Reds v Hurricanes
-
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Wow ... something must have escalated to get RS banned .. I don't disagree with his points, but in each situation, the right decision was ultimately made. Thus, I'd prefer focus to be on the Canes for the mistakes than the referee taking the time to find them.
Anyway, I was only watching background, but I thought in each situation after he awarded it, he was informed by the TMO / AR to check it out, not by what he saw on TV.
He just kept on whining about having posts deleted.
-
Often more replays are shown on the TV than at the ground. The big change now is that the ref uses the big screen to view replays in conjunction with the TMO/ARs. The TMO should have multiple camera views available to them so will always be able to correct a mistake.
-
@Bovidae said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Often more replays are shown on the TV than at the ground. The big change now is that the ref uses the big screen to view replays in conjunction with the TMO/ARs. The TMO should have multiple camera views available to them so will always be able to correct a mistake.
Yeah I think too much is made of what gets shown on the big screen st the ground given what is available. We don't know what is in the mind of the ref and it may well be that there is doubt even when a try or foul play has been ruled and the TMO process can then play out.
The big screen may or may not add to that doubt, but more often than not the TMO with superior view can provide more certainty.
It isn't a flawless system because human judgment is still relied upon, but I don't think what happened in this match was a major problem.
-
@Nepia said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@No-Quarter Yeah, I agree, you'd think WR would have got involved by now. I have no issue that the correct result was reached. However, I do think there is an issue with what gets replayed - there were a couple of times I'm surprised the TMO didn't check when the decision would have gone against the Reds. So, I guess the TMO only gets the Fox feed and can't chose to check stuff themselves.
TBH, I think Gardiner is a great ref, and I think he'll take learnings from this, probably to ask for TMOs to check stuff more in the future - which may turn out to be a bad thing in the long run as no ref will want to make an on field decision anymore.
Angus will probably also learn not to let himself get talked into a ruling by a yappy halfback when flustered.
Correct ruling would have been a scrum to the Reds after TJP didn't clearly take the tap (21.4(d))
I have only ever seen this sanction used once though and the player blew up at the ref so hard that the Union made him go to an anger management course before he was allowed to take the field again.
Usually if the ref sees it he gets the penalty to be re-taken properly.
-
-
@Bones said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Crucial Yeah I'd been wondering that and was surprised by Gardiner's change of mind on that one. I thought I must've got it wrong!
Thought I'd have a look on the Rugby Refs site to see if this raised a debate and .....http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20275-TJ-Perenara-s-Bluff
-
In that refs site, do they ever come to a conclusion?
From what I could see one guy cites -
21.3 HOW THE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of
kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from
knee to the foot, excluding the knee and the heel.
(b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The
opposing team throws in the ball.and its case closed. The another dude points out (rightly?) that the kick is not taken in any way, therefore it can't have been taken illegally, which also seems right. Then they bicker for 3 pages. Does anyone finally conclude which was OK?
-
@Crucial Nice. Interesting point being made on no tap actually occurring. Springs to mind when you often see a player do a "dummy" tap and go just to put the shits up the opposition - which never gets called up as an infringement, so I guess TJP's could slot in under this.
-
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Crucial is correct here. A failure to take the free kick in the prescribed manner has the sanction of a scrum to the opposition. Whoever is arguing against that point isn't fit to be a ref.
Yep, I read that bit, but the ways in which he can "fail" are listed. TJ doesn't fail in those ways. He doesn't take a tap in any way, correct or incorrect - from the link -
None of this applies.
There is no Law in the book that allows a scrum to be ordered for what happened because TJP did not commit any infringement. He simply picked up the ball and ran... it wasn't an incorrect type of kick or a bounce off the knee, which are the only infringements for which a scrum can be ordered. Why should Gold be disadvantaged because the AG initially failed to notice that TJP hadn't kicked the ball.
If you can show me a Law that says a player failing to kick the ball at all at a PK/FK is an infringement, I'll happily recant.
From there, for 4 more pagsm, no one shows how its an infringement. It sort of feels pedantic, but it also feels like he is right. I honestly have no idea
-
I remember in a Chiefs v Hurricanes game Ian Smith insisting they show a reply of something Sam Cane did off the ball. It got shown on the big screen until the ref called play back. While I like correct decisions getting made, typically only one side is getting the extra scrutiny. Smith would have kept his mouth shut if it was a Hurricane's infringement. Besides, I don't like commentary and ground staff having any input on game decisions.
-
@gollum It's simple: He didn't make a clear kick. That's the infringement.
-
@antipodean
I would agree-for mine his attempt to kick would be classed as an actual kick infringement.
Just as in general play when someone drops the ball then kicks it, it is called up as a knock on. I think I noticed one instance of that on the weekend, but the attacking team had penalty adv. anyway (Crusaders or Tahs, maybe). -
@gollum said in Reds v Hurricanes:
In that refs site, do they ever come to a conclusion?
From what I could see one guy cites -
21.3 HOW THE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any type of
kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the lower leg from
knee to the foot, excluding the knee and the heel.
(b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The
opposing team throws in the ball.and its case closed. The another dude points out (rightly?) that the kick is not taken in any way, therefore it can't have been taken illegally, which also seems right. Then they bicker for 3 pages. Does anyone finally conclude which was OK?
No. They are referees.
Interesting forum to see a viewpoint thought.
-
@antipodean said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@gollum It's simple: He didn't make a clear kick. That's the infringement.
That's my view as well.
The Laws are written in a way that does not spell everything out and just like our societal laws you often need a judge (ref) to apply the law in the way it was intended.
The whole reason there is a big section on exactly how you restart the game after a penalty is awarded is that they are listing the ONLY ways the game should restart. Even TJP realises that.
By adding a sanction after those laws for incorrect restarts they are intending that you must do it correctly or suffer. Not actually kicking the ball doesn't (or shouldn't) mean that this section doesn't apply at all and you get two bites at the cherry.
NB: I do realise that at most levels the incorrectly taken quick penalty is usually called back for another go but that is NOT the actual law, it is a convention to cover all bases including the usual infringement of not being on the mark. The reasoning being that in a fast pro game often the ref hasn't had a chance to make the mark so it is harsh to penalise the taker.
If you really wanted to you could also say that 21.4(c) applies which is to say the for any type of kick restart it must be taken without delay. If you pick up the ball without kicking it and run behind the posts you have just delayed the restart. Scrum to the opposition. -
Yeah, my feeling is TJ fucked it up, he should have "lost" the penalty as a result, but the Ref didn't rule that & the forum were arguing both ways, so I've really got no idea.
This the same ref as the one who aron Smith had to tell the game was over right?
Watch As Super Rugby Ref Forgets The Game Has Ended
Comical scenes at the end of the Otago Highlanders and ACT Brumbies Super Rugby Playoff game.The referee forgot that the game had ended until he was asked
He seems suggestible. Well, to 9's anyway
-
@gollum said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Yeah, my feeling is TJ fucked it up, he should have "lost" the penalty as a result, but the Ref didn't rule that & the forum were arguing both ways, so I've really got no idea.
This the same ref as the one who aron Smith had to tell the game was over right?
Watch As Super Rugby Ref Forgets The Game Has Ended
Comical scenes at the end of the Otago Highlanders and ACT Brumbies Super Rugby Playoff game.The referee forgot that the game had ended until he was asked
He seems suggestible. Well, to 9's anyway
And he then complains that they chip him with advice too much. Stop listening to them then!
-
