FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Law discussion: Any excuse?; Rugby 365

Law discussion: Any excuse?; Rugby 365

Started by Just_win16 REPLIES594 VIEWS· 10 Apr 2015, 07:29
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
10 Apr 2015, 07:29
#1
10 Apr 2015, 07:29#1

The decision not to award a try in the match between the Stormers and the Hurricanes over the past weekend has raised eyebrows. We raise ours.

The Stormers storm the Hurricanes line. Schalk Burger of the Stormers charges at the line but is stopped on the line by Reggie Goodes and two team-mates, Callum Gibbins and Beauden Barrett. There is a heap of players and when Michael Rhodes (20) of the Stormers makes contact with Jeremy Thrush of the Hurricanes then a ruck was formed, a rudimentary ruck.

The ball is clearly on the Stormers' side of the ruck thing. Huw Jones (No.13) of the Stormers bends down, picks up the ball and grounds it in the Hurricanes in-goal.

The referee, Rohan Hoffmann of Australia, who was in a poor position at the side of the ruck, on the far side from where Jones grounded the ball, probably because the Stormers were going left and Jones acted on the right, consults the TMO.

The referee says: "I want to see if the player has picked up the ball from within the ruck. Has he played the ball from an offside position, please."

After replays, the TMO says: "I'm seeing him come forward and I believe he has stepped in front of the ball."

Referee: "And put his shoulder on the ruck, hasn't he?"

TMO: "That is correct."

Referee: "So he has taken the ball from an offside position and jumped over the ruck. So - no try."

TMO: "Yes."

The referee then makes the decision known: "No try. Offside at the ruck."

Let's see what Jones did.

Jones approached the ruck-thing from behind, i.e. there was no side entry.
He put both hands with outstretched arms on the players in front of him.
He bent down and placed his right foot beyond the ball.
His left shoulder made contact with Rhodes.
Jones picked up the ball and dived over to ground it.

First off all, when Jones got there, was it still a ruck. Accept that it became one when Rhodes and Thrush made contact, was it still one when there were no people on their feet?

In 2007, the designated members of the IRB's Rugby Committee gave a ruling on this situation.

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball enters in goal i.e. on or over the goal line.

A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable.

As there has been a ruck formed initially, AND the criteria for a successful or unsuccessful ruck have not been exhibited, then the ruck has not ended.

So it was still a ruck?

Did Jones join the ruck?

Law 16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Jones did not bind on anybody as the law requires for joining a ruck. His shoulder making contact with Rhodes is certainly not binding. It is irrelevant and there is no obvious reason for the referee to mention it.

Jones was not part of the ruck. That means that Jones did not act 'from within the ruck'.

But was the ball in the ruck and so what about hands in the ruck?

The ball is behind Rhodes's foot, the hindmost foot on the Stormers' side. That would suggest that it was out.

Even if it were not out and this action established a standard of sanctioning 'hands-in' by a scrumhalf/receiver, there will be a plethora of penalties at scrums and rucks for 'hands-in' that would change the game.

At present it is regarded as acceptable that once the contest for possession is over, the scrumhalf/receiver is allowed to dig for the ball - put his hands in to get it out. In this case there was no more a contest for the ball when Jones picked it up. There was no legal way that the Hurricanes were going to get the ball.

What about Jones's right leg? Was he offside?

Law 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
(a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal-lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal-line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal-line.
(b) Players must either join a ruck, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of a ruck, the player is offside.

(c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost teammate, the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player is not otherwise offside.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line
(d) Players not joining the ruck. If a player is in front of the offside line and does not join the ruck, the player must retire behind the offside line at once. If a player who is behind the offside line oversteps it and does not join the ruck the player is offside.

That is all that the law says about offside at a ruck.

The one that applies here is (d).

in front off the offside line

Law Definitions
Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

Jones does not put both feet in front of the ball or Rhodes's hindmost foot.

It would seem that the try should have been awarded. The sad part is that the muddled thinking gives the impression that an excuse is being found not to award the try whereas there seems no reason not to award it. A referee's greatest joy is to award a try.

By Paul Dobson

JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
10 Apr 2015, 07:33
#2
10 Apr 2015, 07:33#2
 I am sure the debate will continue but this sounds like a good interpretation. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 08:09
#3
10 Apr 2015, 08:09#3
 JW
There should be no debate about that issue at all.  The way Hofmann handled it started off from the wrong premise and that was the end of it.  As was stated he tried to find a reason not to award an obvious try and consequently made a total hash of it.  
I think basically had an extremely bad day at the office and he made too many mistakes during the day to call it anything else.  One can only hope he has learnt from his mistakes or he will not last as a referee on that level.   However, I think that the TMO and the line judges would have got it in the neck too.   What they said and decided on - was also wrong and some of the mistakes - like the Conrad Smith knock-on should have been seen clearly by the line-judges if Hofman was not in the position to see it.  
Matter of fact the line-judge concerned was later in the match more interested to find unacceptable/illegal  play by Stormers players (the game was stopped twice to deal with his totally false allegations) than he was in identifying real deficiencies of both teams.
Referees (inclusive of TV monitors and line judges) should be given score cards and if they fail should - like Kaplan said elsewhere - be given further coaching to improve their refereeing skills.            
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
10 Apr 2015, 09:34
#4
10 Apr 2015, 09:34#4
 Lets face facts if the Huricanes had scored the try there would have been absolutley no query at all.FACT is Stormers wre robbed blind by another bent down under ref whose agenda it was to get the Jarpies .
Who can seriously doubt this . No sane person. Hence we are left with the lunatic fringe trying to justify all this and ou rooitwit rubbing his hands in glee as the "hapless Stompies" lose the match.Can it get more pathetic or ludicrous Bwhahahahahahahaha
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 10:43
#5
10 Apr 2015, 10:43#5
 Beeno
There are two issues here, namely -
*  either the referee was incompetent; or*  the referee, the line-judges and the TV monitor were crooked and conspired to make sure the Hurricanes won the match.
Some incidents like the Conrad Smith knock-on and the illegal stealing of the ball at a mall - ultimately leading to the Barrett try - occurred meters out from the Stormers tryline in fact indicated crooking by Hofman - others like the issue above indicate a serious case of crooking by Hofmann.  Other incidents indicates that the line judges and TV monitor conspired to crook as well.
Other issues that happened during the match was plain and simple incompetence by Hofmann.
So we have a case here of the referee blaming the TV monitor for his gross mistakes and the line judges just being totally incompetent and biased as well.  No team can play and win against 19 participants - the team, the referee, the two line-judges and the TV Monitor.  If mistakes were made benefitting both sides - then incompetence becomes the issue - if mistakes are only benefitting one side like happened in this case - the obvious is true, the refereeing was crooked. 
Lets go further - neither the tries of Skudder-Milner or Savea would have been awarded if SA players were involved in the scoring thereof - so I am afraid that we have a very serious case of skulduggery/cooking here.       
 
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
10 Apr 2015, 11:04
#6
10 Apr 2015, 11:04#6
 @mike,
"As was stated he tried to find a reason not to award an obvious try and consequently made a total hash of it."

please, don't be as hooligan as your countryman here.
When there's need to bring and write to the letter at least 2 laws for their interpretation alongside the video of the action, it cannot be said that it was very clear from the beggining and that "There should be no debate about that issue at all."

A big mistake from the article's interpretation is that it pointed Rhodes as the hindmost palyer of the ruck (hence the hindmost foot that marks the offside) when Botha was the hindmost player (after cleaning one canes player) and Jones had his 2 feet in front of the offside line marked by Botha's foot.
Jones was offside and the try was correctly not awarded
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
10 Apr 2015, 11:14
#7
10 Apr 2015, 11:14#7
 @mike,

"Some incidents like the Conrad Smith knock-on.....  in fact indicated crooking by Hofman - others like the issue above indicate a serious case of crooking by Hofmann.  Other incidents indicates that the line judges and TV monitor conspired to crook as well."

"Lets go further - neither the tries of Skudder-Milner or Savea would have been awarded if SA players were involved in the scoring thereof - so I am afraid that we have a very serious case of skulduggery/cooking here."

you are as hooligan as Mr. Been.
And the knock-on of Smith didn't lead to any try (less to Barret's) it just lead to a penalty
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 11:41
#8
10 Apr 2015, 11:41#8
 Beeno
Sorry - but facts are facts.  Anyone saying that Rhodes or Botha  was behind Jones and Groom in the maul is totally wrong.  Both were in line behind the ball and both had the right to pick it up.   Jones was the one to pick it up and dived over.  Tell me how on earth could he have been off-side?   Not even close that one.
The other two issues are the fact that Conrad Smith in the Red Zone clearly knocked down the ball and in the same zone the Hurricanes stole a ball from a maul illegally.  Both are card offences within the Red Zone.  There were no penalties or even scrums awarded - you cannot tell me that in both cases neither the referee - nor the line-judges saw what happened.   That is not incompetence - it is worse - I am afraid. 
I also think that the try od Savea came from a forward pass from Skudder-Milner.  Even if the ball was touched by a Stormers player - as you alleged, the ball was already going forward by the time he touched it - so it was a forward pass - whether you like it or not.
Maybe I was a bit harsh in this case - but all opinions expressed by experts indicated that the referees were at least incompetent.  When a string of incompetent decisions take place all favour one team - then the question of dishonesty raised its ugly head.   Maybe I was harsh by saying outright it was dishonesty - but from my perspective it certainly look like there was a real possibility of it playing a role.        
       
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
10 Apr 2015, 12:13
#9
10 Apr 2015, 12:13#9
  @mike,

firstly, I didn't insult you so next time you call me Beeno I won't forgive you and............ (naaah, just joking,....... but I would ask you to have some consideration in this regard

"Sorry - but facts are facts.  Anyone saying that Rhodes was behind Jones and Groom in the maul is totally wrong."

which facts, your facts or my facts?
I didn't say that. I said that Botha was the hindmost player and Jones was in front of his foot so offside which is quite different.

"The other two issues are the fact that Conrad Smith in the Red Zone clearly knocked down the ball and in the same zone the Hurricanes stole a ball from a maul illegally.  Both are card offences within the Red Zone."

Both were whistleble offenses (and should have been whistled) but not card offenses. Not every offense in the red zone is a card offense.
Though Smith knock the ball on he was going clearly to catch it, not to intentionally knock it on.
Goodes wass slightly off his feet for a second at the beggining, very quickly he corrected his position. Hundreds, if not thousands, of actions like this go without punishment. It was a penalty but not a card offense "whether you like it or not".

And why you don't talk about all the penalties against the canes in the second half? as kaplan said many of them were incorrect and they lead to the Stormers comeback who are otherwise completely unable of getting a try or even gaining any territory. Penalties and rolling mauls are the only weapon of this stormers side
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 13:17
#10
10 Apr 2015, 13:17#10
 ABF
Maybe I was too harsh in what I said and hope you are not totally upset about my comments.   I was just upset by the crucial mistakes by the referee in critical stages of the game and that to my mind is not the way to go.  We should never expect no mistakes by referees - that would be impossible since they are human beings - not super-humans.   Referees make mistakes - but too many mistakes in one game cannot be justified.
I think that the matter should be regarded as something that happened and whatever we write about it will not change the outcome of the match or what happened during the match.   
It may in fact have beneficial consequences.   I am sure there was an evaluation of the refereeing done and there must have been some clear indications given where things went wrong.   That could only help the officials concerned  in their  development as officials  - but at the same time could be a danger signal for them - a repeat of such reffing could mean the end of their reffing career.   It would not be the first time a referee are dealt with in the same way,  so the warning lights would be loud and clear.  
By the way deliberate knock-downs or illegal play are often followed by yellow-cards - so my mentioning of it as card offences are not all that far-fetched.  But in any event this was a very bad nightmare for all involved and it certainly would be better to forget about it and hope it is not repeated in future. 
I think the whole story about NZ and Australian refs stemmed from a memo sent by Paddy O'Brien years ago in which he advised referees "to get the Yarpies".  It turned into a storm subsequently and whenever any mistake is made by a ref since then  it is multiplied beyond recognition.   There were denials of a hidden programme of biased refereeing - but it was stupid of O'Brien to send such a memo and the memory of it seems to bubble below surface all the time.             
      
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Apr 2015, 13:35
#11
10 Apr 2015, 13:35#11
The "Get the Japies" e-mail wasn't sent by Paddy O'Brien, it was sent by Keith Lawrence, Bryce's father.

You can read the original story from 2000 here.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 14:10
#12
10 Apr 2015, 14:10#12
 Thanks Rooinek
I know the e-mail was sent - but was wrong about Paddy O'Brien - and even though they managed to smooth it over - that type of thing is really never resolved and leave an extremely bitter taste in the mouths afterwards.  Apologies about this kind of action do not help to settle issues - since it does not address the issues that let to that occurrence.  
What added to it was the Bryce Lawrence affair in 2011 in the WC.   Whether people like it or not Bryce Lawrence was totally incompetent in the quarterfinal - went off the panel of the panel of the  IRB - and later also the panel of Sanzar after another foul up in a match involving the Hurricanes and Crusaders.   Despite serious doubts as to his competence he was appointed subsequently as Director of Referee Coaching in New Zealand - after he was in 2012 honoured as the NZ Referee of the Year in 2011.     If what we see today is the level of refereeing developed in NZ under Bryce Lawrence there is a serious question mark about his competency to hold that position in any event.  I know Hofmann is an Australian - but the line judges were from New Zealand and they were as incompetent as was the referee.   
       
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,285 posts
10 Apr 2015, 14:14
#13
10 Apr 2015, 14:14#13
So Bryce Lawrence has a father. It all makes more sense now. 
Under normal circumstances his parents would have disowned Bryce. 
Instead Bryce was awarded New Zealand referee of the year. 
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Apr 2015, 15:24
#14
10 Apr 2015, 15:24#14
I know the vast majority of South Africans still love to hate Bryce Lawrence, but the fact remains he was a decent rugby-loving man and one of the best referees in the world who was forced to resign from the job he loved because there was so much hatred for him in South Africa (including death threats) that he would never be able to referee in South Africa ever again which basically meant he could not continue as a IRB referee.

I don't know of any rugby player who is literally hated and despised because he had a bad game but it seems to be acceptable to not only hate and despise but end the career of a referee just because of one bad game in an important match.

Some perspective is required here. The treatment of Bryce Lawrence by South Africans is nothing short of disgraceful and we as a nation should be embarrassed. We didn't lose to the Wallabies because of Bryce Lawrence, we lost because we alternated between Skulk Burger and Victor Matfield as our first receiver in the backline. That's the truth . . . but it's easier to find a scapegoat and try to pretend it was all his fault.

Bottom line, Bryce Lawrence would be among the top 4 or 5 refs in the world if he was still active and rugby is poorer for his loss. Ironic that the same sad and small-minded ref-bashers who celebrate Bryce Lawrence's demise and joined the Facebook hate group are the same snivelling crybabies who are always bleating about the naughty refs whenever their side is beaten.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Apr 2015, 20:29
#15
10 Apr 2015, 20:29#15
 Rooinek
Fact is that Lawrence was not the top referee you make him out to be - he had a history of reffing problems before the game he messed up in the WC.  The final straw was the huge bugger-up he made in a game between the Crusaders and the Hurricanes in the Super series in 2012 - after which the NZ franchises caused him to be removed from the Sanzar panel of referees.  The SA franchises had nothing to do with the latter occurrence.
I for one do not support the idea that the SA's as a whole should be ashamed of our conduct in the Lawrence case - in any country there are lunatic fringes and to hold the whole of SA responsible for their actions is totally wrong.
Fact is the Springboks did not deserve to win the quarterfinal against Australia.   There was no game plan and the so-called senior players decided on what they want to do.  That is where things went wrong.  Most of the geriatrics were fat, useless and unfit - those included virtually all the forwards and the backline was equally useless.  What is amazing is that despite the flop the players made in the 2011 WC - idiots like Mozart want 9 of them back in the squad for 2015.       
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Apr 2015, 08:45
#16
11 Apr 2015, 08:45#16
"Fact is that Lawrence was not the top referee you make him out to be."
"Fact"? You consider that to be a "fact", ou Maaik?
So what are you saying then . . . you get appointed to the IRB panel if you're a crap referee? 
Are you suggesting that you get to referee over 200 first class games including a British Lions test match if you're not a top referee? Huh? Is that what your's stating as a "fact"?
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
11 Apr 2015, 09:35
#17
11 Apr 2015, 09:35#17
 Mike I think the consistency of this blatant bias shows they are crooking rather than incompetent. End of story.Teh crusties are also the most crooked side on the planet trained to cheat at every turn. I have no time for these complete twits.
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news