Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Without thinking it through entirely, my first reaction is to agree with Andy Goode. If a player is holding their head, why shouldn't they go for an automatic HIA?
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Fair enough, I'm happy to stand corrected. In real time watching it on replay it looked bad.
Maybe he's jarred his neck a little and is holding his head to support it. Maybe he's just in a bit of shock after having a hard impact with the ground?
How long did he hold his head? We never get to see from the TV footage how long he stayed on the ground after the incident.
I get what Andy Goode is angling at but I disagree with him. There can't be potential encouragement for players to never show concern that they may have injured their head or neck because that automatically means they get sent for an HIA which takes them off the field for a period of time.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
I thought this too but we already have people watching this and looking for contact/signs that are a concern. How many times have you seen someone pulled for an HIA and you didn't even realise they were in a collision?
In an incident like this, if the player holds there head, why wouldn't you immediately go for an HIA if we are seriously concerned about head injuries and the player indicates they have sustained painful head contact?
If it's prolonged, sure but it seems to me this is coming from a position that Goode is accusing someone of staging/faking and the desired punishment for that is that they should spend 20 minutes off the field getting an HIA.
My view from this and a couple of weeks ago defending the Pumas player Mallia for knocking out the Springboks halfback with a dangerous charge down is that Andy Goode is on the side of "game's gone soft" and he should generally be ignored.
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
I'm not sure you can say factually that human errors by on field teams only happen in a blue moon in all rugby matches (or even just international ones), which would be what, around 0.1%?
Putting that aside, in this case, sure I would have liked to have seen it play out.
The referees are effectively using the TMO's for incidents of foul play review (can you check that last ruck calls) all the time now to let the game flow, let the AR do the same rather than trying to count blades of grass amongst flailing limbs, whilst running down the sideline.
Anyway, my point wasn't one of promoting an opinion or preference either way, but rather just to illuminate that there is proclivity by some to dismiss the frailties of the human element that is very much part of the sport and very much has a bearing on the proceedings and outcomes.
Mr Pilfer
Alex Ross (28)
On the subject of refereeing decisions I have a couple of situations I have thinking about and how they are treated.
1) with the relatively new rule where you have to release a player if he gets his knees to the ground what would happen if the defender was holding the player up 1 or 2 meters out from the try line, then the attacker gets a knee down so defender is told to release and the player with the ball falls to ground and is able to reach out and score ?
2) similar to the example mentioned in this game why did they still check grounding if a penalty try was going to be awarded? This gives me the impression that if the try is still scored then that is awarded rather than the penalty try?
So, if a team is losing by 6 points and a player has his head taken off while diving for the corner but still scores the try then the try still stands with conversion needed from the sideline even though the penalty try would give a guaranteed victory?
1) with the relatively new rule where you have to release a player if he gets his knees to the ground what would happen if the defender was holding the player up 1 or 2 meters out from the try line, then the attacker gets a knee down so defender is told to release and the player with the ball falls to ground and is able to reach out and score ?
2) similar to the example mentioned in this game why did they still check grounding if a penalty try was going to be awarded? This gives me the impression that if the try is still scored then that is awarded rather than the penalty try?
So, if a team is losing by 6 points and a player has his head taken off while diving for the corner but still scores the try then the try still stands with conversion needed from the sideline even though the penalty try would give a guaranteed victory?
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I think (and word is think , not know) if a player is called held to actually then reach out 1-2 m would almost be considered a double movement?
And also in second one it would be conversion from corner, if the player is diving for line, but think if player is upright and has a good chance of getting closer to posts, should be a penalty try, as I think according to laws it alos uses word of stopping try being scored an better or advantageous position or some such thing.
Last edited:
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
The problem I've always seen with this approach as it currently is, is that it's outcomes based, rather than sanctioning the action itself which means two players executing the equally poor, even dangerous action can have drastically different results based on chance, luck etc.
As everyone said, yellow was probably correct as they currently officiate these incidents.
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Yeah I guess that's what I thought when I saw the tackle - the potential for a worse landing/injury because of the illegal tackle was high b
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Funny enough the first one happened in my club 3rd grade game on Saturday. I wont be relying on Perth 3rd grade refs to be setting precedence but this is what happened
Player get the ball coming around the corner and two of us get on the ball to hold up. Ref said ball was short, and then tackle release. We released the player who then went down and with no one holding reached out in the first movement and placed it over the try line. Ref I think decided that wasn't fair so pinged us for not releasing the tackled player - so a non-decision really.
It was a bit of a head-scratcher as a defender. If the ball had got across the line we could continue to hold on and hold it up. However as we stopped the ball 20 cm short we had to release. If we had gone to ground with the tackler where we had to release him, reaching over the line was a legal option to score the try so I can see why the player did it. The only way we could have defended it really would have be to let the ball get over the line for a held up.
I think how this is interpreted across the whole field is a bit of an issue. I have seen other examples of the defenders being told to release, only for the tackled player to release the ball and go again as the two defenders surrounding them are in an offside position and retreating. Maybe it should be if there is a tackle release call the ball can only be placed backwards for another player to receive.
RemainingInTheGame
Herbert Moran (7)
For 1) technically the law applies so that yes, in the field of play (i.e. if not over goal line) the tackler must release, and then the ball carrier may immediately reach out and place the ball in any direction (i.e. touch it down and score).
For 2) even if a try is scored, the law states that a penalty try can be awarded if a try would have been scored in a more advantageous position.
HOWEVER rugby is a game with a lot of 'norms' and 2) highlights one - I don't think I can think of a situation where the 'advantageous position' part was applied, by convention if a try is scored, then the try is awarded then followed by the card for foul play.
(NOTE - your example of a game deciding decision there may be an exception to that convention - but only if the infringement stopped the try being scored in a better position - to award a penalty try it would need to be really clear and obvious that the try would have been scored in a very easy to kick place).
For 1) there is no convention (that I am aware of) that would change the law interpretation so I think most referees would award the try in that situation (as long as there was no double movement etc...).
Last edited:
Mr Pilfer
Alex Ross (28)
Yeah it is an interesting one. I am expecting it won’t be long until we see the exact scenario in an international game and will be interesting to see what happens. I expect the try would be awarded as long as no double movement but you would not be happy if you were the defender and told to release
molman
Jim Lenehan (48)
So Owen Farrell's Red card, actually not red card cleared.
www.bbc.com
This one doesn't sit right. This was poor technique that resulted in poor Basham failing his HIA. The optics are really not good, nor do I feel it's the correct application of the laws as they currently are.
Rugby World Cup 2023: Owen Farrell cleared to play after Wales red card overturned - BBC Sport
England captain Owen Farrell is clear to play in the World Cup after his red card in Saturday's warm-up with Wales is overturned.
www.bbc.com
This one doesn't sit right. This was poor technique that resulted in poor Basham failing his HIA. The optics are really not good, nor do I feel it's the correct application of the laws as they currently are.
Last edited:
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
So many people are blowing up on this it's not funny. Makes a farce of the systemSo Owen Farrell's Red card, actually not red card cleared.
Rugby World Cup 2023: Owen Farrell cleared to play after Wales red card overturned - BBC Sport
England captain Owen Farrell is clear to play in the World Cup after his red card in Saturday's warm-up with Wales is overturned.
This one doesn't sit right. This was poor technique that resulted in poor Basham failing his HIA. The optics are really not good, nor do I feel it's the correct application of the laws as they currently are.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
I do wonder if the uproar is in large part due to Farrell's personal history with unpunished shoulder charges.
Anyway, it was a reckless hit to the head, an offence that's been punished with a hair trigger for the last few years. Going unsanctioned is a huge departure from the norm and sets a very confusing precedent immediately before the World Cup.
Anyway, it was a reckless hit to the head, an offence that's been punished with a hair trigger for the last few years. Going unsanctioned is a huge departure from the norm and sets a very confusing precedent immediately before the World Cup.
