RWC - Have the refs been afraid of "spoiling" games with cards?

Sabre0001

A great weekend of rugby...but it hasn't been the most reassuring performance from the refs.

There are always going to be mistakes and contentious decisions, but considering the talk about clamping down on foul play and high hits, have the refs fluffed their lines? We've already seen a few instances where cards could have been doled out (at the risk of spoiling the game), but weren't...but Barnes brandishes a (harsh?) yellow to Beirne in a pretty much decided fixture.

https://twitter.com/Nabasboer/status/1175009756148326400

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1175688949018386433

Then there are other instances where it should be asked if TMO should be allowed communicate more with referee (and not be taken by surprise if something is referred to them, as Baz and Andrew have talked about on House of Rugby).

https://twitter.com/thetoombulboyz/status/1175748096808108032

https://twitter.com/RutgerBlume/status/1176053213306470400

https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1175689711635107840

World Rugby has talked a good talk at times and with cards handed out in the build-up to the World Cup (Barrett for example), it looked like real action was going to be taken. But then Toner wasn't cited for a similar incident, these "tackles" occur on the opening weekend, and it looks like it was all a load of hot air.

I hope the World Cup is remembered for all the right reasons (Ireland winning, for example) and we've seen some great games so far. But there's always a risk that ref decisions will play a huge part (and not just from a sour grapes standpoint) and performances so far from some of the best in the business do little to quell those fears.

blackwhite

Sabre0001 wrote: »

A great weekend of rugby...but it hasn't been the most reassuring performance from the refs.

There are always going to be mistakes and contentious decisions, but considering the talk about clamping down on foul play and high hits, have the refs fluffed their lines? We've already seen a few instances where cards could have been doled out (at the risk of spoiling the game), but weren't...but Barnes brandishes a (harsh?) yellow to Beirne in a pretty much decided fixture.

https://twitter.com/Nabasboer/status/1175009756148326400

https://twitter.com/ultimaterugby/status/1175688949018386433

Then there are other instances where it should be asked if TMO should be allowed communicate more with referee (and not be taken by surprise if something is referred to them, as Baz and Andrew have talked about on House of Rugby).

https://twitter.com/thetoombulboyz/status/1175748096808108032

https://twitter.com/RutgerBlume/status/1176053213306470400

https://twitter.com/theblitzdefence/status/1175689711635107840

World Rugby has talked a good talk at times and with cards handed out in the build-up to the World Cup (Barrett for example), it looked like real action was going to be taken. But then Toner wasn't cited for a similar incident, these "tackles" occur on the opening weekend, and it looks like it was all a load of hot air.

I hope the World Cup is remembered for all the right reasons (Ireland winning, for example) and we've seen some great games so far. But there's always a risk that ref decisions will play a huge part (and not just from a sour grapes standpoint) and performances so far from some of the best in the business do little to quell those fears.

There's certainly an argument about the angle Healy cleared him out from (possibly ran around the tackler and then drove from the side) - not a yellow card offence but certainly an argument for a penalty.

The claim that Furlong didn't bind is ridiculous though - he literally grabs a fistful of jersey right on the number on the shirt before making contact with any other part of his body.

It was an unfortunate injury - with possibly an infringement from Healy - but nothing card-worthy there.


The NZ and Aus offences are both fairly clear-cut though - not sure how TMO didn't ping either of them.


Given World Rugby's attempts to water down the Red card in advance of the tournament, you'd wonder what guidance has been given to referees

sydthebeat

i dont have a problem with the first and last ones.

labuschag stood his ground and braced himself for impact... so it was more the russia player hitting him than the other way round.

while healy is in at the side, he doesnt actually clear out watson. Furlong does and unfortunately watsons legs is caught under healy. penalty at most for in at the side, but even at that you could argue that Healys first contact is straight on and he only wheels after contact.

the Hodge one is a straight up red card and its ridiculous the TMO missed it. fiji should have been playing aginst 14 men for 55 minutes.... instead they lost their more effective player after 25 mins.

i hadnt seen that reed one until now. Its head contact and probably a yellow card in the course of the game. the force is minimal as its a pull back rather than an impact.

so all in all, 1st one play on, 2nd one red card, 3rd one yellow card, 4th one penalty.

randomname2005

sydthebeat wrote: »

i dont have a problem with the first and last ones.

labuschag stood his ground and braced himself for impact... so it was more the russia player hitting him than the other way round.

while healy is in at the side, he doesnt actually clear out watson. Furlong does and unfortunately watsons legs is caught under healy. penalty at most for in at the side, but even at that you could argue that Healys first contact is straight on and he only wheels after contact.

the Hodge one is a straight up red card and its ridiculous the TMO missed it. fiji should have been playing aginst 14 men for 55 minutes.... instead they lost their more effective player after 25 mins.

i hadnt seen that reed one until now. Its head contact and probably a yellow card in the course of the game. the force is minimal as its a pull back rather than an impact.

so all in all, 1st one play on, 2nd one red card, 3rd one yellow card, 4th one penalty.

I'd have to disagree with you on the first one. There is standing your ground, which is okay, but the player is pivoting on his right leg, bringing the left side of his body around and it is his left shoulder which makes contact. To me it looks like he is initially shaping up to tackle square on, sees the ball get kicked and then brings his body around to make contact with the player. Did he intend to have shoulder/head impact? Who knows, but the IRB have constantly beaten the drum about players being responsible for their own actions. Albeit on and off and on and off again.

Aus/Fiji, red card

NZ/SA, could go either way, given that it is off the ball. A player reaching out in reaction and making that impact might expect a yellow, but that was pure foul play.

IRL/SCO - an accident, unlucky, but if that is a penalty, then you would have to consider the similar incident in the Aus/Fiji match to be a penalty too.

sydthebeat

well the first incident hasnt been cited, so assuming they have reviewed it theyve deemed it not to be foul play.

i dont understand your last point... was there a similar incident in the aus / figi match where a penalty wasnt given?

NeonWolf

Ardie Savea wore PSDT as a necklace for a carry at one stage. PSDT headlocked him in front of Garces for a ten yard lateral carry. He then finished it off in style with a neck roll. Garces abdicated responsibility completely and was looking at it the whole time.

fryup

all depends on the personality of the ref i think,

randomname2005

sydthebeat wrote: »

well the first incident hasnt been cited, so assuming they have reviewed it theyve deemed it not to be foul play.

i dont understand your last point... was there a similar incident in the aus / figi match where a penalty wasnt given?

They did deem it not to be foul play. I just think that given what red cards have been given for in the past, it could have been red.

The Fiji/Aus incident, if the link copied correctly:

https://twitter.com/peterrobinson86/status/1175291893514743809?s=19

NeonWolf

It’s all going to end in tears for many fans at this World Cup.

We have had a four year cycle of gifs ,Joe.ie, newstalk OTB , squidge , Sumo Stevenson , podcasts , twitter vids .Everyone is a pundit now and we are all keeping score in our heads. When Scott Barrett gets a red then I want Toner to walk too.
Coupled with inconsistent refereeing and inconsistent citings everyone including myself is waiting to be outraged if not already there . The arbitrary application of the laws and by extension the inherent biases towards bigger teams makes the whole hinge bit of a farce. How hooper can clean out like that unpenalised is just unfathomable. The ref is right there.


The likes Poite and Garces are lucky to be getting such high profile gigs after the Lions second and third test debacle. And there is talk abound that Garces will get the final this year. That’s just not right. He has been abject.

NeonWolf

Furlong is doing exactly what coaches and fans want him to do , but I hate those cleans now. From Jean de Villiers knee against Wales to Dan Leavy and now Hamish Watson they have to stop lads flying in horizontal off their feet. Cleaning should be more like line of scrimmage shoving in NFL style. Furlong (and his ilk)hitting a fellas legs like that at speed is crazy. All teams are at it, it’s not a dig at Furlong.

AbusesToilets

The refs are directly responsible for the mess that is the breakdown. I don't buy for a second this claim that they have to let the game flow and not be whistle happy. That approach is why there's so much messing in rucks.

Basic stuff like keeping your shoulders above hips, players releasing the ball when tackled, staying on one's feet, entering through the gate. All consistently ignored. The ruck is probably the most frequently occuring facet of the game, they have to get it right.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The refs are directly responsible for the mess that is the breakdown. I don't buy for a second this claim that they have to let the game flow and not be whistle happy. That approach is why there's so much messing in rucks.

Basic stuff like keeping your shoulders above hips, players releasing the ball when tackled, staying on one's feet, entering through the gate. All consistently ignored. The ruck is probably the most frequently occuring facet of the game, they have to get it right.

Yes they do. There is a balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession and blowing up for penalties/waiting for advantage etc is part of that.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Yes they do. There is a balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession and blowing up for penalties/waiting for advantage etc is part of that.

Agree to a point, players are coached to infringe until called on it. I'd endure a few matches full of penalties of it meant teams started to play to the laws. I'd also argue that the flow of the game is hurt more by a laissez faire approach. Quick ruck ball is denied by cynical play, making for a slower, less entertaining game.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Agree to a point, players are coached to infringe until called on it. I'd endure a few matches full of penalties of it meant teams started to play to the laws. I'd also argue that the flow of the game is hurt more by a laissez faire approach. Quick ruck ball is denied by cynical play, making for a slower, less entertaining game.

Never going to happen. It would ruin games and players will still do it. It happens at all levels of game. Flow of game is not at all hurt by this approach. You automatically have a slower game if your game is full of penalties and that wont change players behaviour so much into the long term

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Never going to happen. It would ruin games and players will still do it. It happens at all levels of game. Flow of game is not at all hurt by this approach. You automatically have a slower game if your game is full of penalties and that wont change players behaviour so much into the long term

So get rid of all laws then, if they're meaningless. Of course you're not going to change players behavior if they know the rules don't matter.

Dog Botherer

Watson was horrifically unlucky, but as far as I can see neither Irish prop committed any offense, certainly none worthy of a card. Hodge definitely deserved a red, the Japan second row probably the same. I reckon the officials were loathe to send off anyone from the host nation in the first game of the tournament, and as for the Australia/Fiji game, the entire officiating team collectively shat the bed. Shouldn’t be happening at this level and I doubt Mr O’Keefe will be getting many games of note for some time.

You’d want to watch out for that @theblitzdefence Twitter account, I had to block them years ago, all they do is stoke controversy for attention.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So get rid of all laws then, if they're meaningless. Of course you're not going to change players behavior if they know the rules don't matter.

Never said or implied laws are meaningless. Watch games pro or amatuer and you will see refs not following the laws to a tee as its not possible. You cant. They are laws for a reason. Laws are interpreted. Refs use their judgement to allow what they feel/see is best for the game in question.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Never said or implied laws are meaningless. Watch games pro or amatuer and you will see refs not following the laws to a tee as its not possible. You cant. They are laws for a reason. Laws are interpreted. Refs use their judgement to allow what they feel/see is best for the game in question.

I would argue that any law that is so inconsistently applied is meaningless. If a team/ player can't be sure exactly how they will be judged, then something is wrong.

The game would be better, both for player safety and as a spectacle if they improved the reffing surrounding the breakdown imo. No hands, no ballistic entries, no sealing off, force teams to actually have to ruck.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I would argue that any law that is so inconsistently applied is meaningless. If a team/ player can't be sure exactly how they will be judged, then something is wrong.

The game would be better, both for player safety and as a spectacle if they improved the reffing surrounding the breakdown imo. No hands, no ballistic entries, no sealing off, force teams to actually have to ruck.

These things arent allowed by law but will you see everything that breaks the law sanctioned every time. Hell no because it would ruin every game at every level in every country. Its not possible.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

These things arent allowed by law but will you see everything that breaks the law sanctioned every time. Hell no because it would ruin every game at every level in every country. Its not possible.

It's possible of they make the effort. Clearly state they will penalise it, carry thru, and you'd see a change in behavior. No hands in the ruck period would be a good catalyst, as I'd argue that's the Genesis for the rest of it.

Trey13

To be honest I think Healy’s attempt there should be a card. Leavy, De Villiers and I’m sure many players at amateur and all levels have suffered torn acls and dislocated knees from cheap shots like that.
When I get an opportunity to get over the ball like Watson there I genuinely fear that someone will come in on my knee and severely hurt me. Contact should be square on the body.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's possible of they make the effort. Clearly state they will penalise it, carry thru, and you'd see a change in behavior. No hands in the ruck period would be a good catalyst, as I'd argue that's the Genesis for the rest of it.

It isnt at all bloody possible. I know you watch rugby but you are either trolling or havent a notion of what you're saying if you think its possible. You dont simply punish every law infringement. You cant. Going penalise every hands in the ruck. That doesnt help the sport, the game. You cant have concrete decisions like that.

Steve

Having looked at the first few RWC games, the refs are doing what they have always done. Part of the game plan is knowing the ref. Yeah there are some relatively new faces in RWC, like in the wales game this morning, but I thought the decisions were fair..

Then there are the old hands, the RB try, every time I look at it was questionable in my opinion... but what do I know?

sdanseo

Dog Botherer wrote: »

I reckon the officials were loathe to send off anyone from the host nation in the first game of the tournament, and as for the Australia/Fiji game, the entire officiating team collectively shat the bed. Shouldn’t be happening at this level and I doubt Mr O’Keefe will be getting many games of note for some time.

We have a TMO for helping them decide things like that. Not spotting it is maybe basic error. Not checking it is woeful.

Steve wrote: »

Having looked at the first few RWC games, the refs are doing what they have always done. Part of the game plan is knowing the ref. Yeah there are some relatively new faces in RWC, like in the wales game this morning, but I thought the decisions were fair..

Then there are the old hands, the RB try, every time I look at it was questionable in my opinion... but what do I know?

Great example. If WB had gone upstairs the try would not have been awarded on either question in my view.
Try no try: No because no downward pressure clear and obvious
Any reason: you can quite plainly see there is no downward pressure on or beyond the line

Dog Botherer

sdanseo wrote: »

We have a TMO for helping them decide things like that. Not spotting it is maybe basic error. Not checking it is woeful.

I agree. The Fiji one was especially bad because the TMO reviewed it and didn’t find it worthy of even a penalty offense.

Trey13 wrote: »

To be honest I think Healy’s attempt there should be a card. Leavy, De Villiers and I’m sure many players at amateur and all levels have suffered torn acls and dislocated knees from cheap shots like that.
When I get an opportunity to get over the ball like Watson there I genuinely fear that someone will come in on my knee and severely hurt me. Contact should be square on the body.

Please, please, please, explain to me how a player binding onto an opposition player, staying on their feet and driving them off the ball is a ****ing “cheap shot”.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It isnt at all bloody possible. I know you watch rugby but you are either trolling or havent a notion of what you're saying if you think its possible. You dont simply punish every law infringement. You cant. Going penalise every hands in the ruck. That doesnt help the sport, the game. You cant have concrete decisions like that.

You can do significantly better. There are plenty of ways the situation could be improved. Simply the laws, focus on fundamental aspects of the laws and enforce them. You say it's impossible, but they're barely even trying. It's a damning indictment of the game if, as you insist , the game would be ruined by a ref calling the game according to the laws.

Podge_irl

sdanseo wrote: »

We have a TMO for helping them decide things like that. Not spotting it is maybe basic error. Not checking it is woeful.



Great example. If WB had gone upstairs the try would not have been awarded on either question in my view.
Try no try: No because no downward pressure clear and obvious
Any reason: you can quite plainly see there is no downward pressure on or beyond the line

You don’t need downward pressure on a ball in your possession.

They also don’t ask those questions anymore. They announce an on field decision and see if it is overruled by video.

Captain_Crash

sdanseo wrote: »

Great example. If WB had gone upstairs the try would not have been awarded on either question in my view.
Try no try: No because no downward pressure clear and obvious
Any reason: you can quite plainly see there is no downward pressure on or beyond the line

Those questions aren't asked anymore. The ref has to make a decision on field and then can ask the TMO to review it. But for arguments sake, lets say he did ask them


Try no try: No because no downward pressure clear and obvious - you don't need downward pressure if you are in possession, the ball only has to touch grass, which we can all agree it did.... try!



Any reason: you can quite plainly see there is no downward pressure on or beyond the line - this question actually suggests the try has been scored. So by asking it the ref presumed by definition that the ball touched the grass (which is clearly did in this case), so no reason not to award it hence... try time!

Sabre0001

TMO made a call in Russia v Samoa to have a look at a tackle, so that's something.

But then backed away from the red. Pretty generous mitigating circumstance saying that the ball carrier ducked a little bit imo.

Salary Negotiator

Sabre0001 wrote: »

TMO made a call in Russia v Samoa to have a look at a tackle, so that's something.

But then backed away from the red. Pretty generous mitigating circumstance saying that the ball carrier ducked a little bit imo.

And again 2 minutes later.

Snow Garden

The first high tackle should have been a red. It might have prevented the second high tackle. TMO and ref took an easy option citing a nonsense mitigating factor (that players were ducking).

Dave_The_Sheep

Thread getting some good fuel from Samoa here.

Sabre0001

Crazy decisions. The first high tackle was going to still be high even with the couple of inches given to "ducking". The second, as the commentators pointed out, the tackled player was in a low stance from the start. But once they outlined a mitigating circumstance in one incident, they had it as an out for the second.

D.Q

World Rugby has issued an extraordinary statement criticising the performance of its referees at the World Cup after only eight games.

The highest-profile blunder has been Ben O'Keeffe's failure to punish Australia wing Reece Hodge for a shoulder-led, no-arms tackle to the head of Fiji's Peceli Yato in Sapporo on Saturday. Yato subsequently failed a head injury assessment and Hodge has since been cited.

In Friday's tournament opener, meanwhile, Japan lock James Moore escaped sanction for a no-arms tackle.

"Following the usual review of matches, the match officials team recognise that performances over the opening weekend were not consistently of the standards set by World Rugby and themselves," the World Rugby statement read.


The statement continued: "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.

Source: Irish Independant
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup-2019/world-rugby-release-extraordinary-statement-criticising-performance-of-its-referees-at-world-cup-38528912.html

blackwhite

D.Q wrote: »

Source: Irish Independant
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup-2019/world-rugby-release-extraordinary-statement-criticising-performance-of-its-referees-at-world-cup-38528912.html

Avalanche of cards coming this weekend so then!

razorblunt

Poite has had a disgraceful game.
He missed one clear put where a Samoan entered a ruck by tackling a Russian from behind, in the back. He came in like you’d expect a Russian ruck entrant to do.

Absolute shîtshow. Commentators (all neutral) even calling for the offside line to be watched as Samoa should have had their feet on the goal line but they pointed out none of them have.

Trey13

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Please, please, please, explain to me how a player binding onto an opposition player, staying on their feet and driving them off the ball is a ****ing “cheap shot”.

Have you been in a jackal position yourself? There’s no issue with players binding square on. When a player comes in the side and puts all their weight on a prone players leg it is a cheap shot. If it was outlawed we wouldn’t see injuries like Watson Leavy or DeVilliers. Cian Healy knew what he was doing there going straight in at the knee, total cheap shot

sydthebeat

Trey13 wrote: »

Have you been in a jackal position yourself? There’s no issue with players binding square on. When a player comes in the side and puts all their weight on a prone players leg it is a cheap shot. If it was outlawed we wouldn’t see injuries like Watson Leavy or DeVilliers. Cian Healy knew what he was doing there going straight in at the knee, total cheap shot

??

Healy didnt cause the impact. he actually ended up on teh ground behind watson,

it was Furlongs clear out that pushed watson back over healy, and his leg got caught under healy.

the core of your point is completely correct... but youve picked a bad example.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You can do significantly better. There are plenty of ways the situation could be improved. Simply the laws, focus on fundamental aspects of the laws and enforce them. You say it's impossible, but they're barely even trying. It's a damning indictment of the game if, as you insist , the game would be ruined by a ref calling the game according to the laws.

The laws have been simplified. Law book has changed soncisderably.
They are trying to work certain things
You have to have appreciation for the fundamental message of the sport. The laws are not rigid and have to applied all the time directly as they are written in law. You have to interpretate them as per situation in the game

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The laws have been simplified. Law book has changed soncisderably.
They are trying to work certain things
You have to have appreciation for the fundamental message of the sport. The laws are not rigid and have to applied all the time directly as they are written in law. You have to interpretate them as per situation in the game

I'm not disagreeing with your general point, but I think that the balance is way off and they are erring far too much towards letting things slide. Good players are having their careers ended because of how bad the breakdown is, nevermind the negative impact on the game as a spectacle. That has to change.

Tim Robbins

I think in refereeing when you go up a level, the game is faster and the pressure is higher. Happens to a J4 ref when they do a J2 game; happens to a J2 ref when they do a J1 game etc etc.

The World Cup is highest pressure and the highest standard. It is effectively like telling some mid level Pro 14 or AIL ref to go out and ref a VI nations.

I am not justifying it. Just trying to explain why the standards have not been what they should have been. Even Owens looked flat footed in Japan v Russia if you ask me. Gardner made about 4 or 5 obvious errors that had match impact. The other incidents people have already spoken about.

To be honest, any Ref going to that World Cup would be hoping for an easy one sided match for their first game, as they are unlikely to have as many close calls and as much media attention. Then build from there.

Tim Robbins

Trey13 wrote: »

To be honest I think Healy’s attempt there should be a card.

Any law infringement that could cause a player injury should be card. Whether be high tackle, late hit or coming in from the side.

I thought Furlong didn't wrap properly at that clear out and he should have got one.

blackwhite

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any law infringement that could cause a player injury should be card. Whether be high tackle, late hit or coming in from the side.

I thought Furlong didn't wrap properly at that clear out and he should have got one.

There's no requirement to "wrap" in a ruck - the requirement is to bind.

He is very clearly bound onto the jersey (just above the no 7 on it) before any other part of his body makes contact.


Injuries happen and are an unfortunate reality of sports - rugby more than others.

Whilst there's a strong argument for modifying the rules around rucks to give a bit more protection to "jackals." However, punishing players for what are currently perfectly legal actions just because they resulted in injuries, is reactionary nonsense

sydthebeat

blackwhite wrote: »

Whilst there's a strong argument for modifying the rules around rucks to give a bit more protection to "jackals." However, punishing players for what are currently perfectly legal actions just because they resulted in injuries, is reactionary nonsense

the biggest issue is that players joining the ruck "must attempt to stay on their feet" (law 15.5)

that law is completely ignored by EVERYBODY at a professional level.

until thats addressed we will always have these ruck injuries.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any law infringement that could cause a player injury should be card. Whether be high tackle, late hit or coming in from the side.

I thought Furlong didn't wrap properly at that clear out and he should have got one.

No it shouldnt. It cant be that black and white. And there isnt a requirement to wrap in that situation.

blackwhite wrote: »

There's no requirement to "wrap" in a ruck - the requirement is to bind.

He is very clearly bound onto the jersey (just above the no 7 on it) before any other part of his body makes contact.

Injuries happen and are an unfortunate reality of sports - rugby more than others.

Whilst there's a strong argument for modifying the rules around rucks to give a bit more protection to "jackals." However, punishing players for what are currently perfectly legal actions just because they resulted in injuries, is reactionary nonsense

exactly...

sdanseo

Podge_irl wrote: »

You don’t need downward pressure on a ball in your possession.

They also don’t ask those questions anymore. They announce an on field decision and see if it is overruled by video.

I didn't realise the distinction. Every day's a school day (especially with Rugby :rolleyes: )

Re. the questions. Yes am aware of the on field decision although I don't really agree with it. However I have seen them still ask the same questions when they do check it and have heard commentators reference them also.

Tim Robbins

blackwhite wrote: »

There's no requirement to "wrap" in a ruck - the requirement is to bind.

He is very clearly bound onto the jersey (just above the no 7 on it) before any other part of his body makes contact.


Injuries happen and are an unfortunate reality of sports - rugby more than others.

Whilst there's a strong argument for modifying the rules around rucks to give a bit more protection to "jackals." However, punishing players for what are currently perfectly legal actions just because they resulted in injuries, is reactionary nonsense

Do you think Furlong binded on there?

Note: the word "wrap" isn't in the law book, so you are correct to use the word bind.

Interestingly, here is the definition for binding

Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

blackwhite

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you think Furlong binded on there?

Note: the word "wrap" isn't in the law book, so you are correct to use the word bind.

Interestingly, here is the definition for binding

Binding: Grasping another player’s body firmly between the shoulders and the hips with the whole arm in contact from hand to shoulder.

Furlong takes a grasp of Watson's shirt directly between the shoulders (just above the 7) before any other contact is made - and then through the contact brings the rest of him arm and shoulder into contact as well. It's as close to the definition as you're going to see in a ruck - unless you think players should run up, stop, then bind carefully with one arm fully from hand to shoulder before they start to drive?

Even aside from that - the "whole arm" concept has long been abandoned due to impracticality. When's the last time, for example, you've seen opposing props where the entire arm from hand to shoulder is in contact with the opponent?


The only reason there's even a peep about Furlong's clear-out is that Watson was injured - and that was more as a result of Healy's poor effort than anything else.
If there hadn't been an injury, we'd be seeing tweets about Furlong's "epic clear-out" and how it's an example of how to dominate the ruck area.




https://twitter.com/RutgerBlume/status/1176053213306470400

sydthebeat

blackwhite wrote: »

If there hadn't been an injury, we'd be seeing tweets about Furlong's "epic clear-out" and how it's an example of how to dominate the ruck area.

100%

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2018/06/click-here-if-you-cannot-view-the-clip-above-194.mp4

prawnsambo

This is a bit of an eye-opener. Coaching staff should be all over this stuff surely?

lawrencesummers

Plenty of refs have missed a lot, but credit to Nigel
Owens who is having a great game this morning in the Canada vs Italy game.

Hasn’t missed anything, explained decisions to players, communicates clearly, talks to the TMO when something happens in play, patrolling the offside line.

Some people have an agenda that he is self serving but if every game was referred like this one then this thread wouldn’t exist,