Ref's

[BDAVEY]

Is it me, am i missing something, dont understand why refs are being so inconsistent and pedantic in their decisions eg
1.0 When the ball is nearly at the number 8 feet the scrum collapses and resets it!!
2.0 When you have 100 kg foward trying to stay on his feet and other fowards pushing etc and he gets pinged for falling over, i can understand if he kills the ball from coming out.
3.0 why when the maul is going forward and it doesnt come straight out, like the ref counts to 3, goodness sake, the team going forward doesnt get the scrum feed.

List goes on.... rugby's entainment factor ???????? I felt for the Lions last week for the first 15 min and then he turn on to the EWF and we got pinged.

Maybe some of the forum can enlighten me... PLEASE DO

[jazza93]

1. Safety/ Teams collapsing the scrum once they have won it. Do you want to encourage that?

2. I don't understand what your saying. Players need to stay on their feet, or roll away. The rules are clear on how the referee should act. Players have access to these rules.

3. Maul rules are clear as well.

The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Ball unplayable is a feed to the defending team at the ruck or maul.

If that is unclear, the team going forward gets the feed.



We had one of the best ref's in the world last week, where do you think he went wrong?

[Burgs]

Well that just made the Maul even more confusing to most...

[palitu]

no, if a maul collapses, and the ball cannot come out, then in most instances, the defending team will get the feed.

The going off the feet and at the breakdown is very inconsistant. There are numerous case of "Superman" into a ruck that doesn't get called, then bang! a diving in is called and gives the game away...

Scrum collapses, i have no idea. There seems to be times that they are called, and others they are not. Others still result in a free kick / penalty. They do shit me when on the first scrum, which collapses, they call a penalty. Reset it and if it happens again, then penalise. But first scrum of the game??? Reset and try again... we aren't sick of it yet...

[shasta]

Well that just made the Maul even more confusing to most...

Just me' or does it seem that the whistleblowers are too quick to demand that the team in possession use it far too quickly too often? Often, it seems to me, this happens when they are just starting to gain some ascendancy and go forward, just not quickly enough for the ref's liking. The maul when executed correctly is a great feature of the game. Leave it alone, but FFS get a bit more active in policing obstruction.

[GIGS20]

I hate when they call use it because an opposition players hand is on the ball, but that opposition player has climbed around the outside of the maul. You usually see it when the maul rolls, the player binds correctly, doesn't loosen his bind, but the maul rolls, he doesn't detach, just crushes in when he hits the side and grabs the ball carrier. He's still offside if I understand law!

[BDAVEY]

Just me' or does it seem that the whistleblowers are too quick to demand that the team in possession use it far too quickly too often? Often, it seems to me, this happens when they are just starting to gain some ascendancy and go forward, just not quickly enough for the ref's liking. The maul when executed correctly is a great feature of the game. Leave it alone, but FFS get a bit more active in policing obstruction.

exactly

[BDAVEY]

1. Safety/ Teams collapsing the scrum once they have won it. Do you want to encourage that?

2. I don't understand what your saying. Players need to stay on their feet, or roll away. The rules are clear on how the referee should act. Players have access to these rules.

3. Maul rules are clear as well.



Ball unplayable is a feed to the defending team at the ruck or maul.

If that is unclear, the team going forward gets the feed.



We had one of the best ref's in the world last week, where do you think he went wrong?

Best in the world, I dont think so.... the best were in Europe for the 6 nations. If he's the best I am selling my RWC final tickets

1, so having 25% more scrums of which a % collapsing thats not very safe?
2. But there is no common sense gee they try and stay but they are big men.... sure some bluntly kill the ball
3,mauls are not clear when they are going forward and it stalls for a while as the forwards regroup the ball is deemed stationary and thuis must be used.... scrap, the maul is a fanatstic piece of tachical gamemanship

[BDAVEY]

1. Safety/ Teams collapsing the scrum once they have won it. Do you want to encourage that?

2. I don't understand what your saying. Players need to stay on their feet, or roll away. The rules are clear on how the referee should act. Players have access to these rules.

3. Maul rules are clear as well.



Ball unplayable is a feed to the defending team at the ruck or maul.

If that is unclear, the team going forward gets the feed.



We had one of the best ref's in the world last week, where do you think he went wrong?

Best in the world, I dont think so.... the best were in Europe for the 6 nations. If he's the best I am selling my RWC final tickets

1, so having 25% more scrums of which a % collapsing thats not very safe?
2. But there is no common sense gee they try and stay but they are big men.... sure some bluntly kill the ball
3,mauls are not clear when they are going forward and it stalls for a while as the forwards regroup, the ball is deemed stationary and thus must be used.... crap, the maul is a fanatstic piece of tachical gamemanship

[James]

I get most annoyed when players are on the oppositions side of the ruck getting in the way. The Reds were doing it to annoyingly good effect against the Rebels. The ABs do that all the time. Very annoying.

The mauls may be a part of the game but they are near impossible to defend against. It's fair enough that if the opposition manages to halt it then the ball must be played.

[beige]

Best in the world, I dont think so.... the best were in Europe for the 6 nations. If he's the best I am selling my RWC final tickets

1, so having 25% more scrums of which a % collapsing thats not very safe?
2. But there is no common sense gee they try and stay but they are big men.... sure some bluntly kill the ball
3,mauls are not clear when they are going forward and it stalls for a while as the forwards regroup, the ball is deemed stationary and thus must be used.... crap, the maul is a fanatstic piece of tachical gamemanship

Geez I thought my posts were hard to follow...

[jazza93]

Best in the world, I dont think so.... the best were in Europe for the 6 nations. If he's the best I am selling my RWC final tickets

Why don't you name a few better refs?

1, so having 25% more scrums of which a % collapsing thats not very safe?

The unsafe aspect is players still pushing in a scrum when it goes down. When props go down on very awkward angles, the last thing they need is 500kg of weight continuing driving them into the ground. You have to pull it up at some point.

You may as well say that we shouldn't reset a scrum when players start boaring in on the tighthead because more scrums could result in more boaring on the tighthead. But lucky super15 refs don't use circular reasoning.

2. But there is no common sense gee they try and stay but they are big men.... sure some bluntly kill the ball

Rules are rules. We can't read players minds to measure if a player is cheating on purpose. This is hardly valid criticism of referee's.

Obviously referee's try to interpret a players intent to an extent. But it is a slippery slope to go down...

3,mauls are not clear when they are going forward and it stalls for a while as the forwards regroup, the ball is deemed stationary and thus must be used.... crap, the maul is a fanatstic piece of tachical gamemanship.

What part of: "Ball unplayable is a feed to the defending team at the ruck or maul." Don't you understand?

That is the primary ruling.

The second part of the rule is just there to help the ref make a decision if the former is unclear.

Maybe some of the forum can enlighten me... PLEASE DO

Are you here to understand the rules as you indicated in your thread? Or are you here to complain regardless?

I don't mind if its the latter, just don't lure people in here pretending you want them to explain the rules to you.

[OzFUB]

A mate of mine was talking to the Llanelli Scarletts coaches and they told him they don't practice moves off scrums any more as they so rarely get clean ball off a scrum its not worth the bother.

Would like to see ref playing the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

[brokendown gunfighter]

Why don't you name a few better refs?



The unsafe aspect is players still pushing in a scrum when it goes down. When props go down on very awkward angles, the last thing they need is 500kg of weight continuing driving them into the ground. You have to pull it up at some point.

You may as well say that we shouldn't reset a scrum when players start boaring in on the tighthead because more scrums could result in more boaring on the tighthead. But lucky super15 refs don't use circular reasoning.



Rules are rules. We can't read players minds to measure if a player is cheating on purpose. This is hardly valid criticism of referee's.

Obviously referee's try to interpret a players intent to an extent. But it is a slippery slope to go down...



What part of: "Ball unplayable is a feed to the defending team at the ruck or maul." Don't you understand?

That is the primary ruling.

The second part of the rule is just there to help the ref make a decision if the former is unclear.



Are you here to understand the rules as you indicated in your thread? Or are you here to complain regardless?

I don't mind if its the latter, just don't lure people in here pretending you want them to explain the rules to you.

It's not the rules Jazza,it's the laws(just before Eckey reminds us)
& as we all know,sometimes the law is a ass!

[GIGS20]

I thought an unplayable ball at a ruck was given based upon which way it was moving before it became unplayable.

Maul is definite, if unused, then the ball goes to the defense. I don't think bill is so much complaining about the law, more about the paucity of opportunity the attacking team has to get the maul started/reset. I think that will be a never-ending argument, with where you fall depending on how you feel about the maul as a tactic. I personally fall more on the James side of the fence. If it's moved, and the opposition can stop it long enough (or often enough) for the ref to say use it once, use it twice ok, that's it you're pinged, then I'd reckon they've done a pretty good job.

I do dislike when the maul forms, and nobody's got set and the ref calls use it before everything's been sorted out. Teams should be given more time to GET it moving that they are to KEEP it moving. That seems to provide balance to me. And Mark Lawrence didn't do a bad job IMHO

As for best in the world? Not close, but he's better than most we've had this year fer sure