WC Refereeing.

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:03 pm

dailywaffle wrote: The laws clearly state that a player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised. It is far too simplistic to say that this is an automatic penalty or scrum (or advantage); .
If the player does not retire he is "automatically" offside. If he interferes with play he is "automatically" offside. What constitutes "retiring" may be subjective, as may "interfering with play".

I stated that the player did not retire.

But unlike the stud in touch all too often, IMHO, blatant breeches of the laws are ignored. I take some comfort from the fact that P. O'Brian agrees with me.
I take no comfort whatsoever from the excuses that such lapses are in the interests of "managing the game", judgements of "materiality" or "contextuality". IMHO the game would be better "managed" if such issues as offside were viewed as simplistic - in front of the ball is in front of the ball, ahead of the rearmost foot is exactly that - no need for philosphical and intellectual exercises. Just like crooked feeds to the scrum.
Still keeping the faith!

dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by dailywaffle » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:17 pm

Bill W (2) wrote: If the player does not retire he is "automatically" offside. If he interferes with play he is "automatically" offside. What constitutes "retiring" may be subjective, as may "interfering with play".

I stated that the player did not retire.
A player can be offside, make no attempt to retire (which in itself can be subjective), and still (legitimately) be not penalised.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with the offside example; your own posts illustrate the (sometimes) subjective nature of the offence. If you are arguing, and I'm not sure that you are, that any player who is offside is automatically subject to sanction then you calling for a change in the laws.

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:24 pm

dailywaffle wrote: that the crooked feed is considered a lower priority than other matters. .
Where in the Laws of the Game and in IRB edicts does it say this?

As I understand it a crooked feed has the same priority as an early engage - namely it shall automatically result in a free kick. No advantage, no "unless in the interests of managing the game", no "if it is material" and no "bearing in mind the context".
Still keeping the faith!

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:31 pm

dailywaffle wrote: If you are arguing, and I'm not sure that you are, that any player who is offside is automatically subject to sanction then you calling for a change in the laws.
Not calling for a change in the laws.

A player who is offside and makes no attempt to retire and/or interferes with play should be penalised (subject to advantage).

As I understand it they are the current laws. In the case I stated the dummy runner did not retire. I chose my words carefully.
Still keeping the faith!

dontlookdown
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 12:59 pm
Location: Leicester

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by dontlookdown » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:12 am

Bill W (2) wrote:Not calling for a change in the laws.

A player who is offside and makes no attempt to retire and/or interferes with play should be penalised (subject to advantage).
Say a full-back recieves a kick - the majority of his team are therefore in front of him and technically offside including a prop on the opposite wing. This prop doesn't retire and instead waits for the full-back to run past him on the opposing wing before getting back into the action.

Should the prop be penalised?
7 years so far..

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:52 am

dontlookdown wrote:Should the prop be penalised?
Only if he draws attention to himself!
Still keeping the faith!

The Boy Dave
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1787
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:40 pm

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by The Boy Dave » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:59 pm

dontlookdown wrote:

Should the prop be penalised?


Only if he draws attention to himself!

You mean any attention other than the 20,000 people shouting "fat boy on the wing".
Cheery chappy

dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by dailywaffle » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:59 pm

Bill W (2) wrote: Not calling for a change in the laws.

A player who is offside and makes no attempt to retire and/or interferes with play should be penalised (subject to advantage).

As I understand it they are the current laws. In the case I stated the dummy runner did not retire. I chose my words carefully.
If you fully understood the laws you would appreciate that your first and second statements can be contradictory. I would also add that interference is open to interpretation, and the very act of retreating to an onside position could sometimes intefere with play.

All of which illustrates why, despite your protestations, the laws (as a whole) cannot be applied in a black and white fashion.

adamv6
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1252
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:32 pm
Location: Preston

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by adamv6 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:30 pm

When speaking to a referee one day, I asked the question of the missed offences, and he gave me the following answer;
At most breakdowns there are 10 offences being committed, we are taught to penalise the one that is the worst or is impacting the game the most
That statement explained to me the farce that is refereeing modern rugby.

How often do we see the referee blow the first offence at the breakdown? More often than not a player will get penalised for not releasing, when half his own team and the opposition are off their feet, and the original tackler is still holding on like a limpet.

Like Bill, I don't like it, unfortunately, it just seems to be the norm.

As such I expect to see King McCaw breaking at least 3 rules at every breakdown during the RWC and being hailed as the worlds best openside by every hack, ex-flyhalf-cum-analyst-cum-commentator-cum and un-educated presenter in the world.
JGriffin - "The outright winner was the ref who blew himself inside out."
http://incoherenttwaddle.blogspot.com/

dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by dailywaffle » Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:12 pm

Given that there are multiple (both concurrent and bang-bang) offences at every breakdown and set-piece, which offence would you care to ping first?

kingol22
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 3:54 pm

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by kingol22 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:56 pm

I think the thing people get most aggravated with is the simple ones that are missed. Not straight in the scrum hardly ever gets pinged and yet it takes away from the contest of a scrum and is something that should be very easy to penalise. Not straight in the lineout is another one.

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:07 pm

dailywaffle wrote:Given that there are multiple (both concurrent and bang-bang) offences at every breakdown and set-piece, which offence would you care to ping first?
Set Piece

Scrum

The first offence to be pinged is the early engage; the second is pushing before the ball is in; the third binding; the fouth not straight etc.

Line out

Numbers, length, not straight interfering etc.

I could go on.

I could go on with the breakdown.

In ignoring offences (waiting for those which are "more material", more important "contextually" or, JHMG, of a higher "priority" referees are encouraging and condoning players breaking the laws. Such referees (and those who encourage them) are, IMHO part of the problem not part of the solution. Not only are they, de facto, condoning the laws being ignored they are also inviting players to take "law enforcement" into their own hands (and feet).
Still keeping the faith!

Bill W (2)
Super User
Super User
Posts: 14868
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:23 pm
Location: Essex

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by Bill W (2) » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:24 pm

nasher wrote:Worry not about the laws,just look who is referee against Argentina and he guess the result
Could have been worse - it could have been Owens!!!
Still keeping the faith!

dailywaffle
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7106
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: NW Leics

Re: WC Refereeing.

Post by dailywaffle » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:25 pm

Re the scrum: LH slips his bind, which may or may not be due to the THs illegal bind, all of which occurs as the SH gives a squint feed and the defensive line stands 0.5m offside.

Your decision? Given that you do not prioritise or ignore any offences.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests