Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
A tackle occurs when a ball carrier is brought to ground and held. Once a ball carrier has been tackled, he must release the ball. Peyper ruled he had been brought to ground and that he didn't release the ball.
The call was touch and go on the replay but the refs only get one look at it. As a player you should ere on the safe side and just play the ball whenever you drop to one knee in a tackle (even though the ref would be strict to ping you every time you drop to one knee, you still need to be "held" there).
The call was touch and go on the replay but the refs only get one look at it. As a player you should ere on the safe side and just play the ball whenever you drop to one knee in a tackle (even though the ref would be strict to ping you every time you drop to one knee, you still need to be "held" there).
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Tony Dun
Frank Row (1)
Just watching the Blues/Cheetahs match and there are 2 interesting decisions so far.
The first was a Cheetahs try scored off a maul. If I recall correctly, recently a referree disallowed a Brumbies try from a maul which sheered off, and called it obstruction. The Cheetahs try seemed to be the same to me, as no Blues player was engaged when the Cheetahs group sheered off the maul; logically, it should have been obstruction as per the Brumbies decision?
The other was what the commentators called a 'double movement'. The player clearly pushing himself forward along the ground to place, while being held. The TMO called it that way yet the referee over-ruled and awarded the try.
I have to say generally the quality of refereeing has been good this year, with a few exceptions.
The first was a Cheetahs try scored off a maul. If I recall correctly, recently a referree disallowed a Brumbies try from a maul which sheered off, and called it obstruction. The Cheetahs try seemed to be the same to me, as no Blues player was engaged when the Cheetahs group sheered off the maul; logically, it should have been obstruction as per the Brumbies decision?
The other was what the commentators called a 'double movement'. The player clearly pushing himself forward along the ground to place, while being held. The TMO called it that way yet the referee over-ruled and awarded the try.
I have to say generally the quality of refereeing has been good this year, with a few exceptions.
I thought the maul try was fine because Peter Saili stayed attached to the Cheetahs players the whole time.
Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You sure?
i was told by a wise old ref that if the person who brings the ball carrier to ground does not himself go to ground then he is not a tackler and that impacts upon the direction from which he may enter in order to compete for the ball on the ground - i.e. he must approach from the hindmost foot.
Law 15 reads that way:
Because 15.4 says:
15.6 says
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=15.6
In particular (c) envisages a player being brought to ground by players who do not leave their feet and yet the player brought to ground is "tackled".
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Correct, a tackle can occur if a player on his feet holds a ball carrier on the ground.
In other words, you can have a tackle with no tackler, in this scenario we call the 'player who is holding the ball carrier' a "tackle assist", he still must release the tackled player.
And IS is correct in stating the reason for this distinction is that the tackle assist player has different requirements in regard to their entry at the tackle.
In other words, you can have a tackle with no tackler, in this scenario we call the 'player who is holding the ball carrier' a "tackle assist", he still must release the tackled player.
And IS is correct in stating the reason for this distinction is that the tackle assist player has different requirements in regard to their entry at the tackle.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Labouring a point I know, but if Law 15 states a tackle takes place when the ball carrier is held on the ground, then by that definition no tackle was made on Higgers imo. No-one held Higgers on the ground. Why then could he not just play on?
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
From memory both knees were on the ground and it was the bulls player whose weight brought Higgers to ground, and he still had his arms wrapped around at this point.
You could argue he was slipping off and I wouldn't disagree, that's something refs need to look for. I think the on field refs just decided from their view the Bulls player did enough. If Higgers wants to score 60m tries he should play safe and just release the ball before he gets up and goes again.
You could argue he was slipping off and I wouldn't disagree, that's something refs need to look for. I think the on field refs just decided from their view the Bulls player did enough. If Higgers wants to score 60m tries he should play safe and just release the ball before he gets up and goes again.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm with you.
Tough call IMHO I can see why it was called - in part i think Jackson lost him behind some Tahs players as he hit the deck and its different to the league rule where all you have to do is touch them and they're tackled - in union they have to be held.
Higgers was up and running so quickly and tacklers never, ever release so quickly so i reckon he was not held on the ground.
Different tackle I think
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
thats what i thought at the time and so did higgers obviously.
Tangawizi
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Berry, van der Merwe, Pastrana and Gardner have been culled from the refereeing pool.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/super-rugby-refs-axed-for-poor-displays-20140324-hvm8h.html
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/super-rugby-refs-axed-for-poor-displays-20140324-hvm8h.html
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Berry, van der Merwe and Pastrana were obvious targets. Which games did Gardner ref and what did he do to be recalled?
EatSleepDrinkRuck
Larry Dwyer (12)
Based on my ignorance, I'd suggest that an Aus/NZ ref was going to have to go so that the process appears fair.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
http://superxv.com/41941/1/super-rugby-referees-stood-down-by-sanzar#.Uy_w6oU7_JA
It's actually pretty surprising really.
Pastrami is always having some difficulty with not being on tv enough and Leckie needs to concentrate on his homework assignments (not just the poor referencing, but also the erroneous content within).
I would rate van der Merwe well above Berry, Lees, Gardner and O'Brien though.
superxv.com said:
superxv.com said:
It's actually pretty surprising really.
Pastrami is always having some difficulty with not being on tv enough and Leckie needs to concentrate on his homework assignments (not just the poor referencing, but also the erroneous content within).
I would rate van der Merwe well above Berry, Lees, Gardner and O'Brien though.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
What an interesting turn of events for the Refeering Decisions Thread.
Now we are discussing Decisions on Referees.
Now we are discussing Decisions on Referees.
