Bledisloe 3 - the sacrifice of the...

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
Two incidents for me. One blindingly obvious, the other confusing.

Jordie Barrett (who, with his brother, account for 33% of AB red cards) sent off for doing a Hastings. Went up to collect a high ball, extended his leg, with the end results of studs in face of Koroibete.
Offski. The commentators eventually agreed, and used it as vindication of the 20 minute red.

The other one confused me a bit. Unfortunately I don't have video or a time stamp but:
AB chasing Australian player.
Effects tackle around the legs.
Both go to ground.
Tackle is completed.
Australian player tries to get to his feet.
AB doesn't release.
AB penalized for failing to release and (the audio wasn't clear) not letting Aus get back to his feet.

I had a "whut?" moment, and still do.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,650
Post Likes
1,717
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Two incidents for me. One blindingly obvious, the other confusing.

Jordie Barrett (who, with his brother, account for 33% of AB red cards) sent off for doing a Hastings. Went up to collect a high ball, extended his leg, with the end results of studs in face of Koroibete.
Offski. The commentators eventually agreed, and used it as vindication of the 20 minute red.

Well, I'm going have disagree with you about the RC. Sorry

Its all about balance... Black 15 is rotating backwards, if he doesn't do something to mitigate that rotation (and pretty much his only option is to stick a leg out) he risks flipping over and landing on his back/shoulder. If he keeps his leg back, or even worse, tucks it up, he will increase his rotation - that's plain ordinary laws of physics (called conservation of angular momentum). Ask any gymnast, or tumbler, or trampolinist, or high-diver how important your legs are to body rotation. Additionally, if he hadn't put his leg out, Korobete could have run into him while he was still in the air, and flipped him over.

Now I don't blame the referee at all for this ludicrous state of affairs... I blame the fecking clueless morons at World Rugby - they encourage players to jump as high in the air as they can to compete for the ball, then they further encourage them by giving them mandatory protection in the laws - "Protect the man in the air at all costs", until a player in the air has to protect himself, then all of a sudden, its the player in the air who's at fault.

The clueless morons don't have the first fecking idea why things like this happen! Idiots one and all.

The other one confused me a bit. Unfortunately I don't have video or a time stamp but:
AB chasing Australian player.
Effects tackle around the legs.
Both go to ground.
Tackle is completed.
Australian player tries to get to his feet.
AB doesn't release.
AB penalized for failing to release and (the audio wasn't clear) not letting Aus get back to his feet.

I had a "whut?" moment, and still do.

Yup, saw that. I think Retallick was the tackler - he had a "whut" moment too

Ya gotta let him up! Amirite?

Oh, wait.


[RANT]
I've reached to almost the end of my patience with Rugby.... my more that 50 year love of the game has all but gone. Rugby has changed to the point where I hardly even recognise it as the same game. If you want to protect players from head high and neck high tackles, fine - make it illegal to tackle above the waist. If you want to prevent player in the air from being flipped over, fine - make it illegal for players to jump to catch a kicked ball.

Right back to the yellow carding of Finn Russell for not having the vision and reaction time of Superman, through several other incomprehensible decisions to this one are, to me, symptoms of a game that has lost its way. World Rugby are killing the game, and they're too fecking stupid to realise it.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
Yeah, it was the Retallick incident. Glad to know I wasn't the only one!

I didn;t comment on the validity of premise of how the game deals with players in the air...Simply that under the current guidelines, it was stonewall.

I think I disagree with your analysis on a couple of things, based on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE8yjTAJdYM

1. If he had left his kicking leg down, he wouldn't have been falling backwards. Flipping his leg up like onloy increases his rotation.
2. Koroibete MAY have hit him, but it looked to me like he had put the brakes on and was going to hit him when he landed.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,650
Post Likes
1,717
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
OK, I've just had a chance to watch again on Sky highlights.

Barrett is definitely rotating backwards, and that rotation stops before his foot strikes Korobete's face, so he ends up falling straight down on his back. I disagree with your assertion that throwing a leg out like that increases rotation. It in fact does the opposite.

Honestly, even if this wasn't the trial law, and instead the RC put them down to 14 for the rest of that match, the Wallabies were so woeful that it would not have made a difference to the result. However, having the RC player allowed to be replaced after 20 minutes highlights the problem World Rugby have created for themselves. They have reduced the level of foul play at which a player can be RC, and in so doing, have left more serious offences without a more serious punishment. It is ludicrous that an accident like this (even if you judge it to be reckless) gets the same punishment as a player eye-gouging an opponent, or biting him, or wilfully stamping on his head.

The need for Law 9 to be revised is greater now that it has ever been. It should be split into three parts instead of two - Unfair Play for infringements that are technical in nature with no risk of injury to an opponent, Dangerous Play for infringements that occur in the normal course of play, where the infringer acts accidentally, negligently or recklessly (but not intentionally), and Intentional Foul Play for offences where the player intentionally strikes or assaults an opponent or an official. You should only be able to be sent off and not replaced at all for offences in the last category (black card?)
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,652
Post Likes
244
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Let's be clear, Barrett, (and many others over the years) put himself in that position where he was recklessly out of control.
He put his studs into an opponents face, red all day long. The ref was 100% correct.
Would those who argue against the card change their mind if Korobete had lost an eye?
Even if Barrett had missed his face, I would penalise for dangerous play.

I played fullback back in the day albeit at a lower level and in different times, never jumped for a ball once. If fullbacks adopted this approach, 9 times out of 10 the jumping chaser is going to collide and land badly! just an opinion.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
302
Post Likes
44
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Now I don't blame the referee at all for this ludicrous state of affairs... I blame the fecking clueless morons at World Rugby - they encourage players to jump as high in the air as they can to compete for the ball, then they further encourage them by giving them mandatory protection in the laws - "Protect the man in the air at all costs", until a player in the air has to protect himself, then all of a sudden, its the player in the air who's at fault.

The clueless morons don't have the first fecking idea why things like this happen! Idiots one and all.

Yup,

[RANT]
I've reached to almost the end of my patience with Rugby.... my more that 50 year love of the game has all but gone. Rugby has changed to the point where I hardly even recognise it as the same game. If you want to protect players from head high and neck high tackles, fine - make it illegal to tackle above the waist. If you want to prevent player in the air from being flipped over, fine - make it illegal for players to jump to catch a kicked ball.

Right back to the yellow carding of Finn Russell for not having the vision and reaction time of Superman, through several other incomprehensible decisions to this one are, to me, symptoms of a game that has lost its way. World Rugby are killing the game, and they're too fecking stupid to realise it.

Yup

Yup

YUP
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,963
Post Likes
1,824
If a player jumps in such a way that he has to stick out his foot to control rotation, that player has blundered, and done so in such a way as to be dangerous to an opponent.

(Yes, I do know about rotation in diving - my daughter was an international.)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,650
Post Likes
1,717
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If a player jumps in such a way that he has to stick out his foot to control rotation, that player has blundered, and done so in such a way as to be dangerous to an opponent.

(Yes, I do know about rotation in diving - my daughter was an international.)

OB, players are being encouraged to jump as high as they can, by being repeatedly told by the lawmakers and referees that if they don't jump higher than the other guy, they will automatically be ruled at fault, and will be red carded if the opponent lands on his head.

I submit that when you ask players to do things that are beyond the margins of safety, YOU WILL get mistakes - it is unavoidable - the faster you go, the worse the crash; the higher you jump, the more likely you are to make a mistake of balance or timing, the more risk you take of suffering big fall.

This business of protecting the player in the air has become an utter farce. If World Rugby are actually serious about preventing players getting injured, either outlaw jumping to claim possession of a kicked ball, or limit who is allowed to jump for it (either the kicking team or the receiving team), or adopt a variation of the basketball rule I have outlined previously, but don't encourage players to play beyond the margins of safety and then punish them for errors of judgement when they do.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
10,858
Post Likes
1,236
[RANT]
I've reached to almost the end of my patience with Rugby.... my more that 50 year love of the game has all but gone. Rugby has changed to the point where I hardly even recognise it as the same game. .

I sympathise and empathise Ian. I suspect though that if you watch your local club, especially your local U21s/colts you'll see a game that is closer to what you hanker for.

I like watching elite level rugby - but I dont view as important any more really.

didds
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,963
Post Likes
1,824
OB, players are being encouraged to jump as high as they can, by being repeatedly told by the lawmakers and referees that if they don't jump higher than the other guy, they will automatically be ruled at fault, and will be red carded if the opponent lands on his head.

That is not quite what I observe.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,481
Post Likes
1,688
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
The need for Law 9 to be revised is greater now that it has ever been. It should be split into three parts instead of two - Unfair Play for infringements that are technical in nature with no risk of injury to an opponent, Dangerous Play for infringements that occur in the normal course of play, where the infringer acts accidentally, negligently or recklessly (but not intentionally), and Intentional Foul Play for offences where the player intentionally strikes or assaults an opponent or an official. You should only be able to be sent off and not replaced at all for offences in the last category (black card?)

I'm not keen on that. I'm already carting a round a red card, a yellow card and a blue card ... 3's enough.

More importantly, the 20 mins is designed to help prevent a game turning into a 1-sided affair, which is a good thing. Heinous foul play will appropriately be dealt with by the judiciary.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
Perhaps OB can help me out here, because I disagree with Ian and his stance on rotation.

If I lean slightly backwards, and bring my legs up towards me, does that not increase my likelihood of continuing to rotate backwards? It doesn't seem to me to stop the rotation.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,481
Post Likes
1,688
Current Referee grade:
Level 2

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,650
Post Likes
1,717
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Perhaps OB can help me out here, because I disagree with Ian and his stance on rotation.

If I lean slightly backwards, and bring my legs up towards me, does that not increase my likelihood of continuing to rotate backwards? It doesn't seem to me to stop the rotation.

If you tuck your leg(s) up while rotating you will increase your rotation rate in the same direction

If you throw your leg(s) out rotating you will decrease your rotation rate the same direction

Its a Law of Physics called "conservation of angular momentum".

This guy uses his arms to demonstrate the change in axial rotation, but it is exactly the same principle in all planes of rotation. The law applies to a multitude of things in nature and engineering, from the spinning of a figure skater to the supernova collapse of a star into a neutron star with a spin rate measured in hundred of revolutions per second.

 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,963
Post Likes
1,824
If you tuck your leg(s) up while rotating you will increase your rotation rate in the same direction

If you throw your leg(s) out rotating you will decrease your rotation rate the same direction

So he threw his legs out to reduce his rotation - which implies he was rotating initially. Why?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,481
Post Likes
1,688
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
So he threw his legs out to reduce his rotation - which implies he was rotating initially. Why?

have you not seen the event?
 

thepercy


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
923
Post Likes
147
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Honestly, even if this wasn't the trial law, and instead the RC put them down to 14 for the rest of that match, the Wallabies were so woeful that it would not have made a difference to the result.

How would one know? This is an amazingly idiotic statement. Your glasses are tinted so black that you can't see.
 
Top