Laws Question? Ask here!

jacothelad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Owens gets far too much love, he is shockingly bad at reffing the breakdown. Absolute free for alls are a typical facet of games he is in charge of. The fact he hasn't a word of French in his head is pretty damning too imo, as an elite ref he should be required to have a basic ability to communicate with the players.

I think he communicates very well in his second language which is English, Welsh being his first.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Owens gets far too much love, he is shockingly bad at reffing the breakdown. Absolute free for alls are a typical facet of games he is in charge of. The fact he hasn't a word of French in his head is pretty damning too imo, as an elite ref he should be required to have a basic ability to communicate with the players.

He isnt shockingly bad at refereeing the breakdown though. You dislike his interpretation but he's consistent and there is no sanction for a ref not being able to speak french. Nor should there. It isnt completely feasible for the ref to have to be able speak french
If you take the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship, there is English, Italian, French and Spanish - and you could put in Welsh on top of that - it's quite difficult to cover them all.
The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line sp they don't have to go into too much detail

connemara man

I always thought a refs interpretation was more important than anything else to be honest it's an easier way to talk their performance and effect on the game

Neil3030

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

... New Zealand, 2013.

Are you referring to him pinging McGrath? That was a different situation - one where we were ahead, and were trying to kill off the game. But again, it falls under his general philosophy of interpreting the laws in a way that encourages teams to play rugby. So if you're behind, and need a penalty, it needs to be clear cut; if you're ahead and need to recycle a few times to kill off the game, you better be squeaky clean.

I'm not saying he's right, or wrong, just that he is consistent once you factor in the context, and teams should (and I suspect do) know that.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

He isnt shockingly bad at refereeing the breakdown though. You dislike his interpretation but he's consistent and there is no sanction for a ref not being able to speak french. Nor should there. It isnt completely feasible for the ref to have to be able speak french
If you take the Six Nations and the Rugby Championship, there is English, Italian, French and Spanish - and you could put in Welsh on top of that - it's quite difficult to cover them all.
The best referees can communicate with a nod and a wink, or one crisp, clear line sp they don't have to go into too much detail

So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.

You have to take into account momentum as well. Was ball playable. Players can lie offside and it is noted but not penalised. He very much has an interpretation and its about playing the ball and keeping continuity now you may see that as ignoring offences but i dont see it like that at all.
Because comprehension could then be an issue. Wayne Barnes speaks french but has had french players asking him to speak in english as theyve found it easier to get exactly what he means through english not french.

Shefwedfan

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

... New Zealand, 2013.

Ireland trying to kill the game. Should have knew the ref wouldn't allow it. Even BOD has done a number of interviews and said he was roaring from the sideline to tell them to stop it and move the ball out......

Stupid play from Ireland

AbusesToilets

I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow. Games would be much better served by stamping out messing on the deck, which would let teams get quick ball and take advantage of fractured defensive lines. It's one of the prime reasons defenses are so smothering nowadays, ball is slowed at will, usually illegally, and thus the defending team can reset their line.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow. Games would be much better served by stamping out messing on the deck, which would let teams get quick ball and take advantage of fractured defensive lines. It's one of the prime reasons defenses are so smothering nowadays, ball is slowed at will, usually illegally, and thus the defending team can reset their line.

How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account

Podge_irl

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I really hate this idea that by not calling offenses at a ruck, a ref is letting a game flow.

Indeed - the continuous slow nature of ruck ball was utterly anathema to a flowing game.

Dave_The_Sheep

Neil3030 wrote: »

Are you referring to him pinging McGrath? That was a different situation - one where we were ahead, and were trying to kill off the game. But again, it falls under his general philosophy of interpreting the laws in a way that encourages teams to play rugby. So if you're behind, and need a penalty, it needs to be clear cut; if you're ahead and need to recycle a few times to kill off the game, you better be squeaky clean.

I'm not saying he's right, or wrong, just that he is consistent once you factor in the context, and teams should (and I suspect do) know that.

My problem in that particular instance was that he wasn't consistent over the course of the game, or even over the course of the last few minutes. NZ did precisely what McGrath was pinged for a minute or two later, and he didn't ping them for it.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and dont' necessarily disagree. I just don't like that at some times (like the ones you mention) some rules are implemented more so than other times. And I say that while acknowledging that at any given ruck you could probably blow up for a half dozen reasons if you really wanted to.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account

Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.

Burkie1203

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How much do you stamp out though? At every ruck there is possibly/probably numerous infringements by either ball carrier, tackler, arriving players on both sides be that entry, holding on etc. You cant simply just penalise everything or its a ****fest. You have to take so much more into account

Basketball style after 3rd breakdown offence = YC. Its too random when a YC is produced from ref to ref.

Raynal today didnt warn england at all and they gave away 4 or 5 penalties within 10m of their own line. But Italy gave away 4 or 5 penalties and he warns them. At one point Itoje just lay between the Italian 9 and the ball and the ref did nothing

IMO thats what ruins the game. There is a complete lack of consistency.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.

I just dont see the point of doing that and it isnt necessary. Change the laws how? You penalise people for clear and obvious infringements and that generally happens. What im saying is far from a cop out though.
There needs to be continuity or else the sport suffers. When you say a proper ruck over what do you want?

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I just dont see the point of doing that and it isnt necessary. Change the laws how? You penalise people for clear and obvious infringements and that generally happens. What im saying is far from a cop out though.
There needs to be continuity or else the sport suffers. When you say a proper ruck over what do you want?

Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.

Bazzo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.

You want to completely remove fetching from the game? It's become a fundamental part of it...

AbusesToilets

Bazzo wrote: »

You want to completely remove fetching from the game? It's become a fundamental part of it...

It seems more often a mechanism for slowing down the game illegally than anything.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Force a team to win a ruck by clearing out the opposition by driving past the ball and making it illegal to try and grab the ball on the deck.

But that changes things completely and doesnt make the game better. Why should you have to completely clear a ruck to win the ball. The ruck is a contest and having to drive past the ball leads to loitering and blocking which affects the contest.
This is better discussed
here

Neil3030

Plus I'd imagine the scrum-half's job instantly becomes the most perilous on the field, if he's reaching into a melee of Riverdancing hippos at every ruck...

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But that changes things completely and doesnt make the game better. Why should you have to completely clear a ruck to win the ball. The ruck is a contest and having to drive past the ball leads to loitering and blocking which affects the contest.
This is better discussed
here

Might be wrong, but was that not the rule back in the day?

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Maybe change the rules to make it illegal to get hands on the ball, insist on a proper ruck over, like it was back in the day? Penalise early and often for obvious efforts at slowing ball illegally. I don't discount the difficulty of doing so, but throwing the hands up and saying that it's too much is a cop out.

Might lead to games to a spate of ****ty games due to high penalty counts, but the hope would be that teams would get the idea and adapt.

They tried that a few years ago in mitre 10 rugby in new Zealand.
It was thrown out quite quickly.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/topic/919/new-mitre-10-cup-laws/87

Flincher

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

My problem in that particular instance was that he wasn't consistent over the course of the game, or even over the course of the last few minutes. NZ did precisely what McGrath was pinged for a minute or two later, and he didn't ping them for it.

Don't get me wrong, I get what you're saying and dont' necessarily disagree. I just don't like that at some times (like the ones you mention) some rules are implemented more so than other times. And I say that while acknowledging that at any given ruck you could probably blow up for a half dozen reasons if you really wanted to.

Its often my main source of frustration about Owens. In the name of game management, he treats identical situations completely differently depending on the time of the game. Owens' will often penalise a team for going off their feet if they are trying to run down the clock by picking and going, but he's generally lax on attacking teams going off their feet.

His job is to apply the laws of the game consistently over 80 mins, not force teams to play positive rugby by changing his interpretation to suit. I know its not great tv if a team wants to pick and go to run down the clock, but Owens shouldn't treat that situation any differently to a team trying to play champagne rugby.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

They tried that a few years ago in mitre 10 rugby in new Zealand.
It was thrown out quite quickly.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/topic/919/new-mitre-10-cup-laws/87

From reading that, it seems the main thing causing issues with respect to rucks was players fly hacking the ball out of the pile and the change to allow players to join the breakdown from any angle, not just through the "gate".

Kicking the ball out of the ruck was prohibited and players are required to come through the gate at the minute. Seems to me, that this would work given the current rules.

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

From reading that, it seems the main thing causing issues with respect to rucks was players fly hacking the ball out of the pile and the change to allow players to join the breakdown from any angle, not just through the "gate".

Kicking the ball out of the ruck was prohibited and players are required to come through the gate at the minute. Seems to me, that this would work given the current rules.

The biggest issue was the fact the contest was removed. Defences just fanned out and space was removed from the game, leading to less tries, which was why world rugby didn't continue with it.

Rugby is all about the contest.
If you want non contested rucks there is already a version of the game out there with it.

What is the benefit of claiming it was a HIA rather than a knee injury?

edit: its so they could use a sub

A2LUE42

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the benefit of claiming it was a HIA rather than a knee injury?

Injury Sub, no replacement allowed, as all subs used.
HIA, Replacement allowed.

jacothelad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So players lying offside, not staying on their feet, clearing out beyond the ruck, these are hallmarks of a well reffed breakdown?

He doesn't have an interpretation, he simply ignores the offenses.

As to the language issue, how is it unreasonable to expect an employee at the top level of his sport to have a basic ability to communicate with those he refs? How challenging would it be to parse out simple phrases in French and Italian? I've noticed Barnes, for example, is quite capable of giving guidance in French.

So he would also need to be up to speed in Georgian, Romania, Fijian, Samoan, Afrikaans, Swahili and the lingua franca of New Zealanders.....:D

AbusesToilets

To continue the topic on the ruck, if you have a case where a team is simply fanning out rather than contesting the ruck, surely the answer is pick and goes to force them to stay tighter and/or try and win the ruck.

I don't see it being any different to the current situation tbh, teams typically will either have the tackler look to slow ball by holding on or lying offside, or send in another player to attempt the same. By prohibiting hands in the ruck, you should encourage the production of quick ball, allowing for the attacking team to take advantage of defensive misalignment.

AbusesToilets

jacothelad wrote: »

So he would also need to be up to speed in Georgian, Romania, Fijian, Samoan, Afrikaans, Swahili and the lingua franca of New Zealanders.....:D

Hardly, but a working grasp of the language for the worlds biggest rugby market hardly seems to asking too much, no?

.ak

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly, but a working grasp of the language for the worlds biggest rugby market hardly seems to asking too much, no?

AFAIK English is the official language of Rugby Union. i.e if various different speaking languages are used by the players then English is the default language of the officials.

Anyway I think it's a bit mad to expect a WRU ref to speak French...