Refereeing decisions

[liquor box]

I liked the new red card rule and appreciate what it's trying to do but don't think it's quite there yet. Admittedly only thought this after it happened to the Rebels, so I'm biased here. But I think maybe there needs to be an orange card in between the two, and does what the current RC does. 20 minutes off, can't come back on but can be replaced. Use it for calls that are red but no malice/or serious injury, reserve the full red card for serious stuff.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth when the opposition gets to incapacitate your best ball runner for the rest of the game and for weeks after, then gets replaced 20 minutes later. Though I do expect AAA will be given a few weeks off for that.

Other thing is I think with the rucks and mauls the refs are forgetting the spirit of rugby: constant competition for the ball. When a pilferer gets over the ball and head straight down, like last week with Hardwick, it removes any chance of legal competition. He should've been pinged.

Same thing with maul defence. The current rules make it very difficult for the defence to legally compete for the ball. The attacking team is given way too much leeway when shifting the attack, splintering, binding etc. Whereas the defence is ruled super strictly, don't make much sense.

Anyway, apologies for the salty post from the salty fan who just lost.

I have always thought that foul play that forces an opponent to miss games should have an effect on a suspension.

I have no issue with a three week suspension for the AAA, but I think it should start when Fa'amausilli is right to play. If he is not available for 2 weeks due to the hit then AAA would be out for 5 weeks, 3 as a penalty and 2 due to lost game time by the opponent he injured.

 

[KevinO]

Ok, 3 weeks in and the rule not being enforced that's annoying me is rolling mauls, the defensive side is getting penalized for everything while the attacking side is moving in over the ball carrier and not passing the ball back.

If the Ref is going to call every defensive player for entering from the side when they rejoin a maul that is constantly splintering side ways to bypass the defense than call the bloody hooker for not moving the ball back and being accidently offside/obstructed every single maul this season.

The Rebels conceded a penalty try and a yellow card when 3 Brumbies players all committed this offense. Also JOC (James O'Connor) did the same thing for Mafi try in the Reds v Rebels game. I'm sure it happened in the other games too I just pay more attention to the Rebels

 

[Pfitzy]

Unfortunately, until the maul is changed to Pfitzy's specifications, it'll continue to be a basket case.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I have always thought that foul play that forces an opponent to miss games should have an effect on a suspension.

I have no issue with a three week suspension for the AAA, but I think it should start when Fa'amausilli is right to play. If he is not available for 2 weeks due to the hit then AAA would be out for 5 weeks, 3 as a penalty and 2 due to lost game time by the opponent he injured.

This could be very problematic as you need to assume that the injury sustained was 100% due to the incident and would lead to some very different outcomes for the offending players depending on the level of injury. In the extreme situation, what would you do if a player suffered concussion after a run of concussions that forced the player to retire?

 

[Merrow]

I have always thought that foul play that forces an opponent to miss games should have an effect on a suspension.

I have no issue with a three week suspension for the AAA, but I think it should start when Fa'amausilli is right to play. If he is not available for 2 weeks due to the hit then AAA would be out for 5 weeks, 3 as a penalty and 2 due to lost game time by the opponent he injured.

We’re all good then. Pone’s playing this week.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ok, 3 weeks in and the rule not being enforced that's annoying me is rolling mauls, the defensive side is getting penalized for everything while the attacking side is moving in over the ball carrier and not passing the ball back.

If the Ref is going to call every defensive player for entering from the side when they rejoin a maul that is constantly splintering side ways to bypass the defense than call the bloody hooker for not moving the ball back and being accidently offside/obstructed every single maul this season.

The Rebels conceded a penalty try and a yellow card when 3 Brumbies players all committed this offense. Also JOC (James O'Connor) did the same thing for Mafi try in the Reds v Rebels game. I'm sure it happened in the other games too I just pay more attention to the Rebels

KO, is the ball carrier really being shielded by those who join behind him? Doesn't look a lot different to me from a two or three man hit up where the front man has the ball and he has extra player(s) bound behind him to give the shove in contact. Admittedly, in a maul there are players also in front of the ball carrier, but that is precisely the definition of a maul, surely.

I think it only becomes a law breaker if and when the players who joined at the rear then swim up beside and in front of the ball carrier. To be honest, that happens in all teams' mauls, not just the Brumbies, and perhaps really not as infrequently as the Brumbies. There is no disputing that the Brumbies maul is the best technically and the hardest to stop, either legally or not. While it consists of the forwards pack only, I reckon every Brumbies maul proceeds according to the letter and intent of the law. The ball is clearly passed from player to player in a backwards motion until it reaches the intended recipient at the back. Can't say the same for all other attempted mauls.

 

[KevinO]

KO, is the ball carrier really being shielded by those who join behind him? Doesn't look a lot different to me from a two or three man hit up where the front man has the ball and he has extra player(s) bound behind him to give the shove in contact. Admittedly, in a maul there are players also in front of the ball carrier, but that is precisely the definition of a maul, surely.

I think it only becomes a law breaker if and when the players who joined at the rear then swim up beside and in front of the ball carrier. To be honest, that happens in all teams' mauls, not just the Brumbies, and perhaps really not as infrequently as the Brumbies. There is no disputing that the Brumbies maul is the best technically and the hardest to stop, either legally or not. While it consists of the forwards pack only, I reckon every Brumbies maul proceeds according to the letter and intent of the law. The ball is clearly passed from player to player in a backwards motion until it reaches the intended recipient at the back. Can't say the same for all other attempted mauls.

Agree the Brumbies have the best maul, but to the letter of the law. Nope.

Watch the penalty try and how Nic White joins that maul, it's actually a really good example of a penalty against the attacking team. Joins from the side in front of the ball carrier.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Agree the Brumbies have the best maul, but to the letter of the law. Nope.

Watch the penalty try and how Nic White joins that maul, it's actually a really good example of a penalty against the attacking team. Joins from the side in front of the ball carrier.

Can't recall if it was before or after the maul passed the tryline. If the latter, presumably still ok?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

KO, is the ball carrier really being shielded by those who join behind him? Doesn't look a lot different to me from a two or three man hit up where the front man has the ball and he has extra player(s) bound behind him to give the shove in contact. Admittedly, in a maul there are players also in front of the ball carrier, but that is precisely the definition of a maul, surely.

I think it only becomes a law breaker if and when the players who joined at the rear then swim up beside and in front of the ball carrier. To be honest, that happens in all teams' mauls, not just the Brumbies, and perhaps really not as infrequently as the Brumbies. There is no disputing that the Brumbies maul is the best technically and the hardest to stop, either legally or not. While it consists of the forwards pack only, I reckon every Brumbies maul proceeds according to the letter and intent of the law. The ball is clearly passed from player to player in a backwards motion until it reaches the intended recipient at the back. Can't say the same for all other attempted mauls.

IMO the 2 or 3 men hit ups (the Bulls were the worst offenders) should be penalised as a 'Flying Wedge'

 

[Brumby Runner]

IMO the 2 or 3 men hit ups (the Bulls were the worst offenders) should be penalised as a 'Flying Wedge'

I could live with that.

 

[Pfitzy]

Another one of those areas - along with the "Cavalry Charge" - that is basically not refereed.

In the context of gang tackling tho, I can see why a few of these are let slip. Collisions are dangerous. Big collisions are dangerouser.

 

[Braveheart81]

IMO the 2 or 3 men hit ups (the Bulls were the worst offenders) should be penalised as a 'Flying Wedge'

Another one of those areas - along with the "Cavalry Charge" - that is basically not refereed.

They're only illegal from a penalty or free kick. Both are legal in general play.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

A 'cavalry charge' is by definition from a PK or FK. A flying wedge is illegal at all times. I don't believe you will find your position supported under Law 9.

 

[Pfitzy]

They're only illegal from a penalty or free kick. Both are legal in general play.

Have *never* seen it applied, and I've been watching for a while now.

 

[Pfitzy]

A 'cavalry charge' is by definition from a PK or FK. A flying wedge is illegal at all times. I don't believe you will find your position supported under Law 9.

Law 9 doesn't define either - he's right in the sense that it is stated as below, officially.

However, if you have three players on their feet (ball carrier + 1 from each side) you should immediately call maul Which they don't because mauls apparently take 3 seconds to form in open play

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/definitions#laws_let6

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

Cavalry charge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. At a signal from the kicker, a line of attacking players charge forward from a distance. When they get near, the kicker taps the ball and passes to a player.

 

[liquor box]

Law 9 doesn't define either - he's right in the sense that it is stated as below, officially.

However, if you have three players on their feet (ball carrier + 1 from each side) you should immediately call maul Which they don't because mauls apparently take 3 seconds to form in open play

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/definitions#laws_let6

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

Cavalry charge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. At a signal from the kicker, a line of attacking players charge forward from a distance. When they get near, the kicker taps the ball and passes to a player.

How many need to be in the cavalry?

Is two people running a line towards the kicker allowing him to choose who to pass to illegal?

 

[Braveheart81]

A 'cavalry charge' is by definition from a PK or FK. A flying wedge is illegal at all times. I don't believe you will find your position supported under Law 9.

They are both defined under the definitions, not under law 9.

As per the definitions Pfitzy posted, both only arise from a free kick or penalty and are legal in general play.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Although the key point is that is says "usually" not 'only'

 

[Braveheart81]

Although the key point is that is says "usually" not 'only'

It usually happens near the goal line but always happens from a penalty or free kick.

 

[Pfitzy]

Better than the Bible when it comes to concrete definitions.