Ref's

[jono]

it's part of the game.
refs are human.
the constant complaints are almost as frustrating nowdays

[jazza93]

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!

Yea, some of the laws are badly written and just plain out-dated.

People can start a discussion on that any-time. But this was a topic on the referee's "inconsistent and pedantic" decisions.

[Darren]

& as we all know,sometimes the law is a ass!

and sometimes an ass is the law ... *cough* kaplan*cough*

[jazza93]

And sorry,

yes, the team previously moving forward gets the ball in a ruck situation. :|

[welshrugbyfan]

It's all very simple.

If the ball becomes unplayable in a ruck it goes to the team that was moving forward just before the ruck began, failing that to the attacking team (the team in its opponent's half). The attacking team is always the team in it's opponents half of the field.

When the ball in a maul becomes unplayable the feed goes to the team that was not in possession of the ball when the maul began. If he can't tell who had the ball it'll go to the team moving forward prior to the maul, if neither team was moving it'll go to the attacking team.

If a player catches a ball upfield from a kick and a maul forms and the ball becomes unplayable the feed goes to the team from where the catcher of the ball comes from. Although this exception does not apply from a ball caught from a drop out or kick off.

The ref always gives a five second warning to get rid of the ball from a maul, use it or lose it. You'll hear him say, "Ok use it now". Ignore that and you deserve to lose it.

And Mark Lawrence is a good referee.

[brokendown gunfighter]

so,you cant attack from within your own half?
An englishman must have dreamed up that law!

[welshrugbyfan]

so,you cant attack from within your own half?
An englishman must have dreamed up that law!

I don't write the laws, or play by them.

Glad you said an englishman as well

[Ecky]

Oh

my

goodness!

Where does one start?

I know:

It's not the rules Jazza,it's the laws(just before Eckey reminds us)

Damn!

Yeh, what he said.

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

Not quite. The team who didn't take the ball into the maul gets the feed. I guess that's what you meant?

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...

I haven't watched much of the televised stuff this season, but if you get a "superman" and the player fails to bind as per the law, then he is liable to a different penalty to the player leaving his feet. The player leaving his feet is ususally pinged if he lands near the ball, thereby preventing a contest. If he lands a metre or so past the ball the ref may decide the contest for the ball is still on, so may not penalise.

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...

General rule of thumb: If the infringement takes place before the ball is fed it is a free kick. If it occurs after the feed it is a penalty. Not always, but use this as a general guide.

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.

Remember the maul must be advancing. If it is moving sideways it is not advancing, so use it or lose it. I reckon this is the most frequent cause of the turnover ball.

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!

You already said he doesn't loosen his bind. He doesn't detach. If he is complying with the law then he is fine; play on.

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.

Yeh. What I just said, hey?

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.

I went to a coaching talk given by Warren Robilliard a few years back and he made the point that teams might make the decision to not contest the (usually) line out and stand back a few metres, then commit one player to tackle the ball carrier, thus halting what would otherwise be a maul. He also pointed out that this would take a great deal of testicular fortitude and he doubted that any team would actually try it.

Yea, some of the laws are badly written and just plain out-dated.

People can start a discussion on that any-time. But this was a topic on the referee's "inconsistent and pedantic" decisions.

You started the discussion! Which laws are badly written and out-dated? (please bear in mind that I don't write 'em; I just apply 'em)

If a player catches a ball upfield from a kick and a maul forms and the ball becomes unplayable the feed goes to the team from where the catcher of the ball comes from. Although this exception does not apply from a ball caught from a drop out or kick off.

Nearly. Only if the maul forms immediately upon fielding/catching the ball.

And Mark Lawrence is a good referee.

I like his style. Don't always agree with his decisions, but I like his style. So much so that I try to emulate it.

so,you cant attack from within your own half?

Surely you are mistaken! Why not? From whence does this conclusion derive?

[jazza93]

You started the discussion! Which laws are badly written and out-dated? (please bear in mind that I don't write 'em; I just apply 'em)

It's about time we update what constitutes "binding onto a ruck". Currently the law may as well not exist. (Law 16.2)

Either we re-define it into something that refs can actually follow. Or get rid of the concept all together.

[Ecky]

(a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Penalty: Free Kick
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team mate, using the whole arm.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

That's the law. Pretty straightforward, innit?

It's another matter entirely as to how the law is applied.....

[jazza93]

Sure its 'straight forward'. But (at the top level at least), only rules (A) and (D) are being applied.

I don't think i've ever given a penalty for incorrect binding at the ruck. The ruck contest is evolving and a few of the laws could do with an update. We could turn the binding rules at the ruck into ones that are actually enforceable (in this day and age), which may give us a better reason to penalize 'Du Pessis' type rucking.

Something along the lines of...

(A) Players must keep shoulders higher than hips.
(B) Players must bind to *Any* other player in the ruck.
(C) Players in a ruck must push/progress towards the opposition goal line.
(D) Players must remain on their feet.

We could ping this wrestling style of rucking under the current ruling. But that just isn't happening. So creating a rule that forbids the act of pulling a player out of the side of a ruck will help.

Personally i see room for improvement in this aspect of the laws. Obviously my example isn't great, but anything that makes this law more relevant to the current ruck contest will do.