• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Laws of the Game/Referee - Discussion Thread

goodNumber10 said:
Well clearly it is.

This thread is proof of that as is the fact two international Refs have interpreted it differently to us.



yes mate i have my own copy of the laws. :)

But what i'm asking is, i guess, in the same way the Pads are seen as an extension of the try line is the hand seen as an extension of the ball when the attacking player is holding it?

I dunno, that's not worded very well but you get what i'm getting at - there are lots of exceptions to the laws int he games, and lots of different ways of interpreting them.

I just can't believe two international refs would rule it ok.

I mean Peyper questions the hand under the ball, when he gets the English hand reply he doesn't question it. Nor say "so held" up he just says "so no reason to not award the try?" (i'm paraphrasing there)
Click to expand...

No, the hand isn't seen as an extension of the ball. I think the laws regarded grounding of the ball are pretty clear - as Mr Fish points out they are not rationally open for interpretations. Here is what former IRB referee's selector Bob Francis thoughts on the incident: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/10164909/Ex-test-referee-Officials-blew-Mike-Brown-try

As I've mentioned previously even though it appeared as though Ayoub was agreeing that the ball was clearly held up, I can only assume that was not his intention. I assume he was simply clarifying what Peyper saw, but still believed there was some doubt. If he had stated something like "it looked like there was an English arm under the ball, but I'm not convinced there is enough evidence not to over-rule the try" it would have been fine. You can see on the video that Peyper is visibly confused with what Ayoub says and doesn't really know what to do for a second or two. Eventually he just backs his TMO and awards the try. It was a pretty bad look though, as I agree it certainly appeared as though both the referee and TMO agreed there was a hand/arm under the ball but awarded the try anyway........

munstermuffin said:
We'll it does say clear and distinctive evidence which the TMO. And you slated the TMO so again for 10th time can you produce evidence of where TMO was wrong in awarding try. As I said communication is pointless issue as it was obviously on angle after. Which I admit looks held up but still TMO can't be slated as being wrong. It doesn't matter how TMO communicates he got his decision across
Click to expand...

I give up.
 
Last edited:
Darwin said:
No, the hand isn't seen as an extension of the ball. I think the laws regarded grounding of the ball are pretty clear - as Mr Fish points out they are not rationally open for interpretations. Here is what former IRB referee's selector Bob Francis thoughts on the incident: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/10164909/Ex-test-referee-Officials-blew-Mike-Brown-try

As I've mentioned previously even though it appeared as though Ayoub was agreeing that the ball was clearly held up, I can only assume that was not his intention. I assume he was simply clarifying what Peyper saw, but still believed there was some doubt. If he had stated something like "it looked like there was an English arm under the ball, but I'm not convinced there is enough evidence not to over-rule the try" it would have been fine. You can see on the video that Peyper is visibly confused with what Ayoub says and doesn't really know what to do for a second or two. Eventually he just backs his TMO and awards the try. It was a pretty bad look though, as I agree it certainly appeared as though both the referee and TMO agreed there was a hand/arm under the ball but awarded the try anyway........



I give up.
Click to expand...

So basically your admitting you were wrong slating ref as you can't see/show any clear evidence to disallow try. Glad you realise it
 
munstermuffin said:
So basically your admitting you were wrong slating ref as you can't see/show any clear evidence to disallow try. Glad you realise it
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just can't be bothered wasting my time on someone who doesn't appear to be actually reading my posts.
 
Last edited:
Darwin said:
Not at all. I just can't be bothered wasting my time on someone who doesn't appear to be actually reading my posts.
Click to expand...

I am and 1 was that the TMO was completely wrong and it wasn't a try. And I hate slamming refs so asked a lot for you just to back up what you said on how it clearly wasn't a try and you keep refusing.
 
"(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms,"
What does that mean though? Could you hold the ball with between your elbows and have the try awarded if you press the ball down that way?
 
Ok, lets start a new one.

New Zealand's Second try, off the top ball, Smith to MacCaw, McCaw runs a block and slide to Cruden behind Nonu and he lobs a basketball pass to Savea who goes over.
The question is, New Zealand have two Scumhalfs, McCaw and Smith, Coles is throwing in so it's not a hooker and a half. Smith stands at 2, McCaw as scrumhalf and runs sideways.

Is that a penalty to England?

(*sorry, can't post video this minute will do it later)
 
IRB guidance post JWC, o hw to ref the Italian defence method of lineout drive defence:

taken from this: http://www.wrra.org.nz/news/lineout-to-maul-defence/

In order to provide clarity, please instruct all referees to rule as follows:

- If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by "leaving the line out as a group", PENALTY KICK to team in possession.

- If the non-ball-winning team in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap and "creating space" and they remain at the lineout, the following process would be followed:

the ball-winning team would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – non-ball-winning players could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only).
if they immediately hand it back to a player behind the front player, the referee will tell them to "use it" which they must do immediately.
if they drive forward and the ball is in possession of a player behind the front player, the referee will award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than a Penalty Kick for obstruction.
Click to expand...

thoughts?
 
goodNumber10 said:
IRB guidance post JWC, o hw to ref the Italian defence method of lineout drive defence:

taken from this: http://www.wrra.org.nz/news/lineout-to-maul-defence/



thoughts?
Click to expand...

These instructions to the referees make sense to me. I think message to the referees regarding the ball-winning team is important too:
The message to referees regarding the ball-winning team formation is:

  1. We need to ensure that the ball is not transferred from the Jumper to the back player before a maul is formed.
  2. We need to be FAR MORE vigilant on team-in-possession players “joining the maul ahead of the ball carrier and/or the last player on their own side of the maul†â€" we need to ensure team-in-possession players join from the back (just as we expect the non-possession team to do).
Click to expand...
Far too often these days I see attacking sides placing players in front of the ball carrier, which is quite clearly obstruction. This occasionally gets picked up, but more often than not sides get away with this.
 
The bonus point system must be abolished.
The consolation point for beaten teams is totally useless.
The 4-try bonus point is aimed at encouraging try-oriented play, and this is not wrong. But this should be done by a different way.
Instead of bonus point, I suggest changing scoring system:

1st try -- 5 pts
2nd try -- 6 pts
3rd try -- 7 pts
4th try -- 8 pts.....
 
The consolation for the beaten team is not useless. It encourages teams to continue playing when they are already losing by a lot of points.
 
William18 said:
The consolation for the beaten team is not useless. It encourages teams to continue playing when they are already losing by a lot of points.
Click to expand...

In the case of same points, score difference is used for deciding the ranking. So in the league competitions (not knock-down competitions), each team still has motivation for best play, even when game is already over.
 
sigesige00 said:
In the case of same points, score difference is used for deciding the ranking. So in the league competitions (not knock-down competitions), each team still has motivation for best play, even when game is already over.
Click to expand...

That is a far lower incentive than a bonus point.
 
sigesige00 said:
In the case of same points, score difference is used for deciding the ranking. So in the league competitions (not knock-down competitions), each team still has motivation for best play, even when game is already over.
Click to expand...


Not all Leagues have the same tiebreaker rules

Super Rugby
a) Most wins from all matches;
b) Highest overall points difference
c) Highest number of tries scored
d) Highest aggregate difference of total tries for versus tries scored against from all matches


ITM Cup
a) Winner of the round robin match between the two provinces
b) Highest overall points difference
c) Highest number of tries scored
d) Highest number of points scored
 

Similar threads

D
The LRZ tracker thread
2
Replies
39
Views
848
stus768
S
T
The collapse of rugby globally since the pandemic
Replies
1
Views
578
tirawleybaron
T
P
State of the game
Replies
19
Views
2K
tirawleybaron
T
OldSchoolRugga
What is wrong with the game today ?
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
tirawleybaron
T
Kiwiwomble
World Rugby Men's 15s Player of the Year
Replies
1
Views
404
tirawleybaron
T

Latest posts

Top