General reffing woes, law changes etc.

[Cameo]

Yep agree on that.

Separately, and some point I saw the ref telling White not to use his hands to get the ball back in a caterpillar ruck and use his feet. I know it is a bugbear of many but at what point does a 9 on the opposite team decide to be cheeky and walk down the side of the caterpillar and kick it back to their own side instead. If the attacking 9 can do it, why not the defending on? Sometimes the ball's closer to their team's back foot.

[16th man]

Big questions for the ref to answer in the Italy Scotland game.

How has he not yellow cared Weir for that hair?

[Mikey Brown]

Not sure where else to put this one...

[Mellsblue]

That made me giggle when I saw it. The Independent ran with the subheadline of ‘Rugby player lifts up referee like he’s Lion King, gets sent off’ which must be my favourite ever sentence.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

https://twitter.com/pollybarnes_/status ... 95264?s=19

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

[Mikey Brown]

Just seen the Liam Williams head-on-head, diving off his feet into a ruck, red card and then asking the ref "we'll just play touch now?" or something similar. I'm a bit unclear if the issue around Sinkler's ban is the questioning of the ref, the language he used, or just the manner in which he said it. Williams is obviously much calmer about it, but it seems odd he gets a week off his ban for remorse after clearly mocking the referee for the decision at the time.

I'm not suggesting it's as bad as what Sinkler did, but in combination with a red card offence it doesn't look right to me that they both get 3 weeks. Hard to know where to draw the line with backchat though, particularly when so many genuinely dangerous incidents go (relatively) unpunished.

[Puja]

Just seen the Liam Williams head-on-head, diving off his feet into a ruck, red card and then asking the ref "we'll just play touch now?" or something similar. I'm a bit unclear if the issue around Sinkler's ban is the questioning of the ref, the language he used, or just the manner in which he said it. Williams is obviously much calmer about it, but it seems odd he gets a week off his ban for remorse after clearly mocking the referee for the decision at the time.

I'm not suggesting it's as bad as what Sinkler did, but in combination with a red card offence it doesn't look right to me that they both get 3 weeks. Hard to know where to draw the line with backchat though, particularly when so many genuinely dangerous incidents go (relatively) unpunished.

I'd say it's arguable whether it's not as bad as Sinckler's - Sinckler may have used a curse word, but his was at least an in the moment heated question, whereas Williams had time to cool down and is still openly mocking the decision.

Puja

[FKAS]

The absolutely ridiculous thing was Williams got a week off his sentence for remorse. He clearly showed none whatsoever. Sinckler was a heat of the moment reaction, he was wrong and got a ban with no reduction, that ban was quite low mind. Smacks of the system ensuring that Liam Williams misses the minimum number of international appearances.

[jimKRFC]

Not really a fan of JP Doyle as ref but he has say on the Sinckler incident in the telegraph:

From the Telegraph

Referee JP Doyle's take on Kyle Sinckler

You have to understand why he said what he said, before you judge it. It was a reaction to someone who he felt was potentially trying to hurt him, whether he’s right or wrong, with the tackle from Luke Cowan-Dickie.

It’s a reaction. The thing about Dylan Hartley with Wayne Barnes in the 2013 Gallagher Premiership final, that was something directed at the ref. Elliot Daly in 2014 with Ian Tempest [which led to a three-week ban] that was directed at the ref as well. Kyle’s was more of a reaction.

Understand the context. This is not rugby in crisis. There were five games on the weekend, say 1,500 breakdowns. This is one time where one guy said something where he was unhappy. It’s not as if he went on about it, it’s one comment from one frustrated player. That doesn’t excuse it, but it tells you the story behind it.

He did something, accepted not that he was wrong but that the reaction was wrong, if that makes sense. He felt more should have been done about the incident, but the reaction was not in keeping with the way he has been asked to behave. He acknowledges it and doesn’t act that way for the rest of the game. Has the referee then not done the right thing?

[stevedog1980]

What is the argument against the rows engaging in sequence, with packs standing as if for uncontested scrums until the ball comes in?

I've said this loads but there should be no difference in engagement between a traditional scrum and an uncontested scrum. Only when the ball has been fed does the scrum become live and contested so until that point these methods should look identical. Ever seen an uncontested scrum collapse?

I realise that the power exerted in a contested scrum means you can't go from 0-100% once the ball is fed or it just becomes a timing issue (similar to tug of war) but there has to be a happy medium somewhere. How about an additional call by the referee?

Crouch
Bind
Pause
Set (passive engagement)
Squeeze (allows a more gradual and controlled increase of pressure)

Once square and steady the scrum half feeds

Apologies if any of this was covered in the rest of the thread, just jumped out to comment and haven't read the rest yet!

[Mikey Brown]

Wasn't sure what to do with this but just curious to get non-Scottish/French perspective on this.



Seems utterly crazy to me, and clearly a card, but how much is my bias showing?

I hate saying it for a number of reasons but Dickson was absolutely awful yesterday.

[Raggs]

Why is it clearly a card?

They both jump for the ball (it's not a kick, it's a pass, a lot less time to get yourself in position etc), Frenchman realises he's not going to make it whilst in mid air, and starts trying to pull away instinctively. They both collide, but no one lands particularly dangerously, neither one is that much higher than the other to say that one wasn't in a reasonable position to compete. It's a collision. Felt a little off to even be a pen for me.

Did the Scot even get a hand to it? It came off the Frenchmans head, could easily be argued he was the one in the more realistic position to catch it, the Scot just flapped a single hand at it.

[Which Tyler]

Why is it clearly a card?

They both jump for the ball (it's not a kick, it's a pass, a lot less time to get yourself in position etc), Frenchman realises he's not going to make it whilst in mid air, and starts trying to pull away instinctively. They both collide, but no one lands particularly dangerously, neither one is that much higher than the other to say that one wasn't in a reasonable position to compete. It's a collision. Felt a little off to even be a pen for me.

Did the Scot even get a hand to it? It came off the Frenchmans head, could easily be argued he was the one in the more realistic position to catch it, the Scot just flapped a single hand at it.

My brother and I couldn't work out what actual offense had been committed - felt much the same as yourself.

[p/d]

Agree Raggs. Thought at the time it was a harsh penalty. Mind you I was distracted by the bloke commentating, who seemed very bias

[Puja]

Why is it clearly a card?

They both jump for the ball (it's not a kick, it's a pass, a lot less time to get yourself in position etc), Frenchman realises he's not going to make it whilst in mid air, and starts trying to pull away instinctively. They both collide, but no one lands particularly dangerously, neither one is that much higher than the other to say that one wasn't in a reasonable position to compete. It's a collision. Felt a little off to even be a pen for me.

Did the Scot even get a hand to it? It came off the Frenchmans head, could easily be argued he was the one in the more realistic position to catch it, the Scot just flapped a single hand at it.

My brother and I couldn't work out what actual offense had been committed - felt much the same as yourself.

It was one where, if the ref had given the immediate penalty, I wouldn't've blamed him, as it felt like a penalty live and I was up and howling at the television. However, on slow-mo, it is hard to see what offence is actually committed there and, while it might've felt wrong, it probably wasn't.

Puja

[p/d]

It just looked awkward, giving the sense that an offence must have been committed

[Danno]

Copping two hands to the face will never look ok, but yeah, rugby incident

[fivepointer]

Was the French player making a genuine attempt to play the ball? Didnt seem that way to me. Ended up a clumsy challenge on a player in the air. I think a penalty was the right decision.

[Mikey Brown]

Why is it clearly a card?

They both jump for the ball (it's not a kick, it's a pass, a lot less time to get yourself in position etc), Frenchman realises he's not going to make it whilst in mid air, and starts trying to pull away instinctively. They both collide, but no one lands particularly dangerously, neither one is that much higher than the other to say that one wasn't in a reasonable position to compete. It's a collision. Felt a little off to even be a pen for me.

Did the Scot even get a hand to it? It came off the Frenchmans head, could easily be argued he was the one in the more realistic position to catch it, the Scot just flapped a single hand at it.

Is it your assertion that Skinner also jumped that means flying in head/knees/arms first to a player receiving the ball is now legitimate? Is it that it wasn’t that accurate a pass that makes it okay? Would anyone suggest there was ever going to be a result that wasn’t Jaminet crashing in to Skinner in a dangerous way?

It feels a bit like the weaponised fielding of high balls we were seeing a lot a couple of years back, with players jumping from 10 metres away like a missile towards the person waiting to catch it. You can argue you’re going to catch it, but you’ve chosen for a collision in the air to happen as soon as you’ve left the ground, and have very little control over how safe it is going to be. How serious an injury would need to have occurred for that to change? Or would it always have been equally Skinner’s fault?

“They both collide” can’t be a serious assessment of who caused that? It’s got a bit of a “police officer involved firearms discharge” ring to it.

[Which Tyler]

Was the French player making a genuine attempt to play the ball? Didnt seem that way to me. Ended up a clumsy challenge on a player in the air. I think a penalty was the right decision.

From memory...
Had the Scotsman not got finger tips onto the ball, it was landing right in Frenchman's bread basket.

Had it been fielding a cross-field kick rather than a pass, the penalty goes the other way (but just a penalty, because Scotsman did touch the ball)

[Oakboy]

I switched off once the Italians were reduced to 13 so I missed the subsequent debate on that decision. Should the referee, as a principle, look for a reason not to reduce a game to a farce? Or should he always apply the letter of the law?

If he had decided that the Irish guy dipped a little and it just gave him leeway to only award a yellow would anyone have complained?

[Raggs]

Why is it clearly a card?

They both jump for the ball (it's not a kick, it's a pass, a lot less time to get yourself in position etc), Frenchman realises he's not going to make it whilst in mid air, and starts trying to pull away instinctively. They both collide, but no one lands particularly dangerously, neither one is that much higher than the other to say that one wasn't in a reasonable position to compete. It's a collision. Felt a little off to even be a pen for me.

Did the Scot even get a hand to it? It came off the Frenchmans head, could easily be argued he was the one in the more realistic position to catch it, the Scot just flapped a single hand at it.

Is it your assertion that Skinner also jumped that means flying in head/knees/arms first to a player receiving the ball is now legitimate? Is it that it wasn’t that accurate a pass that makes it okay? Would anyone suggest there was ever going to be a result that wasn’t Jaminet crashing in to Skinner in a dangerous way?

It feels a bit like the weaponised fielding of high balls we were seeing a lot a couple of years back, with players jumping from 10 metres away like a missile towards the person waiting to catch it. You can argue you’re going to catch it, but you’ve chosen for a collision in the air to happen as soon as you’ve left the ground, and have very little control over how safe it is going to be. How serious an injury would need to have occurred for that to change? Or would it always have been equally Skinner’s fault?

“They both collide” can’t be a serious assessment of who caused that? It’s got a bit of a “police officer involved firearms discharge” ring to it.

Who is to blame and why? And why do those arguments not apply to the other player.

[Mikey Brown]

A truly baffling response. Are there some words missing or something? I’m trying to understand what part of my post you’re actually responding to.

[Puja]

I would propose something of a tangentially related law change, which is to say that any playing of the ball forward with any body part above the waist should be considered a knock on. One of the reasons that the original decision not to give the penalty felt so wrong was that the collision saw the ball shoot forward 15m and land in French hands, so France got a massive advantage from an accident. It seems odd that heading the ball isn't a knock-on - it's not something that (ordinarily) happens intentionally (and given football's issues, we wouldn't want to encourage it), so I don't see what benefit there is to excluding it from the knock on laws.

Puja