• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Teh Other Dave

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
Dan54 said:
I have watched and coached rugby for more years than a few on here have even been alive Derpus, and I for the life of me can't understand why we allow a player to have a ball in his hands shielded behind his team so you can't tackle him and we allow it!!
I still reckon anyone at front should be able to brought down so you can work your way to the bal!
Click to expand...

I don't mind the maul, but the ball carrier shouldn't be allowed to be shielded by blockers in a rolling maul. Let's be honest though, the home nations will always block any threat to their game plan of trucking it to 40 and then kicking a penalty goal.
 
Th0mo

Th0mo

Herbert Moran (7)
I have seen a few comments about Caleb Clarke not being held. There’s a good image via the below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/jdby06/nz_v_aus_16_october_is_this_a_tackle_and_if_so/

Law 14

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball- carrier is on the ground.

I always took it that rather than duration the tackle condition was satisfied the moment you meet 14.2 above eg knee on ground while tackler still holding on. I see that interpretation enforced on strips as player goes to ground so assume it applies equally to ball carrier and the correct decision would have been to penalise him. Anyone see it differently?


Note: Acknowledge hard one to pick up in real time.
 
Pfitzy

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Dismal Pillock said:
Oh Jesus. We're never going to hear the end of this.

"Pursuant to Law 322 sub-clause cII the forward motion of A obliviates the principles of 88, 12 and 36a therefore, in this instance, Waratahs ball"
Click to expand...


Close: "Yes Sam I know we're only 3 minutes into the second half and the Wallabies are up 3-nil, but I'm abandoning the match due to this unlawful attitude your team has to handing over the Bledisloe"
 
molman

molman

Jim Lenehan (48)
Can someone please clarify what the current standing is for mauls where players end up floating on the top. In the game yesterday (~12mins in) when Big Pat didn't come down properly, transfered the ball while his props held him up and and was then lying on top of the maul with one leg in the maul the other on top just seemed a joke. World Rugby have tweaked the laws a few times but surely this was an illiegal maul?
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
molman said:
Can someone please clarify what the current standing is for mauls where players end up floating on the top. In the game yesterday (~12mins in) when Big Pat didn't come down properly, transfered the ball while his props held him up and and was then lying on top of the maul with one leg in the maul the other on top just seemed a joke. World Rugby have tweaked the laws a few times but surely this was an illiegal maul?
Click to expand...

I noticed that and wondered who was in wrong, player in the air at lineout has to be let come to ground before opposition touch him, but he was still up there when maul formed so I have no idea who or what was the law broken.
 
Kenny Powers

Kenny Powers

Ron Walden (29)
Dan54 said:
I noticed that and wondered who was in wrong, player in the air at lineout has to be let come to ground before opposition touch him, but he was still up there when maul formed so I have no idea who or what was the law broken.
Click to expand...

I thought a few times last night from kick offs and line outs (when Wallabies didn’t contest) that the All Blacks held players in the air just that little bit longer to see if they could milk a penalty from contact in the air. Maybe that was the reason for a penalty not being given it seem to take an eternity for the jumper to get back to ground.
 
Th0mo

Th0mo

Herbert Moran (7)
18.29c Lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team. Sanction: Free-kick.

Either he was played in air or ABs held on too long. Edit: meant to add is same rule as newer one for open play lifters post Folau vs Ireland saga so should be well known to and front of mind for an international ref.
 
molman

molman

Jim Lenehan (48)
Kenny Powers said:
I thought a few times last night from kick offs and line outs (when Wallabies didn’t contest) that the All Blacks held players in the air just that little bit longer to see if they could milk a penalty from contact in the air. Maybe that was the reason for a penalty not being given it seem to take an eternity for the jumper to get back to ground.
Click to expand...

Felt like they held for a little longer than necessary. I doubt it was about trying to milk a penalty though, thats just dangerous, more likely to just slow things so they could set their line.

Th0mo said:
18.29c Lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team. Sanction: Free-kick.

Either he was played in air or ABs held on too long. Edit: meant to add is same rule as newer one for open play lifters post Folau vs Ireland saga so should be well known to and front of mind for an international ref.
Click to expand...

It's an odd one because the two lifting players stepped forward carrying the bottom half of Pat at an angle such that his feet almost crossed over on top of the Wallabies whilst leaning back to transfer the ball all the time whilst the NZ players held him up. By the time they lowered him both NZ and AU had basically formed a maul under him. To my eyes NZ infringed because the Wallabies didn't seem to move/drive forward at all, it was the NZ players that closed the gap holding him aloft.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I thought that was a good decision not to call a penalty on that maul. I thought Tuipulotu was lifted well across the line so there was little choice aside from coming down on top of the Wallabies players and never getting to the ground. I certainly don't think he was engaged early by the defenders.
 
John S

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Not that it had any bearing on the game, was Sam Cane's fake at the back of the maul illegal? Most of the wobs were pretty faked out even without that one......
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
^ LAW 16.MAUL

DURING A MAUL

11.Players must not:

c.Take any action to make opponents believe that the maul has ended when it has not. Sanction: Free-kick.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16

Edit: gotta wonder how many refs have ever read Law 16's "Principle" clause, which states that, "The purpose of a maul is to allow players to compete for the ball, which is held off the ground." Oh, if only that were true......
 
Brumby Jack

Brumby Jack

Steve Williams (59)
Romain-Poite.jpg
 
Hawko

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
Dctarget

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
If a player jumps to score a try, can they be tackled in the air? Or if a player slides along the ground to score, how do you touch them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top