Refereeing decisions

[MonkeyBoy]

In one of the cases in the original clip, the defending team chose not to form a ruck and one of the attacking team reached out and grabbed the jersey of an opponent, presumably to form a ruck. The referee (Steve Walsh I think) ruled that this constituted a ruck - even though to be part of a ruck a player must be bound with the full arm, grabbing a jersey by the hand doesn't constitute a bind in scrums, rucks or mauls.

Except in the formation of a ruck where the Defn is literally two or more players from opposing teams in contact over the ball. You only have to be bound to join a ruck.

 

[Brendan Hume]

^^^ that's correct, I had to reassess my understanding of a ruck as well in this regard. The games a bloody minefield of interpretations that make it difficult for most people to understand, some of the intellectual arguments of unions in the past to determine things like the ball being out are bizarre to say the least, and very little practicalism or pragmatism is taken when making these rulings, however the laws around the ruck are clear, they're just difficult for a referee to manage at the pace the modern game is played.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Except in the formation of a ruck where the Defn is literally two or more players from opposing teams in contact over the ball. You only have to be bound to join a ruck.

Actually it's a bit more that that, they also have to be closed around the ball.





http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=16

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

 

[Gnostic]

I watched the Aus V NZ Semi final from the 1991 RWC again last night. One thing that surprised me looking considering the discussion around Law changes to open the game up etc etc, is just how fast the ball was cleared from most rucks and how fast both the lineout and the scrum formed and the ball was fed.​

​

I have to say that the "modern" law interpretations and implementation has significantly slowed the game. Some people will argue about defence being worse etc, but leaving aside the ball in play phases the breakdowns and the set pieces are significantly slower and often less of a contest.​

​

Also of note to me was the great myth of the "running" game. The Wallabies scored two wonderful tries in that game, off brilliant running and support play, but both were scored from phase play set just inside the NZ 40M. The field position kicking game of the Wallabies that day totally dominated the ABs.​

 

[Quick Hands]

I watched the Aus V NZ Semi final from the 1991 RWC again last night. One thing that surprised me looking considering the discussion around Law changes to open the game up etc etc, is just how fast the ball was cleared from most rucks and how fast both the lineout and the scrum formed and the ball was fed.

I have to say that the "modern" law interpretations and implementation has significantly slowed the game. Some people will argue about defence being worse etc, but leaving aside the ball in play phases the breakdowns and the set pieces are significantly slower and often less of a contest.

Also of note to me was the great myth of the "running" game. The Wallabies scored two wonderful tries in that game, off brilliant running and support play, but both were scored from phase play set just inside the NZ 40M. The field position kicking game of the Wallabies that day totally dominated the ABs.

I can't like this post enough Gnostic.

 

[Baldric]

Why does this not become a maul when the first black player goes for the ball?
What about the black players joining in after that. Would that be seen as side entry?


https://gfycat.com/GivingSimilarHagfish

 

[Quick Hands]

Why does this not become a maul when the first black player goes for the ball?
What about the black players joining in after that. Would that be seen as side entry?


https://gfycat.com/GivingSimilarHagfish

It doesn't become a maul because for a maul to exist a player from each side must hold the ball carrier. At no point does any black player "hold" the ball carrier. A black player runs around to where he thinks the ball might be, but it would seem that the player who caught the ball still had it. It took him a while to work out that there were no defenders in front of him and he walked over and scored.

A maul never existed in this clip. Something which may have looked like a maul existed, but it was just a bunch of players from one team holding each other. As long as the ball stays with the player at the front it's alright. If it's passed back and the defenders are prevented from tackling the player with the ball, it's obstruction.

Chiefs were too smart for themselves in this instance - no one was in front of the ball carrier.

EDIT: If the black player who ran around succeeded in grabbing the ball (which wasn't there) it still wouldn't havea been a maul unless he held/bound onto the guy with the ball. Placing both his hands on the ball wouldn't make it a maul.

The ref was 100% correct in this instance.

A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?law=17

 

[terry j]

that was not a try because the ball WAS passed to the guy behind (watch Booms hands, they come free, and then dive back in. Si as well as obstruction there had to be a forward pass somewhere too)

I do however get your points and they helped clear things for me. thanks.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Lots to unpick in that one.

Chiefs player offside because the lineout wasn't finished?
Lineout finished once the ball is handed back to someone else?
Chiefs player obstructed from tackling the ball carrier?
Forward pass/offside in the pseudo-maul?

Who'd be a ref?

 

[Quick Hands]

that was not a try because the ball WAS passed to the guy behind (watch Booms hands, they come free, and then dive back in. Si as well as obstruction there had to be a forward pass somewhere too)

I do however get your points and they helped clear things for me. thanks.

On second look, its appears that he has the ball back and then grabbed it back again. Offside - penalty chiefs.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Be useful to get some clarity on these rulings, and tactics/counter tactics before the RWC.

Hate to think of the damage it would do the the RWC if the final is decided on the back of something like this.

There are some who still haven't moved on from a possible forward pass in the FRA v NZL match in RWC 07.

 

[GTPIH]

Or the knock on by France in the 1987 semi-final.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

there was a memo sent out in July last year by the ARU (Referees) detailing what should happen. In this case the referee should have called used it as soon as the ball was passed back, I can only guess that he didn't see it.

 

[zer0]

There are some who still haven't moved on from a possible forward pass in the FRA v NZL match in RWC 07.

That's only the casuals. Us proper supporters still have perpetual vendettas against all South African waitresses and anyone named "Suzie".

Also, John goddamned fricking Eales.

 

[Quick Hands]

there was a memo sent out in July last year by the ARU (Referees) detailing what should happen. In this case the referee should have called used it as soon as the ball was passed back, I can only guess that he didn't see it.

He mustn't have seen it if he awarded the try otherwise the eventual try scorer must have been offside.

 

[terry j]

He mustn't have seen it if he awarded the try otherwise the eventual try scorer must have been offside.

Yeah, sure the ref on the field did not see it, but IIRC it went upstairs (?) and was awarded anyway.

Unless I am getting senile and it was another game that is haha.

 

[Quick Hands]

Be useful to get some clarity on these rulings, and tactics/counter tactics before the RWC.

Hate to think of the damage it would do the the RWC if the final is decided on the back of something like this.

There are some who still haven't moved on from a possible forward pass in the FRA v NZL match in RWC 07.

Some of our New Zealand friends have a longer memory than that

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/wales-beat-the-all-blacks-in-controversial-match

A video recreation of the match with narration starts at 16.00.

 

[Sully]

It would be interesting to work the gif up into a blog article with two ref's suggesting what they think should have happened and if it was a try or not. Anyone want to have a go at it?

 

[Dan54]

Well just watched NZs Breakdown (TV rugby show) and had 2 refs as guests Glen Jackson and Chris Pollock, asked them for opinions on one or 2 decisions, one where Jackson says yep got that wrong etc, but I found it incredibly interesting to hear what they look at in games, even how they think you can miss something just by being in a certain position etc etc. Was great viewing and a lot of 'experts' on rugby forums would be well placed to listen to what refs have to say etc. No wonder that a favourite rugby programme of mine!

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The Laws of Rugby are rather complex. In most set pieces, there are numerous offences (many technical in nature not affecting the "vibe" of the game) that Sir could blow his whistle for if they really wanted to demonstrate their vastly superior and pedantic knowledge of the Laws. This is not always in the best interest of the game, however many spectators and observers of the game have a rather jaundiced view of what sort of opposition transgressions Sir should be watching for as opposed to those he happens to pick up for the team they support.

The advantage law is supposed to give Sir some discretion as to keeping the vibe of the game going in a safe and compliant manner.

Some referees are better at applying the advantage law and keeping the ball in play for long periods. Many are not.

While fitness standards of players nowdays are light years ahead of those in my day, I am wondering if players could actually keep going for really long periods if referees were more liberal with the advantage law and ran allowed phases to run for 5 or 10 minutes and more. There is usually a trail of bodies strewn across the field when the phase count gets up to 20 or more in many of the televised games.

There are different measures about when a "ball is in play", but there are claims of a "ball being in play" for only about 1/3 or less of game time. ie in a 60 minute game (maths is easier using a 60 minute game as oppossed to an 80 minute game) the ball is not available for contest for 40 minutes. Either the ball is out of play (after Sir has whistled for something - in touch, PK, FK, or scrum) and yet to be contested again (fed into the scrum or lineout, tapped by a player doing a quick tap after a FK/PK, etc).

After this rather long winded preamble, which is not unusual for me, my question is two fold:
a. what percentage of game time is the ball actually available for contest? Has anyone actually timed this and added it all up on a statistically significant basis?
b. Would players be able to sustain game play if referees were even more liberal with their application of the advantage law? What is the longest period of play you have observed between Sir tooting the Acme Thunderer for an offence against the Laws of the Game?