Search results

I'm lying by a pool in Tukiye 😎

I agree. This is a referee who has either lost, or is on the verge of losing, control. An angry sports official is never a good look. There's a danger that younger refs watch this being "applauded" and think it should be emulated. Maybe CT posted it as a reasonable reason why a ref shouldn't...

The ref's job is to show the red card and ensure the tournament organiser is aware. Any sanction will then be in his/her hands. I expect this type of incident wouldn't be specifically covered in the tournament rules so a common sense decision likely.

that's somewhat of a different situation. To use your vernacular, what would be your view if the team appointed 2 "match day captains"?

its my pronoun of choice. Hypothetical: pair of co-captains come to pre-match toss, one calls heads and the other calls tails. Watchagonnado?

So I think you're saying: 1. if you have doubt about grounding go for 5m scrum, but 2. to avoid ever having to give 5m scrum, even if you have doubt, make sure you don't have doubt Correct?

Did Harry's dad get an invite? :unsure:

so in what way were they co-captains? Sounds like a captain and a vice-captain. I stand by my view. If I am going to give a general warning I'm only going to be giving it to 1 player. If I give a scrum/lineout option, I only want 1 reply. If I ask players to go through their captain, I don't...

totally agree. You don't realise how shite your secondary signals are til you see yourself on vid

It is being increasingly common in Australian Rules football for a team to have co-captains, leaderships groups, etc. Doesn't really matter in that game as the captain only has a role at the coin toss. I'm starting to see it flow into rugby with teams having co-captains. Its a bit frustrating...

Reffed a schools' 1st XV game today. White #7 was tackled hard, chest to chest. Legal, but a real bone cruncher. He went to ground and laid the ball back, but he looked a bit like a rag-doll, not much movement, but no clear sign of injury. I thought "hmmm, best keep an eye on the young fella"...

I'd start by asking my AR what he/she saw

Back to the pile up then. So you would only give a scrum if you can't see any of the ball? Ie if you can see that the ball is eventually off the ground but you have no idea what happened leading up to that, you'd go GLDO?

talk me through the "what's the score?" decision process

this makes little sense to me. You could just as legitimately have said that you don't have any doubt that it is a try. You can't see what happened ie you can't see the ball being grounded but likewise you can't see the ball not being grounded. If you said to the players that you have no doubt...

Phil, what would be done in this scenario: Speedster ball carrier is tackled by speedster chaser in the corner and on the goal line. By the time you get there the ball carrier is on his back with ball on chest but claiming he grounded it. Would the RFU be suggesting 5m scrum?

after due consideration and failing something from RA that tells me differently, I'll be having only 2 possible outcomes: a try or a GLDO. However, if RA sanctioned the 3rd option of a 5m scrum for the Schrödinger's Try, I'd be OK with that

it's not unheard of for an attacking ball carrier to step on or over DBL in an effort to score between the sticks

It never occurred to me to use 21.17 in that way ... I like it. It raises another issue for me. As a community level referee in Australia I don't have a reliable way of finding out if that's kosher here too. I could throw up the question on our FB page and then I'd get 40 referees offering 45...

which law is that? Are you thinking 21.17?