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 -    

Can someone please describe in very plain terms the extent of video referee referrals under the new laws? Can they be asked to review anything in the phase of play leading up to a score? Are there any restrictions on this?

I'm not being lazy, I just haven't had a chance to look at the black letters yet. Much appreciated.

red_stag wrote:AWOP yes

What about a Hawk?

George Carlin wrote:Can someone please describe in very plain terms the extent of video referee referrals under the new laws? Can they be asked to review anything in the phase of play leading up to a score? Are there any restrictions on this?

I'm not being lazy, I just haven't had a chance to look at the black letters yet. Much appreciated.

In Premiership: Can be asked to review anything* going right back to the last restart. This can be as many phases as required.

In Currie Cup: Can be asked to review anything* but only within the last two phases of play.

*Anything is basically knock on, forward pass, in touch, off side, obstruction, tackling player without the ball, foul play etc.

Thanks Staggy. As ref, what do you think about this?

Presumably it can be used to save your bacon if you hear a huge crowd reaction to something in the build up to a try but which you just didn't see at the time? Two bites of the cherry? Should the crowd be influencing the referee at all in this way? Have you seen this misused this season?

I referee at the lowest levels George. I will never need a TMO.

What I do have from time to time is qualified assistant referees. Usually I'll make my own mind but if I hear crowd reaction or player body language indicates something may be amiss I'll confirm my decision to award/not award with them before hand.

I don't think its possible to really mis-use it. I think its a good law in South Africa but has way too much scope in England. Nothing wrong though with a referee using the technology to double check.

I agree stag. I think the game is to negative in terms of attacking rugby at the top level as it is. It just means there's an excuse to go back an disallow a try if the Tmo feels like it. It's almost guaranteed that both sides have in fringed somewhere between where the ball was put in play and the try scored. Probably more than once.

Dear Mr Referee.

during the match on Saturday, Zane Kirchner kicked the ball out from within his 22, one of our forwards (can't recall who) did not drop back as the ball did not stay in field and the Aussies too a quick throw in, the referee penalised him when he started chasing the reciever saying he was in an offside position.


AS I understand it when the ball is out, the game is dead and restarted by way of a line out which would mean no player can be in an offside position if he is still in front of the kicker.

Please help.

Thank you Sir

Guess what Biltong. . . . .you guessed it another grey area.

When Kirchner kicked the ball, the game was still live and he was liable to be penalised if he moved forward.

The fact it was kicked out usually means that he is fine and it is immaterial to penalise him.

However if he interferes with the quick throw then from a management point of view it is very easy to penalise him and justify it in law.

red_stag wrote:Guess what Biltong. . . . .you guessed it another grey area.

When Kirchner kicked the ball, the game was still live and he was liable to be penalised if he moved forward.

The fact it was kicked out usually means that he is fine and it is immaterial to penalise him.

However if he interferes with the quick throw then from a management point of view it is very easy to penalise him and justify it in law.

At the time I read it as the ref deciding there had been no advantage for the off-side chasing the kick, and therefore going back to where the kick was taken

dum law.

Thanks Stag.

No bother - its amazing how much grey there is in refereeing though. It all comes down to how you manage it and knowing when and how to penalise it.

We saw a Romanian/Italian referee officiate the Cardiff v Ulster match at the weekend. He had Nigel Owens doing touch judge for him and Nige was at times fairly spoonfeeding him.

An example was Cardiff were on the attack when an Ulster player tried to intercept it/batted it down/knocked it on etc. The referee blew his whistle, the crowd were baying for a yellow card for a deliberate knock on.

Nigel Owens got in his ear and pointed out that the guy who tried to intercept was offside with the gain line a few metres back. It meant the referee didn't have to deal with the "was it an intentional knock on". Instead he just said "no advantage gained - player was offside from back there - penalty".

Stag, what did you make of the call to penalise Ulster for offside in the game on Friday?

Here's the timeline of events in case you missed it;

-Michael Allen scores a try for Ulster but injures his ankle in the act of scoring.
-Jackson kicks the extras and Cardiff restart; Ulster haven't gotten their replacement on yet.
-Allen is limping back to try and take his position in defence, clearly injured. He's moving slowly and awkwardly.
-Ulster gather the restart and kick it back to Cardiff
-Allen is looking towards the Cardiff player who kicks to the corner, referee calls advantage.
-Kick is out on the full. Allen is pinged for not retreating.

Referee completely ballsed it up. Should never have done it.

Completely correct in law. Completely wrong decision using common sense.

I reckon he just saw a white shirt blew the whistle and then realised. But at that stage penalty was given.

Far more stupid was the BBC commentator who said the referee should "unaward" the penalty.

Well you can't unshoot a gun. And these things happen. But I'm glad it was a mistake in the spirit of the law if not the letter. Was slightly unjust.

Still, it didn't ruin a great game of rugby or change the result

The other side of it was why did Allen hobble back through the centre of the pack if he was just going to go off. Why not walk to the sideline?

It was a very easy mistake to make but I'd say referee would have made a different call if he knew the full facts at the time.

Yeah, I was thinking that. The Ulster defensive line comes up and Allen attempts to rejoin it. He's having no impact on the game but he's moving towards the Blues players.

I think it was bravado, he wants to play on until the next break in play. He shouldn't have.

Quick question Stag, and I accept that i am seeking an opinion based explanation (uless an official one has been briefed to referees of course) but, in the section on scoring a try, there is what I believe to be a really weird inconsistancy.

Not sure of the precise section and i have NEVER witnessed at any level of the game a try being scored in this manner, but i believe that should the ball be on the ground & stationary in the ingoal area, an attacking player who is in touch can play a hand on the ball and apply downward pressue and score a try. Now, I cannot see the logic there at all.

I accept that given rugby is a game of possession why while holding the ball and touching the white wash/touch area, the ball is then deemed to be dead. No problems there, but why allow this to be a try, when a few short years ago (and simultaneously with this provision) the corner flag was the defenders?! I makes no wense to have given the dfenders a third axis of being in touch, when you can score a try out of touch (provided you havent brought the ball with you while you are in touch obviously).

Please explain if there is a logic that I am not seeing or correct my statements if i am just plaiin wrong. I looked at this law a couple of years ago so i mightnt be up to date etc.

Thank you.

Debaters,

It is because the ball has not crossed the plane of touch and you are not in possession of the ball - therefore it cannot be in touch.

There are three things touch judges take into account when deciding to raise their flag.

1) Is the player in touch when he touched the ball?

2) Is he is possession of the ball?

3) Has the ball crossed the plane of touch?

If two of these three are fulfilled then it is a lineout. If only one of them then play on.

So for example a player standing with a foot in touch knocks on a high ball - its a scrum not a lineout. But a player standing with a foot in touch who catches it - its a lineout.

In order to remove referee interpretation it is fairly black and white in the laws:

"If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball."

debaters1 wrote:Quick question Stag, and I accept that i am seeking an opinion based explanation (uless an official one has been briefed to referees of course) but, in the section on scoring a try, there is what I believe to be a really weird inconsistancy.

Not sure of the precise section and i have NEVER witnessed at any level of the game a try being scored in this manner, but i believe that should the ball be on the ground & stationary in the ingoal area, an attacking player who is in touch can play a hand on the ball and apply downward pressue and score a try. Now, I cannot see the logic there at all.

I accept that given rugby is a game of possession why while holding the ball and touching the white wash/touch area, the ball is then deemed to be dead. No problems there, but why allow this to be a try, when a few short years ago (and simultaneously with this provision) the corner flag was the defenders?! I makes no wense to have given the dfenders a third axis of being in touch, when you can score a try out of touch (provided you havent brought the ball with you while you are in touch obviously).

Please explain if there is a logic that I am not seeing or correct my statements if i am just plaiin wrong. I looked at this law a couple of years ago so i mightnt be up to date etc.

Thank you.

Debaters,

Were you not watching the match between the Ospreys and Scarlets the other week?

George North scored a try in precisely this manner. The commentators clearly had never heard of the law either and were totally confused.

No, clearly I wasnt watching the game and didn't hear about it on here or elsewhere.

Stag, thank you for the clarification & explanation, I see now it is not as inconsistant as I thought. You have enlightened me. Thank you!

Although, given your explanation, the old rule regarding the corner flag really was utter bullocks.

I was just trying to help.

Sorry MrsP,

I only reread that and picked up that it sounded like i was being quite the @rsehole. Sorry, my sincerest apologies. I genuinely hadn't heard or seen that and now find it all weird as my asking said question in the wake of such a rare event and the two being unconnected!

I dont believe in coincidences!

debaters1 wrote:he old rule regarding the corner flag really was utter bullocks.

Thats why its the old rule

Debaters!



I had a quick juke on Youtube to see if I could find it for you but it was right at the end of that match if you get a chance to see it. Caused a degree of consternation in the studio and on here at the time but the TMO got it correct.

Mind you, some were saying he knocked it on before that so....

I shall keep an eye out for it so, my dear!

And yes Stag, i should probably let it go in respect of said old rule, sorry!

It is a funny law though and believe me if you award it in a grassroots match with no TV camera - everyone will assume you are wrong.

I can certainly imagine that being the case Stag, and I doubt such a crowd would be shy about telling you that they believe your decision to be incorrect either!

A team is awarded a penalty deep in the opponents 22. To improve the angle the kicker takes the ball back 15-20m. Do the opposition have to stand 10m away from where the penalty was awarded or 10m away from where the kick is taken?

Only asking because this happened twice on Friday and each time the opposition second rows sttod 10m from the kicking tee which had been moved back from where the penalty was awarded.

I know this one.

They have to be 10 back from where the penalty was awarded!

MrsP wrote:I know this one.

They have to be 10 back from where the penalty was awarded!

Yeah that was what I thought. Wayne barnes seemed not to, but tehre we go

I meant to ask this yonks ago, but didn't get round to it. When playing a game this season, one of our players made a break and for some reason had to pass the ball on. One of the opposition knew this and did the classic call for the ball and our player passed to him. The referee then penalised the opposition's player for gamesmanship. Firstly, is there such a law for that and secondly would you penalise it?

Rev,

One of those things where there seems to be little consistency between different referees and even from match to match.

The only law broken is "A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure".

This is a real catch all law that covers every and anything you want to as a referee.

So that isnt specifically illegal but if the referee wants to he can ping it like that.

Personally I wouldn't penalise it. I think that its a cheap 3 points to give away. This usually happens after a breakaway by one team, close to the opposition try line.

Stag, what about when NZ deliberately bred and trained Quade Cooper in a hot house in Tokoroa, then sent him to Australia to infiltrate the Wallabies and gain selection for 2011 RWC with the master move of deliberately alienating his entire home country, just so he could play like shoite and allow NZ through to the RWC final?

Is this kind of Machiavellian conspiracy not a full 80 minutes of bad sportsmanship and should NZ have been constantly penalised until Quade left the field? and didn't Kiera Knightly do a great job of looking frumpy and unattractive in that move Never Let Me Go from which I borrowed this plot?

Risca Rev wrote:I meant to ask this yonks ago, but didn't get round to it. When playing a game this season, one of our players made a break and for some reason had to pass the ball on. One of the opposition knew this and did the classic call for the ball and our player passed to him. The referee then penalised the opposition's player for gamesmanship. Firstly, is there such a law for that and secondly would you penalise it?

I am absolutely staggered that a referee would penalise a player for this, whats next, penalise a player for dummying?... surely that is also just another for of gamesmanship.

Could a referee have penalised George Gregan for spending 60 minutes not putting the ball into the scrum and milking penalties for the woefully under-resouced Wallaby scrum? Surely this is not particularly sporting either?

Question for the refs. If a player drops a ball and it goes straight down at 90 degrees, is that a knock on or not?

Play On

Must be knocked towards the oppositions try line.

What Stag said

Cheers fellas

Ozzy3213 wrote:Question for the refs. If a player drops a ball and it goes straight down at 90 degrees, is that a knock on or not?

Problem is often it goes within a 5 degree angle either way, so the referee from the angle that he stands to the actual demmed knock on may make assumptions.

We had one of those in the Currie Cup final on Saturday, it was clearly no knock, but Jaco Peyper from 30 meters away deemed it to be a knock on.

Isn't this the ultimate test of the "momentum versus direction" argument?

If a player is running and "drop the ball straight down at a 90 degree angle" then anyone NOT in the momentum camp has to accept that it is a knock on, since the laws of physics dictate that the ball will travel forward under the initial impulse of it's current state of motion.

To actually the ball ACTUALLY straight down, the player would have to throw it backwards with exactly the impulse equivalent to his current velocity (whilst resolving any cross-field vectors and allow for wind resistance) - possibly a harder feet than just not dropping it in the first place.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Isn't this the ultimate test of the "momentum versus direction" argument?

If a player is running and "drop the ball straight down at a 90 degree angle" then anyone NOT in the momentum camp has to accept that it is a knock on, since the laws of physics dictate that the ball will travel forward under the initial impulse of it's current state of motion.

To actually the ball ACTUALLY straight down, the player would have to throw it backwards with exactly the impulse equivalent to his current velocity (whilst resolving any cross-field vectors and allow for wind resistance) - possibly a harder feet than just not dropping it in the first place.

I suspect that most "90 degree" drops* occur when a player fails to catch a pass or a kick - so the act of fumbling, combined with the forward momentum of the player as well as the Earth's gratitational attraction transforms the (presumed**) backward*** momentum of the ball when passed/kicked into vertical (downwards) motion.



*or rather perceived 90 degree drops, with a margin of error limited by the power of human eye
**
*** or momentum vaguely in the direction of the droppee's goalline

South Africa's 1st try Against Scotland on Saturday. Was it a maul or not?

About 10 minutes earlier after a differant lineout was completed the Scottish pack retreated from the lineout as the Bokke tried to get the Maul started, they crashed over the line unopposed with no Scottish players part of the Maul and were penalised for Truck & Trailer.

10 minutes later the Scottish forwards do the same thing, only for Clancy to shout : "It's a Maul!" even though not one Scottish player was attached to it and the ball was at the tail of "maul".

What's the word refs? Both tries or none of them tries? I can't figure out why one was awarded and the other resulted in a penalty for Scotland.

The match is still available on BBC iPlayer.

Does it depend on whether the players join the group in front of the ball carrier when the line out is over?

I dunno MrsP it's a er

The same thing happens with rucks at times. There are no defending players in there yet the ref calls ruck.

thing is, both the build ups were identical.

I'm not a ref, but a player of forward pesuasion so I "understand" the rules.

It was not a maul so the try should never have been given. The SA effectivly were offside preventing a scottish player form tackling the ball carrier.

The official rule on mauls as per the IRB

"A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team"

As no Scottish players were engaged, it was not a maul. the try should never have been awarded - nowt you can do about it now though

Mr Stag sir.

Welcome back!

Now, did you see the Saints v Ulster game on Friday night?

On 70 mins young Ian Henderson gets yellow carded for not releasing. Surely that was a maul and therefore he was under to obligation to release the player, no?

Should it not have been an Ulster scrum rather than a Saints penalty never mind the yellow?

Actually didnt see the game MrsP.