Refereeing decisions

[Bullrush]

There are completely legitimate reasons to turn and run to where a ball is being kicked regardless of what you 'believe' they are deliberately doing. Are we going to ask refs to start judging a players intent in running towards the ball?

The same thing happens when a player is running in support of a ball carrier. They can actually be obstructing a defender from getting to the ball but it's legal as long as they aren't changing their line to interfere with the defender.

 

[Bullrush]

They players know what they are doing is blocking. Otherwise they would run back behind the player to be able to support the next phase. The game / referees could get rid of this with a couple of penalties. If players were penalised as part of a 4 man wall, they wouldn't complain. They would be happy that they got away with it for so long.

Why would you run back behind the player when the player catching ball is about to run forward?

And will you penalise players who aren't fast enough to beat the ball to catcher or are they just not allowed to run towards the ball?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

There are completely legitimate reasons to turn and run to where a ball is being kicked regardless of what you 'believe' they are deliberately doing. Are we going to ask refs to start judging a players intent in running towards the ball?

yes - IMO it's a form of obstruction as they have no "intent" to compete for the ball and they are preventing the other team from competing for the ball.

It's a game based on competiton. What option does the chasing team have? They can't push them or tackle them. It's completely unfair to the chasing team. I can perhaps accept one player tracking back as they can run around them but a "wall" is problematic and is another trend like the "caterpillar" that should not be allowed.

 

[Bullrush]

yes - IMO it's a form of obstruction as they have no "intent" to compete for the ball and they are preventing the other team from competing for the ball.

It's a game based on competiton. What option does the chasing team have? They can't push them or tackle them. It's completely unfair to the chasing team. I can perhaps accept one player tracking back as they can run around them but a "wall" is problematic and is another trend like the "caterpillar" that should not be allowed.

'IMO' is the key phrase. Cos that's just your opinion. Stopping the defending team from competing for the ball happens at every ruck and breakdown.

How many times do we see a player catch a kick, get tackled, and then lose possession in the counter ruck. Competing at kicks happens all the time - which is why players from the receiving team run towards the ball. And is why they are called "contestable'.

 

[JRugby2]

They players know what they are doing is blocking. Otherwise they would run back behind the player to be able to support the next phase. The game / referees could get rid of this with a couple of penalties. If players were penalised as part of a 4 man wall, they wouldn't complain. They would be happy that they got away with it for so long.

What's the tangible difference (that can be identified by match officials) between this and running back towards where the ball will land - but blocking?

Players are allowed to retreat backwards towards where the ball is - and they are not offside. Running backwards on the same line is not blocking.

yes - IMO it's a form of obstruction as they have no "intent" to compete for the ball and they are preventing the other team from competing for the ball.

It's a game based on competiton. What option does the chasing team have?

Run around them.

They can't push them or tackle them. It's completely unfair to the chasing team.

It's not - because anyone running in the direction of the ball could realistically be judged to wanting to compete for possession.

Are we going to start penalising people for the speed at which they run? Just because they are running back at a slower pace doesn't mean they should be compelled to get out of the way of players running faster than them.

The ball is in the air so no team is in possession and every player from both teams on the field has the right to run towards it following the most direct path. If that path is shared by 2 opposed players than neither has any more right to it than the other.

I can perhaps accept one player tracking back as they can run around them but a "wall" is problematic and is another trend like the "caterpillar" that should not be allowed.

It's more problematic for the team who usually takes possession because the moment someone catches it then those players in front are compelled to move out of the way and give direct access to the ball carrier.


This is not that deep.

 

[Brumby Runner]

There are completely legitimate reasons to turn and run to where a ball is being kicked regardless of what you 'believe' they are deliberately doing. Are we going to ask refs to start judging a players intent in running towards the ball?

The same thing happens when a player is running in support of a ball carrier. They can actually be obstructing a defender from getting to the ball but it's legal as long as they aren't changing their line to interfere with the defender.

I know Cyclo wants the discussion to end, but this is just an absolute over-simplification. A support runner can legally obstruct a ball runner but only if he is behind, and hence onside, that ball runner. If he's in front of the carrier then he's in much the same situation as the blockers for a kick receiver and definitely offside and a penalty for obstruction is the sanction.

 

[Bullrush]

I know Cyclo wants the discussion to end, but this is just an absolute over-simplification. A support runner can legally obstruct a ball runner but only if he is behind, and hence onside, that ball runner. If he's in front of the carrier then he's in much the same situation as the blockers for a kick receiver and definitely offside and a penalty for obstruction is the sanction.

The only over-simplification is in thinking that simply being in the front of the ball always constitutes an obstruction.

Again, it happens at almost every breakdown in the game and as yet, I'm yet to hear how anyone would plan to penalise players for retreating back towards where a ball has been kicked.

What are the exact actions that you would make illegal?

 

[HayFarmer]

Hey guys, was wondering if PSDT's try against the Pumas last night where he jumped over the ruck to score was ok? I thought not long ago they brought in a law you can't jump over tackles because it was dangerous, how is this different? Was BO'K right to award it?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Hey guys, was wondering if PSDT's try against the Pumas last night where he jumped over the ruck to score was ok? I thought not long ago they brought in a law you can't jump over tackles because it was dangerous, how is this different? Was BO'K right to award it?

NZRU asked for clarification from WR (World Rugby) in 2022 on this sort of issue. WR (World Rugby) agreed that jumping over a tackle is illegal, but also this

In principle, in a try scoring situation, if the action is deemed to be a dive forward for a try, then it should be permitted. If a player is deemed to have left the ground to avoid a tackle; or to jump, or hurdle a potential tackler, then this is dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly.

Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws

Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.

www.world.rugby

 

[cyclopath]

For mine, should have been disallowed. How can you legally tackle him in the air? Removes the contest, which is fundamental to the ethos of Rugby.

 

[HayFarmer]

Thanks Strewth, but as Cyclopath says you can't touch him until he's back to earth, then it is too late. Will this open the floodgates to more of this stuff?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Thanks Strewth, but as Cyclopath says you can't touch him until he's back to earth, then it is too late. Will this open the floodgates to more of this stuff?

World Rugby's clarification permitted tackling the player diving for a try

A ball carrier may dive with the ball in order to score a try, and we all agree that should be allowed. From an equity perspective, if they do so, a defender may attempt to make a safe and legal tackle on that player. As we have said above, jumping to avoid a tackle should be regarded as dangerous play and should be sanctioned accordingly,even if no contact is made.

Player welfare should remain the priority deciding factor for match officials in these very rare situations. In such instances as this rare example, which involves great player skill and dexterity, match officials have to make a judgement call as to which actions have taken place. If there is any element of dangerous play, in line with the above ruling, then a try cannot be the reward.

 

[HayFarmer]

World Rugby's clarification permitted tackling the player diving for a try

Well, can you say he did jumped to avoid a tackle by the pillar defences. I feel this is a dangerous action as he is jumping over the top of other players in the ruck, anything could've gone haywire.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well, can you say he did jumped to avoid a tackle by the pillar defences. I feel this is a dangerous action as he is jumping over the top of other players in the ruck, anything could've gone haywire.

It's up to the match official to make a judgement call. If they think the diver, or the tackler do something dangerous they can penalised it.

In this instance the ref thought it was fine.

 

[cyclopath]

World Rugby's clarification permitted tackling the player diving for a try

It does read fairly ambiguously though. I reckon there would be a high chance that a tackler trying to tackle a player off the ground will get penalised / carded as the default is more likely to be "unsafe" than "safe". Still think launching in the air should be deemed "not on".

 

[Pfitzy]

does read fairly ambiguously though.

Welcome to rugby. You must be new here

 

[HayFarmer]

Welcome to rugby. You must be new here

Thanks Pfitzy, I briefly come & go over the years. Just recovering from surgery, so have a bit of spare time to indulge.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It does read fairly ambiguously though. I reckon there would be a high chance that a tackler trying to tackle a player off the ground will get penalised / carded as the default is more likely to be "unsafe" than "safe". Still think launching in the air should be deemed "not on".

Would have been simple to just say diving/jumping in the air to avoid a tackle is always unsafe and a penalty, and likewise any tackling in the air is unsafe and a penalty. Avoid the ambiguity and take it out of the realm of referee judgement.

 

[cyclopath]

Would have been simple to just say diving/jumping in the air to avoid a tackle is always unsafe and a penalty, and likewise any tackling in the air is unsafe and a penalty. Avoid the ambiguity and take it out of the realm of referee judgement.

World Rugby and Simple do not a Venn diagram make.
@Dismal Pillock could make a da Vinci Code level flow chart though...

 

[Strewthcobber]

Would have been simple to just say diving/jumping in the air to avoid a tackle is always unsafe and a penalty, and likewise any tackling in the air is unsafe and a penalty. Avoid the ambiguity and take it out of the realm of referee judgement.

Banning diving is a pretty massive change in how a try can be scored. Really limits what you have to do to get from a running position to grounding the ball. And probably doesn't improve anyone's safety

The ambiguity just ensures what is common practice, what refs have thought is OK probably since tries have been scored, remains legal