Refereeing decisions

[Brumby Runner]

Diving in the air Strewth. It is possible and even preferable to dive along the ground when going for the tryline from inside the field of play.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

World Rugby and Simple do not a Venn diagram make.

Just need to follow World Rugby's Safety Protocols on these things.

Fairly simple, just follow the steps.

eg,

 

[brokendown]

the guillotine,with a very blunt blade

 

[cyclopath]

I knew you'd have it covered...

 

[Dismal Pillock]

 

[cyclopath]

Hope your aim is good, otherwise Egon gets a rude shock...

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Otago v Northland last night an Otago player picked up the ball at the back of a goal-line pileup & dived over several prone players, his boots making contact with at least one of them, into the in-goal. Ball landed on a defenders leg so Ref called held up.

1. How is this not dangerous play?

2. How can a defender, still on his feet & wholly behind the goal-line, tackle the player without conceding a penalty try & being binned for tackling a player in the air? Or is there a sub-section of a sub-clause of a guideline covering this situation?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Otago v Northland last night an Otago player picked up the ball at the back of a goal-line pileup & dived over several prone players, his boots making contact with at least one of them, into the in-goal. Ball landed on a defenders leg so Ref called held up.

1. How is this not dangerous play?

2. How can a defender, still on his feet & wholly behind the goal-line, tackle the player without conceding a penalty try & being binned for tackling a player in the air? Or is there a sub-section of a sub-clause of a guideline covering this situation?

See post #3889 and #3892 on the page before this one for WR (World Rugby)'s official line.

Basically, you can dive for the line to score a try, if the ref thinks it dangerous then you can be penalized, and the opposition is permitted to tackle you in the air if you dive to score a try

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I guess it's a rare occurrence but geez it looks like one of those things that when it goes wrong it could go horribly, career-endingly wrong for some poor bugger.

 

[Dan54]

With Angus Gardiner over here doing some NPC games, was interesting hearing TJ saying he was talking to him in Sydney while there for Bled, and Gus saying how excited he was coming over to do it, basically to get some rugby above club etc, and different no doubt. You tend to forget the refs enjoy the change and like a bit higher level etc too.

 

[Slim 293]

World Rugby set to implement new laws trialed in the RC...

World Rugby plans to downgrade red as part of law changes

www.rugby.com.au

 

[Dctarget]

World Rugby plans to downgrade red as part of law changes

www.rugby.com.au

woooo, up the all powerful Aussie illuminati.

 

[Braveheart81]

There was a ridiculous article on Rugbypass quoting Nigel Owens who doesn't agree with the 20 minute red card.

Nigel Owens' verdict on the 20-minute red card trial

Retired referee Nigel Owens has shared his verdict on the 20-minute red card trial which has been used in The Rugby Championship.

www.rugbypass.com

“As far as the 20-minute red card idea is concerned, I’m not a fan. As Mathieu has said, I don’t believe it will really solve any of the problems that we have in the game at the moment.

“If someone on the pitch has committed a red card offence, they should be given a red card that sees them sin-binned for the rest of the game. Simple as that. The problem at the moment is that players are being sent off for things like accidental head collisions, which are not acts of thuggery or recklessness, but simply rugby collisions just accidentally gone wrong.

“They should not be seen as red card offences in the first place – so do we need to change the laws instead? I think so, or we certainly need to look at the options, especially upright tackles. Too often, players are still not making the effort to go lower.

His argument is non-sensical because he's argued against it on the basis of a red card definition that doesn't match with reality.

 

[JRugby2]

There was a ridiculous article on Rugbypass quoting Nigel Owens who doesn't agree with the 20 minute red card.

Nigel Owens' verdict on the 20-minute red card trial

Retired referee Nigel Owens has shared his verdict on the 20-minute red card trial which has been used in The Rugby Championship.

www.rugbypass.com

“As far as the 20-minute red card idea is concerned, I’m not a fan. As Mathieu has said, I don’t believe it will really solve any of the problems that we have in the game at the moment.

“If someone on the pitch has committed a red card offence, they should be given a red card that sees them sin-binned for the rest of the game. Simple as that. The problem at the moment is that players are being sent off for things like accidental head collisions, which are not acts of thuggery or recklessness, but simply rugby collisions just accidentally gone wrong.

“They should not be seen as red card offences in the first place – so do we need to change the laws instead? I think so, or we certainly need to look at the options, especially upright tackles. Too often, players are still not making the effort to go lower.

His argument is non-sensical because he's argued against it on the basis of a red card definition that doesn't match with reality.

I suppose his argument is that we define what reality is in respect to what is and what isn't a red card offence.

 

[LeCheese]

I suppose his argument is that we define what reality is in respect to what is and what isn't a red card offence.

But failing that - and there's always going to controversy given the dynamic nature of the game how hard it is to determine intent - why is he not singing the praises of this law change (at least as being a first step) which reduces the impact of a red card decision on the player's team?

 

[JRugby2]

But failing that - and there's always going to controversy given the dynamic nature of the game how hard it is to determine intent - why is he not singing the praises of this law change (at least as being a first step) which reduces the impact of a red card decision on the player's team?

I get your point - and while I don't know for sure, my guess is he's trying differentiate between incidents that occur as a part of the game (a high tackle) and extraordinary incidents like punching, biting, stomping, shoulder charge etc.

An example to me that comes to mind is the SBW tackle vs BIL where he was sent off. Definitely a send off under law, but I'd argue it was a very poor attempt to perform an otherwise legal act of tackling compared to say a punch or stomp.

Maybe there is room for both in utopian rugby?

 

[Braveheart81]

I suppose his argument is that we define what reality is in respect to what is and what isn't a red card offence.

We already have.

Nigel Owens is saying that he doesn't agree with it.

It's somewhat perverse that the same people arguing that the 20 minute red card is bad for player safety are also arguing that some of the incidents we have now determined should be red card offences aren't red card offences.

It's pretty clear that it makes zero difference to the brain whether the head contact was entirely accidental or whether it was reckless/intentional.

I get your point - and while I don't know for sure, my guess is he's trying differentiate between incidents that occur as a part of the game (a high tackle) and extraordinary incidents like punching, biting, stomping, shoulder charge etc.

An example to me that comes to mind is the SBW tackle vs BIL where he was sent off. Definitely a send off under law, but I'd argue it was a very poor attempt to perform an otherwise legal act of tackling compared to say a punch or stomp.

We've already resolved that too. The straight red card is still an option for things like Frank Lomani's elbow on Josh Canham. These incidents are vanishingly rare in modern rugby.

 

[JRugby2]

We already have.

Nigel Owens is saying that he doesn't agree with it.

It's somewhat perverse that the same people arguing that the 20 minute red card is bad for player safety are also arguing that some of the incidents we have now determined should be red card offences aren't red card offences.

It's pretty clear that it makes zero difference to the brain whether the head contact was entirely accidental or whether it was reckless/intentional.



We've already resolved that too. The straight red card is still an option for things like Frank Lomani's elbow on Josh Canham. These incidents are vanishingly rare in modern rugby.

I understand this - I'm just saying his argument isn't non-sensical.

 

[Bullrush]

Nigel Owens:

“Plus, we didn’t see any real changes in player behaviour when it was trialled this summer, including at The Rugby Championship. There is still a lot of careless, reckless conduct out there, so I don’t know if introducing these new cards has made much of a difference anyway.”

I didn't think the 20-min card as meant to change players behaviour. It was more about games not losing their spectacle because one team suddenly has a 1-man advantage after 15mins.

If there was no change in behaviour, I would think that is a good thing because it means that a 20-min red card did not encourage players to be reckless.

It's annoying that Owens doesn't seem to get that a red carded player cannot come back on the field. They can be replaced after 20-min but the offending player is gone.

“If someone on the pitch has committed a red card offence, they should be given a red card that sees them sin-binned for the rest of the game. Simple as that"

“I’m against the 20 minute red card because if you have been sent off, you have done something reckless that has put another player at great risk, or you have committed an act of thuggery. A red card means you deserve to be off the pitch, so I don’t see why there should be a middle ground."

 

[Wilson]

Yeah, no change in player behavior is 100% in favour of the 20 minute red card and runs counter to one of the main arguments against it - that it removes the disincentive to offend and in the worst case some player is going to go out early and intentionally put someone out of the game on their coaches instruction because the penalty is "worth it"