Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

kuang1 · 11-03-2019 2:05pm

locum-motion wrote: »

It's quite obvious.

Hand Movement A = downward pressure = Try
Hand Movement B = forward pressure = Knock on

Attachment not found.

To be tremendously anal about it, and those who ever studied applied maths will know, that movement B actually is responsible for a small amount of downward pressure.

connemara man · 11-03-2019 2:25pm

kuang1 wrote: »

To be tremendously anal about it, and those who ever studied applied maths will know, that movement B actually is responsible for a small amount of downward pressure.

That's kinda my point and Healy's hand didn't come in straight it was in a slight downward trajectory (BTW I know this is pedantry to the highest degree)

sydthebeat · 11-03-2019 2:31pm

this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.

setanta1000 · 11-03-2019 2:39pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.

I may have missed the explanation on the TV but how was Healy allowed to go for the ball (regardless of successful downward pressure or not) - was he not coming in from the side or was the ball playable at that stage because it was behind the goal line?

EDIT - Nevermind, Murray Kinsella just explained it on The 42 - ruck ended once the ball touches or goes beyond the goal line and so no offside so ball is out

sydthebeat · 11-03-2019 2:46pm

setanta1000 wrote: »

I may have missed the explanation on the TV but how was Healy allowed to go for the ball (regardless of successful downward pressure or not) - was he not coming in from the side or was the ball playable at that stage because it was behind the goal line?

there is no off side in the goal area (try area)... and the line is considered part of that area....

so once the ball touches the line, theres then no offside so healy can come from where he wants to touch the ball down

connemara man · 11-03-2019 3:15pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

this is where the infamous phrase "clear and obvious" comes into play......

healys touch definitely didnt show clear and obvious downward pressure. The pressure was much more obviously sideways than downwards.

But there's no mention of clear and obvious in the laws it's just downward pressure.

It's one of those area that's upto the ref. Fun thought argument though

Like if another reffing team allowed it you could see why

sydthebeat · 11-03-2019 4:20pm

connemara man wrote: »

But there's no mention of clear and obvious in the laws it's just downward pressure.

It's one of those area that's upto the ref. Fun thought argument though

Like if another reffing team allowed it you could see why

'clear and obvious' isnt mentioned anywhere in the laws..... buts its a principle by which a lot of decision are made... especially with TMO

Simple_Simone · 11-03-2019 4:27pm

Anyone else reckon that the French red card in the ladies' (womens'?) game was a tad harsh? Unlikely to have been red in a male game.

For me it looked like a hand-off that went a bit high after contact? Penno definitely; yellow card if you're feeling grumpy, but red was on the harsh side, as the TMO Claire Hodnett tried to tell the ref. Fortunately it didn't affect the result.

Water John · 11-03-2019 10:55pm

What ended up as a short arm tackle to the neck, is dangerous play that could have caused serious injury. Should be red card in any rugby game.
It started as a hand off but moved quickly to a short arm.

If Healy hadn't knocked on, Murray was probably getting the try.

MJohnston · 12-03-2019 2:16pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Wasn't making an argument.

I was asking where the line was between being a decoy and blocking a tackler...

Watching the video here on slow motion - Larmour has run right between Sexton and I think it's Huget. So it's obviously a fine margin. Either way - nicely constructed try.

https://youtu.be/t-TlEozlZ3w?t=37

I believe it's fine because:

Larmour is onside the whole time.
Larmour is arguably competing for possession.
Larmour doesn't charge or push the French player.
Sexton isn't the ball carrier until after Larmour has blocked the French player.

Larmour would have to be guilty of one of these to be obstructing.

clsmooth · 12-05-2019 9:49am

What’s the actual law on pulling off a players jersey/pulling it over their head? Or is there one?

The Lost Sheep · 12-05-2019 11:12am

clsmooth wrote: »

What’s the actual law on pulling off a players jersey/pulling it over their head? Or is there one?

There is law covering that. foul play law 9. in misconduct "A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship"
that would cover that

Ardillaun · 08-08-2019 8:07pm

What do ye think of this proposal?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/08/tackle-law-rugby-union

I can see it being safer for the player being tackled. Any benefits for the tackler as well?

BTW isn’t that ‘tackle’ by Farrell in the pic illegal already?

sydthebeat · 08-08-2019 8:43pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

What do ye think of this proposal?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/08/tackle-law-rugby-union

I can see it being safer for the player being tackled. Any benefits for the tackler as well?

BTW isn’t that ‘tackle’ by Farrell in the pic illegal already?

the only way that can work is to make it illegal for ball carriers to stoop or lead with the head.... they would have to constantly carry upright into contact

Squidgy Black · 09-08-2019 8:34am

Ardillaun wrote: »

What do ye think of this proposal?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/08/tackle-law-rugby-union

I can see it being safer for the player being tackled. Any benefits for the tackler as well?

BTW isn’t that ‘tackle’ by Farrell in the pic illegal already?

As Syd said, it's almost physically impossible for every tackle to be below the waist. Players are going into contact driving low with their head first to try and gain metres. Also bringing all tackles below the waist means more collisions with knees/legs which brings it's own set of risks.

Quin_Dub · 09-08-2019 9:54am

Squidgy Black wrote: »

As Syd said, it's almost physically impossible for every tackle to be below the waist. Players are going into contact driving low with their head first to try and gain metres. Also bringing all tackles below the waist means more collisions with knees/legs which brings it's own set of risks.

Agreed - Will be a nightmare to referee -

How do you tackle a guy coming round the corner on a pick and go?

You'll also see players dipping into to tackles etc.

I totally understand what they are trying to do , but hard to see this working out successfully.

Certainly in my experience coaching & refereeing at youths level a majority of tackle based concussions were down to tacklers getting their heads in the wrong place and getting a knee to the head - This would only increase the likelihood of that.

Ardillaun · 09-08-2019 10:49pm

I think below the nipple line or armpits would be a better rule.

Muahahaha · 08-09-2019 5:33pm

The coaches laptops- what is on them- the tv feed or real time GPS data from the tracker in the players shirts? Or are they just a way for sponsors to logo them up and get frequent in game tv advertising? You rarely see the coaches closely looking at them so are they just a prop?

The Lost Sheep · 08-09-2019 6:16pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

The coaches laptops- what is on them- the tv feed or real time GPS data from the tracker in the players shirts? Or are they just a way for sponsors to logo them up and get frequent in game tv advertising? You rarely see the coaches closely looking at them so are they just a prop?

Data, trends, stats
An old article but still relevant

https://www.the42.ie/rugby-performance-analysis-1147020-Oct2013/

jammiedodgers · 10-09-2019 2:39pm

Former Former wrote: »

If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

• Law 9.A. Scoring points
• Law 10.1, 10.4. Foul play: obstruction, dangerous play, tackling a player without the ball
• Law 11.1 (b, c). Offside: player in front of the kicker
• Law 12, 12.1. Knock-on or forward pass
• Law 16.5 (d). Ruck: offside at the ruck – players not joining the ruck
• Law 17.4 (d). Maul: offside at the maul – players not joining the maul
• Law 19.5 (a, b). Player in touch
• Law 19.2 (d). Lineout: quick throw
• Law 22. In goal (including ball grounded by a defending player)
• Law 15.5 (f, g). Double movement.

Don't want to drag the team talk thread off topic.
The quote above was in relation to Biggars intercept this weekend.
If he was offside and had grounded the ball would the try have been awarded or can the TMO be only used for the instances above?

fryup · 06-10-2019 10:18am

RE: Tonga v Fra game

when france took that quick free kick the ref had his back to it..but he let play continue?? is that allowed....what are the rules on a quick free kick?

Water John · 06-10-2019 10:45am

As long as it's taken from the correct spot, nothing wrong. Remember the ref has a lot more eyes working for him these days. If it had been incorrect it would have been immediately brought to his attention.

Water John · 12-10-2019 5:05pm

Was it in the Connacht match last night? The play is going ahead near the opposition line, the ref says if Connacht don't score, he'll award a penalty try, this was on his mike to other officials. Really strange as Connacht scored and then had to kick the conversion. With the pen try their would have been no conversion kick and risk of missing.

sydthebeat · 13-10-2019 11:08am

So a crooked line out isn't considered as completed and therfore cannot end a game?

Is that contentious?

LeinsterDub · 13-10-2019 11:33am

sydthebeat wrote: »

So a crooked line out isn't considered as completed and therfore cannot end a game?

Is that contentious?

Play must restart. A crooked line out isn't a valid restart

theintern · 13-10-2019 6:01pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Play must restart. A crooked line out isn't a valid restart

It makes sense because otherwise you could try kick the ball directly out or not 10 from a restart kick to end the game, which isn't really fair.

Losty Dublin · 14-10-2019 12:42am

Water John wrote: »

Was it in the Connacht match last night? The play is going ahead near the opposition line, the ref says if Connacht don't score, he'll award a penalty try, this was on his mike to other officials. Really strange as Connacht scored and then had to kick the conversion. With the pen try their would have been no conversion kick and risk of missing.

Not knowing what game you saw but there was one incidence of this at RWC as well.

A penalty try can only be awarded when some act of foul play denies a team of a probable try or forces a try to be scored away from the middle of the posts. If advantage is being played then it should normally be let play out; subject to what the foul play call was for. If a TMO or assistant referee made a call then play should continue and if required then it can be reviewed.

arsebiscuits1 · 13-11-2019 4:37pm

you haven't a clue!

Steve · 13-11-2019 10:37pm

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

you haven't a clue!

To whom are you referring there mr. biscuits?

Water John · 13-11-2019 11:59pm

He obviously thought long and hard about it.

Zzippy · 24-02-2020 3:23pm

Here's one I heard this morning.
A league match in Connacht yesterday was blown up early by the referee after 77 mins, but apparently there would have been at least 4 mins injury time also. The referee was made aware of his mistake, acknowledged it and told the coaches he would play out the remaining time. But a brawl broke out between some players while this discussion was going on, so he just blew up and said he couldn't continue. Apparently the match was in the balance so it's very contentious. Presume the result as it stands will be appealed by the losing team. Interesting to hear the outcome of that...

Losty Dublin · 24-02-2020 4:07pm

Zzippy wrote: »

Here's one I heard this morning.
A league match in Connacht yesterday was blown up early by the referee after 77 mins, but apparently there would have been at least 4 mins injury time also. The referee was made aware of his mistake, acknowledged it and told the coaches he would play out the remaining time. But a brawl broke out between some players while this discussion was going on, so he just blew up and said he couldn't continue. Apparently the match was in the balance so it's very contentious. Presume the result as it stands will be appealed by the losing team. Interesting to hear the outcome of that...

Considering that we have a member and poster to this page who is active in Connaught, I’ll thread carefully here...

In general the referee is in charge of keeping time during a game that s/he is in charge of. The main exception to this would be games where an official timekeeper has been appointed to the game for that sole purpose, but appointed touch judges/assistant referees and 4th/5th officials will also track match time.

In relation to your account, TBH there is no such thing as injury time in rugby. What may be practiced is the stopping of time to deal with non playing issues such as treatment and/or removal of injured players when the ball is dead. Such stoppages can only be called by the referee during a game as required. Unless the ref calls stops and restarts to time then a half can only be 40 minutes of play from the kick off.

Now, I certainly can expect that a ref may have inadvertently called time a tad early, and I can also expect that two coaches may have their own take on the remaining time. However it is still the call of the match officials as to how long is left, assuming if any time is left.

As regards the handbags, well perhaps that ate into the playing time remaining, thus making the whole argument academic bar for the Disciplinary Sub Committee hearing next Thursday :pac:

Zzippy · 24-02-2020 10:36pm

Yeah I only posted it as an interesting one, workmate was telling us today about it. Reminded me of the infamous hurling game in 97 I think between Clare and Offaly, where the crowd had a sit-down protest on the pitch when the ref blew up early. That game was ordered to be re-played. It would be interesting to see the ref report for this one. But yes, you're right, tread carefully... REFS ARE INFALLIBLE!!

totothejuggler · 25-02-2020 12:49pm

Zzippy wrote: »

Here's one I heard this morning.
A league match in Connacht yesterday was blown up early by the referee after 77 mins, but apparently there would have been at least 4 mins injury time also. The referee was made aware of his mistake, acknowledged it and told the coaches he would play out the remaining time. But a brawl broke out between some players while this discussion was going on, so he just blew up and said he couldn't continue. Apparently the match was in the balance so it's very contentious. Presume the result as it stands will be appealed by the losing team. Interesting to hear the outcome of that...

I was a player involved in the game and the brawl. The whole thing was bizarre. We were winning with the ball in our own half, we asked for time and were told it was up so we kicked it out. There was then a brawl after this, with one player of theirs in particular throwing multiple punches, this ended and we were clapped off, the opposing team then refused to go through our tunnel as their camera man had told them only 37 minutes had been played. A number of couches, players, and spectators crowded the ref, who I genuinely think was terrified at this stage. He eventually decided that the game could not continue as I number of players should of been sent off and was walked in by out team with drunken spectators whistling and following him to the dressing room.

I don't really understand how he got the timing so wrong, without a doubt he blew or up early, it was a huge mistake as it was a top of the table clash between first and second, but I'm guessing it will stand

shrapnel222 · 25-02-2020 12:57pm

thoughts on the Dan Biggar try: just curious about this one.

TMO clearly says he lost control of the ball but then regathers it. All true, but he regathers it because a French arm is there who holds the ball up, so for me that is clearly a knock on. Biggar has control, loses control, ball hits French arm, then ball back in control. For me it's only not a knock on if he regathers it before it touches floor or Frenchman, but as it is, it's a clear if unobvious knock on, or am i reading it all wrong?

Water John · 25-02-2020 1:06pm

I think the checking by the referee is usually for clear and obvious, with the ref having already favoured a try. I don't think the video ref is to microscopically analyse the move.
Can't remember the try but I thought Ntimack had got his hands in on another and it wasn't actually touched down.

shrapnel222 · 25-02-2020 1:36pm

Water John wrote: »

I think the checking by the referee is usually for clear and obvious, with the ref having already favoured a try. I don't think the video ref is to microscopically analyse the move.
Can't remember the try but I thought Ntimack had got his hands in on another and it wasn't actually touched down.

TMO clearly said, he lost control but then regathered, so it was clear and obvious. the grounding wasn't checked as the ref was happy with it

AShearer93 · 25-02-2020 4:43pm

I'm going to print this off for some of the parents who attend our junior matches

Quin_Dub · 25-02-2020 6:54pm

Zzippy wrote: »

Yeah I only posted it as an interesting one, workmate was telling us today about it. Reminded me of the infamous hurling game in 97 I think between Clare and Offaly, where the crowd had a sit-down protest on the pitch when the ref blew up early. That game was ordered to be re-played. It would be interesting to see the ref report for this one. But yes, you're right, tread carefully... REFS ARE INFALLIBLE!!

totothejuggler wrote: »

I was a player involved in the game and the brawl. The whole thing was bizarre. We were winning with the ball in our own half, we asked for time and were told it was up so we kicked it out. There was then a brawl after this, with one player of theirs in particular throwing multiple punches, this ended and we were clapped off, the opposing team then refused to go through our tunnel as their camera man had told them only 37 minutes had been played. A number of couches, players, and spectators crowded the ref, who I genuinely think was terrified at this stage. He eventually decided that the game could not continue as I number of players should of been sent off and was walked in by out team with drunken spectators whistling and following him to the dressing room.

I don't really understand how he got the timing so wrong, without a doubt he blew or up early, it was a huge mistake as it was a top of the table clash between first and second, but I'm guessing it will stand

Generally speaking , once a game goes beyond 2/3rd's complete the result stands if the game is called up short either for injury or because the referee decides that it can't continue because of an incident.

I have been involved as a coach in 2 games that were blown early because of a punch up and on both occasions the result stood as the games were beyond the 2/3rd's limit.

The referee may have made a mistake , but as the law book says "The referee is the sole arbiter of fact on the field of play" so in the absence of a TMO or external time-keeper then it's entirely their call as to when they blow the game up.

The Lost Sheep · 25-02-2020 9:27pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Generally speaking , once a game goes beyond 2/3rd's complete the result stands if the game is called up short either for injury or because the referee decides that it can't continue because of an incident.

I have been involved as a coach in 2 games that were blown early because of a punch up and on both occasions the result stood as the games were beyond the 2/3rd's limit.

The referee may have made a mistake , but as the law book says "The referee is the sole arbiter of fact on the field of play" so in the absence of a TMO or external time-keeper then it's entirely their call as to when they blow the game up.

its not 2/3 of time. Its 70 minutes in an 80minute game, 62 minutes of a 70 minute game and 53 minutes in a 60 minute game ie about 7/8 of the time meant to be played.
I've also been involved in a few games where result stood because game was called up early. None as ref but had a few when playing and was deteriorating pitch conditions s.

Quin_Dub · 26-02-2020 9:51am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

its not 2/3 of time. Its 70 minutes in an 80minute game, 62 minutes of a 70 minute game and 53 minutes in a 60 minute game ie about 7/8 of the time meant to be played.
I've also been involved in a few games where result stood because game was called up early. None as ref but had a few when playing and was deteriorating pitch conditions s.

Thanks for the clarification on the time limit...

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 7:28am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Ah come on phog surely you can come up with better than that? What is clearly crooked? Obviously crooked?

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

Quin_Dub · 02-11-2020 10:00am

Ardillaun wrote: »

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The law changed about 2 seasons ago where the "centre-line" has moved - whereas previously the ball had to go straight down the centre , the new law has it that the s/h left shoulder must be level with the centre-line , meaning that the ball is actually now put in about a foot nearer to the receiving side.

Technically the ball is still supposed to be put in straight along that line but that's not policed 100%

Ardillaun wrote: »

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

I'm not 100% on the laws in Soccer , but the offside law in Rugby takes into account "materiality" - So for example a blind-side winger being offside when the play is 50M away on the other side of the field simply doesn't count as they don't/can't effect play.

That can apply much closer to the ball as well of course. The referee (and AR's if present) make that call on materiality as they go.

Just being in an offside position isn't necessarily an offence , a player being there and impacting the game is where the offence occurs.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 11:31am

Ardillaun wrote: »

Do you have visual examples to help us here of what ‘looks’ crooked but isn’t considered to be so by refs? My impression from casual viewing on TV is that over the years scrum halves have been allowed to change the direction they put the ball in to scrums, i.e. much more to their side of the scrum.

The other thing that mystifies me is offside. For all its other failings, soccer takes a strict approach to such infractions and shows us the visual evidence as well. Has anybody gone through footage of rugby games with similar electronic tools to determine the average number of offside incidents that are not penalized per game? I suspect it’s a significant tally.

The scrum halfs have been allowed to put ball in more to their side. The law directly allows them now.

Offside in soccer is that bit easier. It most likely is significant number if you just see how many players may be offside at times but how many of those players will have been directly causing issues with play ie being material?
Often not many. Look at the law book. The offside law is one of the shortest laws in the book yet causes many issues and as quin_dub says officials have a lot of input into how offside is governed as its to their discretion. Some officials may want to call every offside but thats just not feasible.

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 6:08pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The law changed about 2 seasons ago where the "centre-line" has moved - whereas previously the ball had to go straight down the centre , the new law has it that the s/h left shoulder must be level with the centre-line , meaning that the ball is actually now put in about a foot nearer to the receiving side.

Technically the ball is still supposed to be put in straight along that line but that's not policed 100%

Thanks - didn’t know that. I think I’ve noticed scrum halves doing this for more than a decade.

I'm not 100% on the laws in Soccer , but the offside law in Rugby takes into account "materiality" - So for example a blind-side winger being offside when the play is 50M away on the other side of the field simply doesn't count as they don't/can't effect play.

That can apply much closer to the ball as well of course. The referee (and AR's if present) make that call on materiality as they go.

Just being in an offside position isn't necessarily an offence , a player being there and impacting the game is where the offence occurs.

My eyes may be tricking me here but at rucks I frequently see defenders moving forward before the ball is out in a way that gives the attacking line less time to play and must be material.

theintern · 02-11-2020 6:28pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

My eyes may be tricking me here but at rucks I frequently see defenders moving forward before the ball is out in a way that gives the attacking line less time to play and must be material.

If you go back on videos of games, and pause it at the exact moment the scrum half takes the ball out of the ruck, you'd be surprised at how many 'clearly offside' players are actually just timing their run really well.

I referee and have seen this in reviewing my own games a lot. There are yells of "offside ref!" from the sideline that are often wrong, and that's at amateur level. The pros are incredible at this.

Not to say there aren't offsides that are missed, but you'd be surprised at how often they're actually on.

EDIT - The same actually goes for scrum penalties too when you look closely, but I won't open that particular can of worms!

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 8:10pm

theintern wrote: »

If you go back on videos of games, and pause it at the exact moment the scrum half takes the ball out of the ruck, you'd be surprised at how many 'clearly offside' players are actually just timing their run really well.

I referee and have seen this in reviewing my own games a lot. There are yells of "offside ref!" from the sideline that are often wrong, and that's at amateur level. The pros are incredible at this.

Not to say there aren't offsides that are missed, but you'd be surprised at how often they're actually on.

I’m just a casual TV rugby watcher and I’d willingly concede that opposing teams’ offsides are lot easier for me to spot than Irish ones but I’m still suspicious about this as a general problem and I’m not the only one:

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/matt-williams-time-to-outlaw-the-cheats-and-save-our-game-1.3849858

Wouldn’t it be better to have video evidence of this at the elite pro level rather than having to rely on fallible perceptions, i.e. a freeze-framed soccer-style image with the line added showing unequivocally if players are across the line? In sports as diverse as tennis and baseball we now accept that machines are better at spotting some marginal calls than we are. If teams are right on the edge of being offside all the time, they’re probably frequently over that edge.

Again what I’d like to see is many games reviewed from one end to the other to look for offside infractions, even tiny ones, to give refs a better idea of how often this occurs. I suspect that if more of these offences were detected and penalized, extra space would be created for attacking rugby.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 8:13pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

Wouldn’t it be better to have video evidence of this rather than having to rely on our own fallible perceptions, i.e. a freeze-framed soccer-style image with the line added showing unequivocally if players are across the line? In sports as diverse as tennis and baseball we now accept that machines are better at spotting marginal calls than we are.

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

Ardillaun · 02-11-2020 10:32pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But how many of these marginal calls do we need video freeze frame etc to be used. You could realistically have to have a penalty at every tackle/ruck if you were to do that and is that really what the sport needs?
In tennis the freeze frame image over line is used for deciding points essentially and its not practical to be used all this time in every rugby game.

It could be very disruptive at first. If this hasn’t been done already, one would have to ascertain the scale of the problem (if significant at all - I may well be hallucinating here) by a detailed analysis of a large sample of rugby matches. In the event of many incidents currently being missed, the TMO could watch for this (with or without some AI image analysis support) and call the ref with it. If there is a problem, calling it more strlctly would reduce its freqency fairly rapidly.

The Lost Sheep · 02-11-2020 10:52pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

It could be very disruptive. If this hasn’t been done already, the first thing would be to ascertain the scale of the problem (if significant at all - I may well be hallucinating here) by a detailed analysis of a large sample of rugby matches. In the event of many incidents currently being missed, the TMO could watch for this (with or without some image analysis support) and call the ref with it.

But how much of this is really worth doing?
We have assistants and the ref to determine whether players are 1. offside 2. if the offside is material to the play at the time.
By all means if there is foul play, issues with a score get the TMO involved but i dont see it being necessary.

Rugby 101 - Know your rucks from your mauls!

Comments