The Oracle of Dublin

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
And lo, Mr Rolland comments on the Summer Internationals
Match
Clip
Comment
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
High Tackle - https://youtu.be/FoA-ekFySBI
PK only but not a YC
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
High Tackle - https://youtu.be/9uByKMJ6A0M
YC for NZ 7 as strike to head but no force. Much has been discussed about NZ18 but for me I don’t rule his action as foul play
USA V RUS
High Tackle - https://youtu.be/F7Lrr3Ct44c
Correct decision, initial contact below the shoulder line and then slips up
SA v ENG (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Late charge - https://youtu.be/9YCIvbLHk3U
Correct decision in the context of the game as he didn’t have to follow through and had previously been involved
AUS v IRE (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Tackle in the air - https://youtu.be/sc2XsD77tks
PK only as timing out and G15 didn’t pull player to ground
ARG v WAL (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Tackle in the air - https://youtu.be/nEtxOfl0T6c
PK only as again timing out and W10 didn’t pull player to ground

General Play

Match
Clip
Comment
CAN v SCO
Deliberate knock on - https://youtu.be/mJnpGoYf69s
Correct decision as probable try would have been scored
JPN v ITA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Deliberate knock on - https://youtu.be/kCk4h4adYuA
Correct decision, no opportunity for line break
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Knock on Offside - https://youtu.be/au0ZR4QeWZo
Scrum call correct as F15 puts F14 onside before he catches the ball
WAL v SA
Knocked out of play - https://youtu.be/v0PmFPRCbhA
Q, was the ball deliberately knocked dead? Yes so YC. Would a probable try have been scored? No so no PT

Lineout

Match
Clip
Comment
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Gaps - https://youtu.be/2XZpxwwLQyg
While I understand the FK, it should be PK for jumping across as F4 clearly makes contact with opposition
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Gaps - https://youtu.be/OlQnB0_wnHo
Correct decision because first time it was a FK

Offside

Match
Clip
Comment
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Offside – retreating player - https://youtu.be/l2RY3_BS-JA
NZ3 offside, should be PK
SA v ENG (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Offside – retreating player - https://youtu.be/0ZAUbBD-SdA
SA9 never gets to hindmost foot so clearly offside, AR input??
AUS v IRE (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Offside – retreating player - https://youtu.be/gDUVd3h_lZ4
Correct decision for lazy runner

TMO

Match
Clip
Comment
JPN v ITA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Grounding - https://youtu.be/47eHo80HdAc
Correct decision
CAN v SCO
Grounding - https://youtu.be/rPwimouMGMk
Correct decision
AUS v IRE (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Knock on - https://youtu.be/l8dJfU7ukYs
TMO has clear footage to show ball was lost forward so correct not to award try. If the screen had gone blank what would you as a ref awarded?
AUS v IRE (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Playing opp w/out ball - https://youtu.be/jaTk6mfdXec
This tackle should either have been dealt with immediately or not at all.
NZ v FRA (1[SUP]st[/SUP])
Double movement - https://youtu.be/sHoNN_Ol5_8
Incorrect try because of double movement

Round 2

Foul Play

Match
Clip
Comment
NZ v FRA (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Foul play referral - https://youtu.be/TbAL-ILHN1I
Dominant tackle that becomes a tip tackle because of contact to players on the ground and therefore PK only
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Foul play referral - https://youtu.be/BhCQSOi3b0U
In the context of this game a YC should have been awarded
AUS v IRE (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Chop Tackle - https://youtu.be/4_pr9pa2S4E
No attempt to make a tackle, PK and YC
ARG v WAL (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Red card - https://youtu.be/aVV7XdHUWEs
RC correct decision and Arg 10 should have also been given a YC for instigating it
NZ v FRA (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Red card - https://youtu.be/hHkrX-Mx6HI
I have already emailed you all on this. Given the reverse angle shows a mitigating factor not seen by MO’s it’s a YC
JPN v ITA (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Swinging arm - https://youtu.be/87BXPEhcCbw
Correct decision
TON v SAM
Swinging arm - https://youtu.be/jA_YPAJa7Ws
No TMO did not help as direct contact with force to the head so RC
AUS v IRE (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Lifting Tackle - https://youtu.be/Fp9MKw8PD80
Correct decision
AUS v IRE (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Cynical Play - https://youtu.be/KJXIUI5OJvk
Correct outcome but this is not in protocol. There was luck involved with both this clip and the one below as you could argue a deliberate knock on
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Cynical Play - https://youtu.be/Fowk4cVnfLg
As per my comments above

General Play

Match
Clip
Comment
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Blocking catcher - https://youtu.be/n2DZNuYGmds
PK for obstruction
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Blocking catcher - https://youtu.be/obl90eTRMSk
Good PK

TMO/Tries

Match
Clip
Comment
AUS v IRE (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Grounding - https://youtu.be/nmPIbUOodyo
Good process and correct decision
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Grounding - https://youtu.be/lvFAAfe_W70
Question is if SA5 made it to his feet before attempting tackle. Reverse angle at 0.49 probably shows he has done enough and correct to award try
NZ v FRA (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Double movement - https://youtu.be/QF5b7xJs8Sc
Correct decision
ARG v WAL (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Obstruction - https://youtu.be/I_p_xW0V1N4
No obstruction
AUS v IRE (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Penalty Try - https://youtu.be/gMM6mKDJQbk
Correct decision as pull down initiated before going into in goal
USA v SCO
Penalty Try - https://youtu.be/KCE9ifVY2GU
YC for high tackle but not a PT
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])
Penalty Try - https://youtu.be/xcYh5uHPlvs
Once the scums pops up like this advantage cannot be played if ball is kept in the scrum. PT is wrong decision

Round 3

Foul Play

Match
Clip
Comment
AUS v IRE (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])
Collision in the air - https://youtu.be/w8PJDZcE9kM
Correct decision as A15 also has hands on the body
AUS v IRE (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])
Elbow - https://youtu.be/0OBpi0YlWAE
YC is correct decision as lacking in force for RC – but close!
JPN v GEO
High Tackle - https://youtu.be/CygCLiX1Yrs
Correct decision

TMO/Tries

Match
Clip
Comment
AUS v IRE (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])
TMO Review 1 - https://youtu.be/hs96cudhvnA
In the context of what was at stake I can understand the review but it was clear from early on that no contact was made by Ire11 and process took too long
NZ v FRA (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])
TMO Review 2 - https://youtu.be/ybllj0BeGTc
While the law book with support this decision, the common sense approach should have been to award a scrum for causing an obstruction
NZ v FRA (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])
TMO Review 3 - https://youtu.be/GqxlqCUO2MM
Ref said he saw grounding (wrongly) and in this case footage for TMO was clear the ball was held up. Messy process but correct outcome
JPN v GEO
TMO Review 4 - https://youtu.be/xyTiaHNsMPM
Correct outcome but process took far too long
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
Interesting to see this one regarding the Lacey obstruction
While the law book with support this decision, the common sense approach should have been to award a scrum for causing an obstruction

I remember the hostility here voiced against those arguing for a scrum. making up laws as you go along was the charge.
Nice to wr recommending a more common sense approach
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,446
Post Likes
615
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Until the next referee uses "common sense" and Rolland turns the other way.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
Very true
But it does show that the decision was not so black and white as some wanted to make it
 

Christy


Referees in Ireland
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
527
Post Likes
60
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
staying with john lacy .
i thought the tmo made a mess of this . ..we can only see tv angles , but lacey could see with his own eyes from his angle there was a grounding , lacey even told tmo twice he had seen a grounding ..
i watched video a few times & to be honest its not a clear & obvious ball held up for me { or a grounding } .
but the ref stated more than once that he saw a grounding .

now if lacey had gone to tmo & said can you advise on try or no try
fair enough .

but he went with what he actually saw , which was a grounding .

just because the tv angles arent clear of a grounding ,, that surely should not over rule the ref .
and to be fair to lacey , he didnt look for advice ,,thats how confident he was .

NZ v FRA (3[SUP]rd[/SUP])TMO Review 3 - https://youtu.be/GqxlqCUO2MMRef said he saw grounding (wrongly) and in this case footage for TMO was clear the ball was held up. Messy process but correct outcome









 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
Well , part of the point of having a TMO is to correct mistakes by the ref
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
For me the wtf moment is "Given the reverse angle shows a mitigating factor not seen by MO"
If there is a reverse angle, then why didn't the TMO review it.
Surely the TMO should know where all the cameras are and ensure he has reviewed the relavent ones.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
This one is intriguing

NZ v FRA (1st) Knock on Offside - https://youtu.be/au0ZR4QeWZo Scrum call correct as F15 puts F14 onside before he catches the ball

If you going down that route, was F14 entitled to run toward the ball while in an offside position
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,229
Post Likes
354
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
He wasn't offside until it was played by his teammate. At that point he is retiring straight back. Knock-on, no more and no less.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
When he was offside , is it ok to run toward the ball, hoping to be played on side before you reach it ?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,963
Post Likes
1,824
When he was offside , is it ok to run toward the ball, hoping to be played on side before you reach it ?
[LAWS]11

  • 1. A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. [...]
  • An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
    • Interferes with play; or
    • Moves forwards towards the ball; or [...]
[/LAWS]
F14 was not offside when running back in defence.
When F15 knocked-on, he became "a team-mate [...] who last played it".
F15 and F14 crossed, going in opposite directions so presumably F14 was put on-side. He did not move forwards towards the ball before the crossing.

A curious situation but an eminently sensible decision.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
A classic case of the ball going forwards but ending up behind the player.
Of course had the F15 had control and thrown the ball where forwards is relitive to the player it would have been backwards and therefore play on.
 

Baylion

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
88
Post Likes
17
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
And lo, Mr Rolland comments on the Summer Internationals
MatchClipComment
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])Penalty Try - https://youtu.be/xcYh5uHPlvsOnce the scums pops up like this advantage cannot be played if ball is kept in the scrum. PT is wrong decision

This puzzles me. Looks like a clear push-over try was illegally prevented
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,229
Post Likes
354
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
SA v ENG (2[SUP]nd[/SUP])Penalty Try - https://youtu.be/xcYh5uHPlvsOnce the scums pops up like this advantage cannot be played if ball is kept in the scrum. PT is wrong decision


He is not correct in law.

[LAWS]Law 7 Advantage
3.d. A player in a scrum is lifted or forced upwards so that the player is no longer in contact with the ground.
[/LAWS]

Advantage can be played as long as the popped player has feet on the ground.

However, there is this:

[LAWS]Law 19 Scrum
25. If a scrum collapses or if a player in the scrum is lifted or is forced upwards out of the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing.
[/LAWS]

So, is it an advantage issue or not?

I say "Not to Green, as advantage applies following an infringement by an opponent"

but we should be playing advantage to White because Green infringed and award White the 22 Drop out.

[LAWS]Law 19 Scrum
37. Dangerous play in a scrum includes :
c. Intentionally lifting an opponent off their feet or forcing them upwards out of the scrum.
[/LAWS]

or we could play on and give the DO to White
 
Last edited:

Pinky


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,517
Post Likes
187
There were a couple of the PT decision that Rolland questioned that I am not sure about. One mentioned above is the potential push over. If the referee thought that the defending hooker had stood up to get the whistle blown and stop the push-over, then I would have thought that a PT would have been a reasonable response, as would waiting a moment to see if the attacking side picked up at the back and actually scored.

The other one I didn't like was his comment about the Wayne Barnes PT to Scotland. He suggested it should not be a PT, but in my view either decision by the referee would have been acceptable. It was clear there was foul play, that foul play influenced the attacker's attempt to score, and it is a matter of judgement what the other defender was likely to be able to do. In this case I think the ref made a reasonable and careful decision using his view live, and the video evidence (and TMO) and they came to a decision that did not have a C&O problem, I think that the powers that be should be supporting that sort of decision.

Similarly in the Japan game with the rush to the corner, again either decision would have been credible, but happy with the no clear and obvious KO, but the way all the hands were, it was unlikely there was no forward propulsion from the attacker off his feet. Happy with the award of the try though too. One for judgement of the ref ultimately.

So most of the above are good clarifications and help, but I would have liked to see a wee bit more of where refs were being praised for logically using the process and coming to a reasonable decision even if an alternative decision might have been possible.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,963
Post Likes
1,824
So most of the above are good clarifications and help, but I would have liked to see a wee bit more of where refs were being praised for logically using the process and coming to a reasonable decision even if an alternative decision might have been possible.
Presumably those are just brief synopses,with more detail having been sent to the referees themselves.

Is is not clear if they represent any element of discussion beforehand.
 
Top