Reds v Hurricanes
-
@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!
-
-
@Nepia said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Isn't what TJ did no different than when a player takes a quick penalty but not on the mark? I can't remember a time when the player hasn't been able to retake the penalty from the mark. I fail to see why this incident should be any different.
Because the relevant law says so: If a quickly taken penalty kick or free kick is taken from the wrong place the referee will order the kick to be taken again.
-
@antipodean Bah, you and your laws -
Still, I think it's odd that the laws allow you to make one error in taking a penalty and not suffer for it, yet make another and you lose possession ... that doesn't seem consistent.
-
@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.
I have no problem with the correct decisions being reached, but that was never my point. I have stated what my issue is several times now and I can’t be bothered repeating.
What I find utterly absurd and the reason I got so annoyed is the argument that it is the players who have to get their shit together, or learn the “basics” to avoid these situations. I think I can easily be forgiven for believing that was some kind of an attempt at trolling. It’s beyond me how you can blame the players for the officials fucking up.
Yeah apparently questioning why your post was deleted gets you banned now. The post was not abusive and was on topic (at least as on topic as the original post I responded to yesterday). You don’t even get the courtesy of a reply or warning, your posts just get deleted and then you get banned for 24 hours. Nice way to treat a guy who's been here for more than a decade. Cheers whoever that was.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 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.
Yeah apparently questioning why your post was deleted gets you banned now. The post was not abusive and was on topic (at least as on topic as the original post I responded to yesterday). You don’t even get the courtesy of a reply or warning, your posts just get deleted and then you get banned for 24 hours. Nice way to treat a guy who's been here for more than a decade. Cheers whoever that was.
No Worries.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't want this to drag on fella, but there really was no reason to get wound up at what I was saying. I even acknowledged twice that your points had merit.
Sorry you viewed what I said as trolling, I was simply pointing out where I thought the anger was better directed at.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@MajorRage said in Reds v Hurricanes:
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't want this to drag on fella, but there really was no reason to get wound up at what I was saying. I even acknowledged twice that your points had merit.
Sorry you viewed what I said as trolling, I was simply pointing out where I thought the anger was better directed at.
No probs mate. It just wasn't a pleasant rugby experience that night. Well apart from the selfie of course
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
@dK said in Reds v Hurricanes:
Is it just me or does this look really cool, not so cool that I would want one myself. Kinda like a "Red badge of Courage" or Purple Heart. Makes you look tough too.
Not exactly a badge of honour
Anyway, watched a replay of the game for the first time yesterday. Gee Gardner had a shocker. I think also a massive problem was that his touch judges were way too green and didn't dare involve themselves. Ultimately, while you want a ref to be confident in his abilities, it is much better to go straight to the TMO rather than have the shit show we had the other night.
