Refereeing decisions

[Quick Hands]

ABs v Boks - last minute of the first half.

Cane makes a tackle, gets blown off it, and rolls up to make the next tackle.

Lands on his elbows past the ball. Has one hand on the deck as he uses the other to go for the ball. Owens watches all this, then awards a penalty to the MiB for the Bok player not releasing.

Fuck.

A.

Duck.

Standard Operating Procedure.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's quite amazing how many AB tests Nigel Owen manages to referee.

Some of the explanations he gives to opposition captains in relation to AB tries or opposition no tries or various other decisions are truly wonders to behold.

 

[Slim 293]

I've only just seen the incident on the Tuesday Top 5, but the referee from the Eagles v Vikings match on the weekend needs to be stood down...........

That was just fucking disgusting behaviour, first the complete neglect for player welfare to allow play to continue around an injured player, and then to threaten the medics.........

What an absolute fluffybunny.

 

[barbarian]

I think that's a bit of an over-reaction Slim.

I agree he didn't handle it well, but the play stayed well away from the injured player. He wasn't in any danger.

And then the medico gave the ref a massive serve, and I'm not entirely sure what that achieves. I don't think the ref should have threatened him with removal from the ground, but I think it's fair not to cop that from a medic.

If the player was concussed or unconscious I'd think it's an outrage. As it was he only did his knee, and though it sounds callous I think it's fair to allow play to continue as long as the player isn't in any danger.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

The guidelines are only to stop play at professional level if the injured player is in danger because of where the play is or if the injury is head or neck related.

Play should have probably stopped but I don't think it is outrageous that it didn't.

In contrast, during the Rising vs Rams match, the referee blew the whistle to stop play after Hugh Roach yelped in pain due to an elbow injury. He shook it off and kept playing so in that situation it was the wrong call to stop play.

The closest ruck to the injury was about 10 metres away and then the play moves well past him.

 

[Jagman]

I remember when Drew Mitchell bent his foot sideways you could hear him screaming on TV but I don't recall the game stopping for him, until there was actually a break in play.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[whitefalcon]

Can someone explain to me why the ref didn’t allow the Vikings to replace Hyne? He said that they had “used all their substitutions” but surely unless all of the players on the bench we subbed because they were injured they could have replaced Hyne.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Can someone explain to me why the ref didn’t allow the Vikings to replace Hyne? He said that they had “used all their substitutions” but surely unless all of the players on the bench we subbed because they were injured they could have replaced Hyne.

If you have made 8 replacements already you can't make another one unless (and I'm not positive on this) it is for blood or a head injury assessment.

 

[whitefalcon]

If you have made 8 replacements already you can't make another one unless (and I'm not positive on this) it is for blood or a head injury assessment.

Is this an NRC rule?

Seems silly to me if you end up with injuries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Is this an NRC rule?

Seems silly to me if you end up with injuries.

No, it is in the laws of the game.




Law 3.8

A player may be permanently replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.


Law 3.14

If a player is substituted, that player may only return to play when replacing:

• an injured front row player in accordance with Law 3.5
• a player with a blood injury in accordance with Law 3.11
• a player undertaking a Head Injury Assessment in accordance with Law 3.12
• a player who has been injured as a result of foul play (as verified by the Match Officials).

This is why most teams don't empty their bench until very late in the game (unless the game isn't at all close). Other substitutions might be made a lot earlier but one guy ends up staying on the bench until the 75+ minute mark in case there is an injury.

 

[Brumby Runner]

In contrast, during the Rising vs Rams match, the referee blew the whistle to stop play after Hugh Roach yelped in pain due to an elbow injury. He shook it off and kept playing so in that situation it was the wrong call to stop play.

The closest ruck to the injury was about 10 metres away and then the play moves well past him.

But was it really a wrong call? The fact Roach was able to play on is somewhat irrelevant to the referee's call as the ref doesn't know at that juncture if the player can or can't continue playing. He heard a cry of anguish and reacted in what I'd say is the correct way. When play resumed, it started with a scrum with feed to the side in possession when play stopped. Certainly the flow of the game at that point was altered, but it is the fairest approach and crucially the one that protects the player who is in trouble.

 

[Braveheart81]

In general, yes I do think it was the wrong decision.

They are meant to stop play in the event of head or spinal injuries or if the injured player is in danger if the play continues.

I don't think Roach was in that situation.

If they want to commence stopping play for any potentially serious injury then change the laws and refereeing guidelines to reflect that.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would like to have confidence in the ability of our refs to diagnose the injury situation in a split second just on the sound of the player's squeal, and be able to decide that it is a head or spinal injury or just a broken bone or torn hammy etc.

 

[mst]

The guidelines are only to stop play at professional level if the injured player is in danger because of where the play is or if the injury is head or neck related.

Play should have probably stopped but I don't think it is outrageous that it didn't.

In contrast, during the Rising vs Rams match, the referee blew the whistle to stop play after Hugh Roach yelped in pain due to an elbow injury. He shook it off and kept playing so in that situation it was the wrong call to stop play.

The closest ruck to the injury was about 10 metres away and then the play moves well past him.

6.A.8 The referee’s whistle

(f) The referee must blow the whistle when it would be dangerous to let play continue or when it is probable that a player has been seriously injured.

 

[Braveheart81]

6.A.8 The referee’s whistle

(f) The referee must blow the whistle when it would be dangerous to let play continue or when it is probable that a player has been seriously injured.

In the professional game I'd argue that a knee injury wouldn't be a serious enough injury to demand that play is stopped.

I don't think Hyne was ever in danger. The play stayed away from there. Certainly if it had gone close the referee needs to stop play.

Clearly the referee would have been within his rights to stop play but I also don't think he was necessarily wrong for not stopping play.

 

[mst]

In the professional game I'd argue that a knee injury wouldn't be a serious enough injury to demand that play is stopped.
I don't think Hyne was ever in danger. The play stayed away from there. Certainly if it had gone close the referee needs to stop play.

Clearly the referee would have been within his rights to stop play but I also don't think he was necessarily wrong for not stopping play.

Optional rules?

So how does a referee know how injured a player is without stopping to find out and without a medical degree?

So your advocating that referees should play on and take the risk with a players safety and welfare?

 

[Braveheart81]

Optional rules?

So how does a referee know how injured a player is without stopping to find out and without a medical degree?

So your advocating that referees should play on and take the risk with a players safety and welfare?

Yes under the current laws, particularly at the elite level.

If the play gets close to that position then they need to stop play or if they are of the view that it is a head or spinal injury.

The team doctor can come onto the field to attend to the player.

In my opinion the referee should err on the side of letting play continue.

If it quickly becomes apparent that the injury is very serious then play can be stopped. Assistant referee and TMO both have access to the referee via their earpieces and the team doctor can signal that it is a serious injury to further help alert matters.

People are reacting to this incident as if the normal refereeing process in the event of injury is to stop play immediately which is it not.

 

[mst]

As cited above. The current law, 6.A.8 (f) explicitly says the referee must stop the game. The ARU code of conduct point 4.1 reinforces this.

 

[Braveheart81]

Still, I don't think a lower leg injury would generally meet the threshold of a "probable serious injury" in the professional game.

Certainly play generally doesn't get stopped for injuries if the referee can avoid it and I don't think that should change.

 

[Sully]

Look I wouldn't have been upset if the ref had pulled it up but to say he definitely should have is a major overstatement. The ball was never within 5 metres of him and yes the backline set up near him but they moved when the ball left the ruck.
The medic is another story. He was a complete idiot and should have kept his mouth shut instead he pissed the ref off. The skipper had already pushed things pretty far probably too far and the medic clearly didn't need to say anything Would it have changed anything? I don't know but there was one 50/50 maul that may have went their way in another situation.