British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Nubiwan]

I couldnt care less if its the AB's involved or not im talking from both perspectives I dont want to see any players banned for 4 weeks on top of a red card and penalty over a shoulder charge like SBW's.

I want to see Red cards for eye gouging and real malicious offenses that had intent. Not convinced that was the case here.

To be perfectly honest, for the sake of the contest, part of me wanted him to get in binned, part of me wanted him sent off. I honestly think the Lions played worse against 14, than they had up until that point in the game, so it hardly helped them (until, as you say, later).

It was a correct red, but the 4 weeks... hardly seems warranted. Is that 4 weeks from all play (SR and/or International)? Then again, I don't consider myself savvy to the intricacies of governing body rulings in such cases. I rather thought it an ill timed lunge that happened to hit the Lions player square in the mush.

Many of these incidents are reactive by players rather than intent to injure. Regardless, they all know the penalty, if caught. And caught can happen long after the final whistle. In which case, I personally thought SOB lucky to escape a citing. Which too might have been harsh, but justified.

 

[ALJ]

Duplicate

 

[ALJ]

Has anyone posted a real time video? I don't think slow mo or screen grabs should be used for anything other than to see if a try has been scored.

You can see it at 3:40 in the video within this:
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/07/02/00/12/lions-abs-key-moments

I didn't see any replays so dunno if there's a better angle but Garces clearly has a good view.

Again though, Kiwis think it's wrong, Lions fans think it's right - what a shocker!

 

[ncurd]

It was a correct red, but the 4 weeks... hardly seems warranted.

it's all to do with punishment levels smartcooky broke this down but essentially due to 100% impact with head it can't be adjudged low-end, mid-end tariff begins at 5 weeks and he looses a week to it for the guilty plea.

 

[Nubiwan]

I couldnt care less if its the AB's involved or not im talking from both perspectives I dont want to see any players banned for 4 weeks on top of a red card and penalty over a shoulder charge like SBW's.

I want to see Red cards for eye gouging and real malicious offenses that had intent. Not convinced that was the case here.

To be perfectly honest, for the sake of the contest, part of me wanted him to get in binned, part of me wanted him sent off. I honestly think the Lions played worse against 14, than they had up until that point in the game, so it hardly helped them (until. as you say, later).

It was a correct red, but the 4 weeks... hardly seems warranted. Is that 4 weeks from all play (SR and/or International)? Then again, I don't consider myself savvy to the intricacies of governing body rulings in such cases. I rather thought it an ill timed lunge that happened to hit the Lions player square in the mush.

Many of these incidents are reactive by players rather than intent to injure Regardless, they all know the penalty

It doesn't need a pass, a player can jump into a tackle with both feet off the ground, and technically be 'in the air'.
Thats the real danger here.
The big issue for me is that here was a player running to get a pass, he's not receiving a kick, he's not in a lineout being supported in the air, he has simply jumped of his own accord to catch a pass and yet the opposition player cannot effect a tackle against the running player, who is in possession of the ball because the running player has jumped in the air.

Are you guys not seeing how bat excrement crazy this is?

You cannot tackle a player running with the ball, because just prior to the point of contact that player has jumped into the air. The running player has both feet off the ground after the jump has been made. From that point on the tackler cannot touch the advancing player at all until they have landed.
Regardless of going low or medium height, with arms extended for the wrap.
There is no way that a tackler can effect a legal tackle on a running player who has jumped into the air prior to contact.

Whats the point of putting defensive pressure on a halfback so he throws a wobbly pass to have a receiver jump in the air to take the pass and the rush defender who tackles him chest down with a legal wrap tackle being penalised for good rugby.
It's not the tackler who is being reckless here, it is the attacker putting himself in harms way by making the decision to jump prior to contact.
No boys, this is a very bad interpretation of the rules.
It leaves an area wide open for exploitation.

Example, Ben Te'o has rushed out from the defensive line, he has Sonny Bill in his sights, the AB halfback Perenara has released a long high pass and Sonny Bill has jumped to take the pass. As he is coming back down to the ground, Te'o has contacted Sonny Bill on his lower torso and and he has lost the ball forward, (no tip tackle) Watson has scooped up the ball and scampered 70 metres to score in the corner.

"Ok lets stop the game and go to the TMO to see if the player had both feet off the ground as he was tackled running at the opposition line."

Oh yes, Sonny Bill has both feet off the ground at the point of contact. Thats a penalty against Te'o for being onside and effecting a wrap tackle below the shoulders against a player running against him.

What a crock.

Lineouts and receiving kicks are protected areas for a valid reason but jumping into a tackle in the process of running with the ball?

Thats dangerous play by the attacker who makes the choice to jump into the tackle.

I would be penalising the attacker for jumping into the tackle.
That puts undue danger on both players.
It becomes very easy for the defender to take a knee to the head or neck or a boot to the face. Or to get smashed in the face by a hip.

How is the defender supposed to safely tackle a player running at him who jumps into the air at the point of contact.
According to Garces, he cannot, so the player attacking has an unfair advantage and the fall back position of a penalty.

Madness.

Its a mad law that everyone know was called correctly on the field by the ref. The player was in the air, jumped to catch a pass, and was tackled. During his necessary "jump" he is protected under law from being tackled. It is as maddening to me as a scrum half cynically passing at a lazy runner to milk a pen, but one that everyone accepts as part of the game. What makes things like this more maddening is when they are called to essentially settle the out come of a gripping contest.

 

[MikeTheNative]

You can see it at 3:40 in the video within this:
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/07/02/00/12/lions-abs-key-moments

I didn't see any replays so dunno if there's a better angle but Garces clearly has a good view.

Again though, Kiwis think it's wrong, Lions fans think it's right - what a shocker!

Thanks for posting that, yes the rule kind of sucks and don't make to sense when translated to a pass and not a kick. But after seeing it again I don't know what else the ref could have done according to the rules, it is a penalty. With regards to Williams ban I think it's deserved, clearly no arms and all shoulder direct to the head, that was always going to cop a ban.

 

[Reiser99]

Thing is this I feel that both sides have a valid point of view. I don't feel Sinckler had to jump, on the other hand, he may have felt he had to at the time. However I don't think he jumped intentionally and I doubt players are going to spend their time practising to get penalties from jumping to catch balls. However the tackle highlighted that these situations have the potential for players to land on their head. As I've said if Faumuina tackles lower then Sinckler could have easily landed on his head. While people may disagree I think this is in line with World Rugby's current view on potential head injuries. Yes it is a soft penalty, but all it will take is one player concussed to highlight the need.

 

[SelimNiai]

(http://i.imgur.com/pHnbRXQ.gifv)

 

[Thingimubob]

My biggest gripe about Garces' performance was how little advantage he played. Felt a bit like he didn't want the game to flow. But hey, that's more a personal issue I have than anything else. Overall he was pretty good, just like Peyper was in the first half. Hope Poite can live up to the standards...

Interesting you picked up on that, definitely agree there were a few times he blew up too early, but he gave some ridiculously long ones at times too!

Think the one that stood out the most for me was early in the 2nd half, Itoje tackles a player while offside just past the Lions 10m line, Garces gives advantage. All Blacks are on the front foot, make at least 20m - 25m, Barrett grubbers the ball through which Daly beats Read too - Garces goes back for the penalty. Seen plenty of similar situations called "advantage over" when teams make that much territory and create a try scoring opportunity. However, I have a feeling it was the TMO who called the penalty and it came through late to Garces, which might explain it. Was also pretty blatant from Itoje, so might have factored in.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Davies was knocked unconscious, had to leave the field, failed the HIA and was ruled out of play the following week....

Oh wait.. he wasn't

I'm sure this isn't what you mean, but you do make it sound like the only thing that matters in punishing players who (intentionally or not) strike another player in the head, is whether or not the receiving player gets a head injury?

Cane clearly intentionally elbows Davies in the head, if the ref or TMO sees that he's getting minimum a yellow, potentially a red if they believe there's enough force - the fact Davies wasn't knocked out doesn't come into it!

O'Brien's is in the same ball park, but it looks more accidental (I know that intention doesn't really come into it, but could be a factor in the ref / committee's mind), and I'm not 100% sure it would be a red. Either way if Cane's isn't a red and a ban, then O'Brien's isn't either... though I'd definitely be interested in seeing the specifics of the hearing to see what their thoughts were.

With the Mako incident, when I first saw him clear out I thought "that's a red", but on seeing the replay it seemed the contact he makes with Barrett's head in minimal compared to SBW - which is why I reckon the ref's on the field deemed it a yellow and why he wasn't cited - both correct decisions, despite the reckless nature.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

For what it's worth I actually think jumping should be banned altogether - I know it removes a particular skill from the game but it also removes the ridiculous situations that we often see arising. Take jumping out and there's no grey area.

Lineouts could be interesting!

 

[duncanb]

Lineouts could be interesting![

 

[duncanb]

Can't see jumping being banned as an integral park of game.
JG made the correct decision to the letter of law so hard to see gripes about it.
World Rugby could look at it or NZ board can ask for clarification of law but what is alternative ?
In games we see players often tackled when horizontal IE driving to score and defenders diving to push them away or into touch and I cannot recall a penalty for this at all but of course stand to be corrected.
We do see pens though for players who are vertical in the air and tackled as this case.
Maybe the law clarification should anyone in authority care may allow a horizontal tackle but not a vertical one on grounds of player safety.
To play devil's advocate if KS had flicked ball to support runner and so tackled without ball and in air what would be your decision.
Mine and I ref every sat in weeds rugby.
Supporting player catches ball makes yards KS gets up carries on to play so materiality play on.
KS down in heap possible injured support player tackled no gain.
Pen tackle man off ball and in air.
For what it's worth in real speed I called pen for a daisy cutter no armed tackle of course this was incorrect that's why I ref in weeds for you players who are that shite as well.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I understand the rules, my gripe is that it's impossible for the defender to get this right all the time. These guys are running at top speed. This is not a kick situation, or a lineout, this is running with the ball at pace.
The defender is put at a massive disadvantage because the opposing halfback gave a horrible pass.
It's just nonsense.

If you are running with the ball whether you jump or not the player in possession of the ball should be fair game to be tackled with a regular wrap tackle below the shoulders.
It's rugby, not touch rugby.

 

[OneBlackEye]

(http://i.imgur.com/pHnbRXQ.gifv)

Seems obvious from this he didn't need to jump. He chooses to and catches it at head height, if he doesn't jump he could easily catch it by reaching above his head. So by the letter of this stupid law he should be penalised for unnecessarily jumping into a tackle. Either way its moronic, neither of them have any sort of time to be considering all these options and making decisions, they are busy trying to play rugby. Its a shame that with only three and a half minutes left in the game it decided who won.

And I love the hypocrisy of people that have no problem with this game deciding call because it's potentially dangerous and we are all so concerned with player safety but SOB can literally knock another player out with his forearm and see no repercussion because it was an accident. Oh wait, and Sam Cane did it.

Maybe next week Mako should spear tackle Barret and dislocate his shoulder with no repercussion because you know, fairs fair.

 

[Nubiwan]

Thing is this I feel that both sides have a valid point of view. I don't feel Sinckler had to jump, on the other hand, he may have felt he had to at the time. However I don't think he jumped intentionally and I doubt players are going to spend their time practising to get penalties from jumping to catch balls. However the tackle highlighted that these situations have the potential for players to land on their head. As I've said if Faumuina tackles lower then Sinckler could have easily landed on his head. While people may disagree I think this is in line with World Rugby's current view on potential head injuries. Yes it is a soft penalty, but all it will take is one player concussed to highlight the need.

A possible best outcome might be to enable refs to give free kicks in the wake of what would normally be a penalty. Clearly no intent on either side to either draw, or give away a pretty massive pen. The law was applied to the letter, but it was a bit soft in the end. If the ref is empowered to give the free kick, then might be an acceptable compromise. Even as a Lions fan, if we'd have lost that way, I'd have been pretty friggin gutted.

Bit thats just me. I think every time Aaron smith intentionally draws a pen throwing at a lazy runner - he should be yellow carded for unsporting behaviour, so what do I know......

 

[Nubiwan]

I understand the rules, my gripe is that it's impossible for the defender to get this right all the time. These guys are running at top speed. This is not a kick situation, or a lineout, this is running with the ball at pace.
The defender is put at a massive disadvantage because the opposing halfback gave a horrible pass.
It's just nonsense.

If you are running with the ball whether you jump or not the player in possession of the ball should be fair game to be tackled with a regular wrap tackle below the shoulders.
It's rugby, not touch rugby.

In all fairness, every time I tackled a player (not all that often, I must admit, but when I did) chances are 50/50 (or better) that both his feet were off the ground. A pen? A technicality?

Offside at the ruck. Feeding a scrum. Blocking kick chasers. Clearing out players at ruck time. None of these is fully applied and if they were, then the game would be stopping for infringements all over the shop.

Something to be said for the simplicity of a bloody good hard game of rugby league. Fewer laws to interpret and the players just get on with hitting, and those quackie scrums

 

[Nubiwan]

That knock on in the World Cup oz v Scotland game. Called incorrectly at the time anyway, but the whole offside from a knock on has to go IMHO, as well. Ref should be empowered to simply give a free kick in such circumstances that a player unintentionally plays a knocked on ball. It's too instinctive half the time. To settle outcomes of World Cup games just not proper, much as the sinckler incident was.

 

[ncurd]

A possible best outcome might be to enable refs to give free kicks in the wake of what would normally be a penalty. Clearly no intent on either side to either draw, or give away a pretty massive pen.

I whole heartedly agree. Heres a question though if thebgame had been decided upon on a scrum penalty where lets be honest most calls are dubious with pot luck if the ref has spotted the right infringement that led to.the collapse or just one the countless others going on at the time. Would you've as upset?

This is the same kind of soft penalty and no one bought out of gamesmanship. Someone said Sinckler could of collected the ball over his head but he's instinctively jumped for it to catch it in a less awkward position you can't blame him for doing that.

 

[Thingimubob]

Seems obvious from this he didn't need to jump. He chooses to and catches it at head height, if he doesn't jump he could easily catch it by reaching above his head. So by the letter of this stupid law he should be penalised for unnecessarily jumping into a tackle. Either way its moronic, neither of them have any sort of time to be considering all these options and making decisions, they are busy trying to play rugby. Its a shame that with only three and a half minutes left in the game it decided who won.

And I love the hypocrisy of people that have no problem with this game deciding call because it's potentially dangerous and we are all so concerned with player safety but SOB can literally knock another player out with his forearm and see no repercussion because it was an accident. Oh wait, and Sam Cane did it.

Maybe next week Mako should spear tackle Barret and dislocate his shoulder with no repercussion because you know, fairs fair.

Honestly, I don't think the thought of whether he needed to jump or not came into Sinckler's head, probably just did it on instinct. Fault here is definitely with the rules rather than either player, so no-one really should've been penalise imo.

I think the jumping into tackles rules definitely more refers to stuff like this rather than what Sinckler did (ironically I don't think Shane got penalized for this):



Hypocrisy works both ways mate, plenty of NZ fans who have been frothing at the mouth about SOB, but conveniently ignoring the Cane incident once it's been pointed out

As I said, SOB's incident is definitely in the same ball park as Cane's (which I can only assume was missed by the citing officer / deemed worthy of only a yellow) and whether or not the player was knocked out doesn't come into it. Must be some reason why the committee dismissed the citing anyway.

 

[valley commando]

Honestly, I don't think the thought of whether he needed to jump or not came into Sinckler's head, probably just did it on instinct. Fault here is definitely with the rules rather than either player, so no-one really should've been penalise imo.

I think the jumping into tackles rules definitely more refers to stuff like this rather than what Sinckler did (ironically I don't think Shane got penalized for this):



Hypocrisy works both ways mate, plenty of NZ fans who have been frothing at the mouth about SOB, but conveniently ignoring the Cane incident once it's been pointed out

As I said, SOB's incident is definitely in the same ball park as Cane's (which I can only assume was missed by the citing officer / deemed worthy of only a yellow) and whether or not the player was knocked out doesn't come into it. Must be some reason why the committee dismissed the citing anyway.

Classic Amman Valley River Boy Stuff