Refereeing decisions

[Dctarget]

In Ireland V Arg, Arg received a kick off, were subsequently held up and Ireland got the put in at the scrum, I thought if it was off a kick off, then the ball doesn’t get turned over?

 

[Strewthcobber]

In Ireland V Arg, Arg received a kick off, were subsequently held up and Ireland got the put in at the scrum, I thought if it was off a kick off, then the ball doesn’t get turned over?

One of rugby,'s more stupid laws, this only applies to kicks in general play

If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The Kerevi written judiciary decision is up on the six nations site

Six Nations Rugby Disciplinary Updates - Six Nations Rugby

Find the latest news on disciplinary updates throughout the Six Nations Championships

www.sixnationsrugby.com

I really like that they publish these. Well worth reading the desicions if you want to understand the process

The Committee considered that the dangerous tackle was a result of poor technique, rather than by design, and by remaining upright and not lowering his body position prior to the tackle, the collision was inevitable in the upper body/ head area. There was however no sign of any malice whatsoever, and the Players actions were considered to be reckless and not intentional

 

[Slim 293]

"Poor technique" indeed... I haven't watched it since the weekend, but that was my initial reaction as Kerevi had put his head in the wrong place.

 

[JRugby2]

The Kerevi written judiciary decision is up on the six nations site

I really like that they publish these. Well worth reading the desicions if you want to understand the process

The Committee considered that the dangerous tackle was a result of poor technique, rather than by design, and by remaining upright and not lowering his body position prior to the tackle, the collision was inevitable in the upper body/ head area. There was however no sign of any malice whatsoever, and the Players actions were considered to be reckless and not intentional

Unless you're a tracking missile - you can't guarantee what part of the body you're going hit when you make a tackle (ball carriers will ALWAYS move in the moments prior to contact). If you target the sternum - your impact area is probably going to be somewhere between the navel and the head, whereas you target the navel, its now probably between the sternum and the hips.

A sudden and significant drop/ movement is pretty much reserved for players who slip into contact or are impacted by another player.

This is consistent with the application of law in open play tackles for yonks.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If you target the sternum - your impact area is probably going to be somewhere between the navel and the head, whereas you target the navel, its now probably between the sternum and the hips.

Yep, agreed. Kerevi was always going to get suspended because his head lined up with the ball carrier's head through the entire tackle process. He was never low enough to get mitigation.

 

[molman]

Unless you're a tracking missile - you can't guarantee what part of the body you're going hit when you make a tackle (ball carriers will ALWAYS move in the moments prior to contact). If you target the sternum - your impact area is probably going to be somewhere between the navel and the head, whereas you target the navel, its now probably between the sternum and the hips.

A sudden and significant drop/ movement is pretty much reserved for players who slip into contact or are impacted by another player.

This is consistent with the application of law in open play tackles for yonks.

Which I suspect is fine at amateur/semi-pro level, but I wouldn't be surprised if they train to tackle a little higher than you'd expect as there is also the element of wanting to wrap up the ball/close off the offload. You see a lot of international players tackling on the higher side (part of the reason I don't ever see below sternum rule coming in at pro level, it just wouldn't work) which as you allude always runs a risk with the dynamic movement and speed at that level of competition. There are a number of high-side tackles in every game, but not all of them result in head collisions or in some cases get missed like that Sua'ali'i tackle in the Wales game or the Meafou tackle in the France/Argentina game which both looked a bit iffy.

The demands on a larger player against a smaller player are even higher under the framework. I'm frankly aways rather impressed by some of the locks in the game who arguably execute some of the best tackles technically.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Good one in France v Argentina.

35 mins in

Spoiler: don't click if you don't want to know what happens

Pearce gives a yellow card and penalty try for a deliberate knock-on, where the ball clearly goes backwards.

I think it's the right call, the Arg player definately knocked the ball towards the opposition dead ball line, which is the definition in the law book.

 

[Sully]

Good one in France v Argentina.

35 mins in

Spoiler: don't click if you don't want to know what happens

Pearce gives a yellow card and penalty try for a deliberate knock-on, where the ball clearly goes backwards.

I think it's the right call, the Arg player definately knocked the ball towards the opposition dead ball line, which is the definition in the law book.

It was absolutely a deliberate knock on.

 

[Dctarget]

the young Irish flyhalf on debut was very very lucky to only receive a yellow card. That looks for all money a deliberate shoulder to the face.

 

[Derpus]

the young Irish flyhalf on debut was very very lucky to only receive a yellow card. That looks for all money a deliberate shoulder to the face.

linky

 

[Tomthumb]

the young Irish flyhalf on debut was very very lucky to only receive a yellow card. That looks for all money a deliberate shoulder to the face.

But I was told they were consistent

 

[molman]

the young Irish flyhalf on debut was very very lucky to only receive a yellow card. That looks for all money a deliberate shoulder to the face.

I was about to ask how there is anything in the framework that doesn't make that a red. Reckless/intentional, foulplay, no mitagation, straight to head with force. I support Ireland, but boy I'm really getting a bit over Fiji getting shafted on some of the calls/non-calls happening in their games.

A number of the Irish commentators thought it should be Red (https://www.balls.ie/rugby/sam-prendergast-red-lucky-ireland-fiji-616611) and Mike Byrne has basically said it was because he's wearing green it wasn't (https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/f...card-due-to-wearing-green-jersey-1699409.html). Don't think it's a great look.

The other one in that game was the referee providing some nice obstruction for a try. She even asked, did I create that hole. Clear on the replay that she did. Was really poor by the officials.

 

[Strewthcobber]

7:46 on the match clock for those playing at home.

At 12:50 the TMO gives his descion. Degree of force assessed as not high, and so degree of danger assessed as low, and stays at yellow. Borderline one again. I think I could agree with either one.

Disappointing to hear the commentators go on about "no mitigation for always illegal"

Mitigation is step 4 in the process. This challenge was not mitigated down, it was assessed as low danger at step 3.

If an idiot like me understands this, there should be no reason why commentators get it wrong. Got to do better than that. Understand your sport fellas if you are paid to describe it

 

[Wilson]

Disappointing to hear the commentators go on about "no mitigation for always illegal"

Mitigation is step 4 in the process. This challenge was not mitigated down, it was assessed as low danger at step 3.

If an idiot like me understands this, there should be no reason why commentators get it wrong. Got to do better than that. Understand your sport fellas if you are paid to describe it

This has been a real issue from commentators on both sides of the argument. We often see the Australian and NZ commentators criticized for their "let the boys play" attitude to this stuff (and they've earnt plenty of that criticism) many of the northern commentators are just as bad in the other direction.

While world rugby could definitely communicate it better the information is there for them and as the "experts" they should be doing a lot more to understand and communicate it. If they don't put the work in there's little hope that the average fan will. That understanding, and ideally engagement with referees, is something I'd like to see a lot more of from Stan in the future.

 

[cyclopath]

This has been a real issue from commentators on both sides of the argument. We often see the Australian and NZ commentators criticized for their "let the boys play" attitude to this stuff (and they've earnt plenty of that criticism) many of the northern commentators are just as bad in the other direction.

While world rugby could definitely communicate it better the information is there for them and as the "experts" they should be doing a lot more to understand and communicate it. If they don't put the work in there's little hope that the average fan will. That understanding, and ideally engagement with referees, is something I'd like to see a lot more of from Stan in the future.

The NH narrative is very much that it is primarily a SH problem. It dove-tails with the notion that the 20 min RC was a cunning plan to have a sacrificial lamb take out a class opposition player for little / no penalty.

 

[LeCheese]

The NH narrative is very much that it is primarily a SH problem. It dove-tails with the notion that the 20 min RC was a cunning plan to have a sacrificial lamb take out a class opposition player for little / no penalty.

The NH drivel around Kerevi’s 20min red card was exquisite. They seem to have forgotten three tries were scored while he was actually off the field…

 

[molman]

7:46 on the match clock for those playing at home.

At 12:50 the TMO gives his descion. Degree of force assessed as not high, and so degree of danger assessed as low, and stays at yellow. Borderline one again. I think I could agree with either one.

Disappointing to hear the commentators go on about "no mitigation for always illegal"

Mitigation is step 4 in the process. This challenge was not mitigated down, it was assessed as low danger at step 3.

If an idiot like me understands this, there should be no reason why commentators get it wrong. Got to do better than that. Understand your sport fellas if you are paid to describe it

Fair critisims of the commentators phrasing and language. The yellow didn't have anything to do with mitigation, but it was around judgement of the degree of danger.

I took their comments to be with regards to the “Intentional or an always-illegal act of foul play” factor when considering high degree of danger. It was to that element that I assumed they were commenting.

Direct head contact with your shoulder because you’ve turned into another player in a pretty reckless manner. He wasn’t in the act of attempting to tackle the player, it was always an illegal act. To judge it low danger just because he didn’t hit his head subjectively harder I personally felt was poor.

 

[JRugby2]

Good one in France v Argentina.

35 mins in

Spoiler: don't click if you don't want to know what happens

Pearce gives a yellow card and penalty try for a deliberate knock-on, where the ball clearly goes backwards.

I think it's the right call, the Arg player definately knocked the ball towards the opposition dead ball line, which is the definition in the law book.

Thats the not law book definition, ball must travel forward.

Unless theyve poorly phrased the penalty for being a deliberate knock from the field, then its a clear error

 

[Strewthcobber]

Thats the not law book definition, ball must travel forward.

Unless theyve poorly phrased the penalty for being a deliberate knock from the field, then its a clear error

Definition of forward in the law book = towards the opposition goal dead ball line.

Law 11.3

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.

For almost all other knock-on elements in the law book, the ball itself must go forward, but for this one it's the "knock"