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 -    

aucklandlaurie wrote: 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 can't recall too many incidents in the last few years where there have been many wrongly given red cards.

Overllord
The sin binning options are still going to be available to the referee,no powers are removed,its just that an extra option is provided to the referee, The main benefit that the 'on report' system provides is that a referee can award a penalty for foul play but if he is not sure that more action is warranted he can 'put it on report' rather than just red card the player on suspicion , the citing commissioner looks at it and with the benefit of revisiting the incident with the assistance of any video evidence he can make a more accurate call on the incident. this avoids the referees making hasty decisions sending players off like in the world cup,when it is found on inspection they were quite quite innocent...
As I have said above I believe this is real progress for rugby union.

Cheers Auckland. That clears it up a bit.

MBTGOG
Take a look at the sending off of Paul Williams in the pool game Samoa v south Africa,in the World Cup.

We had a try disallowed at the weekend - a kick for the corner hit the corner flag and bounced back in field. Our player then picked it up and scored, but the ref called a scrum back on the basis the ball would have gone out beyond the try area. I thought this was fair game?

Just a mistake Pullthestrings. Its play on.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Overllord
The sin binning options are still going to be available to the referee,no powers are removed,its just that an extra option is provided to the referee, The main benefit that the 'on report' system provides is that a referee can award a penalty for foul play but if he is not sure that more action is warranted he can 'put it on report' rather than just red card the player on suspicion , the citing commissioner looks at it and with the benefit of revisiting the incident with the assistance of any video evidence he can make a more accurate call on the incident. this avoids the referees making hasty decisions sending players off like in the world cup,when it is found on inspection they were quite quite innocent...
As I have said above I believe this is real progress for rugby union.

Except that in the case of the world cup had the on report system been used then Wales would have unfairly progressed despite their capatin having comitted what was upheld as a red card offence. The pressure on the ref would have been immense to not issue the call.
Warburton was still banned as a result of the offence, but because the ref had the guts to make a decision on the field France benefited rather than New Zealand.

Sure theres the Paul Williams example, had there been video referal it wouldnt have been given and Warburton might not have ever been in a position to get himself sent off etc etc but we seem to be creating a new problem to fix and old one with a complex system that only muddys the waters.
Wouldnt the citing comissionar pick up these indcidents anyway? Cant the referee mention them in his post match report?
It strikes me that this innovation is just to pander to the TV folk.

At some point you have to trust the ref to make decisions, or why bother with one?
If Im missing something that this systems changes feel free to correct me

Peter SBW
I dont see how the "on report" system creates a new problem,it actually gets rid of a lot of frequent problems.to say that the citing commissioner would pick up these incidents anyway is not really addressing the situation as by that time its too late,the player has been unjustly binned/sent off,the other team has gained an unfair powerplay type advantage,which in some instances is the determining of the outcome of the game.
The system works well in the NRL,It gives referees a bit of middle ground,rather than just reaching for their pocket,which is not only happening far too often but is becoming a matter of course.
I am not opposed to powerplays when they are deserved,but when we see so many wrongly allocated yellow cards especially,determing the outcome of games,then it spoils it for not only the TV viewers but all concerned, it erodes the credibility and integrity of the game.
My only regret with this system being trialled now is that it should have been trialled 3 years ago,given the green light 2 years ago and been in place 3 months ago for the World cup.
The objective is to take some of the pressure off the referees,and achieve more accurate decisions on foul play at the same time....

fair enough aukland, but what about the offending team gaining an unfair advantage when their player is allowed to stay on the field (and the citing comissioner later deciding that he should in fact have been sent off)?

I tend to side with MBTGOG and PSW on this one, in the little of rugby league I've watched the refs tend to use the "on report" option as a cop out, allowing them not to make the decision to send the player off. A particular instance that springs to mind is the last 4N where a NZ player twisted an English player's leg in the tackle, which could easily break the leg. The ref actually saw this, but chose to put in on report rather than rightfully sending the player off.

I used the example above of Paul Williams,heres another example,take a look at his unjustified yellow card in the pool game Samoa v Namibia.to this day I dont know why he was even penalised let alone yellow carded,the referee said it was for not using arms in the tackle when tv replays show that the arm furthest from the ref was around Theuns Kotze's ribs and his hand was between his shoulder blades.commentators thought it might of been for head high,but again further scrutiny shows that impact was on the chest.
To me it was not only a legal, hard tackle but also a very good tackle,and for it Williams got ejected from the field.
I thought the Isaac Luke decision was fair as it is legal to tackle around the legs in league.but to penalise players on suspicion is far worse a miscarriage.

Auckland you seem to be entirely fixated on one match where one referee had a very bad game.

Overall I wouldn't say that referees are giving incorrect cards all that often at all.

There is already a "get out clause" for referees who aren't sure - give a yellow card and let the citing commissioner deal with it.

We see that far too often. In reality rugby has become more health and safety conscious leading to red and yellow cards which at 55 years of age will seem incredible.

red Stag
You are completely wrong..
I cited two games,two different referees (Rolland and Owens) but they do both involve the same player in one tournament,which somewhat supports my assertion as to the frquency that these incidents occur.
Could I respectfully suggest that my 55 years also furnishes me with more wisdom than you could apply credit.
Call it a fixation if that is what pleases you,but does that make the initiative to try new things bad?

Tell you what, rather than asking the ref cant we just put this issue on report and deal with it later?

You do indeed have more wisdom but you also come from a differnet period and I have found from experience that some people of your vintage have a different view of the game.

I see it all the time and sorry to tar you with the same brush but you walk into any pub in Limerick or go to any youth match and you hear "ah in my day things were different. Men were men, rucking was allowed, the ref turned a blind eye to high tackles, red cards were unheard of modern referees are simply ego hungry and want to be centre of attention. Always giving cards etc. I remember the seeing Boks for first time in 1971 and they ate a live baby and nobody said anything etc"

Ok I veered off point but the fact is that many times that you see red cards criticised they turn out to be the right call.

A lot of people simply say "ah cards ruin the match" and just dont want them in the game. Have it dealt with after so the spectacle isnt ruined.

I think initative is fine but the need isnt there IMO. I see too many drawbacks to it.

Red Stag
Thats fine,you are entitled by all means to your opinion.and no doubt the it will all come out in trial.
In terms of the age thing,you may not appreciate it but I was directly involved in senior club rugby in Auckland until as recently 2009, and have been involved in the coaching of many current players, two currently playing in your heineken cup. although my age may not suggest it but I am not totally unfamiliar with the present day game.
PeterSBW
Good idea the ref wasnt much use at all..

aucklandlaurie wrote:but to penalise players on suspicion is far worse a miscarriage.

Nobody penalises players on suspicion. They penalise them based on what they saw.

And I don't see why a team being unfairly reduced to 14 is in any way worse a miscarriage than a team being unfairly allowed to carry on with 15.

Personally I thought Paul Williams deserved his RC (the saffer should have got yellow, possibly red as well), and the citing commission didn't overturn it (they deemed "red card sufficient", what is very different), so...

Honestly can't remember many instances of unfair red cards in recent times. Can remember far more instances of red cards not being given and subsequent citings (starting with Davies last Sunday).

When referees penalise for a front row player 'standing up' in the scrum, what law are they referring to? As there is no specific mention of 'standing up' in the laws, I presume it is for 20.8(i) "lifting or forcing an opponent up"?

If that is the case, what guidance are referees given in judging this? If you're forcing someone up I would have thought it generally more likely that they emerge from the scrum before you?

stlowe...as far as im aware its one of those mysthical laws thats not been properly written.

The best justification I can find is :
DEFINITIONS
When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.
(a) Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum. Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Binding by hookers. The hooker may bind either over or under the arms of the props. The props must not support t the hooker so that the hooker has no weight on either foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Its difficult to stand up without having broken your bind. Which is first defined at the start of section 20

A scrum is formed in the field of play when eight players from each team, bound together in three rows for each team, close up with their opponents so that the heads of the front rows are interlocked.

20.8 (i) trumps that when its clear the player was forced up by illegal scrumaging rather than popping up under pressure

Theres also possibly some justification under :

20.8 (g)
Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. Sanction: Penalty kick

If one front row stand up and the other keeps its horizontal position theres a strong chance of collapse.


But I did come across this argument from the saffers:

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2179140.htm

Which I assume is the justification for allowing Hartley to stand up all the time. If he doesnt bring the opposition hooker with him ( forcing them up) and he is remaining bound to his props and he hasnt collapsed the scrum then its no penalty. If hes been forced up by illegal scrumaging then its PK opposition.

I think the example in the England Scotland game was given because the hooker standing up bought his opposite number with him.

Thanks for your thoughts and the link Peter.

It does make it seem curious as to why refs say for 'standing up' when awarding the penalty, and that that in turn makes the rugby viewing public assume that a penalty should be awarded against any player that is the first to pop their head out.

Maybe a stricter vocabulary by refs when blowing their whistle would lead to less consternation over perceived inconsistencies and failings?

A new question for all.

Most have seen Rhys Priestland's yellow card in the match on Saturday, but I was a little confused about something else that happened at the same time and I'm quite surprised that no-one spotted or mentioned it.

From the beginning:-.........

Robshaw gets tackled short of the Welsh line, a ruck develops with two or three players from each side, Robshaw places the ball in a well protected position and keeps his hand on the ball.Most of the Welsh team (Priestland excluded) are lined up onside. Then Robsaw while still on the ground picks up the ball and passes it back to an onrushing England forward. I was sure that this was illegal. Am I right or are there far looser rules about playing the ball on the floor in the Southern Hemisphere?

Sounds like a variant of truck and trailer.

I didn't notice it though.

Aelandor wrote:A new question for all.

Most have seen Rhys Priestland's yellow card in the match on Saturday, but I was a little confused about something else that happened at the same time and I'm quite surprised that no-one spotted or mentioned it.

From the beginning:-.........

Robshaw gets tackled short of the Welsh line, a ruck develops with two or three players from each side, Robshaw places the ball in a well protected position and keeps his hand on the ball.Most of the Welsh team (Priestland excluded) are lined up onside. Then Robsaw while still on the ground picks up the ball and passes it back to an onrushing England forward. I was sure that this was illegal. Am I right or are there far looser rules about playing the ball on the floor in the Southern Hemisphere?

I suppose technically you could ping him for holding on, but given England had won possession of the ball the ref probably deemed it imaterial. Remember you could probably ping at least 2 or 3 offences at every breakdown if you wanted to. Most don't because we all want to see a game of rugby.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before. Theres something in the game I'm seeing more and more of this season. I'm sure people have mentioned the amount of time it can take for the SH to play the ball. Just standing there with his foot on it or leaning against a forward slowing the game down or playing for time. What I've noticed happening more (the above had always been practised by weaker sides or sides who are leading with little time left) sides are nudging the ball back into the ruck. Just a tap to ensure they can take their time playing it. Quite a few of the Pro 12 teams have been doing ut over the last few weeks and England done it against Wales on a few occasions last week.

Is this legal? I thought if the ball was out, it was out. Kicking it back in to the ruck should either be penalised or be called as out.

Aelondor...

Its quite normal for that to happen and has been for years. its accepted practise to not penalise for hands in the ruck once the contest is over if its allowing the ball to come out and the game to continue.
Part of the problem is the way the games played now and the IRBS stance on playing the ball with the feet makes it very hard to clear the ball from the ruck when theres a pile of bodies. So the refs are instructed to let it slide.
Its a known allowance, although some players do take the pee a bit with it holding the ball up in the air ( or in this case actually passing the ball out )

In that case it was actually Botha who was tackled. He goes to ground, goes to place the ball, then chucks it up and out instead. Its borderline on his legal allowed " immediate pass or release" although somewhat generous Ive seen players be allowed to hang on longer. In total its no more than 2 seconds from when the tackles complete to when the ball is passed.

@overlord, putting the ball back into a ruck is a free kick, but just leaving it be and standing around for a bit is fine.

At underage level, if one sides scrum is on top and the opposition are wilting every time, do you give penalties?

Utility-forward wrote:@overlord, putting the ball back into a ruck is a free kick, but just leaving it be and standing around for a bit is fine.

So when is the ball "out" and playable by a sneaky openside from the other team?

It should be past the back foot of the ruck. Or if the scrum half plays it I think it's when it leaves the ground

Thomond wrote:At underage level, if one sides scrum is on top and the opposition are wilting every time, do you give penalties?

Depends on the level.

Being dominated in the scrums is not in itself a penalisable offence. At underage rugby the dominant side can only push 1.5 metres anyway, so the dominated side should be encouraged to stay bound and straight, and if they concede 1.5 metres everytime so be it.

On the other hand, at U13/14 I suggest that if a scrum is constantly being disintegrated you have a safety issue. Speak to the dominant side, because if it's unsafe your next option is to go uncontested.

It's illegal to pull the scrum half into the ruck. But when is the player "the scrum half". What about the player who lurk by the back, look like he will play the ball but then enter the ruck to do more clearing?

Its illegal to pull any player into the ruck.

Really? Thanks stag. Now I am more confuse. Doesn't amu clean out involve push players into the ruck? And bound players are always grab hold of players near by. Is this activity all illegal?

Anotherworldofpain,

One of those many many many many grey areas that we have in rugby.

I am 100% certain that a referee could give a penalty at every single ruck and be completely correct in law to do so.

Not really a laws question but anyway. Is the new call "Crouch, touch, set" call at scrumtime just at underage with a view to bringing it up to senior levels, or is it just to make the scrum safer at underage?

Thomond Im not exactly sure. We have a referee briefing on it in August but my understanding is that this is coming in to be trialled right across the board.

Ah right thanks.

Can a defending player call a mark from a penalty or drop goal attempt?

Submachine wrote:Can a defending player call a mark from a penalty or drop goal attempt?

Yes, only time you can't call one is for the kickoff.

Thanks. Every day's a school day.

Stag,

I know you were at the match and sometimes one sees less at the ground than on the telly but what did you make of Rolland's interpretation of the breakdown on Friday night?

I don't mean in the sense of penalising one team more than the other but rather his balance between the old "holding on" versus "tackler release" conumdrum?

I thought he was reffing like they all did a couple of seasons ago. Just wondered what you made of it?

Being honest MrsP I didnt pay it much attention. Certainly nothing massive jumped out at me and none of the Ulster fans I was with or nearby had any criticisms or views that it was unusual.

I did think that Ulster were predictable and it made it easy for Munster to rip the ball in the tackle before the ruck set up. Ulsters attack usually seemed to involve:

1 - Nick Williams run straight and tries an offloa
2 - Jarred Payne tries to do something individual
3 - Paddy Jackson gives a flat pass away.

As you say I was in the promenade in Belfast full of lager. I wasnt going to get a proper view on it.

But I dont think either side can have any real compaint over Rolland. Every referee is capable of making a mistake the same way Brian O'Driscoll is capable of knocking on a pass. But I definitely hadn't even considered it that much nor did the Ulster fans seem to think so.

I'm not suggesting he made any mistakes more that he seemed to have a significantly different interpretation at the breakdown than most refs in the past couple of seasons.

No complaints at all, just noticed he seemed to ref the breakdown the old fashioned way and wondered what you thought.

There was only 1 instance when I even half felt it and it was when Ian Keatley won a penalty.

However I definitely didn't think there were fundamental differences overall.

Certainly there has been no official change to how refs are to interpret the breakdown. Rolland is a stickler for the rules and usually the criticism against him is that he applies the rules too literally.

I couldnt imagine his mentality would be to go against the official interpretations.

It did seem unRollandish to me.

Ta for your thoughts and glad you enjoyed the trip!

There was one stage when Payne made the break that Keatley made a turnover and subsequently knocked on. Rolland got it wrong in that scenario, Keatley didn't reales the tackler before the ruck I don't think.


You won the game though what's the point of b!tching about the ref?

No complaining from me.

Just asking a refs opinion on the breakdown interpretation which I deliberately did on this thread to try to steer clear of the whole them/us thing.

Is there any good reason I can't ask for Staggy's opinion?

Thomond I don't think anyone is b*tching.

It came across as that to me anyway, apologies if I caused offense. He is damned if he does and if he doesn't. Both teams will have questionable calls go against them at the end of the day.


Rolland had a decent game not his best but nothing too questionable I don't think.

If an up and under hits an Albatross (or seagull, we can't confirm which at this point), is it play on?

AWOP yes