[Maul] Not sure what to call this to be honest

[ChrisR]

This is not a situation where the team in possession can prevent the opponents any real chance of challenging for the ball (such as the ball at the back of a ruck, scrum or stalled maul). In those situations there is good reason for the referee to intervene.

In this case the non possession team has options to challenge for the ball (by tackling the BC) and the team in possession can advance. So there is no need for the referee to insert themselves. Sooner or later something will happen.

I don't think it's the referees job to ensure entertaining play. The spectator who paid for a seat is going to boo the players, not the ref.

 

[crossref]

.

I don't think it's the referees job to ensure entertaining play. The spectator who paid for a seat is going to boo the players, not the ref.

On the contrary, I think that at that level creating an enjoyable game to watch is, actually, a big part of the refs job

 

[ChuckieB]

On the contrary, I think that at that level creating an enjoyable game to watch is, actually, a big part of the refs job

Something the ref can facilitate but he can't carry the burden of reponsibility for the failure of two unwilling parties!

 

[ChrisR]

On the contrary, I think that at that level creating an enjoyable game to watch is, actually, a big part of the refs job

I kind of agree but the players are the show, not the ref.

However, you reminded me of when the rugby team I played for in Los Angeles played a ten minute match as a half time show at an LA Rams NFL game, back about 1960. (before I joined the team).

The referee got the teams together and said "I'll blow this whistle twice, kick-off and full time." Hell of a game by all accounts and the crowd started yelling "Bring back the rugby guys" when the Rams came back out.

We never got invited back.

 

[BikingBud]

What about the standing water? How can it be safe to play with puddles like that on the pitch?

 

[L'irlandais]

Weather you would not put a dog out in, by all accounts.

It had been raining all day, and a severe weather warning meant the game was almost called off. Having decided to play, as luck would have it, the rain started bucketing down even more after the kick off and didn't let up for the 80 minutes. source in French

The pressures of TV rugby I guess...

 

[didds]

Only if the players doing the obstructing are in front of the BC.


That's what I would have thought, but in the other clip I've seen it then shows White taking a PK.

That confused me a bit but watch the clip again and check the game time and you see the ref stick his arm out sideways at 45:27, and then the kicker is about to kick at 50:18. I cannot imagine the two pieces of action are consecutive given the almost five minutes game time difference - the clip is presumably taken from a highlights package. If I spoke French I might even spot what the voice over is saying which could be along the lines of "and 5 minutes later a kick ..." etc.

didds

 

[Balones]

Perhaps we've got to now introduce points against for passivity like they have in some other contact sports.

 

[didds]

Personally I did see enough for there to be a decision of stepping out. That aside, why should the referee do anything in this situation?
The players are not doing anything (neither right or wrong) so why should the ref? What's wrong with waiting until the players actually do something and then the ref can make a decision based on action. If players don't want to play you can't make them.
(Always assuming that the clock was not being deliberately run down.)

But who was then the side deliberately running the clock down? The attackers for not advancing or the defenders for not tackling/creating a maul? Both sides are equally "guilty" here.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

But who was then the side deliberately running the clock down? The attackers for not advancing or the defenders for not tackling/creating a maul? Both sides are equally "guilty" here.

didds

Running down the clock can only be to the advantage of one side.

..........Unless we go down to the scenario that happened in the round ball game some years ago between Germany and Austria, European Championships I think it was, where they needed to outcome to remain as it was in order for both teams to be sure to progress........

 

[Phil E]

where they needed to outcome to remain as it was in order for both teams to be sure to progress........

I have no idea what this means :shrug:

 

[ChuckieB]

Perhaps we've got to now introduce points against for passivity like they have in some other contact sports.

In a game lasting 80 minutes (or 99.55!) where there is never going one knock out punch, I think we have a long way to go before that happens...........Thank Goodness!

But, of course, a point very well made.

Sadly, you have put it on the radar. So never say, never!

 

[ChuckieB]

I have no idea what this means :shrug:

Group Stage. It got to 1-1(I think) which suited both teams. Any other result would have sent the other home. and they just passively passed the ball around for around the last 30 minutes, thereby by running the watch down.

 

[didds]

..........Unless we go down to the scenario that happened in the round ball game some years ago between Germany and Austria, European Championships I think it was, where they needed to outcome to remain as it was in order for both teams to be sure to progress........

didds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón

 

[didds]

Running down the clock can only be to the advantage of one side.

At 45 minutes on the clock and the score at 10-15 I'm not sure how running down the clock was of any real benefit to either team - maybe the team with 15 points, but they'd have to be prepared to stand there for the best part of 35 minutes. I find it very difficult to accept a call of "deliberate time wasting" at that juncture. Others MMV and If it was at 79 minutes i may well not disagree with such a call.
If it happened straighter kickoff at 00:01 wold it still be deliberate time wasting trying to run the clock down for 40 minutes until half time?

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

didds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón

Wrong championship
Even predates unification
Wrong score
Wrong amount of time......

But you get the drift.

A contrived result based around 80 minutes of timewasting!

 

[didds]

Then the buggers have done it twice! Blimey!

it sounded so much like the Gijon match I hadn't even realised there was another similar game between (effectively) the same teams!

Google steadfastly refuses to proffer any other hits for "germany austria european championships fix" so I remain ignorant of this second occurrence

cheers

didds

 

[ChrisR]

If it's not in Wiki it didn't happen. Fake news! Perhaps in an alternate universe.

 

[L'irlandais]

At 45 minutes on the clock and the score at 10-15 I'm not sure how running down the clock was of any real benefit to either team - maybe the team with 15 points, but they'd have to be prepared to stand there for the best part of 35 minutes. I find it very difficult to accept a call of "deliberate time wasting" at that juncture. Others MMV and If it was at 79 minutes i may well not disagree with such a call.
If it happened straighter kickoff at 00:01 wold it still be deliberate time wasting trying to run the clock down for 40 minutes until half time?

didds

Spot on.
Neither team is attempting to run the clock down. On a water logged pitch they produced a game with three tries scored, So both teams turned up to play. White's victory in the end has taken their team out of the relegation zone (for now). The loss for Red (Orange wet thru' apparently) means they cannot afford to lose any more matches this season.

Having conceded two tries in similar circumstances while a man down in the opening quarter, Red were reluctant to defend yet another driving maul inside their 22. Source : Rugbyrama (in French)

That confused me a bit but watch the clip again and check the game time and you see the ref stick his arm out sideways at 45:27, and then the kicker is about to kick at 50:18. I cannot imagine the two pieces of action are consecutive given the almost five minutes game time difference - the clip is presumably taken from a highlights package. If I spoke French I might even spot what the voice over is saying which could be along the lines of "and 5 minutes later a kick ..." etc.

didds

Not quite, he says something along the lines of " following the scrum, Nabonne get increasingly wound-up; only to conceded this penalty..."

 

[ChuckieB]

Then the buggers have done it twice! Blimey!

it sounded so much like the Gijon match I hadn't even realised there was another similar game between (effectively) the same teams!

Google steadfastly refuses to proffer any other hits for "germany austria european championships fix" so I remain ignorant of this second occurrence

cheers

didds

No, No, I got it wrong. You did the research!

I just changed world history. Oops!