Bath (AWAY) - Saturday 19th February 2022 - KO 15:00

[CJ]

Couldn’t agree more, westwinds.

[Systonite]

Re the refereeing yesterday. Our maul in the final minutes, which was moving rapidly towards the Bath try line, was firstly interfered with by Nathan Hughes swimming up the side of the maul, then dragged down by the Bath 7, Coetzee, who approaches our maul from an illegal position behind the maul and drags it down. Our ref gave a penalty for the first offence by Hughes, referred to multiple offences and said it was too far out for a penalty try.
The incident was a crystal clear penalty try and yellow card. Coetzee had realised he had nothing to lose by stopping the inevitable and got away with it right in front of Dickson. It's at 73 minutes in. What have I missed or misunderstood? That maul was our bonus point.

[mol2]

It was a strange refereeing performance- negating our attempts to maul and ignored repeated offences if they occurred during th same advantage. What’s the difference between between 3 offences in different plays an 3 in a single play? Each as worthy of a yellow in my book.

Not sure I get the Martin being understudy to Liebenberg- different style of back row and let’s not forget Marin is already an international player.

Liebenberg a runnng back row and Martin a tackling machine.

Borthwick was decisive in making changes. A recognition that too conservative a starting line up wasn’t putting pressure on Bath. Wigglesworth is a slow left footed version of Lenny. A game against the bottom side should really have been a game to start Van Portveilt.

[RichieB]

One of the tactical issues in the 2nd quarter is how we lost control of the game. The Bath kicking caught Hegerty too far back and the rest of the team not getting back far enough to pick up what actually ended up as being a shortish kick. Bath recovered possession and territory a few times and it gave them momentum.

Hegerty couldn’t get to the ball and ended up over committing and he wasn’t getting any help from the forwards.

This was corrected at half-time, not sure if Hegerty just stepped up a few feet or we just got a few extra bodies in to fill the gap, but Bath certainly didn’t profit as much in the second half. Borthwick reckoned it was the players themselves (I’m guessing Hegerty might have had a few words to say!) who sorted it out, so that is good to see.

[sam16111986]

One of the tactical issues in the 2nd quarter is how we lost control of the game. The Bath kicking caught Hegerty too far back and the rest of the team not getting back far enough to pick up what actually ended up as being a shortish kick. Bath recovered possession and territory a few times and it gave them momentum.

Hegerty couldn’t get to the ball and ended up over committing and he wasn’t getting any help from the forwards.

This was corrected at half-time, not sure if Hegerty just stepped up a few feet or we just got a few extra bodies in to fill the gap, but Bath certainly didn’t profit as much in the second half. Borthwick reckoned it was the players themselves (I’m guessing Hegerty might have had a few words to say!) who sorted it out, so that is good to see.

Wigglesworth was defending in the line and not in the sweeper role you see with most scrum halfs. The blindside winger was up in the line as well which is where Bath got two of their three tries with Hegarty not able to cover both open and blind side of the backfield. Hegarty couldn't come up much shorter as Bath were mixing their kicking and kicking deep as well.

JVP seemed to be sweeping when he came on and cut off the short kick option.

[Scott1]

One of the tactical issues in the 2nd quarter is how we lost control of the game. The Bath kicking caught Hegerty too far back and the rest of the team not getting back far enough to pick up what actually ended up as being a shortish kick. Bath recovered possession and territory a few times and it gave them momentum.

Hegerty couldn’t get to the ball and ended up over committing and he wasn’t getting any help from the forwards.

This was corrected at half-time, not sure if Hegerty just stepped up a few feet or we just got a few extra bodies in to fill the gap, but Bath certainly didn’t profit as much in the second half. Borthwick reckoned it was the players themselves (I’m guessing Hegerty might have had a few words to say!) who sorted it out, so that is good to see.

Wigglesworth was defending in the line and not in the sweeper role you see with most scrum halfs. The blindside winger was up in the line as well which is where Bath got two of their three tries with Hegarty not able to cover both open and blind side of the backfield. Hegarty couldn't come up much shorter as Bath were mixing their kicking and kicking deep as well.

JVP seemed to be sweeping when he came on and cut off the short kick option.

Nailed it!

[Crofty]

Re the refereeing yesterday. Our maul in the final minutes, which was moving rapidly towards the Bath try line, was firstly interfered with by Nathan Hughes swimming up the side of the maul, then dragged down by the Bath 7, Coetzee, who approaches our maul from an illegal position behind the maul and drags it down. Our ref gave a penalty for the first offence by Hughes, referred to multiple offences and said it was too far out for a penalty try.
The incident was a crystal clear penalty try and yellow card. Coetzee had realised he had nothing to lose by stopping the inevitable and got away with it right in front of Dickson. It's at 73 minutes in. What have I missed or misunderstood? That maul was our bonus point.

Thats how I saw it too

[KiwiTig]

Watched it again ..we are so blessed to have such quality in depth

[Tiglon]

Scrappy win away from home, Bath were better than I expected, Muir was strong and de Glanville's tackle on Nadolo was a surprise! Their defence is really improving but Ojomoh needs to do better without the ball if he's going to fulfil his promise. Kelly was excellent again and Burns controlled the game well.

I thought Dickson had a very good game. Could he have been stronger with the multiple infringements at that maul? Maybe a yellow or at least team warning but Bath had done a good job of illegally stopping it before it was close enough to the line for a penalty try.

[mol2]

I disagree about Dickson having a reasonably good game - he seemed determined to prevent us (or Bath for that matter) setting up a maul from the line out.
At times the jumper had hardly landed before he called "That's once" All sides are allowed to bring the ball down and get set to drive. He simply denied us that option almost every time. He even called "use" even though the maul was still clearly moving forward on one occasion. This negated one of our most potent attacking options. I am not suggesting he was biased or cheating but I think he was simply wrong in his interpretation of the laws.

There is no requirement to give a warning for repeat infringements before issuing a card. Ashton got carded for being off side 3 times in one play in our last home game and rightly so. Multiple infringements in one passage of play may well only result in a single penalty kick but where they all effectively prevent or contribute illegally to a try being scored a yellow card and a penalty try must be considered. (If you give a penalty try then a ref must have a good reason for not also issuing a yellow). For me a yellow should have been issued. But for the illegal acts to stop the maul would a try have been scored? A case for that can reasonably be made but others might say it wasn't certain.

[Pellsey]

I disagree about Dickson having a reasonably good game - he seemed determined to prevent us (or Bath for that matter) setting up a maul from the line out.

I don't understand people who say that this is accepting refereeing at this level. Either they dont care about the laws or have very low standards. Or maybe they are comparing him to a completely blind tribesman from the jungles of South America who has never been outside their village or heard of rugby. Relatively speaking, in this case, Dickson is a very good ref.

From another post, some referees will get better, so they need to be played more, but maybe at another level first. I do not believe Dickson will get much better. I hope I am wrong.

At times the jumper had hardly landed before he called "That's once" All sides are allowed to bring the ball down and get set to drive. He simply denied us that option almost every time. He even called "use" even though the maul was still clearly moving forward on one occasion. This negated one of our most potent attacking options. I am not suggesting he was biased or cheating but I think he was simply wrong in his interpretation of the laws.

One of many issues! It is infuriating. I am not sure whether it is his interpretation or rather his lack of knowledge of the laws! I really don't think he is biased though. There were a few times when I though we really got away with things too!

I don't believe the irritation thereby posting stopped after we went ahead again. We were still noticing the incompetence in the refereeing at the scrum and mauls.

[mightymouse]

I am no fan of Dickson and he gets a lot wrong.
One point on scrum penalties though ( and this is not in reference to his reffing the other day) but Inthink far to many refs penalise scrums for going backwards.
Now unless laws have changed massively since I played there is no law, and there certainly shouldn’t be a law, penalising a team for being beaten in the scrum.
They should enforce collapsing deliberately(which he didn’t) because that is dangerous, potentially catastrophically so! The trouble is the vast majority of refs have no understanding of the dynamics of a scrum and therefore have no clue who is doing what and more often than not the get it wrong.
The more contentious issue however is the scrum going up. When a prop is being physically dominated but has quite a strong lock behind him.. he has very little option but to go up.. he is not doing it deliberately he is being forced there. That to my mind should not be a penalty. You do not penalise a back for failing to tackle a Nadola or a Tuilagi! .. they just aren’t capable of stopping them. Same with props. The going up law in the scrum, as I remember it was to prevent someone from deliberately driving someone up which is even more dangerous than collapsing.. I think Rowntree it was who was badly injured by a Frenchman doing that in a European game at Walkers stadium.
The law was brought in originally to stop the practice of “giving someone his wings” .. that was when you dipped and drove up suddenly and a poor unfortunate’s feet left the Floor whilst his head was still engaged in the scrum.. that was just as likely to cause a snapped neck as any collapsing. A great exponent of that was Barry Nelmes, loosehead for Cardiff and England for those old enough to remember.
Anyway I would like to see these laws enforced correctly and not continuously giving penalties for going back .. let the scrum carry on being driven back and encourage the weaker team to hook fast and hard and get their scrappy ball the hell out of there .. it would speed the game up immeasurably and be much more exiting watching a less dominant team scrabble about in their 22 and trying and work out strategies for exit.

[Tiglon]

I don't understand people who say that this is accepting refereeing at this level. Either they dont care about the laws or have very low standards. Or maybe they are comparing him to a completely blind tribesman from the jungles of South America who has never been outside their village or heard of rugby.

Or they just have a different opinion to you.

Just like mightymouse, I am not a fan of Dickson, you can find many posts from me voicing frustration over what I perceive to be his errors in the past. But I thought he did well last weekend.

The laws that people shout about on social media and on here are often not actually the laws. Just as mightymouse reminds us, going backwards in the scrum is not in itself a penalty offence. You shouldn't get a penalty just for winning the scrum, or looking dominant in the scrum - there has to be an actual penalty offence.

Here are just a few snippets from the maul laws that some (including many teams and referees) might find useful:

16.2: It consists of a ball-carrier and at least one player from each team, bound together and on their feet.

If everyone read this, the whole annoying choke tackle nonsense would be over. As long as no supporting players from the ball carrier's team join the tackle, it never becomes a maul and the tacklers have to release when it goes to ground.

16.3: Once formed, a maul must move towards a goal line.

16.15: When a maul has stopped moving towards a goal line, it may restart moving towards a goal line providing it does so within five seconds. If it stops a second time but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, the referee instructs the team to use the ball. The team in possession must then use the ball in a reasonable time.

There is no time allowance to get moving once the maul has formed. As soon as the ball carrier and a player from each team have bound together, the maul is formed and it must move towards the goal line. If it doesn't, then the referee will call "once". If it starts moving forwards within 5 seconds than it can continue, but next time it stops moving forwards the ball must be used.

[johnthegriff]

I like Tiglon's post regarding Maul laws, now put yourself in the Ref's position, he has to watch for players outside of the maul straying offside, players entering the maul from the side, those trying to pull the maul down and watch carefully to see if the ball carriers knee touches the ground, he must watch for these and a myriad of other offences whilst counting five seconds and restarting his count if the scrum recommences forward momentum. He must do this in the knowledge that judges without his qualification but with the benefit of pause, replay and a biased one eye are ready to comment on his decisions.
Why would anybody in their right mind take on the job? They must really love the game!

[Pellsey]

I don't understand people who say that this is accepting refereeing at this level. Either they dont care about the laws or have very low standards. Or maybe they are comparing him to a completely blind tribesman from the jungles of South America who has never been outside their village or heard of rugby.

Or they just have a different opinion to you.

Sure, everbody is entitled to their opinion and having different opinions is a good thing. I do not mean to cause offence. I literally do not understand the acceptance of such standards, unfortunately. I would very much like to!

Thank you for you post regarding the maul laws.