Ask The Ref

by red_stag Mon 11 Jul 2011, 11:26 am

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 Smile

-

by dummy_half Thu 18 Aug 2011, 12:07 pm

George Carlin

My understanding is that the TMO can ajudicate on incidents happining 'in the act of scoring' - if it was solely what happened in the in goal area, he would not be allowed to judge whether a player went into touch immediately before.

In your example, technically the foot in touch was not in the act of scoring, so would not be within the TMOs official remit, but I have seen several examples where pragmatism has overcome officiousness, and TMOs have made judgements or at least informed the ref of incidents relating to play a little earlier than was strictly within their power.

Personally, I'd extend the TMOs remit a little, to include allowing an assessment of any incident in the final phase of play leading to a score (at least, after the ball is out of the set piece / breakdown) - so would allow them to look for forward passes, offside at kicks etc.

by SirJohnnyEnglish Fri 19 Aug 2011, 11:20 am

Quick question for you guys.

With the 8 man bench is it a requirment to have a specialist on the bench for each of the front row positions. I.e 2 props and 1 hooker

Uusing Saracens as an example, Brits is named in the back row and will act as back up hooker with only 2 props and no hooker named on the bench allowing an extra back etc on the bench. Is that allowed?

by MBTGOG Fri 19 Aug 2011, 11:24 am

SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Quick question for you guys.

With the 8 man bench is it a requirment to have a specialist on the bench for each of the front row positions. I.e 2 props and 1 hooker

Uusing Saracens as an example, Brits is named in the back row and will act as back up hooker with only 2 props and no hooker named on the bench allowing an extra back etc on the bench. Is that allowed?

He'll be jotted down as the reserve hooker so yes it will be alright.

by Portnoy Fri 19 Aug 2011, 11:27 am

MBTGOG wrote:
SirJohnnyEnglish wrote:Quick question for you guys.

With the 8 man bench is it a requirment to have a specialist on the bench for each of the front row positions. I.e 2 props and 1 hooker

Uusing Saracens as an example, Brits is named in the back row and will act as back up hooker with only 2 props and no hooker named on the bench allowing an extra back etc on the bench. Is that allowed?

He'll be jotted down as the reserve hooker so yes it will be alright.

I think (I think) that front row specialists are treated as all the same. The assumption is that they can take the tonnage on their necks an upper spine.

by SirJohnnyEnglish Fri 19 Aug 2011, 11:34 am

Cheers

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 19 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm

George Carlin wrote: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?

Correct otherwise how far do you reach back to? 8 phases of play to see if a foot in touch was missed? They can look at the step and or dive that takes them to the try line (the act of scroing) and anything after that but not before.
The famous call on Cueto in the 2007 world cup final was correct that he went into touch, but very borderline as to the interpetation that it was done in the act of scoring or just prior to that act.

by Portnoy Fri 19 Aug 2011, 1:21 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
George Carlin wrote: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?

Correct otherwise how far do you reach back to? 8 phases of play to see if a foot in touch was missed? They can look at the step and or dive that takes them to the try line (the act of scroing) and anything after that but not before.
The famous call on Cueto in the 2007 world cup final was correct that he went into touch, but very borderline as to the interpetation that it was done in the act of scoring or just prior to that act.

Which asks the question - should there be an allowance for either team to challenge a decision like in cricket?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Fri 19 Aug 2011, 1:31 pm

I dunno in cricet there tends to be few calls that are borderline and the action is naturaly stop start. In rugby you could challenge pretty much every second of the game.
In cricte they are also using reviews for absolutes, did the bat hit the ball etc...in rugby it would be did that player release quickly enough? Was that the act of scoring? You also have a lot of specialist expnesive equipment for cricket reviews that can be focussed on a narrow spot, in rugby youre covering the entire field with a few camerass..and in many cases the view is obscured.

Cueto would have lost his review in that case anyway. And even if hed been succeseful as GG keeps pointing out England would have lost anyway.

If you keep the reviews foir just line calls yeah maybe, but since the ref pretty much alyws goes to the TMO anyway for anything remotly contentious why not just leave it in his hands?

The TMO has a role, but I dont think the game lives or dies by them or relaly needs challenges and reviews. It would be funny to get Brain Moore TMOing the scrum though.

by aucklandlaurie Sat 20 Aug 2011, 10:35 pm

Dear Mr. Ref,
What do you do when you refer the question to the TMO "try or no try?",
The Tmo comes back that there was a forward pass further back in the field of play.
Do you tell the TMO,"thats not what I asked you"
OR
Tell the TMO " You can not rule on a forward pass"
OR
Award the try and dont get sucked in by mischievous ,impartial South Africans TMOs.
c.c. a copy of your answer to Mr George Clancy,Ireland........

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 5:53 pm

Well aucklandlaurie you seem to have forgotten law 17.1a(iii) which is apparently either written in invisible ink or didn't make it into the New Zealand translation of the laws - but goes along the lines of "'common sense' may be used an excuse to blatantly ignore the rules of the game in the case where a decision can be made to pacify the home team by an intimidated northern hemisphere referee"

by Thomond Sun 21 Aug 2011, 7:48 pm

Christ,you're not bitter at all lads! It was the wrong move by the TMO. Even if it was a forward pass. It wouldn't have changed the game in my opinion.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 21 Aug 2011, 8:15 pm

Thomond
I dont know what your definition of bitter is, But most New Zealanders are treating this issue as humourous. It was such a bad display of an International referee not knowing the rules, that it was very funny...

by Thomond Sun 21 Aug 2011, 8:19 pm

You're giving about an incident if though you were beaten well. I would be fairly happy with the performance if I was a Kiwi. You have to move on and focus on the game against OZ. I have agreed that it was a poor move.

by TheGreyGhost Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:23 pm

The ref was so blatantly wrong about something which is such an important part of the game that they guy is either (a) incompetent or (b) disregards the rules even though he knows them.

I don't want to see either of these in the RWC so I've suggested that the best solution is for him to be removed from the RWC referees list and replaced with someone who both knows and respects the rules set down by the IRB. We don't need mavericks or vigilantes controlling our rugby world cup.

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 21 Aug 2011, 9:50 pm

Yawn

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:23 am

Its a no win situation. The ref got absolutley slaughtered when he allowed Wales to cheat a try against Ireland and couldnt go back to the video ref.

I agree that the IRB need to be clear on this. If they dont make a definitive statemnet that it was wrong then the pressure will be on all refs and TMOs to startruling on past events.
Its suchj a basic issue of protocol from the TMO which dropped Clancy in the poo, and then he dealt with it badly. Whilst a correct decision may have been reached in the end I dont want to see that kind of review become the norm, otherwise we'll have to replay every try.

As we know anyway theres no such thing as a forward pass in SH rugby, just a degree of flatness

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:29 am

"That will be addressed with George [Clancy] in our review of the game. It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet."

"[All world cup referees] will be told there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion.

"They made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the leadup to a try, then that's the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision," O'Brien said.

Sounds pretty clear to me. How he didn't get axed for the RWC I've no idea.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:54 am

Fair enough. Im glad they made the clear and open statement.
At least it gives you two refs to moan about and blame for ruining the world cup you dont care about now.

by Portnoy Mon 22 Aug 2011, 12:11 pm

Does ask the question though as to whether the protocols are right. In RL they do seem to make sensible decisions - remember the Wales quick throw-in try against Ireland this year?

I'm in favour of team challenges if they feel that they that they have been hard done by.

by **George Carlin** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:13 pm

dummy_half wrote:George Carlin

My understanding is that the TMO can ajudicate on incidents happining 'in the act of scoring' - if it was solely what happened in the in goal area, he would not be allowed to judge whether a player went into touch immediately before.

In your example, technically the foot in touch was not in the act of scoring, so would not be within the TMOs official remit, but I have seen several examples where pragmatism has overcome officiousness, and TMOs have made judgements or at least informed the ref of incidents relating to play a little earlier than was strictly within their power.

Personally, I'd extend the TMOs remit a little, to include allowing an assessment of any incident in the final phase of play leading to a score (at least, after the ball is out of the set piece / breakdown) - so would allow them to look for forward passes, offside at kicks etc.

by **George Carlin** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:13 pm

Portnoy wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
George Carlin wrote: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?

Correct otherwise how far do you reach back to? 8 phases of play to see if a foot in touch was missed? They can look at the step and or dive that takes them to the try line (the act of scroing) and anything after that but not before.
The famous call on Cueto in the 2007 world cup final was correct that he went into touch, but very borderline as to the interpetation that it was done in the act of scoring or just prior to that act.

Which asks the question - should there be an allowance for either team to challenge a decision like in cricket?

by Mike Selig Tue 23 Aug 2011, 3:43 pm

Question to mr GreyGhost: if an All-black had made a similar blunder (say like Dominici dropping the ball over the try-line against Italy) but had already been named as part of the world cup squad there is no way he could be dropped, right? So why should it be different for referees?

More generally I find it particularly humorous that fans concentrate on one issue (admittedly a bad mistake by Mr Clancy), usually a (sometimes alleged) mistake by the referee, in a game which lasts 80 minutes.

by TheGreyGhost Tue 23 Aug 2011, 4:01 pm

The Aussies could drop O'Connor despite naming him in the world cup team. I don't see a difference.

I'm sure NZ could have found a local teacher to replace him with at the last minute.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 23 Aug 2011, 4:02 pm

Portnoy wrote: In RL they do seem to make sensible decisions - remember the Wales quick throw-in try against Ireland this year?

What was the sensible decision that Rugby League made a bout that? Scrapping lineouts?

If you are going to have team challenges it needs to be for a specific reason and only taht can be reviewed for. Other possible infriengements should be ignored otehrwise every try will lead to a speculative appeal...you can pretty much garuntee theyll find something to go back to.
TMO shouldnt be able to review forard passes untill theres a suitable system in place to help deal with the angling and forshortening effects created by tv cameras.

by aucklandlaurie Tue 23 Aug 2011, 11:12 pm

P S Wheeler
Correct, and that is the reason why TMOs were not given the power to adjudicate on forward passes in the first place,especially in "field of play".

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 24 Aug 2011, 10:37 am

Someone needs to edit the title of this to " Ask the TMO?"

by Jaysus Fri 26 Aug 2011, 7:26 pm

Is anyone watching the Leopards vs Blue Bulls Currie Cup game? Blue Bulls have just been given a try from a rolling ball, but they seemed to break off with two players in front of the ball carrier and carried on scoring a try with the two players in front off the ball obstructing any attempt at a tackle. Is this not the definition of truck and trailer?

I’ve quickly checked the law book (by searching for truck and trailer) without finding anything, but wouldn’t this still be classed as obstruction? The commentary team said that the Leopards split from the maul so the Bulls could carry on the maul, but I’m fairly certain that is wrong. The laws of the game state that “a maul ends successfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul” does the opposition team leaving the maul count as the ball carrier leaving the maul?

by nottins Fri 26 Aug 2011, 7:42 pm

There's no such "truck and trailer" law as such. It was a phrase invented by the Australians in 2003, I believe, when England were scoring tries through the rolling maul and it means the ball carrier breaking from the maul and grabbing hold of another player in front of him. Players breaking off from a maul and obstructing defending players is obstruction and should be a penalty offence.

by Jaysus Fri 26 Aug 2011, 7:50 pm

I thought as much, just wanted a bit of clarification.

by greybeard Sat 27 Aug 2011, 12:31 am

Jaysus wrote:The commentary team said that the Leopards split from the maul so the Bulls could carry on the maul, but I’m fairly certain that is wrong. The laws of the game state that “a maul ends successfully when the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul” does the opposition team leaving the maul count as the ball carrier leaving the maul?

If the defending team broke off from the maul then the commentary team are correct, but the regulation lies buried in the 'offside at a maul' section. so it's not easy to find. The commentary team did well to know this law.

17.4 OFFSIDE AT THE MAUL
(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

by TheGreyGhost Mon 29 Aug 2011, 12:08 am

Hi Refs.

In the situation where a the attacking team (lets' call them Australia), take the ball into the defending teams in-goal area (let's call them New Zealand) and then the attacking player loses the ball to a defender, who forces the ball.

Would you:

(a) award a 5 meter scrum to the attacking team under the Goddard Law
(b) award a 22 meter restart to the defending team
(c) ask the TMO about any forward passes he spotted earlier in the game, or
(d) turn a blind eye to Quade Cooper sticking his knee into the back of Richie McCaw's head?

by nottins Mon 29 Aug 2011, 12:16 am

TheGreyGhost wrote:Hi Refs.

In the situation where a the attacking team (lets' call them Australia), take the ball into the defending teams in-goal area (let's call them New Zealand) and then the attacking player loses the ball to a defender, who forces the ball.

Would you:

(a) award a 5 meter scrum to the attacking team under the Goddard Law
(b) award a 22 meter restart to the defending team
(c) ask the TMO about any forward passes he spotted earlier in the game, or
(d) turn a blind eye to Quade Cooper sticking his knee into the back of Richie McCaw's head?

by **Ozzy3213** Mon 29 Aug 2011, 10:40 am

GG

If you have a sensible question to ask the referees on this forum then please feel free to use this thread to ask it.

This thread is not here for you to have a thinly veiled dig at another referee who gave a decision you did not like, in the guise of a question that you already know the answer to.

Either start another thread moaning about this weeks referee of the All Blacks game and whinge all you like there, or can it mate. If you continue to try to bring this actually quite usual thread down to the level of slating referees then we will have to take action.

by Hound_of_Harrow Mon 29 Aug 2011, 11:30 am

LDC Pete

by Portnoy Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:02 pm

What constitutes 'bound in' for a player (specifically back-rowers) in a scrum?

I've always been of the opinion that I should be spared the ugliness of their faces (mine or the opposition's).

But in reality, what is the law?

And why are there such variations in interpretation?

by MBTGOG Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:16 pm

Portnoy wrote:What constitutes 'bound in' for a player (specifically back-rowers) in a scrum?

I've always been of the opinion that I should be spared the ugliness of their faces (mine or the opposition's).

But in reality, what is the law?

And why are there such variations in interpretation?

Shoulder connected to the scrum.

by Portnoy Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:22 pm

MBTGOG wrote:
Portnoy wrote:What constitutes 'bound in' for a player (specifically back-rowers) in a scrum?

I've always been of the opinion that I should be spared the ugliness of their faces (mine or the opposition's).

But in reality, what is the law?

And why are there such variations in interpretation?

Shoulder connected to the scrum.

Cripes! To be honest I had thought that it it must have been the elbow.

No way is that law ever enforced.
Worse than the crooked feed then?

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:27 pm

Is it shoulder connected to the scrum or do the back rows shoulders have to be connected specifically to the locks. I am asking because if they could be connect by the shoulder just to the prop that would really alter the body position they could get into.

by Portnoy Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:52 pm

In the 3-4-1 binding it's immaterial whether the bindee is a lock or a prop surely?

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 31 Aug 2011, 8:54 pm

9 man scrum is it Portnoy? No wonder the Tigers are always so dominant! Wink

by Portnoy Wed 31 Aug 2011, 9:03 pm

I did edit the typo Pete. Smile

As you refer to the Tigers (so-called) dominance. Time for an HEC win?

by **Ozzy3213** Wed 31 Aug 2011, 9:06 pm

I was referring specifically to dominance in the scrum Portnoy. Some teams sadly now see it simply as a means to restart the game. I heard Cockers last year talking about it as a real weapon and discussing the effort that goes into practicing it at Leicester.

by Portnoy Wed 31 Aug 2011, 9:23 pm

It is a weapon.

We learned it of firstly Gloucester and latterly Bath years back.

The were the gruelling thumpers in those days. Big fat forwards on wet pitches.

So long as the forward game is not illegal, it's fair game. Winning is what counts.

And looking at the attendances around the league, I'm not wrong.

by MBTGOG Wed 31 Aug 2011, 11:46 pm

Portnoy wrote:It is a weapon.

We learned it of firstly Gloucester and latterly Bath years back.

The were the gruelling thumpers in those days. Big fat forwards on wet pitches.

So long as the forward game is not illegal, it's fair game. Winning is what counts.

And looking at the attendances around the league, I'm not wrong.

What about the attendances at Vicarage Road?

by dummy_half Sun 11 Sep 2011, 12:02 pm

One from the Wales v South Africa match -

Wales kicked to touch, with the ball going out of play between the 10m and 22m lines of South Africa. SA took a quick throw in (perfectly legitimately) from within their 22 and kicked the ball back. If this kick had gone directly to touch, should the lineout have been at the point of the kick (i.e. 'carried back in') or where the ball left the field?

To the spirit of the Laws, I'd have thought that should be the same as taking the ball back inside your 22, but since play only restarted behind the defensive 22m line, I wouldn't be surprised to find the letter of the Law being different.

by **George Carlin** Mon 12 Sep 2011, 1:33 pm

Okay, so as a neutral (i.e not Welsh), I think that I can safely ask this question - I was very surprised to learn that the referee can refer any doubt about whether a penalty split the uprights to the fourth official. I have never seen such a decision referred.

Is there anything in the rule that indicates the level of uncertainty in respect of which the refereee should go upstairs? In other words, if the referee is doubtful 'on the balance of probabilities' that the kick went over, should he refer? Or need he only refer if he manifestly disagrees with the touch judges' decision?

I swear to Oprah this is not a WUM, not a query made with the intention of starting a thread about Wayne Barnes.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 12 Sep 2011, 1:43 pm

Dummy...took me awhile to work that one out but a very good question. No idea Whistle

George...Im pretty sure they reviewed the dodgy Flood one last year and awarded it to him. The protiocol would nbe the same as everything else, if the ref/officials honestly say they couldnt be sure they ask for the review. If the review is inconclusive you dont award the points.
I wouldve thought if the touchjudges are adamant it was over teh ref would have to be adamant it wasnt to refer, the same as it would be for try decision...otherwise theres not much point in having them there.

by nottins Mon 12 Sep 2011, 1:52 pm

Here's the relevant law regarding referee consulting with others:

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS

(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.

(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
(c) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

by **George Carlin** Mon 12 Sep 2011, 2:04 pm

nottins wrote:Here's the relevant law regarding referee consulting with others:

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS

(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.

(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
(c) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

So the ref has to be "sure". Fair enough. chin

by nottins Mon 12 Sep 2011, 3:17 pm

George Carlin wrote:
So the ref has to be "sure". Fair enough.

The referee and linesman seemed to be sure that the ball didn't got through the posts as they didn't ask for the TMO to check.

The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

by Sponsored content