Refereeing decisions

[Braveheart81]

It wasn't forward though. It was knocked back.

 

[Pfitzy]

If it was back, then the ref has made an error UNLESS the ball was knocked out/dead. In that case: book 'im.

 

[liquor box]

If it was back, then the ref has made an error UNLESS the ball was knocked out/dead. In that case: book 'im.

Knocked out dead is a funny rule, In a recent Reds game Hegarty was ruled to have knocked the ball dead on purpose (he was trying to force the ball) and it was a penalty, but you can kick the ball dead on purpose without a penalty.


I have never found the rules of rugby that complex, it is the inconsistencies that annoy me, like why can you baulk a quick lineout but not a formed lineout without being penalised?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The Hegarty situation was a Penalty Try and YC. IMO it is hard to say that he was trying to ground it. Conversely it is not clear that he deliberately made it dead. This is where it sucks to be a referee. Tough decision with no easy middle ground.

 

[Dan54]

Knocked out dead is a funny rule, In a recent Reds game Hegarty was ruled to have knocked the ball dead on purpose (he was trying to force the ball) and it was a penalty, but you can kick the ball dead on purpose without a penalty.


I have never found the rules of rugby that complex, it is the inconsistencies that annoy me, like why can you baulk a quick lineout but not a formed lineout without being penalised?

Yep, but you can also kick the ball over the sideline, but not throw it or push it over with hand, it's not really complicated.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

The Hegarty situation was a Penalty Try and YC. IMO it is hard to say that he was trying to ground it. Conversely it is not clear that he deliberately made it dead. This is where it sucks to be a referee. Tough decision with no easy middle ground.

That situation falls under two laws:

Law 9.7 A player must not:
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

Law 8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.

So the could have ruled that Hegarty did intentionally knock the ball into touch but that it was not probable that Laumape would have scored.

Penalty to Hurricanes only.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

That situation falls under two laws:

Law 9.7 A player must not:
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

Law 8.3 A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position. A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off. No conversion is attempted.

So the could have ruled that Hegarty did intentionally knock the ball into touch but that it was not probable that Laumape would have scored.

Penalty to Hurricanes only.

More likely PK and YC if that was your assessment as you might argue that a try was not probable but it was definitely a possible try scoring situation.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

More likely PK and YC if that was your assessment as you might argue that a try was not probable but it was definitely a possible try scoring situation.

Yes the referee might but the possibility of scoring a try has no affect on the result.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Sorry which result?

 

[Braveheart81]

On the final lineout for France, how blatantly not straight could they have made the lineout throw without it being a penalty?

Any stoppage other than a penalty to the Wallabies ended the game.

 

[dru]

Query regarding the Hooper try.

First my interpretation - do I have this right? It was a reach over the try line with Hooper standing side on to the ruck with one foot over the line. He picks up the ball and places it between his legs on the line.

If that is correct why isn't he not off side? Note, this is not a go at Hooper, I'd just like to understand the ruling.

 

[Braveheart81]

Hooper is behind the ball when he picks it up so certainly within his rights. He starts pivoting around while he has his hands on the ball and it's still on the ground.

I think everything he did is legal.

His timing is such that it was pretty much impossible to stop. If they'd tried to tackle him earlier they would have been offside because the ball wasn't out of the ruck.

 

[dru]

Hooper is behind the ball when he picks it up so certainly within his rights. He starts pivoting around while he has his hands on the ball and it's still on the ground.

I think everything he did is legal.

His timing is such that it was pretty much impossible to stop. If they'd tried to tackle him earlier they would have been offside because the ball wasn't out of the ruck.

Thanks BH. It can be an odd game rugby.

 

[Pfitzy]

The potential issue was Valetini being on the French side of the ruck i.e. in-goal, just lying there. However the French forwards standing nearby didn't shove him out of the road or make a big deal out of it, neither did they try to fill the space Valetini's presence made for Hooper.

On third viewing I think it was fine - French got it wrong.

 

[Adam84]

What about the no-try ruling against Banks off the kick?

Referee couldn’t throw it to the TMO because he already blew his whistle before it was grounded, but IMO that should have been a try and the referee made a mistake by blowing the whistle early?

 

[Braveheart81]

What about the no-try ruling against Banks off the kick?

Referee couldn’t throw it to the TMO because he already blew his whistle before it was grounded, but IMO that should have been a try and the referee made a mistake by blowing the whistle early?

Do you remember when in the game this happened? I'm struggling to find it.

I thought Wright knocked the ball forward so timing of the whistle was irrelevant.

 

[Dctarget]

Where is the offside line for the attacking team in a ruck? Players like Koroibete, Naisarani & Savea enjoy the quick bolt out of a ruck which makes easy metres. If they’re securing the ruck, why are they not offside?

 

[Braveheart81]

Where is the offside line for the attacking team in a ruck? Players like Koroibete, Naisarani & Savea enjoy the quick bolt out of a ruck which makes easy metres. If they’re securing the ruck, why are they not offside?

Once the ball has been won, you can pick the ball up. You can't be in front of the ball. My understanding of that is that part of you needs to be behind the ball (i.e. a foot on the ground). You can't reach back and pick it up if you are passed the ball but if you were straddling the ball it is fine.

 

[Pfitzy]

This is from memory, so I may be wrong, but the directive is if a ruck is formed, both your feet need to be behind the ball.

If there is no ruck at that point (i.e. maybe the defenders disengage and fan out), one foot.

 

[Derpus]

Where is the offside line for the attacking team in a ruck? Players like Koroibete, Naisarani & Savea enjoy the quick bolt out of a ruck which makes easy metres. If they’re securing the ruck, why are they not offside?

For MK's little runs up the middle he just keeps going when no ruck forms.