Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: RogerE on April 08, 2021, 01:03:52 PM
-
A rugby ref friend has just told me that the new ref guidelines include how to deal with the train (what everyone else calls the caterpillar). Basically the moment the ball is perceived as won the ref has to call use it, not when it is at the back, or travelling down, "the train".
Be interesting to see if refs actually do call use it before it starts to travel down the (insert favourite word here)
edited because I couldn't spell!
-
Would prefer that the guidelines included counting down as well.
-
Didn't Smalles get very upset when Gaskell helpfully counted down for him?
-
Would prefer that the guidelines included counting down as well.
Not fussed if they count down or not, as long as once 5 seconds have elapsed then a free kick is awarded straight away to the defending team. If anything it's better that the count remains in the ref's head so scrum halves are not 100% sure exactly how long they've got so just look to move it sooner rather than risk conceding the free kick.
-
Can anyone clarify the laws?
I'm under the impression that the scrum half is technically offside while he manoeuvres the ball down the caterpilla unless he has one foot behind the hind most foot of the caterpillar otherwise he's coming in at the side. If the refs reinforced the 5 count as soon as the ball was visible PLUS enforced that the ball could only be moved back by people properly bound until the scrum half reached in from behind the back foot then surely that would prevent long caterpillars.
-
Can anyone clarify the laws?
I'm under the impression that the scrum half is technically offside while he manoeuvres the ball down the caterpilla unless he has one foot behind the hind most foot of the caterpillar otherwise he's coming in at the side. If the refs reinforced the 5 count as soon as the ball was visible PLUS enforced that the ball could only be moved back by people properly bound until the scrum half reached in from behind the back foot then surely that would prevent long caterpillars.
Absolutely correct. The offside line is parallel with the goal line running through the hindmost points of the ruck on both sides. Any player not bound into the ruck beyond those lines is offside. No exceptions for scrum halfs.
Yet again however, referees have realised that they need to actually referee the laws as written in the IRB lawbook- there's a revelation. Law 15.17 "When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds." Perfectly clear. If the ball's at the back and possession is clearly won, you've got 5 seconds to use the ball or you lose possession. Not 10 minutes to wait for every remaining player on your team to join the ruck in a long line so the inept No. 9 can hoof the ball without being charged down.
BTW, it's a scrum to the opposition after 5 seconds not a free kick.
-
BTW, it's a scrum to the opposition after 5 seconds not a free kick.
So it is. (It's so rarely given that I'd forgotten - the sanction may as well be that the offending scrum half has to run a full lap of the pitch naked!)
-
Was thinking more that if ref is audible at least everybody is aware , and also one refs count may be quicker than anothers
-
Didn't Smalles get very upset when Gaskell helpfully counted down for him?
Yes indeed. Took a huge dislike to Jamma and pinged him off the park. Jamma changed his scrum cap at half time and he didn't get penalised the rest of the game. Smales is a dick😂
-
Didn't Smalles get very upset when Gaskell helpfully counted down for him?
Yes indeed. Took a huge dislike to Jamma and pinged him off the park. Jamma changed his scrum cap at half time and he didn't get penalised the rest of the game. Smales is a dick😂
I laughed out loud in the local Chinese takeaway when I read this. Got some funny looks!
-
I do not quite understand why referees are given orders to prioitise certain laws over others? Surely they should be applying all of them?
Who decided for example that in the last few months the back line being off side at the line out was suddenly going to be enforced vigorously, while ignoring the mess that is the breakdown?
I assume it is the Professional Referee Unit (PRU) management team of Ed Morrison, Brian Campsall and Tony Spreadbury? Do they take instruction from World Rugby, or the PRL or RFU? Or do they decide themselves based on what they see every week? Or maybe what the media happen to be wailing about at the moment?
Anybody know?
-
BaldPaul
I think the problem is that the best referees (Barnes, Owens) are applauded for allowing a game to flow - i.e. allowing certain infringements to go unpunished
Other referees are classed as whistle happy or having no empathy with the game if it's felt they penalise too many offences.
Based on that, the best referees ignore some laws to allow a game to flow
Lesser referees try to play closer to the laws.
-
I do not quite understand why referees are given orders to prioritise certain laws over others? Surely they should be applying all of them?
Who decided for example that in the last few months the back line being off side at the line out was suddenly going to be enforced vigorously, while ignoring the mess that is the breakdown?
I assume it is the Professional Referee Unit (PRU) management team of Ed Morrison, Brian Campsall and Tony Spreadbury? Do they take instruction from World Rugby, or the PRL or RFU? Or do they decide themselves based on what they see every week? Or maybe what the media happen to be wailing about at the moment?
Anybody know?
Yes they should. The issue is that coaches are always looking to get any possible advantage so will look for any perceived loopholes in the laws or more commonly, areas that are not properly refereed- the breakdown laws being the prime example. That's how we ended up with ridiculous actions like the "clear-out" and the bl**dy caterpillar. If referees applied the laws as they're written, both those actions would be pinged off the park. By the time the PRU realise what's happening these actions have become commonplace and they just get accepted- the tail is indeed wagging the dog. I'm guessing that they've noticed backlines encroaching at line outs and are attempting to put down a marker to prevent it becoming the norm. Sadly it's likely to mean other offences being ignored or going unnoticed.
-
Maybe I worded that slightly wrongly. I don't have an issue (& would expect most people to agree) with some infringements being ignored to allow the game to flow, play advantage etc.
But what I don't understand is ignoring infringements that are blatantly stopping the game from flowing.
And who decides which breach of laws should be focused on at any one time?
-
I believe it was NZ ref Paddy O'Brien who was the first IRB Referee's manager. He was quite dictatorial and outspoken and later went into politics after being removed by IRB. However, the damage was already done because the precedent of prioritising some laws and ignoring others was set.
I think the idea was to harmonise how the game was refereed for the 2007 World Cup. What followed was individual unions and competitions having referee managers who have employed the same style so confusing the way some laws are refereed. Rather than harmonisation we now have lots of enforced interpretations, which World Rugby ignores.
WR should get someone like Nigel Owens, who has a feel for the game and a track record as a good ref, to help as a consultant to sort out the mess. If WR were fit for purpose they should revise the lawbook to make it simpler and ensure the laws are applied the same way (as written) worldwide. Then referees, players, coaches, comentators and fans would know what's going on.
-
Completely agree about inconsistent refereeing especially at the breakdown. I also wonder whether things seem worse due to lockdown. We're all now being fed exclusively TV rugby. Also you have commentators or pundits confidently making calls in games only to be wrong on slow-mo's. It's a bit of a perfect storm for confusion.