NZ v Ireland Test 2 - Red card situation with Savea

[didds]

"Where play would restart" -I doubt any ref would try to count the players with the ball in play, so at the next stoppage award PK and restart from there.

Of course, what do you give if the next stoppage is the scoring of a try??????

Or the next stoppage is eg a knock on/lineout from a tackle that prevented an otherwise probable try ... where the defenders have too many players...

but the tackler was definitely in the starting 15...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Most of the games I ref i have met the captains before .
Almost all of those captains I trust
If one of them suddenly told me the oppo had 16 people on the field I actually think I'd believe him and blow my whistle.

And what would you do if he was wrong? Either a genuine error or not (presuming you could work out the difference).

 

[crossref]

And what would you do if he was wrong? Either a genuine error or not (presuming you could work out the difference).

there's no easy answer is there? I just think I'd rather be in this situation rather than he told me, I played on, the oppo scored with 16, and then I said 'sorry try stands'

choice between a rock and hard place, I realise.

Of course in the instance it happens we don't have a chance to reason it out .. just that second or two of decision time that we all have learned to always give ourselves, and then a decision.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If a captain, that you "trusted", told you the other team did not ground the ball, stepped into touch etc etc etc, would you stop play?

Two Scenarios:

1:
Captain A (trusted) tells you there are 16 players. You stop play. He is "wrong" Team B have been denied a probably try.

2:
Captain B (Not (yet) trusted) tells you there are 16 players. You DON'T stop play. He is "RIGHT" Team A have scored a try that in scenario 1 you denied to team B.

Fair? Justify the two actions as you would to an "assessor"


Where do you draw the line?

 

[crossref]

there are no easy answers -- but reffing is all about using judgement, isn't it? Of course sometimes you'd ignore a shout and play on.

but I do honestly believe that almost all the captains I know have sufficient integrity that they would only say 16 players if they were very sure it was true.

If I am wrong than I am the fool, but the shame would be on them

 

[Marc Wakeham]

In part about judgment but it is also about consistency.

I'm interested to see how small a circuit you are know if you can know most of the captains.

 

[Phil E]

I guess it depend whether or not you've alrteady awarded it. "The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered. Sanction: Penalty."

If I thought about it quick enough, then if someone made a claim of an extra man I wouldn't award the try. I would stop play after the grounding and check the numbers. Then either award the try or award the penalty.

I would award the penalty at the place I became aware of the claim.

Stop the game, have a think about it, make your decision.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If I thought about it quick enough, then if someone made a claim of an extra man I wouldn't award the try. I would stop play after the grounding and check the numbers. Then either award the try or award the penalty.

I would award the penalty at the place I became aware of the claim.

Stop the game, have a think about it, make your decision.

Indeed take a second before blowing your whistle. But if you've awarded it then tough. I certainly would not take the word of a captain "I trusted".

 

[crossref]

In part about judgment but it is also about consistency.

I'm interested to see how small a circuit you are know if you can know most of the captains

consistency is a red herring - this only happens once in blue moon, and every circumstance is different.

I guess it's a combination of how big the circuit is, how many refs there are, and *how long you've been doing it*

but, yeah, I don't 'know' the captains in the sense of knowing anything about them, but in a rugby sense, most games I know I have encountered them before and I remember them.

Call me naive if you like, but I don't think there's many captains who would lie to me about the other team having one player too many, in attempt to stop the game. Certainly that has never happened yet !

 

[crossref]

If I thought about it quick enough, then if someone made a claim of an extra man I wouldn't award the try. I would stop play after the grounding and check the numbers. Then either award the try or award the penalty.

I would award the penalty at the place I became aware of the claim.

Stop the game, have a think about it, make your decision.

I like that, yes. it's good, and ideally you can quickly communicate that approach to the capt
'Sir they have 16'
'understood --- I'll play on and count them when the ball's dead'

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Consistency

consistency is a red herring - this only happens once in blue moon, and every circumstance is different.

I guess it's a combination of how big the circuit is, how many refs there are, and *how long you've been doing it*

but, yeah, I don't 'know' the captains in the sense of knowing anything about them, but in a rugby sense, most games I know I have encountered them before and I remember them.

Call me naive if you like, but I don't think there's many captains who would lie to me about the other team having one player too many, in attempt to stop the game. Certainly that has never happened yet !

No it's not. You pproach a game treating bot hcaptins the same you've said that you'd treat them differenly depending.
Your circuit must be very small. How long is a red herring as player who were captains when I started are no longer captains now. They tend to change every few years.
Its' never happened yet to you. I'm sure that one is true. Why because it is rare for a team to have too many players. I've had it once in 20 years. That was a side sneaking a YC player back on early. They paid a heavy price. So I really am not sure how you know who you can trust.
The logical way is wait until the play stops and as with any try (if that is the final movement of the play you look to the AR or TJ just to make sure there is no reason not to give the try etc. IF you've heard an appeal for "numbers", check before awardin gthe try. That way the clairvoyant in you is, rightly, redundant.

 

[crossref]

No it's not. You pproach a game treating bot hcaptins the same you've said that you'd treat them differenly depending.

if both captains are complaining that the other team have too many players, then I think something more serious has gone wrong!

I dunno, Marc, you and I are different: I can understand the logic for a 'trust no one' approach, but it's not my experience of rugby, and it's not my approach to reffing or, indeed, life.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I reckon there's a lot of player smirking on the way back the changing rooms. Player will try to push the Laws and the ref as far as they can. If the ref is going to allow then to dictate calls, they've won.

 

[crossref]

I reckon there's a lot of player smirking on the way back the changing rooms. Player will try to push the Laws and the ref as far as they can. If the ref is going to allow then to dictate calls, they've won.

hang on !

we were talking about the likelihood of a captain deliberately making a false claim that a the oppo has too many players on the pitch (exceedingly rare, hen's teeth, blue moon, black swan event)

that's rather different from players pushing the Laws and the ref as far as they can (every minute of every game)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

hang on !

we were talking about the likelihood of a captain deliberately making a false claim that a the oppo has too many players on the pitch (exceedingly rare, hen's teeth, blue moon, black swan event)

that's rather different from players pushing the Laws and the ref as far as they can (every minute of every game)

It's all part of the same book.

 

[Phil E]

hang on !

we were talking about the likelihood of a captain deliberately making a false claim that a the oppo has too many players on the pitch (exceedingly rare, hen's teeth, blue moon, black swan event)

that's rather different from players pushing the Laws and the ref as far as they can (every minute of every game)

It's quite easy to miscount, I wouldn't just take his word for it, I would want to check for myself, but that's not practical until a stoppage.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's quite easy to miscount, I wouldn't just take his word for it, I would want to check for myself, but that's not practical until a stoppage.

Common sense!

 

[Rich_NL]

I reckon there's a lot of player smirking on the way back the changing rooms. Player will try to push the Laws and the ref as far as they can. If the ref is going to allow then to dictate calls, they've won.

1 minute to go, my team's four points up, desperate for a breather and under severe pressure on our own 5m line. They've got men out wide and our defence is out of shape. "Sir! They've got 16 on the pitch!" I shout.

Who's dictating the call?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

1 minute to go, my team's four points up, desperate for a breather and under severe pressure on our own 5m line. They've got men out wide and our defence is out of shape. "Sir! They've got 16 on the pitch!" I shout.

Who's dictating the call?

Does it matter. I turn to count and you kill the ball. Let it play "try" is scored. Wait a moment to count before awarding the score if 16 . Blow for that offence score at the time (minus the try which has not been awarded yet) stands.

 

[didds]

Does it matter. I turn to count and you kill the ball. Let it play "try" is scored. Wait a moment to count before awarding the score if 16 . Blow for that offence score at the time (minus the try which has not been awarded yet) stands.

yup. the obvious answer.