5th Lions match

[scrumpox2]

The slomo seemed to catch the ref out on 3 occasions:-

1. Lions defensive set called offside at ruck time ... replay showed they were on
2. Stephen Jones knock on - ball clearly went backwards, then bounced forwards
3. Ugo Monye pinged for ball not travelling 5m when throwing a line out ball in to himself in his own 22

... ooh there were 3 sharp intakes of breath down the club house !!!

... and which Australian taught that WP replacement LH to scrummage? LMAO

 

[ddjamo]

if he only missed those 3...must have done a hell of a job! have yet to watch it, but anticipate a well ref'd match....thanks scrumpox2!

 

[Donal1988]

I thought he was the best referee we have had on this tour.

 

[Scarlet Al]

Lawrence was superb.

Top notch fair play to him.

 

[Donal1988]

I think that we actually got 3 of the top referees in the world together outside of the tests:

Western Province - Mark Lawrence
Southern Kings - Nigel Owens
Emerging Springboks - Allain Rolland

The standard at test level could be a step down from this lot.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Mr Lawrence had a good match but he made a few errors - the Moyne QT being the major one and denying the Lions of an attacking opportunity.

The intakes of breath Scrumpox heard was me sipping my London pride at the bar ! Jenks made up the trio of RRF referees in our clubhouse.

 

[TheBFG]

Anyone else think that the Arse (Not WB, other one) was trying to make a bit of a name for himself?

3 things come to mind,

first was a touch call when he was 50 yrds away (not his fault, attempted PK missed) the clearance kick was to the near side and he made a call when he was further away than the ref???

Next was pulling back Shaw for taking the QT from the wrong spot (which was bad option anyway!) but boy was that close!

And the last, was the hit by Powell on the WP centre, yes it was a big hit but as the player bounced off it wasn’t possible for Powell to hold on. When a player makes the hit “on their terms” the player will quiet often go back in the tackle. At least when ask by ref he only went with the PK and no yellow

 

[OB..]

first was a touch call when he was 50 yrds away (not his fault, attempted PK missed) the clearance kick was to the near side and he made a call when he was further away than the ref???

Surely it is his primary job to call touch? He is better placed than the ref to see if the ball has gone into touch, though he may not be best placed to say exactly where.

 

[TheBFG]

Surely it is his primary job to call touch? He is better placed than the ref to see if the ball has gone into touch, though he may not be best placed to say exactly where.

the ref was closer as he only had to come across the pitch where as the Ars had to run 60+ yrds, from what happened the ref played on as he was closer and looked happy but the Ars put his flag up, from the middle of the pitch some 40+ yrds away??? just didn't think he was in position to do so.

Possible csae for "in goal assisstants" for this exact reason, Ars can then be waiting for potential kick to touch?:chin:

 

[OB..]

Didn't see it, but the referee is perfectly entitled to overrule the AR.

 

[Dixie]

Didn't see it, but the referee is perfectly entitled to overrule the AR.

OB, the PK was a long kick at goal. AR was positioned for such, behind the posts. Ref was by the kicker. The kick fell short, pretty much between the posts, and the defender fielded the ball and kicked for touch. An attacking player made an effort to keep the ball from going into touch.

TJ of course was way out of position - as BFG says, not his fault. Referee was closer to the action by a considerable margin, though perhaps by then a little further infield. In truth, as the call was very tight neither was in a postiion to say whether the attacking player had succeeded or failed.

The referee allowed play to continue (though perhaps communicating with his AR?), and then the AR raised his flag to bring play back. Ref went with the AR's call. If the pair of them made the decision alone, I'd say they guessed. I might hope (in a fully miked-up game) that the 4th official might have been able to assist in the call.

Assuming no official was positioned to make a tight call, should they halt the play or let it flow?

 

[Simon Thomas]

I might hope (in a fully miked-up game) that the 4th official might have been able to assist in the call.

No way would 4th official input any call except to announce replacements at a break in play.

 

[OB..]

Are we saying the AR is wrong to make the call as best he can?

If they are miked up, he could ask the ref to decide.

If they are not, it is surely his job to do his best and let the referee overrule him if appropriate. If he does not signal, the referee will surely assume that he thought the ball was not in touch.

 

[TheBFG]

My original point was Ars was never in a position to make the call!

other points?

QT by Shaw????

tackle by Powell???

 

[OB..]

My original point was Ars was never in a position to make the call!

And my point is that the AR should do his best and let the referee overrule him if appropriate.

If he does nothing merely because he decides he is too far out of position, he is relying on the referee to guess that.

It may even be a point the referee covers in his pre-match brief.

I see it as a harsh criticism.

 

[Phil E]

In those instances its more important for the AR to get onto the touchline and look along it, rather than get close to the spot. The AR if I remember rightly was inside the 5m line looking towards the ball, so was actually in a better position than the ref who was infield, even if the ref may have actually been closer.

Edit: Also as I recall the AR had his flag up very soon, but the ref seemed to have to look round to find him becasue he wasn't in his expected spot. Ref saw him as he came running up the 5m channel with his flag raised.

 

[TheBFG]

In those instances its more important for the AR to get onto the touchline and look along it, rather than get close to the spot. The AR if I remember rightly was inside the 5m line looking towards the ball, so was actually in a better position than the ref who was infield, even if the ref may have actually been closer.

Edit: Also as I recall the AR had his flag up very soon, but the ref seemed to have to look round to find him becasue he wasn't in his expected spot. Ref saw him as he came running up the 5m channel with his flag raised.

agree to disagree on this one i thought he was 15/20m in field with his flag up and to be fair to the ref once he saw the flag up he went back for it, but still feel he wasn't in position to make the call. Should have let play go:wink:

 

[Dixie]

OB, your argument seems to be that the AR's way of signalling "I don't know and you are closer than me" should be to raise his flag. As officials, suirely our default should be to play on - in other words, only flag for touch if we are sure that the ball has gone out of play. If we suspect a knock-on but don't see it, we play on. If we suspect someone has grabbed a pair of goolies at the bottom of a ruck, we play on but have words at the next breakdown.

In the bad old days when I played, an attempted QT was almost always pinged as "not straight" by an official who was nowhere near the action. It was clear that the instinct, if not the instruction, was to prevent quick, positive play that could not be overseen with exactitude. I had hoped we'd moved beyond such defensive and essentially negative attitudes.

 

[OB..]

OB, your argument seems to be that the AR's way of signalling "I don't know and you are closer than me" should be to raise his flag.

No. Definitely not. He should simply use his best judgement unless there is some agreement in place or they are miked up. Then the referee knows the situation and can overrule if appropriate.

As officials, suirely our default should be to play on - in other words, only flag for touch if we are sure that the ball has gone out of play.

We have to use our best judgement. Demanding certainty is OTT.

In the bad old days when I played, an attempted QT was almost always pinged as "not straight" by an official who was nowhere near the action. It was clear that the instinct, if not the instruction, was to prevent quick, positive play that could not be overseen with exactitude. I had hoped we'd moved beyond such defensive and essentially negative attitudes.

Not my recollection. But irrelevant.

 

[scrumpox2]

The slomo replay of the Powell tackle, as with the 3 in my OP, showed the ref got a tight call wrong ... it's understandable, that's the way it goes, the ref gets one shot at it, at full speed. I have no expectation that a ref will get every call right so no criticism was implied.

The replacement LH was fortunate he wasn't brought on sooner, a YC for incompetence was due at the next scrum ...