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 -    

Depends what way you look at it. A scrum or ruck are types of obstruction too really. Players without the ball shoving the opposition away in order to protect possession.

Big difference with those though Staggy is that the ball is not in anyone's "possession" (IE - their hands)
To me, the maul is just another form of blocking but the IRB lawmakers say differently

I like mauls. If we're to outlaw the maul, we could outlaw the scrum which is a similar concept.

I can see the merit in arguing the ball carrier should be required to be at the front of the maul, but we don't want to depower the game and remove a powerful attacking weapon.

Pete, then rucking is tackling someone off the ball. The point is they're special circumstances that are accounted for in the laws.

Thought i'd drop in and mention that in my experience ref Nigel Owens is pretty easy to contact via twitter/facebook. If you wanted a professional opinion i'm sure he'd find the time to answer some questions.

Is it purely down to a referee's interpretation of player intention as to whether he awards for a missed drop goal or ball kicked dead through in-goal?

I'd like to see the defending team given the choice of 22 or scrum for all situations, I think we would see fewer ridiculous attempts at drop goals that way.

Fitch, yea he is. So are Kaplan, Joubert and Mark Lawrence from South Africa.

John - what do you mean down to referees interpretation?

If a drop shot at goal misses goes beyond dead ball line it is always a 22m dropout.

If any other kick goes beyond dead ball line the defending team has a choice scrum back or 22m dropout. Referee has no say in the matter.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I've seen some pretty terrible attempts at a drop goal in the past, a defending team could claim that one was actually a poorly executed positional kick, or an attacking team could claim a poorly executed positional kick was an attempt at goal.

Imagine a player tracking back into their half to gather a ball that had been kicked on down the touchline from turnover ball in the oposition's 22. He doesn't have much support and it looks like he might get swamped pretty quickly running it back. Out wide and so far from the posts, he knows he won't get the drop goal, but decides to just kick long in the general direction, missing the posts by a good 10-20 yards, but happier to have conceded the 22 and his team not so chaotically aligned in front of him. Could the ref claim it wasn't a true attempt and award the scrum?

A bit tenuous maybe, but I was wondering if referees were given any additional guidlines for identifying a player's intentions. Or maybe I've just had one too many Jamaican Mules and it's a good job I'm about to go to bed.

Why complicate matters. If the player makes a drop goal he makes a drop goal. His intent doesn't come into it.

So Mr. referees. What is your objective opinion on Wayne Barne's handling of the NZ v France Qfinal in the last RWC?

I know I've mouthed off about it as one of the most lop-sided performances of all time. Perhaps I'm just a bitter, and biased Kiwi.

What is your opinion?

a) Did he miss an unacceptable number of French infringements in the second half?

b) Did Luke McAllistair deserve to go to the sin bin (what would you have done?)

c) Have you ever presided over a game where a team had the amount of possession and territory the ABs enjoyed in the second half, and not found need to penalise the defensive team once? (Was it just outstanding French defence?)

d) Did his refereeing affect the outcome?

Grey,

Being honest I can't remember the McAllister incident. As for overall my thoughts were that he did miss a number of French offenses. However I don't think it affected the outcome of the match.

Poor New Zealand decision making was the reason for the defeat. New Zealand had plenty of possession, plenty of territory and they didn't vary things nearly enough. They were well able to win that game even with Barnes missing what he did. I have seen far far worse refereeing perfomrances that that one.

Man.

They've got to you too? This is bigger than I thought.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Man.

They've got to you too? This is bigger than I thought.

On my debut for Kinloss I got binned. The opposition flanker ran about twenty metres and started punching our scrum half (can't recall why) and so I grabbed him and pinned him to the floor without punching him or anything. As my intentions could (probably should) be perceived as peace keeping, would you card me as well as the guy throwing punches?

I am aware that the three of you would love to card me, so maybe I should ask would you card a peace keeper like that?

Sounds like a bad call.

Seemingly Aggressive Situation?

i have a question for the ref, but relates to a somewhat off-field matter. what happens if, at the end of a game, a team feels that the referee has incorrectly calculated the final score? what is the procedure? can they contest?

Fantasticbarnsmell wrote:i have a question for the ref, but relates to a somewhat off-field matter. what happens if, at the end of a game, a team feels that the referee has incorrectly calculated the final score? what is the procedure? can they contest?

Not our problem after the game. I'm sure an appeal could be made to the governing body. To be honest I've never seen it happen. Both teams are well aware of the score.

red_stag wrote: Not our problem after the game. I'm sure an appeal could be made to the governing body. To be honest I've never seen it happen. Both teams are well aware of the score.

interesting, thanks for answering...

Wasn't there an issue a couple of years ago when the England Saxon's took a drop goal, or penalty attempt which went over but was signalled wide by the TJ's? I'm guessing that in normal play when the match resumes this would be treated just like a bad TMO call on a try/no try. But what if it happened as the last act of the game? i.e. penalty on full time? Could the aggrieved team complain and get the match outcome altered if (say) they lost by 1 or 2 points?

Grey,

Funnily enough I did a thesis in univeristy you might be interested in. The notion was could a referee be sued for having a bad game or failing to go to a TMO if it denied a winning score to a team. Especially if it cost them revenue as a result.

The aggrieved team could appeal to the ref to use the TMO and he can make the call if the ref agrees. Benjamin Boyet who was flyhalf for Bourgoin did this before. It was signalled wide and he appealed to ref who used TMO. Goal was awarded.

Can you clarify something for me please?I could never get my head around this even when I was playing and it's a bit awkward to explain but I'll do my best.

In this example I'm the fullback,I contest an up and under from the opposition and don't catch it,the ball goes forward and one of my team mates running back picks it up.Is he offside and if so why?
Maybe my description of the situation is wrong but there are times it seems players get pinged for offside just for picking up a ball that has been knocked on.

There was a game on TV I was half watching and a pen was given at the breakdown and the ref said ' The gate wasn't open' to the offending player. Any????

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Can you clarify something for me please?I could never get my head around this even when I was playing and it's a bit awkward to explain but I'll do my best.

In this example I'm the fullback,I contest an up and under from the opposition and don't catch it,the ball goes forward and one of my team mates running back picks it up.Is he offside and if so why?
Maybe my description of the situation is wrong but there are times it seems players get pinged for offside just for picking up a ball that has been knocked on.

Thats exactly whats happening. If your team mate knocks on a ball and you are in front of him and pick it up you are offside and can be penalised. If you were behind the player when he knocked on you can pick up the ball and it will be just a scrum for knock on.

Breadvan wrote:There was a game on TV I was half watching and a pen was given at the breakdown and the ref said ' The gate wasn't open' to the offending player. Any????

Like "the hit" in the scrum, the "gate" is a term that lots of players and referees use despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game. 'The Gate' basically is the area directly behind your own side of the ruck which ensures that your players are entering the ruck from an on-side and legal position.

As for it being "open" I couldn't tell you. Its an example of the unclear colloquial terms that referees use from time to time which can cause confusion. Maybe he meant the player came in the side or that a ruck had already formed. I couldn't say as although the gate itself is widely known, I have never heard it referred to as open or closed.

IMO referees should really be giving much clearer instructions than they are currently. There are clear terms in the laws of the game which are accompanied by hand signals. Doing this will also lessen the strains placed on non English speaking players who may not be familiar with colloquial terms.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:In this example I'm the fullback,I contest an up and under from the opposition and don't catch it,the ball goes forward and one of my team mates running back picks it up.Is he offside and if so why?
Maybe my description of the situation is wrong but there are times it seems players get pinged for offside just for picking up a ball that has been knocked on.

Think this and the accompanying video will cover it
11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/3/11/106/during-the-match/offside-and-onside-in-general-play/offside-after-a-knockon-/#clause_106

Breadvan wrote:There was a game on TV I was half watching and a pen was given at the breakdown and the ref said ' The gate wasn't open' to the offending player. Any????

I’m guessing the player didn’t enter the ruck ‘through the gate’
16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
Look at point (c) and the accompanying video
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/4/16/150/during-the-match/ruck/offside-at-the-ruck/#clause_150
http://www.irbcoaching.com/drills/Rugby/Ruck/Ruck-Through-the-gate-1-rugby0035.jsp?dec=IRB08&

red_stag wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Can you clarify something for me please?I could never get my head around this even when I was playing and it's a bit awkward to explain but I'll do my best.

In this example I'm the fullback,I contest an up and under from the opposition and don't catch it,the ball goes forward and one of my team mates running back picks it up.Is he offside and if so why?
Maybe my description of the situation is wrong but there are times it seems players get pinged for offside just for picking up a ball that has been knocked on.

Thats exactly whats happening. If your team mate knocks on a ball and you are in front of him and pick it up you are offside and can be penalised. If you were behind the player when he knocked on you can pick up the ball and it will be just a scrum for knock on.

Breadvan wrote:There was a game on TV I was half watching and a pen was given at the breakdown and the ref said ' The gate wasn't open' to the offending player. Any????

Like "the hit" in the scrum, the "gate" is a term that lots of players and referees use despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game. 'The Gate' basically is the area directly behind your own side of the ruck which ensures that your players are entering the ruck from an on-side and legal position.

As for it being "open" I couldn't tell you. Its an example of the unclear colloquial terms that referees use from time to time which can cause confusion. Maybe he meant the player came in the side or that a ruck had already formed. I couldn't say as although the gate itself is widely known, I have never heard it referred to as open or closed.

IMO referees should really be giving much clearer instructions than they are currently. There are clear terms in the laws of the game which are accompanied by hand signals. Doing this will also lessen the strains placed on non English speaking players who may not be familiar with colloquial terms.

I'm generally confused by the definition of the so-called "gate". In the case where play is not proceeding perpendicular to the try lines, say for example a set of forwards are involved in several pick and goes and are progressing forward but towards the touch line on a 25 degree angle.. the opposition are defending through the line of attack, rather than defending on a parallel to the touch line. In this situation I often see guys penalised for "not coming through the gate" when the enter the ruck situation on the touch parallel where the path is shorter. In this case the referee seems to be defining the "gate" to be diagonally across the field, square to the ruck, rather than the field. Is this correct?

Does anyone feel that the rules regarding the TMO should be changed?

If what I am led to beleived is accurate a TMO can only respond to a question posed by the Ref. For example "Is this a try yes or no"

The TMO can only answer yes or no or "you may award the try" even if there was an infringement a couple of phases ago. Do Ref's think that the rules on the TMO need to be refined or are they fine as they are?

My proposal for the TMO would be used in the same way as Tennis uses Hawk Eye. Each Team would get for instance 1 or 2 "challenges" per half. Only the Captain can instigate one of these "challenges" and they can be used in any circumstance the Captain deems neccessary. Skull duggery at scrums/breakdowns. Just like tennis if your "challenge" is valid and the penalty/scrum goes your way you get to keep it, if however you were wrong or deemed to be in correct the challenge is lost.

I only suggest this because I think the Scrum and the breakdown is often poorly reffed at all levels of rugby. A prop for instance will know immediately if his opposite number is nor binding correctly or boring in and can tell his captain who could ask the referee to confirm it with the TMO and penalize accordingly. Of course he can also man up and use skull duggery in return, this however normally leads to the scrum collapsing, this is not only boring for some specatators but dangerous for the players.

I know this has the potential to slow the game down, however if the challenge system is carried out properly, it may reduce the ammount of time overall spent at Scrums in particular since Props will know to behave themselves at scrum time.

The challenge system could also be used for forward passes or offsides that seem to go unnoticed. Great example is Scotland V france in 2009, the ref was knocked down and a blatant forward pass was missed and France scored the try that was to be the differance between the 2 teams.

The other alternative is having 2 Ref's on the pitch at the same time. A ref on either side of the scrum at scrum time and a defence ref and offence ref at the breakdown.

Thoughts from our resident refs would be welcome.

Grey, thats what happens when terms like the gate are bandied about. What players have to do is enter behind the backfoot of the ruck. Sadly refereeing is more art than science and it is often hard to give definites especially for something like this. Its what leads to cries of inconsistency from the viewing public.

Radge, I think that 2 refs isn't needed. The scrum can be referred by one just not under the current laws. If the challenge system worked I'd have no problems with it. It needs to be clear however.

I've noticed in a few matches sometimes the ball (on the ground) is about to pop out of a ruck due to being knocked about by various legs and the SH will nudge it back into the ruck with his foot. One on occasion I saw Morgan Parra more or less just kick it back in.

If they do this and the ball hits a teammate in the ruck, shouldn't this be blown up for being offside at a kick?

Radge, I’ll try to address you points in turn

USE OF THE TMO AT PRESENT -
If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, the TMO may be consulted.
The TMO 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 TMO may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
The TMO 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 TMO 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.

CHALLENGES
Sounds good, in theory as we all want a ‘fair’ game. However, I can’t say I’d like to see it in practice. It’s the old how far do you go back question . For example RED have a defensive 5 metre scrum, secure that ball and start to run out of their 22. After 20+ phases they eventually score. However BLUE then challenge as they feel a RED prop had slipped his bind in the initial 5 metre scrum

2 REFS ON THE PITCH
At the ‘Elite’ level we already have 3 ref’s on the pitch – the man in the middle and his 2 assistants, who are all ‘miked up’. These 2 should be helping the Ref as you describe

On a personal note, I’d love all the help. The only time I get 2 assistants is in the later stages of cup competitions (believe me the make a big difference) , normally it’s just me and 2 touch judges from the opposing teams

red_stag wrote:

Thats exactly whats happening. If your team mate knocks on a ball and you are in front of him and pick it up you are offside and can be penalised. If you were behind the player when he knocked on you can pick up the ball and it will be just a scrum for knock on.

Okay thanks I guess I just feel it's very harsh to give a kickable penalty when sometimes you can't tell whether it was knocked on or if the opposition knocked it back.Is there any reason this is a penalty instead of just going back to a scrum for the knock on?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

red_stag wrote:

Thats exactly whats happening. If your team mate knocks on a ball and you are in front of him and pick it up you are offside and can be penalised. If you were behind the player when he knocked on you can pick up the ball and it will be just a scrum for knock on.

Okay thanks I guess I just feel it's very harsh to give a kickable penalty when sometimes you can't tell whether it was knocked on or if the opposition knocked it back.Is there any reason this is a penalty instead of just going back to a scrum for the knock on?

Its listed as a specific penalty offence under "Offside After a Knock On". If your team is in possession and you are in front of the ball you are offside. If you affect play you are liable to penalty.

Ok, this one has been bugging me for some time.

Is there any way that a player could be awarded 11 points for scoring a try when his foot is clearly out of the field of play before he grounds the ball?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Ok, this one has been bugging me for some time.

Is there any way that a player could be awarded 11 points for scoring a try when his foot is clearly out of the field of play before he grounds the ball?

No this is clearly nonsese. However if your name is Mark Cueto all tries are doubled in points so he could get 10 points and 2 for a conversion

Although it's possible to score a try while standing in touch (in-goal) isn't it?

Anway, ahem... my question above? Please, sir?

Thanks for clearing that up! I'll just add a link to this whenever one of those posts claiming England were robbed in '07 comes up.

greybeard wrote:I've noticed in a few matches sometimes the ball (on the ground) is about to pop out of a ruck due to being knocked about by various legs and the SH will nudge it back into the ruck with his foot. One on occasion I saw Morgan Parra more or less just kick it back in.

If they do this and the ball hits a teammate in the ruck, shouldn't this be blown up for being offside at a kick?

If its still in the ruck then no - your meant to use your feet to control the ball.
If it comes out as it kicked back in then yes -PK

And yes it is possible to score try when in touch/touch in goal.

red_stag wrote:If its still in the ruck then no - your meant to use your feet to control the ball.

True, but the scrum half isn't in the ruck. Does that not make a difference?

No not really. As I say if its still in the ruck its grand. If it comes out and he kicks it back into the ruck/scrum penalise him.

Why do refs often shout "Ball is out!" and waive their arms in the air to indicate what appears to be a free-for-all, then penalise the first guy that tries to pick the ball up? Are they deliberately trying to be fickle and infuriating? do they have short memories? or are they just bored?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why do refs often shout "Ball is out!" and waive their arms in the air to indicate what appears to be a free-for-all, then penalise the first guy that tries to pick the ball up?

Do they?

stag

With regard drop goals and penalties what if the ball bounces first and then goes over

or if you hit a gruber and it bounces and goes over whats the ruling

D24tress wrote:stag

With regard drop goals and penalties what if the ball bounces first and then goes over or if you hit a gruber and it bounces and goes over whats the ruling

All of them = Play On

More of an opinion thing. How do you deal with rucks where everyone is off their feet (not a little, pretty much lying down)? Do you still treat it as a ruck or not?

Can you pull players in a ruck or should you be only pushing? If a player is pulled onto the wrong side of a ruck and over should he be penalised for going off his feet?

red_stag wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why do refs often shout "Ball is out!" and waive their arms in the air to indicate what appears to be a free-for-all, then penalise the first guy that tries to pick the ball up?

Do they?

I've never seen them do that but I've seen them shout "Hands off" over and over and then if the player ignores him and gets the ball waves play on and says "he was on his feet". Nigel Owens seems to do this a lot.

Another opinion question, how do you handle pillars at a ruck and what (if any) binding do you insist on? Do you allow pillars to actively stop players (e.g. using their arms, grabbing players)

Except in EA Sports Rugby 2005, where if the ball bounced and went over, it was 3 points. Regardless of whether it's a drop kick or a punt. There's nothing like a sports sim that accurately models the basics before moving on to a horrible under-rendered wire frame player model and some of the worst game play ever conceived.

HammerofThunor wrote:

red_stag wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why do refs often shout "Ball is out!" and waive their arms in the air to indicate what appears to be a free-for-all, then penalise the first guy that tries to pick the ball up?

Do they?

I've never seen them do that but I've seen them shout "Hands off" over and over and then if the player ignores him and gets the ball waves play on and says "he was on his feet". Nigel Owens seems to do this a lot.

Another opinion question, how do you handle pillars at a ruck and what (if any) binding do you insist on? Do you allow pillars to actively stop players (e.g. using their arms, grabbing players)

Funny, Nigel Owens was the very guy I was going to quote as a reference to my earlier post. There was some fantastic footage of him doing exactly that posted on rugbydump, but the youtube post has been de-listed.

Ok so if all the players are off their feet - i.e. everyone is infringing then its a quick whistle, ball trapped in there and scrum to team moving forward.

Can you pull a player in a ruck - Baically yes you can pull them off their feet over to your side of the ruck, but if they're " on their feet" and correctly balanced, this shouldn't happen really.

Should these guys be penalised - For falling when pulled = No. if they don't roll away immediately yes.

Also Pillars - if they interfere its a penalty.

I'm not a huge Nigel Owens fan to be honest. Find him very unclear in his commands and signals.

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?