Gloucester v Saracens

[belladonna]

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]

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 '!

 

[crossref]

driving maul from a 5 yard line-out

5 yard ? How old are you, Belladonna ?

 

[crossref]

Here is the tackle

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611476516927426575

RC YC PK only ??

 

[didds]

how is that not RC?

 

[BCH24]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[crossref]

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? .

Reluctance to engage the big beasts?

 

[Volun-selected]

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]

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.

 

[Stu10]

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2022/06/17/d96beea2-759d-4856-b8db-f4aa13d5cc75/2022-TMO-protocol-Approved-by-Council-May-2022-v2.pdf

Regarding the current discussion, check the last section of the linked document.

 

[SimonSmith]

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]

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.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Karl Dixon seems to get mentioned in dispatches a lot recently.

 

[Phil E]

Farrell has been cited.

 

[Zebra1922]

......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]

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]

Good news that OF has been cited. Any bets on what he'll get - six weeks with four suspended?