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

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,

lawrencesummers

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Presumably he is looking for a loophole, not trained so not responsible. You can be sure he isn’t saying this without discussing it with his camp first.

sydthebeat

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Presumably he is looking for a loophole, not trained so not responsible. You can be sure he isn’t saying this without discussing it with his camp first.

well if he was it didnt work...

he got the 6 weeks entry suspension, with the obligatory 50% off due to previous good behaviour

prawnsambo

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Presumably he is looking for a loophole, not trained so not responsible. You can be sure he isn’t saying this without discussing it with his camp first.

Anybody who advised him to take this line would have ignored a very basic and well known pillar of law: ignorancia juris reminem excusat. [ignorance of the law excuses nothing]. And would be inviting very pertinent questions of the coaching team. Never mind that WR will also be asking those questions. Wouldn't be the most intelligent of strategies.

TL;DR, I very much doubt it.

Squidgy Black

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Presumably he is looking for a loophole, not trained so not responsible. You can be sure he isn’t saying this without discussing it with his camp first.

It's a rather daft way of trying to find a loophole, because he's now opened a gaping hole in Australia's player welfare management. If he's claiming that players aren't receiving the correct training and information from the coaching team, the ARU are liable for it.

lawrencesummers

prawnsambo wrote: »

Anybody who advised him to take this line would have ignored a very basic and well known pillar of law: ignorancia juris reminem excusat. [ignorance of the law excuses nothing]. And would be inviting very pertinent questions of the coaching team. Never mind that WR will also be asking those questions. Wouldn't be the most intelligent of strategies.

TL;DR, I very much doubt it.

Ignorance and Australian rugby players. Hardly a new concept.