Gloucester v Saracens

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Great game tonight between Gloucester and Sarrie, far better than RL and even with a very entertaining pushover try from a driving maul from a 5 yard line-out 😉

One thing I didn't get though was the TMO trying to get Karl Dickson to call play back for foul play by Owen Farrell which apparently was a RC offence, but he let play continue and OF went on to drop the winning goal. Seemed lucky for Sarries and harsh on Gloucester.

I also don't get why players are pinged for not rolling away when they're doing their best to roll but are impeded by the other team?!?
 

Decorily

Coach/Referee
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
1,563
Post Likes
425
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Great game tonight between Gloucester and Sarrie, far better than RL and even with a very entertaining pushover try from a driving maul from a 5 yard line-out 😉

One thing I didn't get though was the TMO trying to get Karl Dickson to call play back for foul play by Owen Farrell which apparently was a RC offence, but he let play continue and OF went on to drop the winning goal. Seemed lucky for Sarries and harsh on Gloucester.

I also don't get why players are pinged for not rolling away when they're doing their best to roll but are impeded by the other team?!?
Didn't see the game so no idea about Farrell.

The 'mantra' in relation to tacklers seems to be 'don't put yourself in that position and if you do then accept the consequences '!
 

BCH24

New member
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
22
Post Likes
2
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Should have been red.

TMO intervened (after TV commentators found it) but Karl Dickson wouldn't look at it because it wasn't within the last 5 phases of play. Which confused everyone.

So, red or yellow, Farrell shouldn't have been on the pitch to kick the winning drop goal.

Sarries also spent the whole evening on their bellies in rucks and sealing off. Don't know why they never seem to be told to arrive up.

Gloucester were also disallowed a try from a maul because the Austin spotted an accidental dummy throw by the hooker.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Incredible to think that an international level referee would believe that an incident of foul play can be ignored if more than 5 phases are played. Would they think the same if it was a clear stomp or a player KO'd on the floor?
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
554
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Incredible to think that an international level referee would believe that an incident of foul play can be ignored if more than 5 phases are played. Would they think the same if it was a clear stomp or a player KO'd on the floor?
Maybe a case of if more than 5 phases, ref can‘t be bothered to stop the game as they’ll get grief so leave to the citing official to deal with it?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Maybe a case of if more than 5 phases, ref can‘t be bothered to stop the game as they’ll get grief so leave to the citing official to deal with it?
But why permit a player who has committed an act of foul play which meets the RC threshold to continue to play in that match if you have the ability to do something about it? Would we be happy to let a player who stomped on another or eye gouged to continue to play? What happens to the enforcer of the other team if they chose to take it into their own hands if the referee is going to effectively ignore foul play based on technicalities? No wonder referee's cop flak when this sort of inconsistency appears in the guidelines.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
554
Post Likes
305
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
But why permit a player who has committed an act of foul play which meets the RC threshold to continue to play in that match if you have the ability to do something about it?
Personally, I’m not defending it more thinking why. I’ll try to find the match later if I have time to try and hear the TMO trying to engage the ref and work out how long after the initial event the issue was raised. And maybe there would be a different tone or urgency between “OF is tackling like OF again” vs. “Blue 3 just tried to clear out the ruck by attempting to unscrew Red 5’s head”

Does anyone know if there is some formal or informal limit that the TMO and/or top level refs use to limit how long to look back? (Just out of curiosity as I’m never going have a TMO (I never even get formal ARs.)
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Reluctance to engage the big beasts?
At the risk of sounding nasty - I see far too many referees at lower levels bottle important decisions because they are scared of the players. I can understand being uncomfortable in making a call to an aggressive big boy, but if you have a respectful relationship with the club, captain and players unpleasantness a very rare event IMO. And I always try to say - if you ignore this act of aggression and the next results in retribution and a serious injury - will you explain your reasoning to the family, their lawyers or the coroner. Maybe it's the safety engineer coming out in me but I'd prefer dealing with issues on the field than in an office or court.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,349
Post Likes
1,453
At the risk of sounding nasty - I see far too many referees at lower levels bottle important decisions because they are scared of the players. I can understand being uncomfortable in making a call to an aggressive big boy, but if you have a respectful relationship with the club, captain and players unpleasantness a very rare event IMO. And I always try to say - if you ignore this act of aggression and the next results in retribution and a serious injury - will you explain your reasoning to the family, their lawyers or the coroner. Maybe it's the safety engineer coming out in me but I'd prefer dealing with issues on the field than in an office or court.
I am...not a large person. 5'7" on a good day.

I have never once ducked a decision because of my concern of a player's reaction; my current situation suggests maybe I should have done. Kidding.

Earlier in my career, I've had 6'5" captains trying to take my space, towering over me, the lot. Staying calm, respectful, even in the face of assholery, and explaining the decision, and trusting to the codes of rugby, means that 99.9% of decisions can be safely delivered.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,082
Post Likes
2,350
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Karl Dickson told the TMO he couldn't review it because of the number of phases of play that had taken place.
This has proved to be incorrect, there is no limit on how far back you can go for foul play.
TMO didn't press the point or mention how serious it was.

Not a good night for the TO4.
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
717
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
......I also don't get why players are pinged for not rolling away when they're doing their best to roll but are impeded by the other team?!?
I'd say it is the tacklers responsibility to end up on the right side. If they end up on the defending side they've got to make an immediate effort to get out of the way. I often find players complaining about being trapped in, but they're only trapped as a) they put themselves there and b) they didnt take the opportunity that was available quickly to get out of the way, then got trapped.

If a player is genuinely trapped in with no opportunity to roll away I won't penalise, but if it's like I mentioned and they didn't make an effort, they'll get pinged.
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Karl Dickson told the TMO he couldn't review it because of the number of phases of play that had taken place.
This has proved to be incorrect, there is no limit on how far back you can go for foul play.
TMO didn't press the point or mention how serious it was.

Not a good night for the TO4.

There is no limit how many phases you can go back, however, you cannot go back further than the last restart, which I believe means a lineout, scrum or restart kick. In the Glo v Sar game, they were waiting to take the next lineout, therefore they could have reviewed the foul play.

In contrast, when reviewing a try, the TMO review can only consider an infringement that may have occurred in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scored, or in the preventing of a possible try from being scored.

Karl Dixon either got this totally wrong (mixed up with try review?), or said "was it in the current phase" when he really meant was it in the current period since the last restart. However, since this is a fundamental detail for TMO review, I find it a bigger concern that the TMO did not know the protocol correctly.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Good news that OF has been cited. Any bets on what he'll get - six weeks with four suspended? 😉
 
Top