Wal v Aus: Coach Verbally Attacks Officials

[RedCapRef]

In the grass roots there would be a loud call of "BACKWARDS - Play On" or the ball would have been kicked away in disgust by the player.

 

[crossref]

In the grass roots there would be a loud call of "BACKWARDS - Play On" or the ball would have been kicked away in disgust by the player.

well I imagine in this game there was a loud shout of backwards, play on?

It's basic reffing to shout when we make a close call, so everyone knows.

 

[didds]

In his day that would have been fine, but today when 30 players then rewatch it on the big screen immediately afterwards they'll know it was the wrong decision. They might not like it but they can't argue with it.

yes indeed. but that was his point though. As in thats how he did it 30 years ago, but now he couldnt because of the multiple video angles etc etc etc and TMO usage etc etc . I dont get why he thinks refs are coinstrained by the laws though. Or did he mean regs?

 

[didds]

back at grassroots: if a ref gives a decision that is at odds with what all 30 players are expecting, as a rule of thumb that's going to be a poor call.

but no trial by video of course.

 

[Zebra1922]

I had an incident recently that shows how we referee in the weeds might differ to the top level and it might be better to give the expected call. Turnover then ball moved wide, interception by red but there was a knock on I didn’t see (players in my eyeline to the incident). I didn’t see a knock on so didn’t blow. Everyone stopped except the winger intercepting who scored a try.

I didn’t give the knock on as I didn’t see it (and similar to the Wales game, even if it was lost by red it could have gone backwards). But with players stopping it looked like something had happened so in hindsight I should have stopped play for a knock on. Even if that decision had been wrong, the consequences of the mistake are much less than a team getting a converted try.

 

[SimonSmith]

I had an incident recently that shows how we referee in the weeds might differ to the top level and it might be better to give the expected call. Turnover then ball moved wide, interception by red but there was a knock on I didn’t see (players in my eyeline to the incident). I didn’t see a knock on so didn’t blow. Everyone stopped except the winger intercepting who scored a try.

I didn’t give the knock on as I didn’t see it (and similar to the Wales game, even if it was lost by red it could have gone backwards). But with players stopping it looked like something had happened so in hindsight I should have stopped play for a knock on. Even if that decision had been wrong, the consequences of the mistake are much less than a team getting a converted try.

I don’t understand your logic flow.

If you had stopped the game incorrectly, you would have denied a legal try.

 

[Balones]

For every game without a TMO the correct and expected decision would have been to have blown the whistle, unless the referee was absolutely certain that the ball had gone back and a quick call of ‘back, play on’ would have been expected. If it wasn’t quick or didn’t say anything then the referee could be deemed to be at fault.
At this level the referee was absolutely correct to do what he did. He is not responsible for players’ actions, they are.

Can’t really understand what the problem is and why it has taken five pages of the forum. Perhaps I’m missing something?

 

[OB..]

For every game without a TMO the correct and expected decision would have been to have blown the whistle, unless the referee was absolutely certain that the ball had gone back and a quick call of ‘back, play on’ would have been expected. If it wasn’t quick or didn’t say anything then the referee could be deemed to be at fault.
At this level the referee was absolutely correct to do what he did. He is not responsible for players’ actions, they are.

Can’t really understand what the problem is and why it has taken five pages of the forum. Perhaps I’m missing something?

Exactly.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For every game without a TMO the correct and expected decision would have been to have blown the whistle, unless the referee was absolutely certain that the ball had gone back and a quick call of ‘back, play on’ would have been expected. If it wasn’t quick or didn’t say anything then the referee could be deemed to be at fault.
At this level the referee was absolutely correct to do what he did. He is not responsible for players’ actions, they are.

Can’t really understand what the problem is and why it has taken five pages of the forum. Perhaps I’m missing something?

Amen!

 

[dave_clark]

I had an incident recently that shows how we referee in the weeds might differ to the top level and it might be better to give the expected call. Turnover then ball moved wide, interception by red but there was a knock on I didn’t see (players in my eyeline to the incident). I didn’t see a knock on so didn’t blow. Everyone stopped except the winger intercepting who scored a try.

I didn’t give the knock on as I didn’t see it (and similar to the Wales game, even if it was lost by red it could have gone backwards). But with players stopping it looked like something had happened so in hindsight I should have stopped play for a knock on. Even if that decision had been wrong, the consequences of the mistake are much less than a team getting a converted try.

i disagree strongly. you can't give something you don't see.

my third society game, back in 2008, i missed a massive knock on at the base of a ruck (at least i'm told i did) because at the moment it was knocked on i was looking the other way telling the defending fly half to get back onside again. defending side all saw it and stopped, attacking side scored a try which i allowed.

defending captain wasn't best pleased, but soon shut up when i reminded him that if his fly half wasn't offside at pretty much every ruck my attention wouldn't have been diverted. he then started tearing in to his fly half, which amused me.

sorry for the ramble, but the bottom line is you can't give something that you don't see. it may be the "expected" decision, but IMO it's wrong.

 

[didds]

agree with dave.

what about the kick to head you didnt see but got told about by the side whose player was "kicked in the head". Do you send off their devastatingly brilliant #7 that theyve fingered as the kicker?

 

[Zebra1922]

Well that makes me feel a bit better. I thought the consensus would be I should have given the knock on even if I didn’t see it.

 

[crossref]

Nigel Owens would have blown up ..

. When you look at Tompkins’ face afterwards, I think he is quite surprised the try has been given. There are 28 other players on the field who have all pretty much stopped, expecting that to be a knock on.

"If I was reffing that game, I would have blown up. If you put that up in a room of 20 referees, most of them would probably call it a knock-on."

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-i...ve-blown-up-nigel-owens-on-controversial-try/

I am in good company

 

[Dickie E]

Rennie apologises:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11...ses-to-referees-for-wallabies-spray/100655614

 

[SimonSmith]

This came up this evening in my game.

We’re inside Red 22 as Blue attack and put in a little chip. Red and Blue both contest it, and I’m happy Red played it back. Everybody stopped except one Blue player and me. He obviously goes under the sticks. Red appeal for the knock on, and I stick to my guns.

full time, and Red 11 comes up to me - he of the vociferous appeals - and admitted, with a cheeky smile, he had knocked it back.

Three people knew the truth - me, him, and Blue player. The expected decision was knock on. The correct one was play on.

 

[OB..]

"I love it when a plan comes together." (The A-Team quote)

 

[crossref]

This came up this evening in my game.

We’re inside Red 22 as Blue attack and put in a little chip. Red and Blue both contest it, and I’m happy Red played it back. Everybody stopped except one Blue player and me. He obviously goes under the sticks. Red appeal for the knock on, and I stick to my guns.

full time, and Red 11 comes up to me - he of the vociferous appeals - and admitted, with a cheeky smile, he had knocked it back.

Three people knew the truth - me, him, and Blue player. The expected decision was knock on. The correct one was play on.

Good call then
Did you do a loud shout "play on, knocked back'

 

[SimonSmith]

No-one ever accused me of underspeaking...

 

[Balones]

Nigel Owens would have blown up ..



https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-i...ve-blown-up-nigel-owens-on-controversial-try/

I am in good company

Nigel says he would have blown because he thought it was a knock on, but he also supports MA’s decision because MA thought it wasn’t.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nigel says he would have blown because he thought it was a knock on, but he also supports MA’s decision because MA thought it wasn’t.

Nigel Says different on twitter!