British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[mania]

And don't forget 1905 Mania. Down 3 -0, Bob Deans scored that clear try for the All Blacks and those bloody Welsh dragged him back into the field of play. Ref just crossing the half-way when he rules no try. Where was the TMO that day?

its a conspiracy i say!!

 

[smartcooky]

I do think that based on precedent both times were wrong, but i think penalizing players in these situations is harsh. The mantra is supposed to be clear and obvious. I don't think that it in those two cases that it was clear and obvious that the players could avoid getting touched by the ball.

When I watched it live i thought 100% it was a penalty and that's how I call it when I officiate it. But man these are tough calls.

Here is my issue with this.

Owens brought his arms up from his sides, reached out, and caught the ball. That is about as clear and obvious as it gets.

Now, if he had enough reaction time to do that, then he had enough reaction time to at least make an effort to get out of the way of the ball... to try to avoid being touched by him, i.e. keep his arms down, change direction, try to stop; anything but reach out and grab it. If you make the effort, and the ball still hits you, then you have met a key criteria for "Accidental Offside" which is...

"...When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball"

The fact that he intentionally played it is evidence that he could have avoided it.

 

[ncurd]

Do you think he intentionally played the ball knowing he was offside or do you think it was gut reaction to the being able to catch the ball so did.

Yes you could argue he could of done a whole multitude of things but he intentionally did it as opposed to instinctively did it? Sorry thats an opinion not a hard fact and only Owens knows what he did.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Do you think he intentionally played the ball knowing he was offside or do you think it was gut reaction to the being able to catch the ball so did.

Yes you could argue he could of done a whole multitude of things but he intentionally did it as opposed to instinctively did it? Sorry thats an opinion not a hard fact and only Owens knows what he did.

It doesn't matter whether you know you are offside are not. All that matters is that you are offside.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you think he intentionally played the ball knowing he was offside or do you think it was gut reaction to the being able to catch the ball so did.

Yes you could argue he could of done a whole multitude of things but he intentionally did it as opposed to instinctively did it? Sorry thats an opinion not a hard fact and only Owens knows what he did.

I agree with the themole25; whether he knew or not isn't relevant, but in any case, a player retiring toward his own goal-line seeing the ball coming towards him from his own player must know he's offside. This is especially so at elite level... these are professional rugby players at the very top level of the game and they know exactly what they are doing. Referees have a saying about top level rugby, "nothing happens by accident".

Even if he had an instinctive reaction to catch the ball, that is not relevant either. A would be tackler is stepped by a ball carrier, sticks out an arm and coat-hangers him. That's an instinctive reaction too, but do we forgive that and say its an accidental stiff-arm.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Do you think he intentionally played the ball knowing he was offside or do you think it was gut reaction to the being able to catch the ball so did.

Do you think Faumuina intentionally tackled Sinckler knowing he was going to be penalized or do you think it was a instinctive defender's reaction to tackle a 122 kg guy coming at him with the ball?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[ncurd]

Do you think Faumuina intentionally tackled Sinckler knowing he was going to be penalized or do you think it was a instinctive defender's reaction to tackle a 122 kg guy coming at him with the ball?

You can't have it both ways.

I agree its completely hypocritical but I don't know anyone claiming the higher ground on this one.

My only two cavaet's is there is something in the law book for accidental offside there isn't something for accidentally tackling the player in the air.
Plus what happened with Sinckler was instinctive on his part (the act of jumping) what Faumuina was premeditated in that he committed to the tackle before Sinckler caught the ball.


In reality I think the refereee should of had grounds to give a free kick instead of a penalty in both instances. I think far too many offences are automatic penalties when in reality a free kick (I'd take out the option to scrum for scrum free kicks infact I'd take out that option in most cases) would be a far better way to penalise the offending team.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Poite bottled it.
He gave a penalty, then he went to the TMO and was going to give a penalty then Garces intervened and Poite decided to go with another decision for whatever reason.
If we got the penalty Barrett may well have missed it.
It doesn't matter.
It's done and dusted.
The refs can learn from it.
The law makers can learn from it and hopefully institute free kicks as an outcome.
Perhaps a ref might even play advantage ;-)

The Lions stock has risen and thats a good thing.
The rebuilding AB's discovered that a backline full of rookies isn't as good as a backline full of seasoned capped players. But it's still quite good and worth developing for the next RWC.

I miss the Tuesday games and the Saturday games.
It was an awesome tour and it was all over too quickly but the taste it has left in my mouth is ... I want more. It has left me wanting more.
Thats got to be the best advertisement for a tour you could hope for...

 

[smartcooky]

I agree its completely hypocritical but I don't know anyone claiming the higher ground on this one.

My only two cavaet's is there is something in the law book for accidental offside there isn't something for accidentally tackling the player in the air.
Plus what happened with Sinckler was instinctive on his part (the act of jumping) what Faumuina was premeditated in that he committed to the tackle before Sinckler caught the ball.

Is it hypocritical though?

I see the Faumuina tackle as a completely different scenario. In his case, he is committed to a tackle, and then when Sinkler jumps unexpectedly, he has absolutely no time react and pull out. Its more a like a late tackle. We all understand (I hope) that a tackler must commit to a tackle, or his chances of injuring himself will skyrocket - anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't played the game. As referees, we accept that if a player is hit fractionally late, and we are satisfied that the tackler was committed and could not have pulled out, we call play on.

However, with the Owens case, and the coat-hangar tackle scenario, we have a situation where the player did had time to react, and when he did, his reaction was to commit an infringement.

In reality I think the refereee should of had grounds to give a free kick instead of a penalty in both instances. I think far too many offences are automatic penalties when in reality a free kick (I'd take out the option to scrum for scrum free kicks infact I'd take out that option in most cases) would be a far better way to penalise the offending team.

Well, this is a different subject, but for some time, I have been of the firm belief that WR should try doing away with allowing for the scoring of points from Technical Infringements, so that kicks at goal would only be allowed for infringements of Dangerous Play and Foul Play, i.e. anything covered by Law 10.

This would require a change in the Law either to allow for Free Kicks to have a gain in ground without the throw in, or the introduction of a new class of sanction (which I call an Indirect Penalty Kick) which would have all the rights of a Penalty Kick (gain in ground, throw in to the line out, take a scrum option etc) but would not be allowed to be kicked at goal, so

► All current Penalty Kicks for Dangerous play or Foul Play (Law 10) remain Penalty kicks - note that infringements such as collapsing the scrum, ruck or maul are also listed in Law 10.4 (k)
► All current Free Kicks for minor infringements remain Free Kicks
► All current Penalty Kicks for Technical Infringements such as offside, hands in the ruck, not releasing/rolling away, side entry at the tackle etc) become Indirect Penalty Kicks

Some people have criticized this idea as being a "cheat's charter", but I do not believe it would be. The term "cheat's charter" implies players repeatedly infringing knowing that they won't give away a kickable opportunity. Remember that repeat infringements are covered by Law 10.2, so teams that do so are going to find their sanctions escalated very quickly. They are also going to find themselves disadvantaged by giving up a lot of field position... and you can't keep giving away field position without eventually giving up scoring opportunities as well.

I certainly believe something like this is worth a trial.

 

[Five Meters Out]

I like the notion of a bent arm free kick for offences such as both Owens and Faumaina's. When 'Free Kicks' were first introduced we saw quite a few in games. Now we hardly ever see them.

 

[ncurd]

Some people have criticized this idea as being a "cheat's charter", but I do not believe it would be. The term "cheat's charter" implies players repeatedly infringing knowing that they won't give away a kickable opportunity. Remember that repeat infringements are covered by Law 10.2, so teams that do so are going to find their sanctions escalated very quickly. They are also going to find themselves disadvantaged by giving up a lot of field position... and you can't keep giving away field position without eventually giving up scoring opportunities as well.

I certainly believe something like this is worth a trial.

I think you also argue that the ref could apply 10.2a for those technical infringements as well. So if a player like Owens clearly and cynically played the ball off side it could still be a penalty kick. But if a player gets trapped in a ruck and he clearly didn't have time to roll away the ref doesn't have to give a penalty for it. Although TBH that's happening far less in games that did a few seasons back.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Did any of you guys see this:

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/plans-to-reduce-rugbys-laws-50-20170719

World Rugby has reportedly commissioned a technical group to overhaul its law book, which could see half of the game's laws abolished.

In an attempt to simplify the laws and make rugby easier to understand, the technical group will head up the 'Laws Simplification Project' which is set to be completed by late 2018.

 

[ncurd]

Cynical Mode On: NZ lose a test match and they immediately call for laws change shocker, world rugby follows shocker.

Cynical Mode Off: I'm really unsure what they can do the game isn't 'that' complex, some infringements are just complicated because of other factors in not being able to be 100% sure what has occured. Unless you remove that the game will always baffle some.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Cynical Mode On: NZ lose a test match and they immediately call for laws change shocker, world rugby follows shocker.

Cynical Mode Off: I'm really unsure what they can do the game isn't 'that' complex, some infringements are just complicated because of other factors in not being able to be 100% sure what has occured. Unless you remove that the game will always baffle some.

Well, I think this Lions tour was the last straw. And this panel should have been implemented a long time ago. What is interesting is the people on the panel, I notice nobody from France made the cut (unless they represent World Rugby).

I see that this panel has been busy since last year February, So it seems like they are taking this seriously.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, I think this Lions tour was the last straw. And this panel should have been implemented a long time ago. What is interesting is the people on the panel, I notice nobody from France made the cut (unless they represent World Rugby).

I see that this panel has been busy since last year February, So it seems like they are taking this seriously.

And in February 2016 was 8 games into the world record winning streak which began with the 2015 RWC, so ncurd's cynical mode doesn't apply at all.

I think you will find the they are not looking so much at reducing the number of Laws as trying to make them easier to comprehend and making them a lot less wordy

For Example, this is what it takes in the current Lawbook to describe the formation of a line-out

19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(b) Maximum. The team throwing in the ball decides the maximum number of players in the
lineout.
(c) The opposing team may have fewer lineout players but they must not have more.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(d) When the ball is in touch , every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(f) These players must leave the lineout without delay. They must move to the offside line , 10 metres behind the line of touch. If the lineout ends before they reach this line , they may rejoin play.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(h) Where the lineout players must stand. The front of the lineout is not less than 5 metres from the touchline. The back of the lineout is not more than 15 metres from the touchline. All lineout players must stand between these two points.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(i) Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver , then that player , must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout , and between the 5m and 15m lines , until the lineout begins. Once the lineout has commenced , the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line along the line of touch
(j) Player between touch and 5 metres. The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team's side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(k) Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown.
(l) Two single straight lines. The lineout players of both teams form two single parallel lines
each at right angles to the touchline.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(m) Opposing players forming a lineout must keep a clear space between their inside shoulders. This space is determined when players are in an upright stance.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(n) Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(o) The line of touch must not be within 5 metres of the goal line.
(p) After the lineout has formed , but before the ball has been thrown in , a player must not hold push , charge into , or obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.


Now, here is my version


19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Number of players. A line out requires at least two players from each team, with the maximum being set by the team throwing in. The opposing team may have fewer lineout players.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(b) When the ball is in touch , every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout, and they must do so without delay. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout. Once they have taken up a position in the lineout, they must not leave until it has ended unless required to do so by Law. In that case, the referee must allow a reasonable time for compliance, those players must leave the lineout without delay, and retire to the 10m offside line
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(c) Where the lineout players must stand. The lineout players must form two single parallel lines, each at right angles to the touchline, between the 5m and 15m line. Each line must be at least half a metre on their own side of the line of touch, and the player must maintain that gap until the ball touches a player or the ground. Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(d) The receiver. If a team uses a receiver , that player must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout , and between the 5m and 15m lines , until the lineout begins. Once the lineout has commenced , the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line along the line of touch
(e) Player between touch and 5 metres. The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team's side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(f) After the lineout has formed , but before the ball has been thrown in , a player must not hold push , charge into , or obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

I would either put the following into the General definitions at the front of the book, or in the Law 19 Touch definitions

(o) The line of touch must not be within 5 metres of the goal line.

My version says everything that the current version says in about half the number of words, and more clearly.

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

It's over. You lost. Why is this thread still going?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Is it hypocritical though?

I see the Faumuina tackle as a completely different scenario. In his case, he is committed to a tackle, and then when Sinkler jumps unexpectedly, he has absolutely no time react and pull out..

This is where you're simplifying - he's not committed - if you watch it back closely you will see that it is after Sinkler jumps that Faumuina beings the actual motion of his tackle. I agree however that he has very little time to react. Owens had very little time to react too, especially when you take into account confusion in the moment such as 'who touched the ball', 'where exactly was I when he touched it' etc..

Overall I can understand people not being happy with the decision, particularly with the manner in which it was made. There should be no way that a captain can talk a referee down from the penalty as well.

However, the outcome itself shows an empathy for the situation that is hard to disagree with for me. We all know that the game is in danger of becoming farcical because officials appear bound to implement the rulebook, and most if not all of us complain about it. It's the same principle at stake when a ball carrier slips into the tackle and then gets taken high, therefore winning a penalty for his team with the tackler (often) carded. Referees will reiterate their need to protect the player and the fact that this binds them, before brandishing the card or giving the penalty. Tackles in the air are often carded 'on outcome' to determine their colour., because of the same duty to protect. The clusterfuck between officials was a worrying sign, but for me the ability to use discretion is the way forward for the professional game as it becomes increasingly physical and skilled. And yes, another example would be the meaning of the words 'accidental offside'. I know very well what the rulebook says, but I don't particularly blame Poite for extending this to the following considerations: 'the player did not intend to commit foul play', there was no 'professional element' (such as depriving the opposition of the ball in an advantageous position),' 'reaction window was minimal', and 'he dropped the ball immediately to show there was no intent to commit a foul'.

Despite all the partisan arguing, who here actually wants to see penalties for scenarios such as Faumuina and Owens, particularly when it is going to determine the outcome of a great test series? If you do, why? The way I'm thinking of these incidents is to estimate how many of the other 28 players on the pitch, in those same scenarios, would NOT have given away those penalties. I think the answer is "Very few, perhaps none", and for me we should be able to use that diagnostic test to bring in some empathy to the officiating. The PROCESS by which they arrived at that decision was terrrrrible, no doubt.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

And in February 2016 was 8 games into the world record winning streak which began with the 2015 RWC, so ncurd's cynical mode doesn't apply at all.

I think you will find the they are not looking so much at reducing the number of Laws as trying to make them easier to comprehend and making them a lot less wordy

For Example, this is what it takes in the current Lawbook to describe the formation of a line-out

19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(b) Maximum. The team throwing in the ball decides the maximum number of players in the
lineout.
(c) The opposing team may have fewer lineout players but they must not have more.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(d) When the ball is in touch , every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(f) These players must leave the lineout without delay. They must move to the offside line , 10 metres behind the line of touch. If the lineout ends before they reach this line , they may rejoin play.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(g) Failure to form a lineout. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(h) Where the lineout players must stand. The front of the lineout is not less than 5 metres from the touchline. The back of the lineout is not more than 15 metres from the touchline. All lineout players must stand between these two points.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(i) Where the receiver must stand. If a team uses a receiver , then that player , must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout , and between the 5m and 15m lines , until the lineout begins. Once the lineout has commenced , the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line along the line of touch
(j) Player between touch and 5 metres. The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team's side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(k) Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown.
(l) Two single straight lines. The lineout players of both teams form two single parallel lines
each at right angles to the touchline.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(m) Opposing players forming a lineout must keep a clear space between their inside shoulders. This space is determined when players are in an upright stance.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(n) Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line of touch.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(o) The line of touch must not be within 5 metres of the goal line.
(p) After the lineout has formed , but before the ball has been thrown in , a player must not hold push , charge into , or obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.


Now, here is my version


19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Number of players. A line out requires at least two players from each team, with the maximum being set by the team throwing in. The opposing team may have fewer lineout players.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(b) When the ball is in touch , every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout, and they must do so without delay. A team must not voluntarily fail to form a lineout. Once they have taken up a position in the lineout, they must not leave until it has ended unless required to do so by Law. In that case, the referee must allow a reasonable time for compliance, those players must leave the lineout without delay, and retire to the 10m offside line
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(c) Where the lineout players must stand. The lineout players must form two single parallel lines, each at right angles to the touchline, between the 5m and 15m line. Each line must be at least half a metre on their own side of the line of touch, and the player must maintain that gap until the ball touches a player or the ground. Participating players in a lineout may change places before the ball is thrown.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(d) The receiver. If a team uses a receiver , that player must be positioned at least 2m back from team mates in the lineout , and between the 5m and 15m lines , until the lineout begins. Once the lineout has commenced , the receiver may move into the lineout and may perform all actions available to players in the lineout and is liable to related sanctions.
Sanction: Free kick on the 15 metre line along the line of touch
(e) Player between touch and 5 metres. The team not throwing in must have a player standing between the touchline and the 5-metre line on that team's side of the line of touch when the lineout is formed. That player must stand 2 metres from the line of touch and 2 metres from the 5-metre line.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(f) After the lineout has formed , but before the ball has been thrown in , a player must not hold push , charge into , or obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line.

I would either put the following into the General definitions at the front of the book, or in the Law 19 Touch definitions

(o) The line of touch must not be within 5 metres of the goal line.

My version says everything that the current version says in about half the number of words, and more clearly.

The law book definitely needs to go over some redundancies and improve some wording.
To me it reads as someone who thinks they more words= smarter while in reality it shows an inability to use language efficiently.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

This is where you're simplifying - he's not committed - if you watch it back closely you will see that it is after Sinkler jumps that Faumuina beings the actual motion of his tackle. I agree however that he has very little time to react. Owens had very little time to react too, especially when you take into account confusion in the moment such as 'who touched the ball', 'where exactly was I' when he touched it etc.

Overall I can understand people not being happy with the decision, particularly with the manner in which it was made. There should be no way that a captain can talk a referee down from the penalty as well.

However, the outcome itself shows an empathy for the situation that is hard to disagree with for me. We all know that the game is in danger of becoming farcical because officials appear bound to implement the rulebook. A ball carrier who slips into the tackle and then gets taken high wins a penalty for his team and the tackler is often carded. Referees will trot out their need to protect the player and the fact that this binds them. Tackles in the air are often carded 'on outcome' to determine their colour. The clusterfuck between officials was a worrying sign, but for me the ability to use discretion is the way forward for the professional game as it becomes increasingly physical and skilled. And yes, another example would be the meaning of the words 'accidental offside'. I know very well what the rulebook says, but I don't particularly blame Poite for extending this to the following: 'the player did not intentionally commit foul play, there was no 'professional element' such as depriving the opposition of the ball in an advantageous position,' and 'he dropped the ball immediately to show this'.

Despite all the partisan arguing, who here actually wants to see penalties for scenarios such as Faumuina and Owens, particularly when it is going to determine the outcome of a great test series? If you do, why? The way I'm thinking of these incidents is to estimate how many of the other 28 players on the pitch, in those same scenarios, would NOT have given away those penalties. I think the answer is "Very few, perhaps none", and for me we should be able to use that diagnostic test to bring in some empathy to the officiating. The PROCESS by which they arrived at that decision was terrrrrible, no doubt.

Owens should definitely be a penalty since you are in an offsides position and you play the ball. That is a penalty whether or not there is a knock on or not.

The penalty for jumping in the air should have been a penalty under the way the law is written. I'd like to see the law say that as long as the tackled player is tackled safely then it's okay to tackle them in the air. Especially since in some scenarios the guy on ground actually wrapping the guy in the air up is the safest thing for the guy in the air.

 

[Skylinerd1]

As Ricky Stuart in league says theres needs to be more accountability from the refs and the powers that be. As he says in this interview the refs dont have to front up to the media (im not saying they should have to but they do need to be held accountable for ridiculous decisions). The players and coaches do (look at SBW!!!) but nobody controlling the game from the Refs to the hierarchy at World Rugby have to face up to this. Rickys got a point here.

I sensed during and before the lions series this is something Hansen would love to say but he isnt interested in paying the fines like Ricky is.