HayFarmer
Stan Wickham (3)
This is the best option but when the opposition is 5m out from your line the safest is to tackle the ball carrier & bring him to ground.
Why haven't more teams used this against the Brumbies maul?
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
This is the best option but when the opposition is 5m out from your line the safest is to tackle the ball carrier & bring him to ground.
Why haven't more teams used this against the Brumbies maul?
HayFarmer
Stan Wickham (3)
There was an controversial ruck in the last couple of minutes of the Reds/Brumby game where Berry put out his arm to signal advantage to the Brumbies, then I think he got a call from an AR so put it down & played on.
From what I could see on replay Liam Wright's hand might have touched the ball causing it to spew out of the ruck. A couple of things happened prior to this, Wright had a hand legally on the ball trying to get the jackal then was up ended by Sio in the cleanout. Two questions was the cleanout legal, did Sio put Wright over the horizontal & was there an arm around his neck? The other was, since Wright had already had a hand on the ball then was tipped over, at what point does he have to let go of it?
Did Berry realise that Sio was in the wrong & then Wright was in the wrong so then just played on? Also be intersesting to know what the AR said?
From what I could see on replay Liam Wright's hand might have touched the ball causing it to spew out of the ruck. A couple of things happened prior to this, Wright had a hand legally on the ball trying to get the jackal then was up ended by Sio in the cleanout. Two questions was the cleanout legal, did Sio put Wright over the horizontal & was there an arm around his neck? The other was, since Wright had already had a hand on the ball then was tipped over, at what point does he have to let go of it?
Did Berry realise that Sio was in the wrong & then Wright was in the wrong so then just played on? Also be intersesting to know what the AR said?
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
yes I was confused by this as well
There's definitely an argument that Sio cleaned out Wright from the side. While he entered the ruck in a straight line, he didn't come directly through the gate so he could get a better cleanout on Wright from sideways. It's certainly something you get away with a lot. I think the cleanout was fine in terms of foul play.
Wright definitely played the ball on the ground. That's why the ball spat out and the Reds ended up getting it and ending the game.
Wright definitely played the ball on the ground. That's why the ball spat out and the Reds ended up getting it and ending the game.
HayFarmer
Stan Wickham (3)
Unfortunately, I taped it on the iQ3 & don't know if it has a slow mo function. This makes it hard to spot whether the legs went above his head as it went so fast. You right about playing the ball on the ground as he was on the ground for a bit before it spat out but since he was in possession before getting tipped doesn't he have a right to play the ball? Also, can he be considered to be in possession with one hand on the ball?
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Sacking the maul is an exercise in timing and skill, and particularly difficult when the ball is likely to be gone by the time you get them to deck anyway.
I was watching the Breakdown show from NZ on Stan, and they asked guest Aussie, Amy Perrett, what she'd like to change. "Something to make the maul easier to referee and defend" where her comments.
Get rid of the 5 second rule. Think I've said that a few times now
I don't think there is an issue with the cleanout from that perspective. Sio hasn't put Wright into a dangerous position. He's just flipped him over sideways. Wright's head is already slightly below his hips so it is always going to look a little controversial.
He clearly doesn't have possession of the ball before getting cleaned out. He gets a hand on it but barely and loses all contact with it as he's getting cleared out. He then punches the ball once he's on the ground.
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
A couple of reffing issues I wanted to raise after the Tahs match.
Firstly, I thought Gamble was dead unlucky to be penalised for not releasing, a penalty which resulted in the Force's last try. In the replay he clearly released, got to his feet, then got over the ball. I don't want to be too critical, but it was a pretty significant penalty at the time, as it probably should have gone the other way.
The second issue is a more general one. After a scrum, at which Cubelli was instructed to 'use it' be Perrot, he ignored the instruction and waited for his pack to put on a second push and win the penalty. At least Perrot spoke to him afterwards and told him that if he didn't use it when instructed he would lose it. Most refs don't even do that. Every week we are seeing refs ask the half to use it, either at scrum or rolling maul, and the 9's taking absolutely no notice. Nick White is regular offender.
If refs aren't going to enforce this law, we may as well drop it.
What I would like to see happen is the refs get together and say 'right, in future if we tell a 9 to use it and he doesn't do so, scrum to the other side'. Then inform all the coaches that it will be enforced, and from that point on do so.
Firstly, I thought Gamble was dead unlucky to be penalised for not releasing, a penalty which resulted in the Force's last try. In the replay he clearly released, got to his feet, then got over the ball. I don't want to be too critical, but it was a pretty significant penalty at the time, as it probably should have gone the other way.
The second issue is a more general one. After a scrum, at which Cubelli was instructed to 'use it' be Perrot, he ignored the instruction and waited for his pack to put on a second push and win the penalty. At least Perrot spoke to him afterwards and told him that if he didn't use it when instructed he would lose it. Most refs don't even do that. Every week we are seeing refs ask the half to use it, either at scrum or rolling maul, and the 9's taking absolutely no notice. Nick White is regular offender.
If refs aren't going to enforce this law, we may as well drop it.
What I would like to see happen is the refs get together and say 'right, in future if we tell a 9 to use it and he doesn't do so, scrum to the other side'. Then inform all the coaches that it will be enforced, and from that point on do so.
The laws state that after a call of use it, the ball must be played immediately.
This would indicate that any delay in trying to clear the ball should result in the referee blowing their whistle. It isn't an indication that the half has 3-5 seconds more to commence doing something.
Referees should be stricter on this.
chiraag
Larry Dwyer (12)
I understand the use it call for mauls and rucks, but I don't think it should really be used for scrums. Teams should be able to keep it in their scrum for as long as they like, if they think they're going to be able to gain ascendancy or want to reposition the scrum to a more advantageous orientation. Unless there has been some sort of no-fault collapse or the scrum hasn't moved for an inordinate amount of time, then the contest should be allowed to continue without the ref interfering
That's not the law though.
If the scrum is stationary and and the ball is at the back of the scrum for three to five seconds, the referee should call "use it" and the ball should be played immediately.
I don't want the law changed to cause more unsuccessful scrums.
I see that point, but disagree. I hate it that the ball seems to come out of a scrum 10% of the time. I want to see backlines launch an attack, not the ball to be kept in while one team tries for a penalty. The purpose of a scrum is to restart play, not to create another stoppage.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Did you see any issues the other way?
chiraag
Larry Dwyer (12)
Froggy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Kiap,
Sorry, that probably looked like a 'sore loser' rant. Generally I thought the refereeing was fine, the 'use it' issue wasn't in reference to this game, rather one that exists throughout the competition. As I said, probably the worst culprit is Nick White, but it was brought to my attention this game when Amy Perrott spoke to Cubelli about it after the incident I mentioned, which I hadn't seen happen before.
The Gamble issue I mentioned because it was pretty critical at the time, and looked pretty clear to me even before the replay.
And to be absolutely clear, the Tahs didn't lose because of the ref, they lost because of a bloody stupid lineout throw with ten seconds on the clock.
Sorry, that probably looked like a 'sore loser' rant. Generally I thought the refereeing was fine, the 'use it' issue wasn't in reference to this game, rather one that exists throughout the competition. As I said, probably the worst culprit is Nick White, but it was brought to my attention this game when Amy Perrott spoke to Cubelli about it after the incident I mentioned, which I hadn't seen happen before.
The Gamble issue I mentioned because it was pretty critical at the time, and looked pretty clear to me even before the replay.
And to be absolutely clear, the Tahs didn't lose because of the ref, they lost because of a bloody stupid lineout throw with ten seconds on the clock.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
Even when they do get the advantage plenty of the teams keep going. Does my head in. This is your free shot at that silly training move. Have a crack
While I agree it would be a dubious option from a sporting perspective, under the laws was there anything stopping the Tahs taking a shot at goal on that final penalty, lining up from 75 metres out and then when time has elapsed, place kicking it into touch to end the game?
Doesn't seem like it to me.
Doesn't seem like it to me.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
The get out of gaol free card
Law 9.24 A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship.