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 -    

dummy-half,

I'm no ref but that scenario happened last year in an Ulster match and it was adjudicated to have been "carried back in".

Opposing team's throw in to a lineout from where the ball was kicked out on the full.

dummy_half wrote: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.

Taken back in...

NO GAIN IN GROUND

19.1 (b)
When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked directly into touch.

Simple answer ...go back and read the laws again.
Cheers Greybeard.

Two opposing players try to ground a ball. Neither are in possession but both have a hand on the ball as it's grounded. Is it a try, yes or no?

HammerofThunor wrote:Two opposing players try to ground a ball. Neither are in possession but both have a hand on the ball as it's grounded. Is it a try, yes or no?

Yes, I think. But if your referring to the try at Kingston Park I think the newcastle wing got there first by a nano-second!

I would say try

Notch wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Two opposing players try to ground a ball. Neither are in possession but both have a hand on the ball as it's grounded. Is it a try, yes or no?

Yes, I think. But if your referring to the try at Kingston Park I think the newcastle wing got there first by a nano-second!

Me too Notch, got his hand on the ball first and it looked like his was possibly the only one in contact when the ball was grounded.

As it happens it didn't matter, but Gopperth's failure to convert was expensive.

I agree, but curious about the hypothetical

HammerofThunor wrote:Two opposing players try to ground a ball. Neither are in possession but both have a hand on the ball as it's grounded. Is it a try, yes or no?

According to the law of relativity, there is no such thing as simultaneity.

So the big question is do the laws of physics supercede the laws of the game?

HammerofThunor wrote:I agree, but curious about the hypothetical

Me too. Refs?

greybeard wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Two opposing players try to ground a ball. Neither are in possession but both have a hand on the ball as it's grounded. Is it a try, yes or no?

According to the law of relativity, there is no such thing as simultaneity.

So the big question is do the laws of physics supercede the laws of the game?

In the same frame of reference there is. Also I'm not talking about them both touching the ball at the same time. The ball bounces up and both players get a hand to it and push down. Both hands remain in contact until the ball touches down

But all frames of reference are equal. So the word 'simultaneous' has no meaning.

Anyway, that's way beyond the point. If two players take a ball into touch, the law says if there's doubt the throw in goes to the attacking team.

Does that only apply to touch?
If the throw in goes to the attacking team, does that mean the defending team should be considered as in possession? (which means no try)
Or if the idea is the attacking team should be given the benefit of the doubt? (try)

This is a fun question.

Two events can be simultaneous in one frame of reference but won't be in another. Given the pitch is pretty fixed (other than at the Millennium) I'd say take that as our frame. Otherwise we might as stop having a clock as well. And injury time becomes farcical.

Without wishing to put an abrupt end to people's fun, the law on this is clear, if there is doubt over who grounded the ball first it's an attacking 5-meter scrum (law 22 "in goal" covers this). I would guess "simultaneous grounding" would be covered be this.

Cheers Mike

Pretty surprised noone has asked this one yet, Resident refs would you have sent Warburton off?

I think Mike Selig and myself have said this on enough threads - Yes.

Really? You kept that quiet

I think I've lost enough of my life debating the actions of SW last week-end personally. Red_stage has it right, if it happened in one of my games, RC.

I meant to ask this a while ago but forgot.Anyway in the recent Ulster v Ospreys match around the 51st minute mark the O's had an attacking scrum.They got the shove on and had the ball at the base but the front rows popped up and the ref called a penalty to the O's.
We were then subjected to about 5 minutes of reset scrums and penalties before the O's got a penalty try.
My question is why didn't the ref play advantage and allow the O's to attack from the scrum if they wanted,he could still go back for the penalty afterwards.The only thing I can think of is safety concerns as this is something that never seems to happen.

Its safety red tape. If the scrum doeant go right you cant simply play on. If scrum has poppes up or go done whistle quick. Its like how after a penalty for a collapsed scrum ref should wait for front rows to get up no quick tap.

Ah right,I thought that might be it.

Though just to throw a spanner in the works i know that different unions have different approaches :-) e.g. I think Aussie refs are likely to play on

asoreleftshoulder wrote:I meant to ask this a while ago but forgot.Anyway in the recent Ulster v Ospreys match around the 51st minute mark the O's had an attacking scrum.They got the shove on and had the ball at the base but the front rows popped up and the ref called a penalty to the O's.
We were then subjected to about 5 minutes of reset scrums and penalties before the O's got a penalty try.
My question is why didn't the ref play advantage and allow the O's to attack from the scrum if they wanted,he could still go back for the penalty afterwards.The only thing I can think of is safety concerns as this is something that never seems to happen.

Can't play advantage in the case of a collapse or a front row being lifted out of a scrum. Sometimes when the ball is available at the back and neither team is looking for a nudge refs will let play move away, but for safety reasons it's dangerous to allow continued shoving if scrum has either collapsed or stood up.

Ok so if you as a ref yellow card a player say 35 minutes into the first half. When does he come back on? Is it always 5 minutes into the second half or is it 5 minutes into the second half minus the amount of time the first half goes over by. For example if a team is pushing for a try and they play on till 4 minutes over if you only bring them back on 5 minutes into the second half they will have been off for 14 minutes of actual play which seems unfair.

From Law 20:

h) Scrum collapse. If a scrum collapses, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so
that players stop pushing.
(i) Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.


This is regardless of whether a free kick or penalty needs to be awarded.
Many refs do in reality do allow the ball to be played if its available....and do sometimes play on when one side has popped up or collapsed if their isnt an apparent immidiate danger and its not stopping the domeinate side goign forward safely, but they shouldnt according to these.

dominic,

My understaning is that they are allowed back after their 10mins rather than 5 mins into the second half.

dominic32 wrote:Ok so if you as a ref yellow card a player say 35 minutes into the first half. When does he come back on? Is it always 5 minutes into the second half or is it 5 minutes into the second half minus the amount of time the first half goes over by. For example if a team is pushing for a try and they play on till 4 minutes over if you only bring them back on 5 minutes into the second half they will have been off for 14 minutes of actual play which seems unfair.

Any stoppage time at the end of the 1st half is taken as part of the 10 minutes suspension.

EG
Player 'yellow carded' after 37 minutes = 3 minutes left + stoppage time of 4 minutes = he comes back on 3 minutes in to the 2nd half
Player 'yellow carded' after 32 minutes = 8 minutes left + stoppage time of 5 minutes = he comes back on 3 minutes before the 1st half ends

PenfroPete wrote:

dominic32 wrote:Ok so if you as a ref yellow card a player say 35 minutes into the first half. When does he come back on? Is it always 5 minutes into the second half or is it 5 minutes into the second half minus the amount of time the first half goes over by. For example if a team is pushing for a try and they play on till 4 minutes over if you only bring them back on 5 minutes into the second half they will have been off for 14 minutes of actual play which seems unfair.

Any stoppage time at the end of the 1st half is taken as part of the 10 minutes suspension.

EG
Player 'yellow carded' after 37 minutes = 3 minutes left + stoppage time of 4 minutes = he comes back on 3 minutes in to the 2nd half
Player 'yellow carded' after 32 minutes = 8 minutes left + stoppage time of 5 minutes = he comes back on 3 minutes before the 1st half ends

The second case is misleading. He can only return when the ball is dead. If the ball becomes dead 2 minutes into stoppage time, the 1st half ends then.

What if it was a penalty?

Mike Selig wrote: [The second case is misleading. He can only return when the ball is dead. If the ball becomes dead 2 minutes into stoppage time, the 1st half ends then.

If you want to be pedantic Mike, then both cases are misleading - he could only come back on when the ball went dead in the 1st case. I'd assumed (never assume it only makes a ..... etc )that people would take that as read

Is a player trying to charge down a penalty another penalty or a re-attempt at the old one?

Utility-forward wrote:Is a player trying to charge down a penalty another penalty or a re-attempt at the old one?

Reattempt (if he misses).

I thought so, wasn't complaining when he moved it though!

Another from me. There's been lots of chat on the Lions threads about Vickery and his horsing at the hands of the Beastie on the Lions tour.

To our refs - in the event that front rows pop up shortly after contact, is the presumption that the attacking side (i.e. the side with the ball, regardless of where the scrum is on the field) forced it?

Am very interested to know if there is a presumption in place that referees work to that has to otherwise be displaced by what they see the players actually doing.

Is the use of advantage to the attacking side actually written anywhere in the rules, or is it just accepted practice.

Also if the TMO is asked "try or no try", cannot see the grounding of the ball, but thinks a try has been scored should a try be awarded.

My opinion for the TMO one is that there should be no presumtions and should only be done on evidence. But recently in a few tv games, commentators have said that they think a try should be awarded even though there is no clear evidence and teh question asked is "try or no try". (I realise commentators, even if ex players are not completely up to date with the rules especially in regards to the TMO)

A try shouldn't be awarded if he can't see it. If he says is there any reason I cannot award the try and TMO doesn't give a reason then yeah it's a try.

London,

"Try or no Try" = Ref hasn't seen anything. Benefit of doubt is with defence. If TMO can't see anything conclusive it is a 5m Scrum

"Any Reason I Can't Award Try" = Ref is happy but just making sure. Benefit of doubt is with attack. If TMO can't see anything conclusive it is a try.

Personally I don't like it as it is. To me it should simply be one or the other.

May well have been asked before, but I haven't got the time to read back.

Scrums - I know they are the bane of most fans' lives, but could someone please explain the whole thing about wheeling the scrum / turning it through 90degrees etc. Sometimes refs seem to award a penalty, sometimes it's a turnover. What determines what the outcome is of a srum that turns around?

Kia,

As you know I am no ref but I think it's a turn over if the scrum moves through 90 degrees unless the ref thinks the one side "pulled" it around in which case it would be a penalty.

Or it could be that another infringement has been spotted by the ref?

I hate to say this Kia, but I guess that you are referring to last night's Connacht v Quins game. I thought that the home side were hauling it around. When the attacking side front row is still at 45 degrees and the defensive front row is broken off and is at 135, it seems to me that its pretty obvious what is going on.

One side under repeated pressure through most of the match and getting repeatedly pinged for collapsing and bringing the set-piece down demanded at least one yellow card.

This is not to deny that Connacht played a defensive blinder in the second half in particular. But Owens played a homer in my (fairly) neutral opinion.

Portnoy wrote:I hate to say this Kia, but I guess that you are referring to last night's Connacht v Quins game. I thought that the home side were hauling it around. When the attacking side front row is still at 45 degrees and the defensive front row is broken off and is at 135, it seems to me that its pretty obvious what is going on.

One side under repeated pressure through most of the match and getting repeatedly pinged for collapsing and bringing the set-piece down demanded at least one yellow card.

This is not to deny that Connacht played a defensive blinder in the second half in particular. But Owens played a homer in my (fairly) neutral opinion.

I wasn't referring to ANY game in particular Portnoy. This was a genuine question seeking to clarify my confusion on a particular point of the laws.

dear Mr ref,
I was thinking the other day that, the trialling of the "On report" system in this years Super xv,is one of the best instances of innovation being used to not only lighten the burden of referees but also to minimalise the opportunity for ref to be murdered by the press and public each time there is a contentious sending off.
the opportunity for the citing comm to study an incident (with the aid of technology) is far superior than the current referees making rash decisions on the run or on suspicion.
Do referees see this as the most progressive possible amendment to the laws of rugby since the "lifting in the lineout" rules were repealed?

KiaRose wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I hate to say this Kia, but I guess that you are referring to last night's Connacht v Quins game. I thought that the home side were hauling it around. When the attacking side front row is still at 45 degrees and the defensive front row is broken off and is at 135, it seems to .me that its pretty obvious what is going on.

One side under repeated pressure through most of the match and getting repeatedly pinged for collapsing and bringing the set-piece down demanded at least one yellow card.

This is not to deny that Connacht played a defensive blinder in the second half in particular. But Owens played a homer in my (fairly) neutral opinion.

I wasn't referring to ANY game in particular Portnoy. This was a genuine question seeking to clarify my confusion on a particular point of the laws

Sorry Kia,I wasn't for a moment suggesting that that the single game was the only reason to spark your query for clarification.

May I add to your query to ask why sometimes refs allow collapsed scrums to continue.

aucklandlaurie wrote: dear Mr ref,
I was thinking the other day that, the trialling of the "On report" system in this years Super xv,is one of the best instances of innovation being used to not only lighten the burden of referees but also to minimalise the opportunity for ref to be murdered by the press and public each time there is a contentious sending off.
the opportunity for the citing comm to study an incident (with the aid of technology) is far superior than the current referees making rash decisions on the run or on suspicion.
Do referees see this as the most progressive possible amendment to the laws of rugby since the "lifting in the lineout" rules were repealed?

Definitely not. I feel it will end up being a major cop out for many referees like it is in League where lots of players end up staying on the field of play when they should definitely have been sin binned or sent off.

George Carlin wrote:Another from me. There's been lots of chat on the Lions threads about Vickery and his horsing at the hands of the Beastie on the Lions tour.

To our refs - in the event that front rows pop up shortly after contact, is the presumption that the attacking side (i.e. the side with the ball, regardless of where the scrum is on the field) forced it?

Am very interested to know if there is a presumption in place that referees work to that has to otherwise be displaced by what they see the players actually doing.

Er. I would still quite like an answer to this, referees...

MBTGOG
Trouble is there are times when not everyone agrees with your interpretations as to who you think should be definitely sent off... This process will prevent a lot of the incidents of innocent players being binned or sent off which we now currently see....

aucklandlaurie wrote: MBTGOG
Trouble is there are times when not everyone agrees with your interpretations as to who you think should be definitely sent off... This process will prevent a lot of the incidents of innocent players being binned or sent off which we now currently see....

This idea comes from League and I'm guessing they will implement it in the same manner. If they do so, players will get away with a lot of things like high tackles and all sorts in the game where they commit the transgression and be banned for the next game rather than giving the advantage to the opposition in the game where it happens.

Well thats a million percent better than the current rugby union system whereby innocent players get red carded just because the referee suspects that they have done something,means the rest of the game is a missmatch,deprives the spectators of witnessing a fair contest,makes rugby look stupid in the eyes of the rest of the sporting world and to top it of the citing commissioner has to convene a 90 second hearing mostly for the purposes of telling the accused player that its the best system that rugby has.

I have to admit I like the sound of this.Having a player carded usually ruins the game for spectators. I do however wonder how repeat offenders will be dealt with. Teams under the cosh will continually put their hands in the ruck, fall over the ball, come offside etc to prevent a try. With no binning how is this going to be dealt with?