Refereeing decisions

[Wilson]

View attachment 22019

I get it was a bad trip and potentially could warrant a red, what I'm saying is there's no basis for further scrutiny of an obvious trip that the ref saw live. The offence has been a clear cut yellow card for a long time, they're not going to spend time reviewing it because there's no expectation that it would ever be anything more. It's not like a head high where you're trying to determine initial point of contact, changes in height and variety of other mitigating factors. As far as the adjudication of the game goes a trip is pretty black and white.

The only time that's going to change is if it results in a serious injury, which would pause the game and possibly prompt a ref to look into it more deeply. The only other case is if the ref missed it live and it was first brought up by the TMO, but trips on the ball carrier are pretty hard to miss live, given it's where the focus already is.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Try or no try (Vid in article)?

"Marlborough Boys’ College has scored a famous 28-26 win over Nelson College that will be best remembered for a contentious trick-shot try to the MBC Falcons, just before half-time.

"Marlborough centre Anru Erasmus lined up a penalty from right in front - after informing the referee they were taking the shot - but turned and chipped the ball, off the kicking tee, along the ground towards the sideline.

"With the Nelson side huddled under the posts expecting the straightforward attempt to sail through the posts, Falcons lock Finn Neal dove in to ground the ball over the try line."

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

The complexity of Rugby Law on show.

Even top class referees (and NZ 1st XV refs would be very good) struggle to remember them all in the heat of the moment.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Not complex at all. Laws explicitly say this is not legal. Just poor knowledge from the ref

8.20 If the team indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they must kick at goal. The intention to kick can be communicated to the referee or signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Teams try this on semi-regularly. Any ref should know that this is not legal

The other one that pops up is teams pointing at the posts and saying "we are not going for goal"

I heard Michael Lynagh was reverse penalised for trying this back in the 80s (no idea if this is true) under the sportsmanship law, and I'm sure he learnt it from someone who tried it on in the 60s etc

 

[Dan54]

I was watching the game on tv when it happened. I didn't think it was right, but must admit wasn't absolutely sure. I will say I have watched rugby since the 1960s, and genuinely haven't seen that tried before. Although the ref probably should of known, as the to ARs, but geninely they are amatuer rfs at this level, so maybe I can not be too harsh on them.

 

[molman]

Can someone clarify. Have WR (World Rugby) given guidance that off the knee is no longer a knock on? I mean it sure isn't a kick but in the Lions vs. Argentina match Doleman must have called 3-4 knock ons as off the knee, no knock on, play on.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Can someone clarify. Have WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) given guidance that off the knee is no longer a knock on? I mean it sure isn't a kick but in the Lions vs. Argentina match Doleman must have called 3-4 knock ons as off the knee, no knock on, play on.

Never been a knock forward as far as I'm aware

 

[molman]

Never been a knock forward as far as I'm aware

No, I understand the law if a player passes (backwards) and it hits another players knee (ie. that player hasn't played at it), but if a player looses it forward and it then bounces off a players knee, surly it's a knock on?

Anyway, I'll have another look, maybe it was the first scenario, but it sure looked like it was just lost forward a time or two in some of the ping ponging that occured in the game.

 

[Strewthcobber]

No, I understand the law if a player passes (backwards) and it hits another players knee (ie. that player hasn't played at it), but if a player looses it forward and it then bounces off a players knee, surly it's a knock on?

Anyway, I'll have another look, maybe it was the first scenario, but it sure looked like it was just lost forward a time or two in some of the ping ponging that occured in the game.

Ah right. Well then "it depends"

You can legally knee the ball forward (as you say though, it's not a kick).

If you touch or drop the ball backwards, and then knee it forward, it's play on.

So you/the ref have to decide where the ball went before it was kneed

 

[Brumby Runner]

One instance I noticed late in the game an Argentina player fumbled the ball forward and it then came off his knee as he ran forward. This was a definite knock on and I think Doleman called it. If the only point on a player the ball touches is a knee and is propelled forward it is play on.

 

[John S]

There was a moment around the 18-20min mark in the first half in the lead up to the Lions first try, I thought the Argie player was lucky to not be sent off for deliberate knock on. Not sure was Doleman saw there, he just called it two knock ons even after seeing the replay where it looked clear to me the Argie wasn't in a realistic position to catch the ball.

 

[Braveheart81]

There was a moment around the 18-20min mark in the first half in the lead up to the Lions first try, I thought the Argie player was lucky to not be sent off for deliberate knock on. Not sure was Doleman saw there, he just called it two knock ons even after seeing the replay where it looked clear to me the Argie wasn't in a realistic position to catch the ball.

I think he probably was trying to get his hand in the way of the ball but it was in the process of a legitimate tackle which I think makes it really hard to call it as a deliberate knock on.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yeah, looked fairly intentional in slowmo, but probably enough doubt there to avoid giving a penalty.

There was no "probable" linebreak on (although very promising atack!), so a yellow card was never in play.

 

[John S]

Yeah, fair enough. I saw it different. Surprisingly (as others have said) Doleman didn't crap in the bed, and had a not bad game (except for the obvious knock on try he awarded)

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeah, fair enough. I saw it different. Surprisingly (as others have said) Doleman didn't crap in the bed, and had a not bad game (except for the obvious knock on try he awarded)

Do you know approximately when in the game that is?

 

[JRugby2]

No, I understand the law if a player passes (backwards) and it hits another players knee (ie. that player hasn't played at it), but if a player looses it forward and it then bounces off a players knee, surly it's a knock on?

Anyway, I'll have another look, maybe it was the first scenario, but it sure looked like it was just lost forward a time or two in some of the ping ponging that occured in the game.

This is a knock on.

 

[Sword of Justice]

Do you know approximately when in the game that is?

John may be referring to the Lions try that was off a maul very early on in the game that the TMO ultimately called back and overturned.

 

[John S]

John may be referring to the Lions try that was off a maul very early on in the game that the TMO ultimately called back and overturned.

Correct. He was 2m away and missed it. Ok, I'm taking my anti-Doleman glasses off. I can see how he missed it - it took TMO s few angles to pick it up.

 

[Sword of Justice]

Correct. He was 2m away and missed it. Ok, I'm taking my anti-Doleman glasses off. I can see how he missed it - it took TMO s few angles to pick it up.

If you watch him though he clearly hesitates. I think he sees something and just goes ahead and awards it anyway.