Ask The Ref

Ask the Ref

By popular demand (well, KiwiRedDevil asked me to), here's a thread for people to ask about all those weird and wonderful aspects of the laws of the game, and their interpretation by referees.

This isn't an opinion thread per se, it's more for those random reffing/laws musings you may have had but never got the answer to.

So if there's anything you ever wondered about refereeing, and never knew who to ask, go for it.

EDIT
We're lucky enough to have several qualified ref's on the forum, Red Stag, MBTGOG, PenfroPete and perhaps others (?) So hopefully thse little questions can be answered -    

Ok here goes. In my opinion the crouch, touch, pause and engage does not work.

Firstly the team who puts in the ball does not get the benefit of deciding when to hit, and therefor gets no benefit.

Referees try as they might do not have the same intervals inbetween the crouch touch pause and engages, sometimes not even in the same matches.

Most referees (if any) has actually played front row, and most likely has very little practical knowledge of the dark arts of the scrum, and often the wrong team is penalised.

Either they must go back to free kicks as a way to penalise teams or remove the "safety" calls by referees.

This is professional rugby and I can't remember of any neck injuries prior to the new laws.

Do referees get any input as to whether they feel laws are unecessary or not working?

Biltong - CTPE was ironically introduced to make the scrum safer. The IRB felt that the old "Ready, Engage" system was unsafe and teams were chasing momentum.

In the late 1990s a rugby referee was sued for not implementing CTPE in a kids game when the older "Ready, Engage" system led to a player getting a broken neck. CTPE was considered by experts to be much safer.

They looked at underage rugby and took the Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage system from there and made it into the Senior Game. The logical was that it would make sure teams were correct distance apart and would be held down so long a hit would be impossible. They then tried to lenghten the pause to ensure this.

However the whole thing backfired and has been a disaster far worse than before.

Biltong - with regards to your other points I think too many offenses at scrums at a 3 pointer. It leads to teams trying to win penalties rather than trying to win possession. It also leads to referees deciding that a reset is a safer option than a potential 3 points.

As to whether referees get a say in new laws the answer is yes and no. Referees are regularly assessed at lower levels and always assessed at top levels. If referees are regularly failing on certain laws this will be picked up and identified to the revelant Unions who can petition the IRB for change.

red_stag wrote:Biltong - with regards to your other points I think too many offenses at scrums at a 3 pointer. It leads to teams trying to win penalties rather than trying to win possession. It also leads to referees deciding that a reset is a safer option than a potential 3 points.

That is exactly what concerns me. the scrums are currently a lottery.

Whilst on the subject of forwards.

I wish the rolling maul could be banned. 90% of the time it is obstruction.

Stag,do you think there is too much focus on the hit in the scrum? It seems to be more about the force of the hit before scrummaging technique.

Thomond wrote:Stag,do you think there is too much focus on the hit in the scrum? It seems to be more about the force of the hit before scrummaging technique.

Yes, I agree. The "hit" is not a term in the Laws of the Game. What should happen is a passive engagement and the two packs using a static shove. Now they target a big hit, quick feed and playing off momentum.

Stag quick question about your reffing of the game

in the scrum do you let the oppo tighthead try hook the ball

I find that alot of refs won't allow it but some will

D24tress wrote:Stag quick question about your reffing of the game

in the scrum do you let the oppo tighthead try hook the ball

I find that alot of refs won't allow it but some will

Any front row can hook for possession.

thats what i thought stag

but i find that as a tighthead, one ref in particular said not to go for it or he would whistle for it, because it was dangerous as there was more chance of the scrum collapsing if the tight head isnt firm,

Now we were in control and there was not much chance of it going down in my view, but still wouldnt let me compete, I know the rule is anyone can, but is there a directive or is this just his personal opinion,
It has happened with other refs but some let it go,

Or is it just a case of some refs not knowing the rules

Nah just his way of managing it. I wouldn't be surprised by that especially if the scrums were dangerously one sided (you say you were in complete control) or it was an underage game.

By in control i mean it wasnt going down

One thing about it is if you are going for it, you would want to get it otherwise you are getting mullered, it was a full scrum game.

Rugby is wierd auld game, the ref really is part of the game, he can influence how the game looks and is played, while another ref could do it another way and the outcome would be completely different

And thats why its the second best sport in the world( hurling being no.1)

D24tress wrote:One thing about it is if you are going for it, you would want to get it otherwise you are getting mullered

Exactly thats my take on it. You leave yourself open to being shoved back and you won't be anchoring the scrum properly.

Does the rule about the ball having to go past 2 of your own team's legs before being hooked still apply? That's how the home unions banned NZ's 2-3-2* scrum formation back in the late '30s.


* that's 2 front-rowers, 3 locks and 2 back-rows. The 8th forward was called the "wing forward", who fed the scrum, passed the ball to the half-back, and was usually 1st to the breakddown. The more efficient weight distribution with the 3 locks made it effective against an 8-man 3-2-3 formation scrum.

Kiwireddevil wrote:Does the rule about the ball having to go past 2 of your own team's legs before being hooked still apply? That's how the home unions banned NZ's 2-3-2* scrum formation back in the late '30s.

No but the 2-3-2 wouldn't be allowed today as the make up of the scrum formation is detailed - props, hooker, locks, flankers and number 8 are all set out in the laws.

Stag - Kiwi -> I'd give 5 stars for the thread if we were on the old 606. A very good idea and right to keep it at the top of the page. Any chance this could be used as a category heading (like the new kits area) and an thread raised for various parts of the game over a series of days/weeks? You could get lost shifting between scrums, breakdown, restarts, penalties/freekicks, tackling, mauls, etc. cos this part will get popular quite quickly.

biltongbek wrote:

red_stag wrote:Biltong - with regards to your other points I think too many offenses at scrums at a 3 pointer. It leads to teams trying to win penalties rather than trying to win possession. It also leads to referees deciding that a reset is a safer option than a potential 3 points.

That is exactly what concerns me. the scrums are currently a lottery.

Whilst on the subject of forwards.

I wish the rolling maul could be banned. 90% of the time it is obstruction.

If the opposition (defending team) all leave the mall are the ball carrying team automatically infringing if they continue with the mall? If so surely if you want to stop a mall just leave it and let the ref award you a pen.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Stag - Kiwi -> I'd give 5 stars for the thread if we were on the old 606. A very good idea and right to keep it at the top of the page. Any chance this could be used as a category heading (like the new kits area) and an thread raised for various parts of the game over a series of days/weeks? You could get lost shifting between scrums, breakdown, restarts, penalties/freekicks, tackling, mauls, etc. cos this part will get popular quite quickly.

Good suggestion Bandwagon, I'll keep an idea on how it proceeds, and if necessary I can split the subject up. There's going to be a "Rugby section layout" discussion put up later today too.

In fairness, I stole the idea from the wrestling and golf sections (plus I think Stag did a similar thread back on 606).

If you enter the ruck from the hind most foot and bind onto someone can you then spin your body round to the side of the ruck try to disrupt from the side. If not how does McCaw get away with it so often. He Did it in front of the ref in the super 15 final right in front of ref a few times. He also used the same trick against Ireland in the incident for which Heaslip saw red.

Do you agree with the super rugby final having a kiwi ref. Possibly not Kaplan but surely a SA ref would have been better?

leinsterbaby,

Once the mall is engaged, even if all the defending team leave, it's still ongoing.

Leinsterbaby, see Munstys response.

Also re: S15 Final I thought they should have had a SA ref - but only because Joubert was the best option. I think the whole neutrality thing can be a bit of red herring.

MBTGOG wrote:leinsterbaby,

Once the mall is engaged, even if all the defending team leave, it's still ongoing.

Ok pretty sure I've seen refs penalise this though as obstruction or offside or something.
Perhaps not.

Lbaby, if the defending team engage and then leave the maul its not obstruction.

If the defending team don't engage at all its a penalty for obstruction.

I think Stag meant to say, "it's not obstruction" in that first sentence.

I think so too otherwise he is trying to confuse me.

Yea I mean NOT obstruction. Stupid keyboard

What is the reasoning as to why referees always come back for the knock on when the ball either goes into touch or dead in goal when a line-out or 22 might be more advantageous?

MBTGOG wrote:What is the reasoning as to why referees always come back for the knock on when the ball either goes into touch or dead in goal when a line-out or 22 might be more advantageous?

The reasoning I give is "I know its stupid but my hands are tied." Nonsense of a law.

Which law is that?

Its Law 22.7 (b) I think that specifically excludes a 22 metre drop-out as the result of an attacking knock on. There isn't a law about not giving a lineout though.

Cheers Stag. I hope that gets cleaned up at some stage.

So do I its nonsense isn't it. I had pandamonium in a game last year when a knock on happened with a few minutes to go and a team defending a narrow lead.

I explained it was a specific law and I know it isn't a good advantage but thems the rules.

stag do you ever think to yourself if its a low down game, screw it i'll just let that rule slide sure its stupid.

Or would you like to uphold the laws to the max

D24tress wrote:stag do you ever think to yourself if its a low down game, screw it i'll just let that rule slide sure its stupid.

Or would you like to uphold the laws to the max

NOBODY upholds the laws to the max. Its about materiality. How greatly does something affect the game.

The scrum half picks the ball up at the back of the ruck and looks to pass, opposition player julps over the ruck (is it a ruck now?) and rips the ball, is this a penalty offense?

I ask as in lower leagues and odd occasions at the top it's allowed, but a lot of the time in the pro game refs seem to be very quick to ping players for grabbing the scrummie when he has just that second grabbed the ball.

Yappy,

Is the player in the ruck or behind the ruck?

yappysnap wrote:The scrum half picks the ball up at the back of the ruck and looks to pass, opposition player julps over the ruck (is it a ruck now?) and rips the ball, is this a penalty offense?

I ask as in lower leagues and odd occasions at the top it's allowed, but a lot of the time in the pro game refs seem to be very quick to ping players for grabbing the scrummie when he has just that second grabbed the ball.

Yappy its grand in theory but most of these guys who get pinged are offside.

MBTGOG wrote:Yappy,

Is the player in the ruck or behind the ruck?

The defender is behind the ruck and steps over it when the scrummie has the ball in hand.

red_stag wrote:

yappysnap wrote:The scrum half picks the ball up at the back of the ruck and looks to pass, opposition player julps over the ruck (is it a ruck now?) and rips the ball, is this a penalty offense?

I ask as in lower leagues and odd occasions at the top it's allowed, but a lot of the time in the pro game refs seem to be very quick to ping players for grabbing the scrummie when he has just that second grabbed the ball.

Yappy its grand in theory but most of these guys who get pinged are offside.

So you are allowed to tackle him the moment he has the ball? But if it's 50?50 the ref will ping you? (which is kind of what i thought)

yappysnap wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:Yappy,

Is the player in the ruck or behind the ruck?

The defender is behind the ruck and steps over it when the scrummie has the ball in hand.

Then no problems. But the scrumhalf needs to be in possession before he is allowed move. Many of these guys aren't behind the ruck and its why they get pinged.

yappysnap wrote:

red_stag wrote:

yappysnap wrote:The scrum half picks the ball up at the back of the ruck and looks to pass, opposition player julps over the ruck (is it a ruck now?) and rips the ball, is this a penalty offense?

I ask as in lower leagues and odd occasions at the top it's allowed, but a lot of the time in the pro game refs seem to be very quick to ping players for grabbing the scrummie when he has just that second grabbed the ball.

Yappy its grand in theory but most of these guys who get pinged are offside.

So you are allowed to tackle him the moment he has the ball? But if it's 50?50 the ref will ping you? (which is kind of what i thought)

He didn't say it was 50/50

I was assuming on the 50/50 part of things, as a lot i've seen i'd class as that. Would you agree that at the top the refs look to protect the scrum halfs a bit?

There are no 50/50 calls You either whistle something or you don't. Like Yoda!

But he needs to be behind hindmost foot of ruck and wait for scrumhalf to be in possession (not just "hands on").

Its usually an issue of bad timing.

Ah i didn't get the hands on bit!

Its one of the things players don't get. They assume minute scrumhalf touches the ball he's fair game. He needs to be in possession (in control) of the ball.

Do you think it's silly that in a lineout if the hooker throwing in throws the ball squint but towards the oppositions side it's still pinged?

red_stag wrote:Its one of the things players don't get. They assume minute scrumhalf touches the ball he's fair game. He needs to be in possession (in control) of the ball.

Cheers for that Stag, that explains a lot, on a side not, when you see a player walking through the ruck with his hands up looking at the ref is this allowed? Because aren't all players meant to be bowned together at the ruck?

yappysnap wrote:

red_stag wrote:Its one of the things players don't get. They assume minute scrumhalf touches the ball he's fair game. He needs to be in possession (in control) of the ball.

Cheers for that Stag, that explains a lot, on a side not, when you see a player walking through the ruck with his hands up looking at the ref is this allowed? Because aren't all players meant to be bowned together at the ruck?

Its not something I see all that often to be fair - either on TV or at grassroots. Unless it affects the game why ping it.

As for the squint throw to opposition side - play advantage.

"I wish the rolling maul could be banned. 90% of the time it is obstruction..."

Biltong, I am surprised you said that. As a would have thought you liked that play.

I for myself agree, it's obstruction.