Rugby law question - any current refs?
Discussion
This season my team has had two yellow cards for 'use of the boot'.
Both times have been in rucks. The only difference being in the first one we'd turned the ball over and the opposition was counter-rucking and had two more players committed, otherwise:
We were near the opposition 22, the ball was under the legs of an opposition player (deliberately of course. At our level nothing is accidental) and we wanted fast ball.
The nominal #9 trying to get the ball out indicates to the referee that the ball is blocked. The ref does nothing. The #9 then puts his foot into the ruck in order to pull the leg out of the way.
On the first occasion the referee had the decency to wait until there was contact between the heel of the boot and the player's leg, but in yesterday's match, as soon as the boot went in, a penalty was awarded and the player carded.
No stamping, no studs being used (in one case no contact even), no violent play.
It would appear that the laws have not changed. Nothing done by either #9 contravened any law I can find. In one case, as I said, there was no contact at all. Yet both refs blew up immediately.
The only thing I can think of is that the referees have been told to stamp on (the only ones who have stamped I would point out) such behaviour. Is there any referee who can say one way or the other?
Both times have been in rucks. The only difference being in the first one we'd turned the ball over and the opposition was counter-rucking and had two more players committed, otherwise:
We were near the opposition 22, the ball was under the legs of an opposition player (deliberately of course. At our level nothing is accidental) and we wanted fast ball.
The nominal #9 trying to get the ball out indicates to the referee that the ball is blocked. The ref does nothing. The #9 then puts his foot into the ruck in order to pull the leg out of the way.
On the first occasion the referee had the decency to wait until there was contact between the heel of the boot and the player's leg, but in yesterday's match, as soon as the boot went in, a penalty was awarded and the player carded.
No stamping, no studs being used (in one case no contact even), no violent play.
It would appear that the laws have not changed. Nothing done by either #9 contravened any law I can find. In one case, as I said, there was no contact at all. Yet both refs blew up immediately.
The only thing I can think of is that the referees have been told to stamp on (the only ones who have stamped I would point out) such behaviour. Is there any referee who can say one way or the other?
Not a ref but a reasonable long term player.
Up,and down motion is a big no-no as is going anywhere near a joint (knees , ankles etc) refs have been clamping down on this for a few seasons. If it's happened more than once then I'd suggest the captain/ scrum half should be getting clarity from the individual ref before each game. There's normally a chat about what's acceptable at the breakdown/ when the ball is considered out
Up,and down motion is a big no-no as is going anywhere near a joint (knees , ankles etc) refs have been clamping down on this for a few seasons. If it's happened more than once then I'd suggest the captain/ scrum half should be getting clarity from the individual ref before each game. There's normally a chat about what's acceptable at the breakdown/ when the ball is considered out
hajaba123 said:
Not a ref but a reasonable long term player.
Up,and down motion is a big no-no as is going anywhere near a joint (knees , ankles etc) refs have been clamping down on this for a few seasons. If it's happened more than once then I'd suggest the captain/ scrum half should be getting clarity from the individual ref before each game. There's normally a chat about what's acceptable at the breakdown/ when the ball is considered out
Pre match there was a query as to what is allowable, this after the first incident where a heel was used against another player's foot. A backward movement, not a stamp, to expose the ball. This 'up and down' motion was mentioned, but, obviously, if the foot is going towards the ground, as in the second case, the foot will go downwards initially. The intent was to heel the ball, but no contact was made, either with the ball or any opposition player. Up,and down motion is a big no-no as is going anywhere near a joint (knees , ankles etc) refs have been clamping down on this for a few seasons. If it's happened more than once then I'd suggest the captain/ scrum half should be getting clarity from the individual ref before each game. There's normally a chat about what's acceptable at the breakdown/ when the ball is considered out
In the first case, it was our captain who was penalised and he knows the laws inside out. That is his problem in fact, he plays to them, not something that our level of refs can be accused of. The second incident was a flanker, our scrum half nursing a punch that the ref had not, apparently, seen. But all three players around the ruck agreed that there was no contact. By way of excuse for the ref, he could not have seen anything from where he was standing. Yet he felt there was sufficient evidence of an offence, and a carding one at that.
It is frustrating. We were punched a number of times yet our player got carded for pushing another player who'd thrown two punches at him. The side we played has a reputation among all the teams for thuggery, and they lived up to it, yet they don't get penalised. But putting a foot into the ruck is a carding offence.
As you can no doubt tell, I'm a bit irritated. My team put their bodies on the line each match when we play reasonable teams, let alone this mob, but the refs seem to be looking for the wrong things. That said, the first carding incident, the team we were playing were just like a normal rugby team. A game played in a good spirit. Three penalties in 30 minutes. Yet one yellow.
It is spoiling the whole game for me as a spectator. It must be even worse for players.
Derek, I am a ref
If your 9 is trying to point out the offence/milk a penalty (lets face it, if he's like any 9, he's doing both and offering advice to the ref) and then 'puts' his foot on a player then he is taking a risk and he knows it. I'd hope the ref would be communicating (not sure what level this is) but I'll always say let me ref the breakdown, don't take things matters into your own hands/feet. Players using their feet incorrectly (or even considered to be incorrectly by the opposition) is a massive flash point especially in a niggly game. Yellow card does tend to stop that.
Short answer - don't take the risk
The punch yellow card does not make much sense the way its explained, if you don't see the offence you can't guess and if you don't have ARs/TJs then things will go on behind you.
If your 9 is trying to point out the offence/milk a penalty (lets face it, if he's like any 9, he's doing both and offering advice to the ref) and then 'puts' his foot on a player then he is taking a risk and he knows it. I'd hope the ref would be communicating (not sure what level this is) but I'll always say let me ref the breakdown, don't take things matters into your own hands/feet. Players using their feet incorrectly (or even considered to be incorrectly by the opposition) is a massive flash point especially in a niggly game. Yellow card does tend to stop that.
Short answer - don't take the risk
The punch yellow card does not make much sense the way its explained, if you don't see the offence you can't guess and if you don't have ARs/TJs then things will go on behind you.
I take the point about 'if you don't see it'. However, the most notable division between referees is his or her positioning. If they don't see continual foul play then 'I didn't see anything' is an indictment rather than excuse.
One of our touch judges didn't come out for the match after a pre-match chat with the ref. He is a qualified ref and refs for under 15s. The reason was that the ref stated that he didn't want to be spoken to by the touch judges about any incident he had seen.
The point I was trying to make is that the 9s, in both cases, did not put their foot 'on' anything. The first instance, the heel was used to move a leg blocking the ball. In the second incident, the foot was placed on the ground with the intention of heeling the ball back. As there were legs (plural) between the ball and access. Yet both times, despite no downward movement and in one case no contact at all, cards resulted.
In the latter case the ref could not have seen where the foot went yet blue immediately. On the video it looks as if the 9 was trying to balance himself in order to bend down and pick the ball out.
So why? Neither time were any laws that I know of contravened. My suspicion is that there is some directive from the RFU, or perhaps via assessors, that there should be no feet in the ruck. If so, it might have been nice to be told.
From what you are saying, there's been no such directive and such decisions are the ref's own.
One of our touch judges didn't come out for the match after a pre-match chat with the ref. He is a qualified ref and refs for under 15s. The reason was that the ref stated that he didn't want to be spoken to by the touch judges about any incident he had seen.
The point I was trying to make is that the 9s, in both cases, did not put their foot 'on' anything. The first instance, the heel was used to move a leg blocking the ball. In the second incident, the foot was placed on the ground with the intention of heeling the ball back. As there were legs (plural) between the ball and access. Yet both times, despite no downward movement and in one case no contact at all, cards resulted.
In the latter case the ref could not have seen where the foot went yet blue immediately. On the video it looks as if the 9 was trying to balance himself in order to bend down and pick the ball out.
So why? Neither time were any laws that I know of contravened. My suspicion is that there is some directive from the RFU, or perhaps via assessors, that there should be no feet in the ruck. If so, it might have been nice to be told.
From what you are saying, there's been no such directive and such decisions are the ref's own.
the way use of the foot in the ruck was governments has changed massively. Back when I started playing if you were over the ball on the wrong side you got racked and that was seen as fair game.
in the last 3/4 years any use of the foot in that situation has been blown, I wouldn't risk trying anymore.
in the last 3/4 years any use of the foot in that situation has been blown, I wouldn't risk trying anymore.
Yesterday we had a match against a side that we used to struggle against. They are having a difficult season and despite not having two of our best players on the field, and other injuries the lads were up for it.
The ref played what I thought was a blinder. Just right for the level we play at, 6. They had 9 penalties to our 1, but our second penalty was a dreadful tackle by our #14. A real brain dead move. The ref gave a yellow. When looking at the video I can see a slight trip on the wet grass and now can see his point of not putting a red up.
Late in the match the other side tired a bit - they worked hard for their 3-32 loss - and things were getting a bit fractious but the ref kept a lid on it and everyone left the field happy.
Looking at the video I can see things he missed, but he missed them because he was just one bloke. No problem with that. I can see one or two things he ignored, but I can understand his reasons. I might not agree, but I agree that he is the one making the decisions.
He played a great match and the players took notice of him when he said anything. A good ref who allowed the players to play. He'll be moved up a division for next season I bet.
So why the big difference between him and some of the others we've had, with their bewildering decisions, there blowing of their whistle at odd times, and the players not knowing what the hell is going on?
Sad to see a side that used to be our equal being mauled like that when we were under strength. Chatting to their supporters and they reckoned that they were going down. They'd lost one really good lose head over the summer and other players were being head-hunted by other teams.
Glad we won though. We needed a four-pointer. Sympathy only goes so far.
The ref played what I thought was a blinder. Just right for the level we play at, 6. They had 9 penalties to our 1, but our second penalty was a dreadful tackle by our #14. A real brain dead move. The ref gave a yellow. When looking at the video I can see a slight trip on the wet grass and now can see his point of not putting a red up.
Late in the match the other side tired a bit - they worked hard for their 3-32 loss - and things were getting a bit fractious but the ref kept a lid on it and everyone left the field happy.
Looking at the video I can see things he missed, but he missed them because he was just one bloke. No problem with that. I can see one or two things he ignored, but I can understand his reasons. I might not agree, but I agree that he is the one making the decisions.
He played a great match and the players took notice of him when he said anything. A good ref who allowed the players to play. He'll be moved up a division for next season I bet.
So why the big difference between him and some of the others we've had, with their bewildering decisions, there blowing of their whistle at odd times, and the players not knowing what the hell is going on?
Sad to see a side that used to be our equal being mauled like that when we were under strength. Chatting to their supporters and they reckoned that they were going down. They'd lost one really good lose head over the summer and other players were being head-hunted by other teams.
Glad we won though. We needed a four-pointer. Sympathy only goes so far.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff