Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

That's what people said in the match thread, but I'm actually less sure about it having seen it again.

The interpretation is usually that a maul can't disappear once it's over.

If he hadn't gone to ground I don't think I we would have looked twice at it

 

[Derpus]

Got a clip handy?

 

[Dan54]

Yep because whenever the halfback takes the ball aren't all the opposition players in a maul then impeded? Doesn't quite add up, of would certainly open a huge can of worms if this was the case,

 

[JRugby2]

Here is the clip:

The fall/slip is immaterial.

As someone mentioned above the maul is over when Marx becomes unbound (ie: his arm and shoulder clearly detach) but it's not an immediate obstruction as you can't expect a maul to disappear.

Marx hanging onto the player in front of him may have come under scrutiny if this created a barrier between any defenders and himself, but it didn't. Whether Marx has a hold of the players in front of him or not, it doesn't change the location of either Marx or the previous maul in front - Noah had as clear access to him as he was ever going to get that close to the line in that exact circumstance. It's also hard to argue that Marx attempts to recreate that maul as the moment Noah engages him he dives for the try line.

He's not been tackled either, so 13.1.a - Players who go to ground with the ball must immediately: Get up with the ball.

 

[TheScrumMachine]

Marx going to ground and diving for the try line without being tackled doesn't violate Law 13.1.a because he is not required to release the ball or get up in the same way a tackled player would be. The critical point is that he wasn't obstructing the defenders by holding onto a teammate, and he wasn’t tackled, so the law about players going to ground with the ball doesn't require him to do anything differently than what he did.

 

[Strewthcobber]

9:03 on the clock. Argentina's lineout throw wasn't straight. Taken at "4' in the lineout. Australia doesn't put anyone up until Frost jumps slightly later at "6" - noting he probably would have caught the ball if Arg jumper disappeared

Doleman doesn't blow up the not straight, because there is no "genuine contest" and Frost is then penalised for coming through the lineout.

There's going to be some controversy eventually there if that's the standard. What's a genuine contest? Refs asked to make even more grey decisions.

Rugby fan-focused law changes confirmed | World Rugby

The largest reimagination of rugby’s entertainment value continues to progress with the World Rugby Council approving a package of law amendments that will come into effect from 1 July, 2024.

www.world.rugby

Play on at a lineout if ball not thrown straight but only if lineout is uncontested, aiding the flow of the game.

 

[JRugby2]

Yeah 100%, there is probably something internal that they are working to in determining what is a contest and what isn't but needs to be clear to the fans as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

Frost was penalised for being offside in the maul. Doleman called him out and gave him a chance to get out without being penalised but he kept interfering.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah - I have no problem with that. Just giving the sequence of events. Came across too early and then didn't leave the maul when asked

The new not straight interpretation was the interesting bit

 

[Dan54]

Yep Strewth, got me beat how they can determine who is genuinely contesting etc too. If hooker throws crokked to first man in lineout, there is no way anyone can reall compete too.
I had originally thought a player would just make a half hearted attempt anywhere and it would be counted. just seems another confusing law to me.

 

[JRugby2]

I'd say that, that would still be considered not straight. Throwing team still needs to ensure a contest is possible in the first place

Few examples I think they'll consider as no contest, and therefore allow a non-straight throw

Defending team doesn't jump
Thrown anywhere in the line, and the defending team are clearly late to the jump
Defending team jumps early, and comes down

Ultimately though, the point of this law is so we don't have arbitrary whistles when the defending team clearly aren't competing in the air for the ball (ie defensive lineout to maul). That is where we are going to see the biggest change. Otherwise still expect there to be pressure and emphasis on the attacking to throw straight.

 

[Mr Pilfer]

The time wasting is still killing the game. For example when the wallabies went 30 plus phases at the start of the game, as soon as the whistle went all the argies players went down for some sort of fake injuries and it felt like 5 minutes before the game got going again. They were obviously just gassed and that is the crap the ref needs to take out of the game and keep it moving as that removes the fatigue factor which helps teams unpack defences with tired front rowers etc.

Plus hard to attract new supporters to the game with so much downtime

 

[JRugby2]

Please remember this is not a referee thing. Referees aren't doctors and can't determine whether it is medically safe to remove an "injured" player from the field or tell them to play on. World Rugby could mandate something - but honestly find me a contact sport in the world that has solved this problem. Referees are powerless in this and shouldn't be blamed.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Didn't one of those "fake" injuries take one of their locks off the field at that point and was replaced by Lavanini? Lavanini played something like 79 minutes of the game.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Didn't an Argentinian get knocked out (hitting his head against LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto)'s hip?) in that phase of play?

 

[Alex Sharpe]

I agree that the exploitation of injury management needs to be cracked down on ASAP.

The game needs to take a bit of a harder approach. Either you are fit to play, in which case, get up and get on with it. Alternatively you are unfit to play, so get off the field ASAP to get treated. Rugby is a combative sport, and players shouldn't need a rub and a cuddle from the physio every time they get hit hard or bumped. the only time a doctor/physio should intervene is when a player is actually injured to the point of being unable to continue the game.

What needs to go is the scenario where a dude goes down, the trainer runs onto the field, gives him a massage and some magic spray while the rest of the team who are aerobically shot get a few minutes to recover. It kills the spectacle for and is unfair on the other team who has just worked hard to gain the initiative in the contest.

 

[Slim 293]

It would be interesting to trial having the game play on, with the only exception being for serious injuries where a stretcher/serious medical attention is required...

And if a front rower feigns injury before a scrum... make them uncontested.

If a hooker isn't available to throw into a lineout within a certain time frame, somebody else better do it or it's a free kick.

No doubt two things will result from this...

The NH will accuse us of trying to turn the game into rugby league, and South Africa will somehow find a way to exploit this to their benefit.

 

[JRugby2]

We largely do the first bit anyway. Even for serious injuries, typically the game doesn't stop until the ball becomes dead or play comes close to the injured player.

The uncontested scrum thing, ehh maybe? But what if that player requires medical attention and cannot physically walk from the field? Does the game make them continue until play has moved away from them and they can be assisted by a medic? Again with the lineout thing - we have laws around not delaying the game but I understand what you're getting at

Don't get me wrong I hate it too - but all of these solutions have major flaws, and no other contact sport has solved for this yet. I think you'll find that despite what fans and media want, the games administrators will always favour player welfare (read: not getting sued) over subjective constructs like momentum and flow of the game.

 

[Braveheart81]

Unless you allow interchanges (which I think would be far worse), I don't think there's a reasonable way to solve it.

 

[liquor box]

I would like rule changes that are not related to injuries. Next time a forward sits down because his laces are not right the referee should sit down all 16 forwards and get the trainers to put tape over their laces to stop it happening again. This would save about 5 minutes a game.

I would support the silly water breaks after 20 minutes if they banned water from the field, if you need a drink, go to the wing during the game and have a drink from a trainer. Water on the field should be to flush wounds or rinse blood from the mouth.

In regards to injuries, maybe if it is not a removal from the game (or probable serious injury) the player should be taken to the sideline and replaced until the next stop in play when they can then come on.