Law Application at RWC19
-
Given that there are bound to be some refereeing interpretations that are questioned by fans during this RWC, I thought a separate thread on this topic would be warranted. We could perhaps use it as a reference source during the tournament.
Please feel free to add whatever useful information you find on the subject.
I will start the ball rolling with the high and no-arms tackle explanatory video from World Rugby:
-
Basically the framework can be vastly simplified.
Is the ref French? Yes: red card.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Law Application at RWC19:
Basically the framework can be vastly simplified.
Is the ref French? Yes: red card.
non non non, we 'ave a deyl
-
@Billy-Tell said in Law Application at RWC19:
Basically the framework can be vastly simplified.
Is the ref French? Oui
Is it an All Black? Oui: red card.
FIFY
-
So the Jaaps are trying to influence the Refs.
First Willisie Stick now Rassie.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12268901
They're not even subtle.
-
@booboo so you dont wanna be playing Ireland then!
haha that is hilarious, the refs look at the rankings now before they head out to determine which team they will give an easier ride?
-
@taniwharugby said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo so you dont wanna be playing Ireland then!
haha that is hilarious, the refs look at the rankings now before they head out to determine which team they will give an easier ride?
Rassie is
-
-
@Machpants said in Law Application at RWC19:
When you look who gets penalised the most I think it maybe inverse, higher ranking = more penalties
Unless you are Ireland
Cards:
Since the last World Cup, (for which NZ have been number 1 in the world for all matches they have played) the All Blacks have received 21 sanctions from 47 Tests, at an average of one for every 179 minutes played, while opponents have received 12, at 313 minutes per card.Woe is us.
Carded 42% more times than our opponents.
Lifted and correctly contextualised from a Guradian hatchet piece, that I won;t link.
Offences in a ruck or a maul when under pressure is cheating, those who employ rush defences are as pure as a cold driven snow and are not an example of a team cynically pushing the rules, Facts.
Also.
2012-15: 23 All Black yellow card sanctions from 45 Tests, one for every 156 minutes. Through the same time frame, teams playing New Zealand suffered just 17 yellow cards, at one for every 200 minutes of play.26% more cards than our opponents.
Over last 8 years: NZ 44 cards, opponents 29 cards. NZ carded 34% more times than their opponents.
-
@taniwharugby said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo so you dont wanna be playing Ireland then!
haha that is hilarious, the refs look at the rankings now before they head out to determine which team they will give an easier ride?
Yeah exactly! Refs go easy on Ireland and somehow that makes it a more level playing field for the Springboks playing the ABs.
-
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
-
-
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
An't further thoughts?
Also on the box kicks. Blockers standing in front of the hindmost foot with barely a finger on the ruck. That isn't being bound in my book. (although this ruling is probably given a blind eye as a way to practically deal with giving the halfback a chance to clear the ball, especially from small breakdowns. Tonga had to make long snake rucks to create distance.
-
-
If this leads to a formal law change or change in the law application guidelines, I will post it in the general "law trials and changes" thread.
Hansen and the All Blacks management team have convinced the organisation to see sense, and change a rule around how the concussion or HIA process is conducted after the farce involving Sam Cane during the game at Yokohama International Stadium. Cane, who appeared dazed after copping a blow to the head in the first spell, was instructed by an independent medical panel to have a head injury assessment (HIA) during the halftime break. Although he passed the test with flying colours, the officials refused to let him return to the game because he had breached the allocated period of time, which is 10 minutes, for an HIA. Rather than start the timer when Cane had begun the test, the officials were adamant the clock must start ticking from the moment the No 7 began the long walk toward the examination area. That led to valuable minutes being gobbled up and Cane, who was required to take his boots off to complete a balancing test, being replaced by Patrick Tuipulotu."We have had a notification that they are going to modify the time keeping," Hansen confirmed on Sunday. "So instead of it happening when they say there's going to be a test, the clock doesn't start until you get into the actual room itself." Rarely do players have an HIA at halftime, because they are often immediately hooked if they appear to be injured. On this occasion, however, Cane was in the changing sheds when he was told he had to be assessed."It wasn't through any fault of his … it wasn't anything that we could control," Hansen noted. "I think they (World Rugby) have worked out that it's not common sense is it? We are here to look after the athlete and so they have modified it (the rule) which is great. A good response." -
@Stargazer I'm pretty sure it is an official change to deal with the variation of times/distances to testing area.
-
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
-
-
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
Agree that it is painful to watch but, like the offside blockers this is all due to WR not working out how to deal with the small tackle area where the defence has hardly anyone there so that their 'last feet' is only a step from the halfback.
If the refs didn't allow all of this farting around, snake construction and blocking we would just see endless charge downs.
What I would like to see trialled is that there has to be a clear and obvious gap from the 'ruck' to the defence. Something like a 1 metre no entry without binding zone. -
-
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
I'm actually pleased we've started doing it rather than just bitching about it. Honestly, after Lions 2 in 2017, I thought our tactic off every ruck in teh game should be throwing a high pass for our player to jump and catch. If they get touched, penalty ... wreck the game and force a rule change. LIkewise with mauls - we should just exploit it all day, until people change the laws to stop it.
-
-
@nzzp said in Law Application at RWC19:
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
I'm actually pleased we've started doing it rather than just bitching about it. Honestly, after Lions 2 in 2017, I thought our tactic off every ruck in teh game should be throwing a high pass for our player to jump and catch. If they get touched, penalty ... wreck the game and force a rule change. LIkewise with mauls - we should just exploit it all day, until people change the laws to stop it.
I don't think that jump and catch needed a law change!
-
-
@nzzp said in Law Application at RWC19:
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
I'm actually pleased we've started doing it rather than just bitching about it. Honestly, after Lions 2 in 2017, I thought our tactic off every ruck in teh game should be throwing a high pass for our player to jump and catch. If they get touched, penalty ... wreck the game and force a rule change. LIkewise with mauls - we should just exploit it all day, until people change the laws to stop it.
Sinckler jump tackle penalty to lose Lions 2 is still the most galling referring decision of the last few years, worse than Lions 3 "deal" / bullshit red cards / 6 runs instead of 5 off Stokes' diving bat / super overs / timed out when winning the clinching race in America's Cup 2013. Never forget.
-
-
@TeWaio said in Law Application at RWC19:
@nzzp said in Law Application at RWC19:
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
I'm actually pleased we've started doing it rather than just bitching about it. Honestly, after Lions 2 in 2017, I thought our tactic off every ruck in teh game should be throwing a high pass for our player to jump and catch. If they get touched, penalty ... wreck the game and force a rule change. LIkewise with mauls - we should just exploit it all day, until people change the laws to stop it.
Sinckler jump tackle penalty to lose Lions 2 is still the most galling referring decision of the last few years, worse than Lions 3 "deal" / bullshit red cards / 6 runs instead of 5 off Stokes' diving bat / super overs / timed out when winning the clinching race in America's Cup 2013. Never forget.
underarm bowling incident of 1981
-
-
@Machpants said in Law Application at RWC19:
@TeWaio said in Law Application at RWC19:
@nzzp said in Law Application at RWC19:
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@booboo said in Law Application at RWC19:
Seven games in and we've had a few issues.
For me:
-
offside on box kicks. Too many players in front advancing or not retiring when within 10. Watching a replay of Italy v Namibia (got the man flu) and an awful example where virtually every player not in the ruck started running forward BEFORE the half back kicked it.
-
offside at the breakdown. At times this has been awful. ARs have to do more to police this. Having said that sometimes the "hindmost foot" or however it is now defined can be fluid where players are involved/bound/attached to the breakdown (I won't use "ruck" coz often they're not).
Those are the two patterns I have issue with.
There have been decisions I disagreed with, and some 50/50 which Saffas would see as a conspiracy, bit you get that.
Any further thoughts?
Halfbacks fucking around with the ball at the breakdown, usually before kicking. Dig a bit, roll it with the foot, roll it with the hand, pick it up and put it closer to the base, so on and so on. Fuggen frustrating and I wish teams would start testing the ref on it.
I'm actually pleased we've started doing it rather than just bitching about it. Honestly, after Lions 2 in 2017, I thought our tactic off every ruck in teh game should be throwing a high pass for our player to jump and catch. If they get touched, penalty ... wreck the game and force a rule change. LIkewise with mauls - we should just exploit it all day, until people change the laws to stop it.
Sinckler jump tackle penalty to lose Lions 2 is still the most galling referring decision of the last few years, worse than Lions 3 "deal" / bullshit red cards / 6 runs instead of 5 off Stokes' diving bat / super overs / timed out when winning the clinching race in America's Cup 2013. Never forget.
underarm bowling incident of 1981
The Sneddon catch not given and G Chappell not walking in the same game
-
-
-
@Machpants said in Law Application at RWC19:
Cheating Ozzie piston wristed gibbons. Best I make a YouTube video pointing out every one of these things, I hear it's all the rage amongst the incels of South Africa
Don't forget Dyer the liar!
-
World Rugby statement about the officiating in the first RWC round:
"Following the usual review of matches, the match officials team recognise that performances over the opening weekend of Rugby World Cup 2019 were not consistently of the standards set by World Rugby and themselves, but World Rugby is confident of the highest standards of officiating moving forward. Elite match officials are required to make decisions in complex, high-pressure situations and there have been initial challenges with the use of technology and team communication, which have impacted decision-making. These are already being addressed by the team of 23 match officials to enhance consistency. Given this proactive approach, a strong team ethic and a superb support structure, World Rugby has every confidence in the team to ensure that Rugby World Cup 2019 delivers the highest levels of accurate, clear and consistent decision-making."I have only copied and pasted the text of the statement as quoted in several articles, because the articles themselves put their own spin on it in their intros, depending on which team the author/site supports (or clearly doesn't support).
I found it on four different site, no doubt, more will follow:
I haven't seen the statement on the WR website, yet.
-
-
-
@canefan yeah as mentioned in another thread, it did seem like the TMO was coaxing him to issuing a card on the Tongan that tackled WATSON when he had fallen to his knees, but he wasnt buying it.
I watched 60mins of that game and was one of the better ones I watched for the weekend.
-
This post is deleted!
-
While the focus so far this RWC seems to be around tackling technique and height, has anyone else got the impression that the refs are allowing a fair bit more sealing off at the ruck?
I'm watching Scotland v Samoa now and 15 minutes in, there have been at least 3 occasions where refs may have blown up the attacking side in the past.
Seemed to remember a couple in other games too... Anyone else seeing it this way?
Not a big deal - just something I thought was interesting.
-
@Billy-Webb said in Law Application at RWC19:
While the focus so far this RWC seems to be around tackling technique and height, has anyone else got the impression that the refs are allowing a fair bit more sealing off at the ruck?
I'm watching Scotland v Samoa now and 15 minutes in, there have been at least 3 occasions where refs may have blown up the attacking side in the past.
Seemed to remember a couple in other games too... Anyone else seeing it this way?
Not a big deal - just something I thought was interesting.
Agree
-
@Billy-Webb probably haven't been paying enough attention but I've noticed it blown up a few times also when I thought it was a bit surprising.
-
@Bones said in Law Application at RWC19:
@Billy-Webb probably haven't been paying enough attention but I've noticed it blown up a few times also when I thought it was a bit surprising.
Can't say I have picked on that Bones - just the other way as mentioned earlier.
Maybe it is a case of which ref is out in the middle?
I know Nigel Ownes has been strict on sealing off in the past. Can't imagine that would have changed. -
@Billy-Webb might have been Paul Williams or BOK.
