Waratahs v Rebels - ANZ - Anzac Day 2015

[MonkeyBoy]

I am sick of hearing the Ref got it wrong when he actually didn't, the Rebels got it wrong and cost them selves the game once again. The Picture is where the Rebels took down the kickoff so they are clearly driver back into the 22 and were not allowed to kick it out on the full.

Where was the tackle completed - not stirring just don't remember, if it was completed in the 22 then that is the requisite 1 phase and the Hoff made a boo boo. If a player has clanger there are 14 to clean up if the reff has one he is on his lonesome

 

[Braveheart81]

I am sick of hearing the Ref got it wrong when he actually didn't, the Rebels got it wrong and cost them selves the game once again. The Picture is where the Rebels took down the kickoff so they are clearly driver back into the 22 and were not allowed to kick it out on the full.

There's one more phase after this before the kick. Stirzacker passes to Timani who hits it up and stays inside the 22 so the next phase where Debreczeni kicks is entirely inside the 22.

Hoffman definitely made a mistake.

Where was the tackle completed - not stirring just don't remember, if it was completed in the 22 then that is the requisite 1 phase and the Hoff made a boo boo. If a player has clanger there are 14 to clean up if the reff has one he is on his lonesome

I don't think that is correct. If you get tackled back into the 22 you have taken it back. You need to have a phase that starts inside the 22 and doesn't leave the 22 before the ball is considered inside and can be kicked out on the full.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

There's one more phase after this before the kick. Stirzacker passes to Timani who hits it up and stays inside the 22 so the next phase where Debreczeni kicks is entirely inside the 22.

Hoffman definitely made a mistake.




I don't think that is correct. If you get tackled back into the 22 you have taken it back. You need to have a phase that starts inside the 22 and doesn't leave the 22 before the ball is considered inside and can be kicked out on the full.

My understanding of the law is where the player hits the ground and is held is the tackle, so if he was driven back but didn't hit the ground until he was inside then the tackle took place in the 22

 

[Baldric]

Good referee management would be to tell then "taken back"at the ruck so that there is no confusion. This is standard practice where the tackle takes place in close vicinity of the 22 line.

Correct or incorrect decision, it was poor game management by Hoffman.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Good referee management would be to tell then "taken back"at the ruck so that there is no confusion. This is standard practice where the tackle takes place in close vicinity of the 22 line.

Correct or incorrect decision, it was poor game management by Hoffman.

He did call taken back iirc more than once

 

[Joeleee]

Does anyone have any actual footage of the incident? Stills aren't really all that helpful in this case. In terms of taking it back when tackled, I think of it much like getting tackled back into your own in-goal making it a 5 metre scrum. Getting tackled back into the 22 would be "taken back". That was my understanding anyway.

 

[KevinO]

Does anyone have any actual footage of the incident? Stills aren't really all that helpful in this case. In terms of taking it back when tackled, I think of it much like getting tackled back into your own in-goal making it a 5 metre scrum. Getting tackled back into the 22 would be "taken back". That was my understanding anyway.

107 minute mark

 

[MonkeyBoy]

The 2nd tackle definately takes place in the 22m, The Hoff calls taken back as D takes the kick. Unfortunate error.

 

[fatprop]

Hoffman was in error, but with the extra lines, it wasn't a simple process

 

[daz]

Laws and what-not aside, my understanding is that regardless of whether it was a right or wrong call, there was sufficient confusion for the skipper (Higgers) to ask the ref to get the TMO to quickly have a gander and give the all clear or not.

That the ref decided not to is probably more of an issue.

I understand that going down that path means potential for every call a ref makes to be referred to the TMO by the captains, which none of us would want to see. But in this case, there was an environmental item out of the control of all concerned added to the game (additional white lines) that may have contributed to the outcome.

I just think that for the sake of making sure neither team has been incorrectly penalised, the ref probably should have looked a bit closer during the stoppage.

 

[Pfitzy]

Hoffman was in error, but with the extra lines, it wasn't a simple process

It was a simple process to call on the TMO as Daz says above. They seem to do it for every fucking thing else.

 

[boyo]

As @Eyes and Ears said in another thread:-

"Because it is outside TMO protocol."

 

[daz]

As @Eyes and Ears said in another thread:-

"Because it is outside TMO protocol."

You know what? If the ref had said "Hey TMO, just check this fucking doozy out for me will ya?", the TMO would have. The ref is the game boss, and everyone controlling and monitoring the game works for him in that 80 minutes.

I'm not saying the TMO and ref could have over-ridden the call even if they wanted to, but the TMO could have let the ref know of the issue so that information could be passed on to the skippers, so they were a bit more careful next time a player was looking to kick in that area.

 

[KevinO]

^^^^^You considering a Captains referral system. The captain gets one per game as long as they ain't wrong. Would put the pressure on the Refs not to stuff up.

 

[Lindommer]

The TJ/AR told Hoffman he'd erred in his decision to take the lineout back, surely the bastard wondered if something was amiss. THEN, the TMO had a word in his shell-like his decision was wrong, pure stubbornness on his part. Not good enough, Rohan.

 

[daz]

^^^^^You considering a Captains referral system. The captain gets one per game as long as they ain't wrong. Would put the pressure on the Refs not to stuff up.

I'm not adverse to that idea in principle, but rugby is a bit more free flowing than cricket, where a referral can be done on the spot.

Sometimes the next break in play is too far along for a referral to be made. Still, it's an idea worth looking at.