Refereeing decisions

[Slim 293]

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.

Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes.........

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...

Law 9.28 Players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing immediately when the referee blows the whistle to stop play

 

[Braveheart81]

Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...

It is explicitly in the laws that you can't kick a 22 restart directly into touch. Likewise with a kick-off.

 

[barbarian]

I recall there was conjecture around place-kicking when one team used a PK to kick for their winger on the opposite sideline, who caught the ball and scored. I thought what came out of it was a kick for goal had to actually be for goal.

Which is to say I think you could line up from 75m out, but I'm not sure you could smash it into touch on the full.

 

[Derpus]

Not quite the same thing, but there was this classic incident up in England a few years back that led to Hartley being red carded for swearing at Wayne Barnes...

I love that. I love that he tells him he can't do thing like three times, then he does the thing anyway and acts all shocked and surprised.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

It is explicitly in the laws that you can't kick a 22 restart directly into touch. Likewise with a kick-off.

Correct. Law 12.8 and 12.12

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes, it's still the law. I thought it was gone because it's not in the section it used to be. It's now under 8 (Scoring).

20. If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

 

[Sully]

I was asked a question today and it immediately made sense. Why didn't the Tahs tap and run, set up a maul and then kick it out. I'm sure there was only about 20 secs on the clock.

 

[cyclopath]

I was asked a question today and it immediately made sense. Why didn't the Tahs tap and run, set up a maul and then kick it out. I'm sure there was only about 20 secs on the clock.

Because fucking it up with the lineout was easier.

 

[KOB1987]

Because fucking it up with the lineout was easier.

Correct. There's 5 potential fuck up options with that strategy - the tap, the run, the hit up, the maul and the kick. With the lineout option there was only four possibilities - the throw, the jump, the catch and the kick. It was smart thinking.

 

[formerflanker]

Dylan Hartley didn't just swear at the ref - he called him a cheat too.
Well done to the ref.
Well done to the commentator who said (paraphrasing) "good decision - this is rugby, not football"

 

[KOB1987]

Dylan Hartley is a gold plated knob on a good day.

 

[cyclopath]

Dylan Hartley didn't just swear at the ref - he called him a cheat too.
Well done to the ref.
Well done to the commentator who said (paraphrasing) "good decision - this is rugby, not football"

That whole sequence is just hysterical, from the "Don't kick it out" warnings to the RC. So many binary points where the wrong option was chosen.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Has anyone ever seen a team penalised for not using it after a call of 'use it'? I genuinely have never seen it, think it's a free kick? Could be a red card for all I know.

I have seen it many times at club level.

 

[Pfitzy]

That whole sequence is just hysterical, from the "Don't kick it out" warnings to the RC. So many binary points where the wrong option was chosen.

"I will perform the action that is - literally - the worst choice available to me under each of these circumstances"

 

[liquor box]

At the end of the Force v Reds game last night the Reds crossed the line trying to score a try and there was a maul that crossed the goal line. The result was a 5m scrum with a Force feed.

Why is this not being held up in the in goal area and a goal line drop out as per the Super Rugby AU variations?

For what it is worth, Reds should have taken the three points.

 

[Dctarget]

At the end of the Force v Reds game last night the Reds crossed the line trying to score a try and there was a maul that crossed the goal line. The result was a 5m scrum with a Force feed.

Why is this not being held up in the in goal area and a goal line drop out as per the Super Rugby AU variations?

For what it is worth, Reds should have taken the three points.

Just a guess but maybe a maul is ruled differently than a tackle?

 

[RedsRugbyfan101]

A maul can only take place in the field of play (area between the try lines and the touch lines). Once the ball is over the try line the maul ends. The correct decision (without the Super Rugby AU variations) would have been held up in goal, 5m scrum to the Reds. With Super Rugby AU variations, a goal line drop out should have been the outcome.

 

[Froggy]

Regarding TK's tackle that earned the yellow. To me it was virtually identical to the one that cost Perese a red in round one. We just need to see consistency in these things.

 

[Dan54]

Regarding TK's tackle that earned the yellow. To me it was virtually identical to the one that cost Perese a red in round one. We just need to see consistency in these things.

I agree, I for the life of me can't see how that was a yellow with other decisions we have had.