss to the ACT Brumbies.
"I would always dispute the argument that there is no accountability or action," Bray said.
"There is. I would only say watch this space at the moment because we're 80 percent through the process of making some of those decisions."
Reuters
IAN RANSOMMar 21, 2014. updated: 05:42pm
CONTROVERSIAL CALL: South African referee Stuart Berry awarded a controversial try to Lions fullback Coenie van Wyk in their victory over the Blues. Sanzar later admitted it was a mistake. - Getty Images
Advertisement
Super Rugby governing body SANZAR will conduct a purge of the competition's referees in the wake of a series of controversial blunders by match officials in the opening rounds of the season.
Lyndon Bray, SANZAR's referees co-ordinator, said the 18-member team of referees was set for change.
"Within the next week or two we will be making decisions that will keep our team extremely accountable," Bray said in comments published by The Australian newspaper on Friday.
"There is a lot of pain to go for referees ... The fact is, they're either going to get dropped out of the team, which is a significant consequence obviously, or suffering from the point of view of number and quality of appointments.
"It will be a strong statement in terms of those who are currently refereeing at the top of our team and those that are clearly moving in that direction and those that aren't."
The standard of officiating came under heavy scrutiny last weekend, with coaches from several franchises fuming after contentious decisions.
Bray was moved to clarify a number of them this week, including a controversial try awarded by South African referee Stuart Berry to Lions fullback Coenie van Wyk during the Johannesburg-based team's 39-36 win at home to the Auckland Blues.
With help from South African television match official Johan Greeff, Berry awarded the try despite video footage showing Van Wyk's team mate Deon van Rensburg had lost the ball forward in a tackle on the try-line.
Queensland Reds coach Richard Graham said he would contact Bray after some "bewildering" decisions in his team's 35-20 loss against the Sharks in Durban, while New South Wales Waratahs coach Michael Cheika also grumbled about scrum penalties in his team's loss to the ACT Brumbies.
"I would always dispute the argument that there is no accountability or action," Bray said.
"There is. I would only say watch this space at the moment because we're 80 percent through the process of making some of those decisions."
Reuters
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Andre Watson has asked the IRB to clarify that position of Bray's about the knock on, it was the most contentious of them all due to the imprecise nature of the tackle/rip so it should be referred to the top. http://superxv.com/41898/1/saru-refer-lions-tmo-try-ruling-to-the-irb#.UywD5vmSySo
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Just throwing another instance from last night's game Tahs/Rebels that I thought could have gone the other way. Higgers fielded the ball and was almost immediately set upon by about three Tahs defenders who all went straight over the top of him. Higgers went down on one knee but the ball never touched the ground and none of the defenders had hold of him. Peyper ruled a ruck had formed (I didn't see that there was any other Rebel player involved other than higgers) and penalised Higgers for not releasing. I lean towards the view that a ruck hadn't formed as only Tahs players were involved and none of those effected a tackle so that imo Higgers was within his rights to continue playing. But should he have released the ball as he regained his feet and picked it up again before starting to run? If so, there are many instances where a player will regain his feet without so releasing the ball in general play without being penalised.