Super-14: ref's post match

Wert Twacky


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
888
Post Likes
32
Anyone else see today's S14 show?

Jonathan Kaplan was interviewed post match about his decision to award a try in the Canes v Crusaders 26-26 draw.

The Canes were winning 26-21 as the clock ticked down and, after a series of pick and drives on the Canes' line, a Crusdaders player appears to have gotten over the line, although the evidence is inconclusive as he's buried under a heap of players.

JK goes upstairs and asks a question about the player scoring a try (did he stay on his feet in the act of scoring) and, crucially, "is there any reason why I can't award the try?"

The TMO comes back and confirms 1: the player remained on his feet and that 2: he has no evidence to confirm if the try had been scored, or not.

JK awards the try, but Carter misses the kick and the Crusaders snatch a draw.

You can argue the wrongs and rights of the try, or not, but what I found refreshing was JK fronting up post-match to explain his decision and how he came to it.

It seems SANZAR's decision to put refs up post-match helped in this situation.
 

Bryan


Referees in Canada
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,276
Post Likes
0
Have only seen the 1st half, but was the question raised about the quick-throw that lead to the try? Did they ask Garratt W. what his thoughts were on allowing play to go on? (Wasn't sure if it touched one of the subs on the bench).
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Have only seen the 1st half, but was the question raised about the quick-throw that lead to the try? Did they ask Garratt W. what his thoughts were on allowing play to go on? (Wasn't sure if it touched one of the subs on the bench).

The fact that it Conrad Smith touched the ball, and he wasn't the one who had taken the ball into touch, meant that the throw should not have been allowed.

The try at the end was a good decision. He had already seen the grounding, but was checking for illegalities prior to that. In the radio interview later in the evening, he said "If I had not had a TMO available, I would have awarded the try"

Interesting that what he was checking on had occurred in the field of play. OB may like to comment! :D
 

Bryan


Referees in Canada
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
2,276
Post Likes
0
The fact that it Conrad Smith touched the ball, and he wasn't the one who had taken the ball into touch, meant that the throw should not have been allowed.
That was my next question. It seemed that the AR was so intent on telling the 'Canes that it wasn't their throw, he forgot to check whether the throw-in by the Crusaders was actually allowed. Oops.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That was my next question. It seemed that the AR was so intent on telling the 'Canes that it wasn't their throw, he forgot to check whether the throw-in by the Crusaders was actually allowed. Oops.


Bryan

A few weeks ago we had a similar incident (same AR)

A Blue player attempted to catch the ball while he had a foot in touch. He failed to catch the ball and it spilled into touch from his hands. The ball had not crossed the plane of touch prior to blue touching it, and the AR incorrectly gave Blue the throw-in, on the basis that he had a foot in touch.

In this case, the Red player again had one foot in touch, and touched the ball before it landed, but in this case, the ball had already crossed the plane of the touchline, so the AR correctly awarded the throw to red.

I think he was very conscious of what has happened earlier, and Yellow were insisting that the scenario was the same one he had made the mistake with earlier.
 

chief


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
527
Post Likes
0
Surely consistency prevails and Kaplan and Williamson are both stood down like Noonan, Mitchelmore, Marks and Leogote? What am I kidding hey, we are talking about SANZAR
 

Wert Twacky


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
888
Post Likes
32
Didn't the AR (Garrat W) stick his arm out in the direction of the Canes?

Up 'ere, once the AR sticks his arm out, that's usually the signal that a quick throw is no longer an option.

Is that the same down south? If so, then it's the referee's call as to either let play continue or not? Just a thought...
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Didn't the AR (Garrat W) stick his arm out in the direction of the Canes?

Up 'ere, once the AR sticks his arm out, that's usually the signal that a quick throw is no longer an option.

Is that the same down south? If so, then it's the referee's call as to either let play continue or not? Just a thought...

AR/TJ sticking his arm out mean diddly-squat in this neck of the woods.
What if the TJ just happened to be standing exactly below where the ball crossed the plane 50ft over his head. He could have his arm out before the ball even landed.

Notwithstanding other stuff such as who had touched the ball etc, the referee's decision on whether the lineout has formed is the only criteria - Law 19.2 (c)
 

Wert Twacky


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
888
Post Likes
32
Why would Kaplan be stood down if it was the AR who was at fault?

Have to admit, being stood down for one error seems harsh, but then if that's the precedent that Lyndon Bray has taken, then it would appear he'd have to be consistent.

If a fly-half misses a game-winning conversion (Carter for the Crusaders against the Canes) would it be right that he is dropped?

And I'm playing devil's advocate before anyone goes off on one here...
 

chief


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
527
Post Likes
0
I think the one error stand down is stupid. Come on if its regular then sure, but one mistake is not worthy of a stand down, does anyone not agree here?
 

Wert Twacky


Referees in England
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
888
Post Likes
32
I agree Chief - an overall poor display in a game, or a recurrent theme of below average displays then maybe a stand down until form resumes, but FFS - one error and you're dropped? :(
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,397
Post Likes
1,510
Except if your name is Bryce.

Apparently.
 

chief


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
527
Post Likes
0
Except if your name is Bryce.

Apparently.

We should wait until he stuffs up a S14 match (its gonna happen!) and we'll see what happens to him then. He's only refereed 2 games though, I will be astounded if he is picked for the S14 Final Series, as I thought they picked on form.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
AR/TJ sticking his arm out mean diddly-squat in this neck of the woods.
What if the TJ just happened to be standing exactly below where the ball crossed the plane 50ft over his head. He could have his arm out before the ball even landed.
The convention up here is that the AR puts his flag up when the ball is in touch, but does not put out his arm towards the throwing side until, in his opinion, a QT is no longer a valid option. It is an indication to the referee.
 

Scarlet Al


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
620
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Up here, with APPOINTED AR's, arm out straight away, to show the ref who took it in to touch if a team tries a QT, referee not having to check with AR who took it in.
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
Is the flag in the other hand not obvious enough for the welsh then?

:bday: :wow: :chin: :rolleyes: :D
 

Davet

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,731
Post Likes
4
The ball had not crossed the plane of touch prior to blue touching it, and the AR incorrectly gave Blue the throw-in, on the basis that he had a foot in touch.

The decision was correct.

The Blue player was in touch, the ball was in touch as soon as it made contact with him.

The fact of catching or not is irrelevant.

The plane of touch is irrelevant.

Red kicked, ball went into touch, Blue throw.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
The decision was correct.

The Blue player was in touch, the ball was in touch as soon as it made contact with him.

The fact of catching or not is irrelevant.

The plane of touch is irrelevant.

Red kicked, ball went into touch, Blue throw.
Was just about to post the self same thing.
 

Robert Burns

, Referees in Canada, RugbyRefs.com Webmaster
Staff member
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
9,650
Post Likes
7
Lack of concentration Al, tell them to get focused!

:wink:
 
Top