Annoyance over forward passes

[Dangerous4]

Do the referees now have a book of new rules? It appears so to me, as we continue to see more and more dubious and incomprehesible decisions being made by them. Blatant illegal actions by players appear to be ignored so often, that I wonder if I am watching rugby union.

That feeling of sheer disbelief is getting me down.

[Noggs]

The ball may be thrown in straight at the line out, but if it is straight over the heads of the players in the thrower's team then the defending team can't compete - so they don't compete and line outs are effectively unopposed. throw it down the gap.

Hooker goes to touchline in front of assistant ref. Ref ensures there is a gap, hooker takes one pace towards his team, assistant ref follows his move. Guarantees its not going to be thrown down the middle. Of course when he throws he is also standing on the pitch, ball goes directly down the line of players, opposing players can compete but have to jump across and get penalised. Easy to police and totally ignored every time.

The hooker stepping over the line whilst illegal does not have much effect on matters in hand but stepping to the side does and prevents fair competition for the ball. The simple solution is for the assistant referee to clearly mark the spot with failure to take the throw from the correct position (monitored by the AR who would advise the thrower whether he is legal) resulting in an immediate free kick. The referee can then concentrate on maintaining the gap, straightness of the throw, interference with the jumper, etc.

[Ads677]

The ball may be thrown in straight at the line out, but if it is straight over the heads of the players in the thrower's team then the defending team can't compete - so they don't compete and line outs are effectively unopposed. throw it down the gap.

Hooker goes to touchline in front of assistant ref. Ref ensures there is a gap, hooker takes one pace towards his team, assistant ref follows his move. Guarantees its not going to be thrown down the middle. Of course when he throws he is also standing on the pitch, ball goes directly down the line of players, opposing players can compete but have to jump across and get penalised. Easy to police and totally ignored every time.

The hooker stepping over the line whilst illegal does not have much effect on matters in hand but stepping to the side does and prevents fair competition for the ball. The simple solution is for the assistant referee to clearly mark the spot with failure to take the throw from the correct position (monitored by the AR who would advise the thrower whether he is legal) resulting in an immediate free kick. The referee can then concentrate on maintaining the gap, straightness of the throw, interference with the jumper, etc.

Just enquiring cos I'm not sure, but if the touchline is itself in-touch, doesn't that mean that if a hooker's heels are (just) touching the whitewash, he must be in touch and can therefore throw in with impunity? Or does the Law say that he must be behind the line?

[Ads677]

Also, whilst having a go at referees and TMOs, before Tom Young's try was disallowed on Tuesday, the on-field decision was a try, presumably meaning that if the TMO couldn't see a reason NOT to award it, the try should have stood. All the TMO said was that he couldn't see the grounding, so back to the original on-field decision surely?

[Mayocaz]

Yes there was no angle that 100% showed he was held up. I think he was Held up and the correct decision was made but the use of the TMO was wrong. He couldn’t see it being held up and only assumed it was from the angles we all seen.

[GETHIN EXILE]

what i found strange was that as Tom is trying to ground the ball an Irish player dives in from the side and goes off his feet obscuring the view. If he had done that at a breakdown it would have been a penalty so why was it not a penalty try and therefore a yellow card ?

[Ads677]

what i found strange was that as Tom is trying to ground the ball an Irish player dives in from the side and goes off his feet obscuring the view. If he had done that at a breakdown it would have been a penalty so why was it not a penalty try and therefore a yellow card ?

Is it the case that once a player crosses the tryline, the offside line is still the tryline?

[h's dad]

Just enquiring cos I'm not sure, but if the touchline is itself in-touch, doesn't that mean that if a hooker's heels are (just) touching the whitewash, he must be in touch and can therefore throw in with impunity? Or does the Law say that he must be behind the line?

18.22. The player throwing in the ball stands on the mark of touch with both feet outside the field of play. The thrower must not step into the field of play until the ball has been thrown.

I would suggest that as the term 'field of play' rather than 'in touch' is used, the player throwing in should have all of both feet the other side of the line.

[jgriffin]

Also, whilst having a go at referees and TMOs, before Tom Young's try was disallowed on Tuesday, the on-field decision was a try, presumably meaning that if the TMO couldn't see a reason NOT to award it, the try should have stood. All the TMO said was that he couldn't see the grounding, so back to the original on-field decision surely?

what was the ref's question? I didn't hear it, but I did seem to see the TMO intervening. Whatever the question, the ref can overrule, as Wayne did at Wuss two seasons ago viz "No, I'm satisfied without seeing it again" which I heard live from about 10m away.

[ads]

Ref said "on field decision is try". So should need proof it isn't a try, I don't think the footage showed the ball was actually held up. Even though it probably was...

Decision was probably right but the way the officials go about it can be confusing.

[northerntiger]

As I saw it, the ref gave a try, he certainly put his arm up. Then the TMO intervened

[ads]

But the ref actually stated, "on field decision is a try". So there has to be proof otherwise to overturn the decision.

[Noggs]

Ref said "on field decision is try". So should need proof it isn't a try, I don't think the footage showed the ball was actually held up. Even though it probably was...

Decision was probably right but the way the officials go about it can be confusing.

This is correct, he did say that the 'on field decision was a try' which means the TMO has to give a reason why the try cannot be awarded. The fact that the TMO cannot see the grounding looking at the available camera angles is not a reason for the decision to change as the ref must have believed he saw the ball grounded on or over the line in order to give his initial decision.

The question the ref should has asked was 'is there any reason why I cannot award the try' and the answer would have been 'no'. What happened was wrong as once awarded a try must stand unless there is evidence of the ball being held up or foul play not previously spotted.

In the end it did not matter (much) but it was a glaring mistake by the ref and should have been corrected by the TMO by him saying 'I can see no reason why the try cannot be awarded' as soon as he started to doubt his own decision.