• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Refereeing decisions

Dismal Pillock

Dismal Pillock

Michael Lynagh (62)
Strewthcobber said:
I reckon the rugby league influence around obstruction is starting to flow in to union.

Refs have been a bit more willing to penalize the team with the ball for dummy runners etc who get in front of the ball, so the defense has been more willing to tackle the lead runners because they either take down the ball carrier who gets the short pass, or they end up with the penalty for obstruction
Click to expand...
Rhino_rugby said:
Agreed, rugby league's influence on obstruction rulings seems to be creeping into the union.
Refs are cracking down on dummy runners, and defenses are smartly exploiting it either stopping the ball carrier or drawing the penalty.
Click to expand...
spider-man-pointing-meme-custom-cursor.png
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Ron Walden (29)
Braveheart81 said:
I agree with Strewthcobber here. The NRL went down the strict path they did with obstructions to try and remove as many subjective decisions as possible (i.e. a pass behind a player has to be caught on the outside of the decoy runner and a decoy runner can't come into contact with a defender). There are still issues there with some questionable calls but on the whole the strict, black and white view of the issue is quite good.

Multiple lines of attackers and decoy runners have become more and more prevalent in the modern game and I think we should go further than we currently have on policing those decoy runners. If they are reaching the defensive line then the onus needs to be on them to avoid contact.

It needs to be about manipulating defenders into making incorrect decisions, not about trying to get in the way of defenders so it's harder to defend.
Click to expand...
The current law posted above outlaws this anyway - but I disagree that its a massive problem that needs a crackdown beyond what is already being called.

One of the best things about rugby is there is always room for nuance in application of the law, in that a referee can look at a situation as say "10 Red was prevented from defending/ playing how they wish by 12 Blue - but it wouldn't have made a difference anyway because the pass was too long/ player catching it was already in space/ etc etc.

We probably see more of an impact from people being held back at breakdowns that lead runners obstructing someone.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
JRugby2 said:
We probably see more of an impact from people being held back at breakdowns that lead runners obstructing someone.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, and absolutely should be a crack down on this as it's an intentional offense.

Some teams who shall remain nameless may never score another try again
 
John S

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Anyone have an opinion on the penalty against Maro Itoje in the Ire/Eng game? I know you can t touch a jumping player in the air in the lineout, but looking at the replay, it looked a bit soft and as much as I hate to say it, Maro looked hard done by.
 
Dan54

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
John S said:
Anyone have an opinion on the penalty against Maro Itoje in the Ire/Eng game? I know you can t touch a jumping player in the air in the lineout, but looking at the replay, it looked a bit soft and as much as I hate to say it, Maro looked hard done by.
Click to expand...
Thought it looked tough to John. Looked like it was AR call, and may of looked a little worse from his angle.

The decisions I thought that were also worth a a look is the screen French used for DuPont to run behind at times. I thought Welsh players could of actually run and made contact with some of them and hopefully get them called for it. I know no calls seem to be made ever without contact, but players seem to be running a screen regardless, happens almost all time, and nothing is ever done without actual contact, which is wrong.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
I
John S said:
Anyone have an opinion on the penalty against Maro Itoje in the Ire/Eng game? I know you can t touch a jumping player in the air in the lineout, but looking at the replay, it looked a bit soft and as much as I hate to say it, Maro looked hard done by.
Click to expand...
Around 54:00 on the game clock

I reckon if you push a lineout jumper in the air, even just a little, and the end result is your opposition spit out to the side and miss the lineout take on the side of the push then you probably can't complain too much. Don't give the ref an excuse.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Ron Walden (29)
Strewthcobber said:
I

Around 54:00 on the game clock

I reckon if you push a lineout jumper in the air, even just a little, and the end result is your opposition spit out to the side and miss the lineout take on the side of the push then you probably can't complain too much. Don't give the ref an excuse.
Click to expand...
Yep, and FWIW they also had a closing the gap called against them and were warned several times to stay on their side.
 
Sully

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
Digging deep into my memories I believe it's incredibly easy to move someone who's jumping in a lineout a few inches.
 
John S

John S

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Strewthcobber said:
I

Around 54:00 on the game clock

I reckon if you push a lineout jumper in the air, even just a little, and the end result is your opposition spit out to the side and miss the lineout take on the side of the push then you probably can't complain too much. Don't give the ref an excuse.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fair enough. I do recall them being warned about minding the gap. To my non-playing brain it seemed soft. But I can see it was deserved, and totally Maro's fault for putting it into the ref's hand.

TBF, I reckon BOK didn't actually have that bad a game.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

David Codey (61)
Shamelessly stolen from a refs forum, but anyway.....

Ball is passed from 10 to 12 who fumbles it forwards. Without hitting the ground, it bounces off the posts and back into 12s hands who catches it and scores the try.

Would you award the try?
 
Wilson

Wilson

Rod McCall (65)
Strewthcobber said:
Shamelessly stolen from a refs forum, but anyway.....

Ball is passed from 10 to 12 who fumbles it forwards. Without hitting the ground, it bounces off the posts and back into 12s hands who catches it and scores the try.

Would you award the try?
Click to expand...
My instinct is no because controlling the ball with the posts is the same as controlling the ball with the ground, so as soon as it touched the post it became a knock on. That's assuming it went forward into the posts, if it somehow went backwards into them then it's fine.
 
Derpus

Derpus

Phil Waugh (73)
Strewthcobber said:
Shamelessly stolen from a refs forum, but anyway.....

Ball is passed from 10 to 12 who fumbles it forwards. Without hitting the ground, it bounces off the posts and back into 12s hands who catches it and scores the try.

Would you award the try?
Click to expand...
I don't know the actual answer but if that is a try they should fix that shit up because that's super dumb.
 
JRugby2

JRugby2

Ron Walden (29)
Strewthcobber said:
Well if they are part of "the ground" under law 1, then wouldn't they be captured by the knock-on law?
Click to expand...
I think if the definition of a Knock on was referring to Law 1: The Ground in the wording - rather than the literal ground - then they would have capitalised "The Ground" or put something in like "... and the ball touches the ground (refer to Law 1) or another player..."


and I hate myself for typing that sentence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top