Refereeing Issues from the England v Ireland game

First of all, I should say I'm an England fan that considers Nigel Owens to be pretty much the best referee in rugby today.

That being said, I had 3 issues with decisions (and processes) in the England v Ireland game on Saturday.

1. Forward Pass - Jonny May's try was ruled out after 'eagle eyed' intervention from the TMO for a Tom Youngs forward pass.

I have an issue with this. Stuart Barnes commended the decision and phrases like 'look at the cut of the grass' were being used on television. The judgement on forward passes has become the least enjoyable part of modern rugby for me. Here's why:

Trying to judge a forward pass on a static camera is very difficult, especially in marginal decisions. The players are moving, the ball is moving and the camera is still and often at an off-perpendicular angle. It's hard to judge. Having done some refereeing myself, it's easier on field because you tend to be moving with play and the relative movement of the ball is easier to judge. I can't say whether Youngs' pass was forward or not, but I don't believe the officials could from the replay either.

Here's what I'd like to see:

a - TMO reviews of forward passes to only be asked for by the referee or assistant. Not initiated by the TMO. All the on field officials (who were looking and moving) thought it was OK.
b - Hawkeye technology to be developed to make the decision - The instant the ball leaves a passer's hand, the ball must be travelling perpendicularly to the opposition's line faster than the passer was moving in the same direction. Seems tailor made for Hawkeye to me. Some things that look forward, won't be (and vice versa)

ADDENDUM - Look at 32.08 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YST2-ig4b6U - May was behind Youngs when pass was thrown AND it appears we was behind him when he caught the ball (looking at the pitch markings). The ball travelled forwards, yes, but I can certainly understand why the on field officials didn't see it (or the commentators, etc).

2. Offside from a knock on - Jonathan Joseph running back towards his own line 'knocks on' and someone in front picks it up - penalty (40.00 on the video)

This is more of a query than a substantive issue.... Of course, if this actually happened, it is correct. From the TV shots it's not clear what did happen, but the fact the Joseph was running back towards his own line makes me doubt the 'knock on' element. I can't say for sure, but was Nigel too quick to look for the offense....? I suppose I'll trust Nigel on this one.

3. Offside at a maul - Wigglesworth's try disallowed - Penalty (1:26:35 on video)

2 issues here:

a - within 2 phases - TMO said it was in protocol of 2 phases. Watch it again - Wood took the ball from the offending maul.... Ruck.... Launchbury took it on... Ruck.... Wigglesworth snipes. Is this really what they mean by 2 phases?

Here's the wording:

"2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls"

Well, it was further back than the 2 previous rucks, so this was wrong as a point of law......

To rub salt in the wound, Owens then awarded a penalty against England for Offside. This has to be the most uncharitable interpretation of the law here. There were no Ireland players involved and the ball was 'passed' forward from Robshaw to Wood. This was a technical infringement more akin to a forward pass, or accidentally offside - Scrum.

Rant over.

It was unacceptable for the forward pass to be missed by anyone. It was hugely forward, even accounting for movement, angles, optical illusions or whatever else.

Youngs pass looked forward to me & was surprised it was missed by the on field refs. Shame as the move deserved a try...but correct decision.

I agree with points 2 & 3 though & technically the try shouldn't have been disallowed & also should have been a scrum.
I'm glad it was just a warm up and not in the WC when points difference, try's scored could well be an issue.

There's no issue with the TMO's calling of the forward pass, it was a very good example of a forward pass that, as you've pointed out, should never have been missed. As it stands it was missed but it's up to the TMO to point out anything to a referee that he deems necessary. It can either relieve or infuriate and usually does.
Offside from a knock-on is what it is I'm afraid, the players natural instinct to lay claim to a loose ball is hard to override sometimes but falls into the discipline category.
The offside at the ruck was a glaring miss from the onfield officials and was, regardless of the phases, pointed out by the TMO. To not point this out in a meaningful match would be criminal. It was an offside offence, hence the penalty.
The laws are there for interpretation but in these cases are clear cut. Owens didn't exactly have a blinder, England played very well, Ireland were uninterested. Not a great day's entertainment all round

Scottrf wrote:It was unacceptable for the forward pass to be missed by anyone. It was hugely forward, even accounting for movement, angles, optical illusions or whatever else.

That's just it. The referee and the assistant on that side where both looking at it and deemed it not forward. It wasn't obvious to 2 people moving with play. It's tricky because the ball must be travelling forward with respect to the passer's speed.

It was Tom Youngs not Usain Bolt. If that wasn't forward you can literally pass it past the opposition line.

Pete330v2 wrote:
The offside at the ruck was a glaring miss from the onfield officials and was, regardless of the phases, pointed out by the TMO. To not point this out in a meaningful match would be criminal. It was an offside offence, hence the penalty.

So how many phases would you go back? To the previous restart?

Scottrf wrote:It was Tom Youngs not Usain Bolt. If that wasn't forward you can literally pass it past the opposition line.

It simply wasn't as obvious as that. Take another look.

Youngs passes the ball and when May catches it, he's only a step in front of Youngs. Youngs has been partially blocked in the meantime.

If Youngs is running at 15 mph forwards, the ball can still be moving at 14mph forwards and the pass will be backwards. That's why looking at it statically (ie the pitch as a reference) is problematic and they should develop technology.

spaynter wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It was Tom Youngs not Usain Bolt. If that wasn't forward you can literally pass it past the opposition line.

It simply wasn't as obvious as that. Take another look.

Youngs passes the ball and when May catches it, he's only a step in front of Youngs. Youngs has been partially blocked in the meantime.

If Youngs is running at 15 mph forwards, the ball can still be moving at 14mph forwards and the pass will be backwards. That's why looking at it statically (ie the pitch as a reference) is problematic and they should develop technology.

I don't need another look. I saw all 50 replays and it was a mile forward. You can see it clearly from his throwing action alone.

Nigel Owens is a poor referee who has admitted to never even having read the law book. He guesses at scrums and allows free for alls at rucks.

Poor.

You'll always get controversy with him refereeing as a result. He probably thinks it makes the game more exciting.

Trouble with forward passes is they never seem to make their minds up if it's passing the ball forward or whether it's whether the ball goes forward, which is an important difference. Either way Youngs' pass was glaringly forward.

Was also a bit annying when England hit Ireland on the counter were in their 22 with quick ball and a great chance to score a try when the ref whisltes due to an injury to one of the Irish players. Play was stopped the Irish guy (can't remember who) had some treatment and was OK to carry on. Owens apologised to Robshaw as England were left with a scrum out in rather than the great attacking opportunuty they had seconds before hand. Thought Owens blew up far to quickly.

wrfc1980 wrote:Was also a bit annying when England hit Ireland on the counter were in their 22 with quick ball and a great chance to score a try when the ref whisltes due to an injury to one of the Irish players. Play was stopped the Irish guy (can't remember who) had some treatment and was OK to carry on. Owens apologised to Robshaw as England were left with a scrum out in rather than the great attacking opportunuty they had seconds before hand. Thought Owens blew up far to quickly.

Conor Murray looked knocked out and went off for a concussion assessment. Referees (rightly) always have to look at the safety the players first.

But he came back on and was fine, this prevented a likely England try.

He was subbed with concussion. Even if he wasn't I'd agree you can't or shouldn't take the risk.

spaynter wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Was also a bit annying when England hit Ireland on the counter were in their 22 with quick ball and a great chance to score a try when the ref whisltes due to an injury to one of the Irish players. Play was stopped the Irish guy (can't remember who) had some treatment and was OK to carry on. Owens apologised to Robshaw as England were left with a scrum out in rather than the great attacking opportunuty they had seconds before hand. Thought Owens blew up far to quickly.

Conor Murray looked knocked out and went off for a concussion assessment. Referees (rightly) always have to look at the safety the players first.

wrfc Owens kept an eye on Murray as he ran past and saw no movement, as he was right beside play the correct call is to stop play

I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

spaynter wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:
The offside at the ruck was a glaring miss from the onfield officials and was, regardless of the phases, pointed out by the TMO. To not point this out in a meaningful match would be criminal. It was an offside offence, hence the penalty.

So how many phases would you go back? To the previous restart?

Previous game.

The protocols are there for a reason, they are not open to interpretation. A similar mistake happened in a previous game.

The big issue here is that tries become increasingly difficult to socre. The defewnding team is not subject to the same level of scrutiny...we dont stop play and reverse the play for 2 pahses every time a potential try svaing tackle or turnover is made.

The objections to TMO use in this way was exactly on this basis; that their scope will gradually creep. The problem being that their use will largley be limited to denying points scoring opportunities. It also means that play is incositently refereed, you have a differnet level of scruitiny and interpretation for occurences in the build up to a try than you do for all other play. Is that right?

The final issue I have with TMOS being used in this way is that it encourages the referees to make "no call" decisions, relying instead on the TMO to pick it up.

Whilst in this case we could say the offence was correctly penalised in the end it doesnt cover up that it was done through incorrect procedure (thefore not within the laws of the game) and that there are fundamental problems with the sue of TMOs which are to the detriment of the game.

Whether you agree with the overuling of Owens or not theres still a problem with the officiating here...someone missed something and someone cant count. That said in the overall scheme of things its not exactly a world changer.

My concern was not that the pass forward from Youngs was picked up (though last season it would have been ok) but that any number of passes similar and worse were not picked up because they did not immediately lead to a try.

both sides benefitted, but as a partisan fan one that we suffered from stayed in my mind. Ireland in the second half were attacking down the middle and Reddan threw a massive forward pass, but lines of sight were blocked. The passage of play that followed led to the lineout from which POC scored.

LondonTiger wrote:My concern was not that the pass forward from Youngs was picked up (though last season it would have been ok) but that any number of passes similar and worse were not picked up because they did not immediately lead to a try.

both sides benefitted, but as a partisan fan one that we suffered from stayed in my mind. Ireland in the second half were attacking down the middle and Reddan threw a massive forward pass, but lines of sight were blocked. The passage of play that followed led to the lineout from which POC scored.

There was one occasion when I think it was Robshaw on POC cleared him out of the ruck by the neck which is cardable offence but probably wouldn't have changed the final result as England were the superior team and Ireland were all over the place for the most part

Both sides were also guilty of kicking the ball out of the SHs hands.

Biltong wrote:I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

And it could well have been. Although I don't think it was as glaringly obvious as some (hence at least 2 officials on the pitch missed it). Even directions of hands is problematic unless you're lucky enough to have a side on camera.

Hawkeye (already being used for try touch downs, apparently) would be great for this.

spaynter wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It was Tom Youngs not Usain Bolt. If that wasn't forward you can literally pass it past the opposition line.

It simply wasn't as obvious as that. Take another look.

Youngs passes the ball and when May catches it, he's only a step in front of Youngs. Youngs has been partially blocked in the meantime.

If Youngs is running at 15 mph forwards, the ball can still be moving at 14mph forwards and the pass will be backwards. That's why looking at it statically (ie the pitch as a reference) is problematic and they should develop technology.

It's got less to do with measuring where the ball was caught compared to where it was passed and more to do with the movement of the arms which in this case deemed it clearly forward. It's that simple.

I thought the rule was that the ball can move forward, very forward in fact. As long as the hands of the passer are back than its judges to be a legal pass... is this not right?

If thats the case, the question on whether or not the pass was forward or not is a non issue... its all to do with the hands.

or did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed again???

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

And it could well have been. Although I don't think it was as glaringly obvious as some (hence at least 2 officials on the pitch missed it). Even directions of hands is problematic unless you're lucky enough to have a side on camera.

Hawkeye (already being used for try touch downs, apparently) would be great for this.

Mate, there are always debatable forward passes, I have learnt to accept them, we had two tries denied against OZ by the wonderful referee Bryce the Mice Lawrence.

Biltong wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

And it could well have been. Although I don't think it was as glaringly obvious as some (hence at least 2 officials on the pitch missed it). Even directions of hands is problematic unless you're lucky enough to have a side on camera.

Hawkeye (already being used for try touch downs, apparently) would be great for this.

Mate, there are always debatable forward passes, I have learnt to accept them, we had two tries denied against OZ by the wonderful referee Bryce the Mice Lawrence.

There used to always be debatable LBW calls in cricket too. Hawkeye seems to have solved that problem.

Hawkeye to see how someone's hands are moving in a pass? No thanks. Just use normal eyes. If the occasional call is wrong, so be it.

fa0019 wrote:I thought the rule was that the ball can move forward, very forward in fact. As long as the hands of the passer are back than its judges to be a legal pass... is this not right?

If thats the case, the question on whether or not the pass was forward or not is a non issue... its all to do with the hands.

or did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed again???

If one is running directly down the pitch, yes. For every degree of diagonal on that run, less so.

Scottrf wrote:Hawkeye to see how someone's hands are moving in a pass? No thanks. Just use normal eyes. If the occasional call is wrong, so be it.

Only on passes called for review by the on field officials. ie once a match or whatever.

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

And it could well have been. Although I don't think it was as glaringly obvious as some (hence at least 2 officials on the pitch missed it). Even directions of hands is problematic unless you're lucky enough to have a side on camera.

Hawkeye (already being used for try touch downs, apparently) would be great for this.

Mate, there are always debatable forward passes, I have learnt to accept them, we had two tries denied against OZ by the wonderful referee Bryce the Mice Lawrence.

There used to always be debatable LBW calls in cricket too. Hawkeye seems to have solved that problem.

If you used hawkeye every pass will be forward, as it tracks the motion of the ball

spaynter wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I thought the rule was that the ball can move forward, very forward in fact. As long as the hands of the passer are back than its judges to be a legal pass... is this not right?

If thats the case, the question on whether or not the pass was forward or not is a non issue... its all to do with the hands.

or did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed again???

If one is running directly down the pitch, yes. For every degree of diagonal on that run, less so.

Can you imagine the scene... Nige to the TMO, "jimmy can you calc. the angle of the passers shoulders when he let go of the ball".

fa0019 wrote:I thought the rule was that the ball can move forward, very forward in fact. As long as the hands of the passer are back than its judges to be a legal pass... is this not right?

If thats the case, the question on whether or not the pass was forward or not is a non issue... its all to do with the hands.

or did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed again???

They have changed that guidance now. So with youngs although May was always behind him, so relatively ball went backwards, the fact it actually travelled forwards was the deciding factor. However to the TJ and Ref who are running it looks backwards. This is why other - even worse passes were missed.

right then so calc. the speed of the player, the speed of the pass and the distance the ball travelled.

Then calc. an absolute flat pass on those 3 conditions and if its below that.. great, if not a forward pass.

Simples.

Did I miss anything out?

Biltong wrote:
If you used hawkeye every pass will be forward, as it tracks the motion of the ball

This.

Biltong wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:

spaynter wrote:

Biltong wrote:I thought the pass was forward.

The hands of Youngs went forward, the trajectory of the ball didn't influence my opinion

And it could well have been. Although I don't think it was as glaringly obvious as some (hence at least 2 officials on the pitch missed it). Even directions of hands is problematic unless you're lucky enough to have a side on camera.

Hawkeye (already being used for try touch downs, apparently) would be great for this.

Mate, there are always debatable forward passes, I have learnt to accept them, we had two tries denied against OZ by the wonderful referee Bryce the Mice Lawrence.

There used to always be debatable LBW calls in cricket too. Hawkeye seems to have solved that problem.

If you used hawkeye every pass will be forward, as it tracks the motion of the ball

The technology can track the motion of anything. Obviously it would have to be developed.

I've always said they need someone with a degree in mechanics in the TMO team.

Pass was forward. I am the most one eyed England fan and I thought it was forward live. I was relieved when it was initially given.

I agree about the other try though. Referees making decisions live have an excuse for getting things wrong. If TMOs are going to intervene then they have no excuse not to get things right. Personally I would like to see interventions from TMOs limited to foul play. The referee should be able to refer things if unsure but TMO should not be able to intervene except as I say for foul play.

As Gooseberry has said this is leading to weak refereering and attacking teams being subject to a scrutiny not applied to defending teams. That is the exact opposite of what we want.

The other reason I do not like TMO situation is because interpretation is inconsistant. England were denied a try wrongly against Ireland. Against Ireland the TMO was making it quite obvious to John Lacey that May had been subject to foul play, i.e. a deliberate trip but Lacey said the ball was out of play when even a schoolboy ref knows that foul play is still foul play even if the ball is dead.

LondonTiger wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I thought the rule was that the ball can move forward, very forward in fact. As long as the hands of the passer are back than its judges to be a legal pass... is this not right?

If thats the case, the question on whether or not the pass was forward or not is a non issue... its all to do with the hands.

or did I wake up on the wrong side of the bed again???

They have changed that guidance now. So with youngs although May was always behind him, so relatively ball went backwards, the fact it actually travelled forwards was the deciding factor. However to the TJ and Ref who are running it looks backwards. This is why other - even worse passes were missed.

That can't be right. It has to be relative. Or if I'm running forwards at 20mph (like May), I'd need to pass the ball directly backwards at 21mph for any pass not to be forward....

I was more upset by the ability of both teans to kick the ball out of the scrum halves hands and that both teams were allowed to fall over the ball and put their hands on the floor before dragging them back which just ruins quick ball.

why can't we go back to the days when the refs were in their 40s, had a bit of a belly, looked like he enjoyed his ale and was never closer than 20 metres in broken play???

Can't ever remember a coach/players slamming a referee in the amateur days.

These days the first reason for any loss is... interpretation, referee errors, other side cheating. Gone are the days when teams are gracious in defeat.

I recall in 2013 when England were smashed by Wales that Rowntree had the audacity to say he didn't think England did anything wrong and he wanted to discuss scrum law intrepretation with the ref.... this was after watching the scrum get smashed metre after metre and Englands props continually drop under the pressure, everyone could see that.

Refs make mistakes, it happens. Annoys me when comments from the coaches come out though, do it in private. You may well have valid points but comes across as sour grapes.

Frak now you've done it FA

yappysnap wrote:Frak now you've done it FA

couldn't help it yappy.  Its RWC time... i've even bought my popcorn for when the anglo-welsh mud-slinging begins. Thought I'd throw a few matchsticks in...

fa0019 wrote:why can't we go back to the days when the refs were in their 40s, had a bit of a belly, looked like he enjoyed his ale and was never closer than 20 metres in broken play???

Can't ever remember a coach/players slamming a referee in the amateur days.

These days the first reason for any loss is... interpretation, referee errors, other side cheating. Gone are the days when teams are gracious in defeat.

I recall in 2013 when England were smashed by Wales that Rowntree had the audacity to say he didn't think England did anything wrong and he wanted to discuss scrum law intrepretation with the ref.... this was after watching the scrum get smashed metre after metre and Englands props continually drop under the pressure, everyone could see that.

The problem a lot of us had was in the interpretation of the scrum laws. Nothing against Adam Jones - he was just being smart and playing the ref - but he wasn't exactly binding in a legit manner. If you looked at what happened in matches before or since with the majority of the same players Wales did not have the same apparent huge advantage in scrum performance.

Different rules... prior to the rule change, Jones was king. Because in those days being 21st counted for a lot.

fa0019 wrote:Different rules... prior to the rule change, Jones was king. Because in those days being 21st counted for a lot.

You are right to a point. But this wasn't the first time that AJ played vs England under the old rules

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Different rules... prior to the rule change, Jones was king. Because in those days being 21st counted for a lot.

You are right to a point. But this wasn't the first time that AJ played vs England under the old rules

Was the first time he faced a newby Joe Marler and Tom Youngs beside him. Marler was barely 110kg, Youngs 100kg.

You can talk about relative speeds, directions of hands and do all the mathematics you like, but the Law is black and white I'm afraid. Which I think probably makes it one of the most unpunished and referee-interpreted laws in the game.

World Rugby; Laws of the Game wrote:Law 12 'A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.'

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12&i=111

Actually it can travel towards the dead ball line without the player throwing it towards it.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/10/2204/what-is-a-forward-pass

"The whole concept is that the ball must travel backwards out of the players hands, but can move forward through the air, due to basic physics."

That is merely their opinion and only as valid as anyone elses. If you throw a ball it's travel is a vector, it's either towards the deadball line or it's not regardless how that is achieved.