Ask The Ref

First topic message reminder :

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 -    

I was at work and didn't see it. Maybe someone else can advise.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Ok. Would any of you learned gents care to comment on the AB penalty try this morning v Fiji? Do you agree with the decision?

Like Stag I was in work GG, but I have it recorded. Out for a few this evening after work. If Stag or Munsty haven't commented I'll have a look at it for you

Greyghost,

Watching now. Will be coming up in a few minutes. Will reply after that.

Have no idea what it was for and Dickinson didn't indicate.

I have a point which I brought up on another thread.

A new habit that seems to be coming to the fore is players crashing into a tackling player with the ball in arm 'protected' by a raised forearm/elbow.

What exactly are the rules on 'dangerous play' in relation to when a player is in posession. Are there any?

When I see it being done it kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think these are the LAWS that are relevant to your query

7 - MODE OF PLAY
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/7/77/during-the-match/mode-of-play/playing-a-match/#clause_77

10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

See also the videos in
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/10/95/during-the-match/foul-play/dangerous-play-and-misconduct/#clause_95

Thanks Pete,

hand off's dont count cos there is no outstretched palm.

And theres no striking involved as the player in possession doesnt actually move his forearm or elbow just presents it in front of him.

However when an 17st ball of muscle runs into another 17st who is standing still, surely this is dangerous whether the laws say it is or not? Its only a matter of time before somebody breaks a jaw making a tackle imo.

What are your thoughts?

OnASideNote

That's been an issue in rugby league for about the last 20 years. I think the current interpretation is that as long as the ball carrier's arm / elbow are close to the body and protecting the ball then it's OK, but when the arm is raised it becomes an offence (even if the arm is not moved relative to the player's body). I know it is a rather subjective judgement, but seems to make sense.

I guess one of the examples you are thinking of was Banahan against Scotland in the 6Ns - for me, that was OK because his arm only came up to push the tackler away after contact, and before that Banahan was really just braced for the tackle

dummy_half wrote:OnASideNote


I guess one of the examples you are thinking of was Banahan against Scotland in the 6Ns - for me, that was OK because his arm only came up to push the tackler away after contact, and before that Banahan was really just braced for the tackle

well yeah kinda actually, I mean, as awful as it looked there was no malice but thats the kind of thing I mean alright, I cant find any videos but certainly remember Cian Healy doing it more than once.....

If a drop goal attempt is touched by a defensive player and goes dead, it's a 5M scrum to the attacking team right?

So what happens if a drop goal attempt is touched by a defensive player yet still goes over the posts?

Once You have dealt with Munsty's Stag here is one for you....

GLove39 wrote:http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/03/ross-rennie-tackle-on-brian-odriscoll.html

What would be your response to a tackle like this being made. It does not look deliberate but I would say it's dangerous. Yellow or Red or neither.

MBTGOG wrote:If a drop goal attempt is touched by a defensive player and goes dead, it's a 5M scrum to the attacking team right?

So what happens if a drop goal attempt is touched by a defensive player yet still goes over the posts?

It's an unsuccessfully-charged-down drop goal, 3 pts, surely?

What I'm saying As is that the attacking side gets the advantage in both situations. Do you see what I mean?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Once You have dealt with Munsty's Stag here is one for you....

GLove39 wrote:http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2008/03/ross-rennie-tackle-on-brian-odriscoll.html

What would be your response to a tackle like this being made. It does not look deliberate but I would say it's dangerous. Yellow or Red or neither.

I'd give that as dangerous and a yellow, I think

MBTGOG wrote:What I'm saying As is that the attacking side gets the advantage in both situations. Do you see what I mean?

Surely the advantage is over when the attacking team collect 3 points?

I mean the rulings are inconsistent.

How are the rulings inconsistent? They relate to different things. One is about a goal being scored. The other is about a kick being missed.

With regards to that video can't watch it in work.

Because Stag, when the one that is missed goes dead in goal, it is deemed the defence took it back, whereas with the one that goes over the post it is not deemed the ball has been taken back by the defence.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:What I'm saying As is that the attacking side gets the advantage in both situations. Do you see what I mean?

Surely the advantage is over when the attacking team collect 3 points?

I think the use of 'benefit' might have been better
A) they get the benefit of the 5 metre scrum after a miss
B) they get the benefit of 3 points

On the tackle with my only being able to see a 'stil' in work (cue some joke about poteen or whiskEy !!) it's difficult but my inclination from the description would be a yellow

Penfro, there is a video underneath on that link mate

Radge - but I can't view that in work (Original post has been edited)

Staggy,

Do the laws about dummy passes out of the scrum differ from out 'of broken play'?

Hands on / hands off the ball from the retriever. Is there a difference?

And miming a pass (hands off) would dislodge the defending side's reaction.

Portnoy I don't think I fully understand your question. If the scrumhalf tries to convince people that the ball is out of the scrum/ruck when it is still in then he gives away a freekick.

If he picks up the ball and dummys he can be challenged by opposition players. It isn't a freekick against him.

Dummying a pass in open play isn't an offense.

STAG / PORTNOY - I think Portnoy is referring to dummying from the ruck (Am I correct Portnoy ?).

16.4 OTHER RUCK OFFENCES - (f) - A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

Interesting, I questioned this on a couple of threads at the time and for some reason didn't think to "Ask The Refs".

I noticed in both the NZ v Aus game and Eng v Wales game various half backs were banging their hands on the ground and miming a pass to provoke the opposition line to break off side early. I was under the impression this had been illegal for some time, and I notice that not only was it never pinged by the ref, but on two occasions the opposition side were actually penalised or being off side.

Personally I think that rather than giving away a free-kick, the law would be better if a dummy clearance indicate the end of the off-side line. To me that would make the game flow better and be more likely to stop the dummy clearance.

It certainly should be pinged Grey. I can't agree with your suggestion. In theory it sounds great but in practice it would be a mess. Players protesting their innoncence to referees claiming that he dummied. Ref claiming he didn't etc.

Pinging the gobby little scrumhalves is the way foward

Can you jump over a ruck? See Phillips' attempt for Wales against England this week. Obviously it didn't effect the game as Stevens blocked it, just wondering if it was allowed or not.

Back to the BOD tackle linked earlier, to me that was reckless play by the tackler and should have meritted a yellow card. The penalty at the ruck is also wrong, as the Scots cleared the Irish out other than DOC who is off his feet (weight is being supported on his hands and arms).

Robbo
I was also under the impression that jumping over the ruck (and therefore jumping into contact) was illegal and a penalty offence. Certainly have never seen it done so blatently before (this side of an american Football field). Great defence by Stevens to get under Phillips and knock him back anyway.

I've seen a number of people raise the point that Walsh missed a 20 yard knock-on in the Eng v Wales game.

The way I saw it the welsh tackler knocked the ball out of Wilkinson's hands, the ball cannoned backwards into his chest and then went forward, that was absolutely clear in the super slo-mo at the final credits.

I presume the fact that the ball went forward off his chest isn't a knock-on?

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

As I understand it the arm is defined as shoulders downwards. So if it never did hit the arm directly from his hands after the contact it would be no knock-on.

But interestingly it may have been - against the opponent. I've still got the game sky+ed. I may find time to replay the incident. Did it come off the opponent's arm and ricochet forward into his godliness' sacred torso?

That is an "or" not and "and". He lost possession, it went forward. Knock on. Simple as.

Portnoy wrote:DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

As I understand it the arm is defined as shoulders downwards. So if it never did hit the arm directly from his hands after the contact it would be no knock-on.

But interestingly it may have been - against the opponent. I've still got the game sky+ed. I may find time to replay the incident. Did it come off the opponent's arm and ricochet forward into his godliness' sacred torso?

Thanks Portnoy

Off the tacklers shoulder I think, the best view of it is in the final credits where they show snippets of the game in super slo-mo, it's crystal clear what happens from that - the real time version is very quick as it's a monster hit to be fair.

The funny thing is, Walsh can clearly be seen holding his left hand to his ear and having a quick word with someone in real time - it seems like he's confirming something. If Walsh did see what happened it was very impressive, but either way according to the definition you give, it was no knock-on as he lost possession backwards.

Well done Walshy!

Dear referees,

Imagine that as you're just getting ready to take control of a game, one of the sides runs out on to the field disguised as a different team.

Do you let the game continue?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Dear referees,

Imagine that as you're just getting ready to take control of a game, one of the sides runs out on to the field disguised as a different team.

Do you let the game continue?

Maybe the ref was at the wrong game....

Dear referees, how did Steve Thompson get away with standing up during most scrums on Saturday and not get penalised? I heard the Welsh complaining to Rolland about it frequently but couldn't understand his explanation. He said something like "they're dominant and he's standing up, I'm judging that you are under pressure so you have to stay down"??

Also in other scrum related stuff. Bryce Lawrence penalised Beast for engaging with his head and shoulders below his waist, but it looked equally as though his opposite number was binding on the arm and dragging him down on engagement. Is there some hierarchy of offences at scrum time? or is this just purely a judgement call?

When was the rule that you cannot tap a free, pass and take a drop kick introduced? I know that Grant Fox used this tactic in the 1987 World Cup final, back when Kiwis realised drop goals were an important part of rugby union.

Little question for the refs.

In the Exeter v Connacht match a player from each team received a yellow card for some fisticuffs.

As it was a pre-season match both coaches were happy to suggest to the ref that they immediately sub the players and continue with 15 V 15, seeing as the whole point of the game was to give players gametime and see how each player got on. This request was refused.

Now, a yellow is a yellow, granted, but could the ref have decided to agree to the request, or should the application of the law come first? Even when both coaches were in agreement? Would you have seen it their way if it was you?

greybeard wrote:Little question for the refs.

In the Exeter v Connacht match a player from each team received a yellow card for some fisticuffs.

As it was a pre-season match both coaches were happy to suggest to the ref that they immediately sub the players and continue with 15 V 15, seeing as the whole point of the game was to give players gametime and see how each player got on. This request was refused.

Now, a yellow is a yellow, granted, but could the ref have decided to agree to the request, or should the application of the law come first? Even when both coaches were in agreement? Would you have seen it their way if it was you?

Wow, didn't realise that happened, greybeard, how petty! (unless there's a hard and fast law that must be enforced? Reading about the game after the match, as soon as I saw that Exe had a yellow, it was nailed on the culprit would have been Clarkey - the lad's got the shortest fuse. What did you make of the Chiefs?

Asbo that is an awesome smiley. A good call by the ref in my view, a yellow is a yellow.

Thomond wrote:Asbo that is an awesome smiley. A poor call by the ref in my view, a yellow is a yellow.

Don't you mean good call by the ref, then? He gave the yellows and refused the request to immediately sub the culprits.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

greybeard wrote:Little question for the refs.

In the Exeter v Connacht match a player from each team received a yellow card for some fisticuffs.

As it was a pre-season match both coaches were happy to suggest to the ref that they immediately sub the players and continue with 15 V 15, seeing as the whole point of the game was to give players gametime and see how each player got on. This request was refused.

Now, a yellow is a yellow, granted, but could the ref have decided to agree to the request, or should the application of the law come first? Even when both coaches were in agreement? Would you have seen it their way if it was you?

Wow, didn't realise that happened, greybeard, how petty! (unless there's a hard and fast law that must be enforced? Reading about the game after the match, as soon as I saw that Exe had a yellow, it was nailed on the culprit would have been Clarkey - the lad's got the shortest fuse. What did you make of the Chiefs?

I wasn't there As, but I was listening to it on the radio (while simultaneously watching SA v Oz with the sound down) I maxed out on rugby at the weekend.

If I ever get a girlfriend she'll leave me immediately with that kind of track record.

That's what I get for skim reading Yes it was a good call,a really ridiculous question to ask of the ref from the coaching staff.

Even if both coaches request it?

If the game is supposedly for the benefit for the teams involved it's not that ridiculous. Seems a bit officious.

Precisely which aspects of play is the 4th official able to adjudicate on?

Popular wisdom has it that they can only opine on something which happens in the in goal area and not anywhere else on the pitch. Is that correct?

I saw a try once where the touch judge missed the attacking player putting a foot in touch on the way to the line. That player then wrestled to ground the ball and the ref asked the 4th official whether there was any reason not to award the try.

Presumably the 4th official couldn't make any comment about the foot going into touch five yards out, only whether the ball was grounded or not?

greybeard wrote:Even if both coaches request it?

If the game is supposedly for the benefit for the teams involved it's not that ridiculous. Seems a bit officious.

I think it's right. It takes away from the referee's authority. Plus, this is as good a time as any for players to learn what happens when they get involved in that sort of rubbish.

While all that is true. Isn't it the case that the laws are more bendable in preseason?

I'm not suggesting that a matchday squad of 30-odd players takes away from the refs authority in the same way, but if the laws of the game aren't completely adhered to in terms of 22 or 23 man squads in preseason then surely this means things are a little bit more chilled? (Yes, I know, a matchday squad and a fight aren't the same thing, but I'm extrapolating, you either have laws or you don't)

If one law of the game can be viewed with flexibility in preseason, why not another? Why is it ok for one any not another? Isn't the point of the extended matchday squad to allow the coaches to try new players as much as possible? Isn't the idea of asking the ref to allow a replacement rather than a yellow in the spirit of that idea?

Is it not possible that the idea that the ref is the sole arbiter was taken too far, whereby the ref's authority (in a preseason game of all things) was considered more important than the requirements of the teams in the game.

To be honest, I can see both sides, and I'm not sure which I agree with. Interesting to note the refs have seen it one way and one way only, though

I only used the authority bit as one point.

My point is that if they are stupid enough to get a yellow in pre season, they deserve to spend 10 minutes on the sideline.

But if they're subbed they get to spend the rest of the game on the sideline.

MBTGOG wrote:

greybeard wrote:Even if both coaches request it?

If the game is supposedly for the benefit for the teams involved it's not that ridiculous. Seems a bit officious.

I think it's right. It takes away from the referee's authority. Plus, this is as good a time as any for players to learn what happens when they get involved in that sort of rubbish.

Problem is if you let them get away with that kind of thing, the next thing you know they'll be trying to sneak 16 players onto the field.