Refereeing decisions

[Goosestep]

What exactly was the reason for the ref blowing up the game when the Wallabies had a penalty advantage and were 5m out from the Scottish line? Surely it's either advantage over or play on?

Exactly,

this is where discretion and having a deep understanding of the game, so that when possible the ref shouldn’t intervene and stop the flow…. Or in more basic terms… Don’t be a pedantic , letter of the law asshole.

 

[JRugby2]

Not sure how they worded it without going back but at the time I thought they called it under

9.7 b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

You slap the ball away in or near the in goal at your own peril.

Maybe but it's not what I took away from LP's explanation on field.

Him referencing the direction his palm was facing to me says it was for a DKO rather than deliberate into touch.

FWIW I think it's the right outcome regardless. No genuine attempt to regain the ball so close to the try line/ touch so whether it was a DKO or into touch, the outcome was (should be) the same.

 

[Derpus]

I'm completely fine with it being a PK only (low danger in HCP can be PK only without anything to mitigate) and assume that the referee's have made relevant adjustments from earlier games where they may have been over zealous with cards.

But at this level they need to find ways to communicated to fans/ commentators so we don't get confusion week to week.

If so that is pretty dumb. If recalibration is required it should be done between test windows with clear directions to all involved. They bottled it.

 

[JRugby2]

If so that is pretty dumb. If recalibration is required it should be done between test windows with clear directions to all involved. They bottled it.

Hard disagree - We should expect referees to calibrate week to week so they don't continuously make the same errors, like players do.

It would be dumb to identify a mistake and then continuously make the same error, on purpose, to save face.

Just communicate that it was wrong and move on.

 

[Derpus]

Hard disagree - We should expect referees to calibrate week to week so they don't continuously make the same errors, like players do. It would be dumb to identify an error and then continuously make the same error to save face.

I mean... no? if they have reffed a rule one way for three weeks they shouldn't change it for the fourth.

Its not to save face its to preserve consistency so the players know how to play. Otherwise it's just a lottery shit show.

 

[John S]

Hard disagree - We should expect referees to calibrate week to week so they don't continuously make the same errors, like players do. It would be dumb to identify an error and then continuously make the same error to save face.

But what if a player faced judiciary and received a sanction for something that the refs decided was just a penalty a few weeks later as they were too harsh previously. I'd be a bit filthy

 

[JRugby2]

I mean... no? if they have reffed a rule one way for three weeks they shouldn't change it for the fourth.

Well it wouldn't be a change would it? The law hasn't changed, nor the HCP.

It would be identifying they were applying a law wrong and making the right corrections.

Lets be clear - this isn't a TMO thing, this is an on field referee decision as they refer it for the off field review when issuing a card. Jordie Barrett 3 weeks ago (which is as like for like as you can get) was given a yellow card when shown the hit by the TMO. Ref made the call to issue a YC - if the TMO was in the mind that it was a penalty only, they can't make that call - all they can do is not upgrade it when the player is off field.

In the following weeks, if the referee team has discussed this incident and gone, "Yep, got that wrong - it was close to the ruck, low speed/ force into the collision so low danger, PK only next time" - the last thing we need is for them to collectively agree to continuously make the same fuck up over and over again.

 

[cyclopath]

Hard disagree - We should expect referees to calibrate week to week so they don't continuously make the same errors, like players do.

It would be dumb to identify a mistake and then continuously make the same error, on purpose, to save face.

Just communicate that it was wrong and move on.

I find it hard to believe that this is a "re-calibration" as opposed to just an inconsistent application of the guidelines. Large sample size of these offences being YC v sample size of 1-2 that I can recall recently being a penalty.

 

[JRugby2]

But what if a player faced judiciary and received a sanction for something that the refs decided was just a penalty a few weeks later as they were too harsh previously. I'd be a bit filthy

Irrelevant - No player has faced judiciary for a hit like this in the ANS

 

[JRugby2]

I find it hard to believe that this is a "re-calibration" as opposed to just an inconsistent application of the guidelines. Large sample size of these offences being YC v sample size of 1-2 that I can recall recently being a penalty.

I can only recall one other like this (Jordie Barrett) being a yellow card - but I could be wrong.

 

[LeCheese]

I can only recall one other like this (Jordie Barrett) being a yellow card - but I could be wrong.

Has there not been countless incidents of head-on-head contact in an upright tackle being a yellow card?

 

[JRugby2]

Has there not been countless incidents of head-on-head contact in an upright tackle being a yellow card?

I can only recall one other like this (Jordie Barrett) being a yellow card - but I could be wrong.

 

[JRugby2]

Before this gets out of hand. The Kerevi hit and this one are completely different incidents, in case that's what people are upset about. The only thing that was the same was the head on head.

 

[Tomthumb]

The only thing that was the same was the head on head.

which is surely the most important part? The whole point of all this was to come down hard on direct head contact to “change behaviours”, instead now refs have become amateur physicists trying to determine the velocity of every hit

Just like when he penalised Jorgensen for running into Dorris, this ref was all over the shop

 

[JRugby2]

which is surely the most important part? The whole point of all this was to come down hard on direct head contact to “change behaviours”, instead now refs have become amateur physicists trying to determine the velocity of every hit

Just like when he penalised Jorgensen for running into Dorris, this ref was all over the shop

It doesn't take a physicist to know that a head clash that occurs from close range, at walking pace - is probably different to one where the players are 30m apart and sprint at each other

 

[JRugby2]

I also firmly believe that fans and commentators would be more upset if there was just a blanket ruling that any head contact attracted the same penalty of a red card - because (altogether now) not every head contact is the result of foul play

 

[Derpus]

Before this gets out of hand. The Kerevi hit and this one are completely different incidents, in case that's what people are upset about. The only thing that was the same was the head on head.

The Kerevi one was red.

It's not getting out of hand, you are just wrong. Are you part of some reffing lobby group?

 

[JRugby2]

The Kerevi one was red.

It's not getting out of hand, you are just wrong. Are you part of some reffing lobby group?

Yeah mate this is it, and our main aim to upset anon nuffies on rugby forums

And I'm ok with being wrong, in your opinion, if your opinion is you want to see cards instead of penalties for collisions where the 2 guys collide heads, after they practically walked into other off about 2 steps each

 

[LeCheese]

I also firmly believe that fans and commentators would be more upset if there was just a blanket ruling that any head contact attracted the same penalty of a red card - because (altogether now) not every head contact is the result of foul play

This was an instance where a tackler's poor (upright) body position resulted in direct head-on-head contact in a tackle. There were no substantial mitigating factors. It was worthy of a yellow card, in-line with how we have seen similar instances managed since the crack down a few years ago, regardless perceived force (it was by no means a glancing blow, by the way).

I haven't seen a single person suggest it was a red card offence, for what it's worth.

 

[JRugby2]

This was an instance where a tackler's poor (upright) body position resulted in direct head-on-head contact in a tackle. There were no substantial mitigating factors. It was worthy of a yellow card, in-line with how we have seen similar instances managed since the crack down a few years ago, regardless perceived force (it was by no means a glancing blow, by the way).

I haven't seen a single person suggest it was a red card offence, for what it's worth.

Agree with all of that - but this can also result in only a penalty being issued. You don't need mitigating factors if they deem it be low danger.

I'm not disagreeing either that other incidents in the last month have been adjudicated differently (although the only one I can think of is the Jordie Barrett YC) - obviously somewhere in there, one or more of these referees have made errors - my point is I wish they would communicate it so people knew which ones they were