Time for the ‘touch judges’ to step up
Roar Rookie By Davo, 4 Aug 2008 Davo is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Adam Ashley-Cooper, All Blacks, referees, Rugby Union, Stirling Mortlock, Tri Nations, wallabies
102 Have your say
Related coverage
On Saturday night the Wallabies suffered their first loss in the Deans era – and a most comprehensive one at that.
Stirling Mortlock referred to it as a role reversal from the previous week – and he was right. The Wallabies surrendered their breakdown dominance, their lineout dominance and their enthusiasm to an All Blacks team who was determined not to make history with a third straight tri-nations loss.
Without doubt, the Wallabies have no-one to blame for their loss but themselves. However, their cause was certainly not helped by some very poor refereeing.
Perhaps the touch judges were so eager to take up the new title of ‘assistant referee’ that they forgot that, first and foremost, their job is to know the touch line laws! Here, direct from the rule book is law 19:
“The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.” And, then to further clarify what happens next: “the throw in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch.”
Therefore, when Adam Ashley-cooper picked up the ball with one foot in the touch-line in the 19th minute then clearly according to the laws it was an Australian throw in. Sadly the poor assistant ref had no idea what to do and stood with his flag up, but making no indication as to the side that should throw in. In the end, the ball ended up in an All Black’s hand and the resultant line-out led directly to a Woodcock try and the opening of the flood gates!
Once again, I wish to re-iterate, it was clear that the Wallabies were never going to win this game. But this was a huge blunder in a marquee international game.
You want to claim your new title as ‘assistant ref’? All well and good. But the place to start – surely – is by knowing your rule book.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
- Explore:
- Adam Ashley-Cooper, All Blacks, referees, Rugby Union, Stirling Mortlock, Tri Nations, wallabies
August 4th 2008 @ 8:22am
Undercover Prop said | August 4th 2008 @ 8:22am | Report comment
I agree 100% Davo. I couldn’t believe it when it happened and i couldn’t believe that Mortlock or Ashley-Cooper weren’t there complaining to the referee and his assistant. I would have been making the biggest song and dance about it i could, unless they don’t know the rules either.
This assistant referee was clearly out of his depth and shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
The Wallabies lost because they were out played in all aspects of the game but this decision which led directly to an All Blacks try certainly didn’t help their cause.
August 4th 2008 @ 8:40am
Jerry said | August 4th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
It may have been a mistake of fact rather than law – if the AR thought the ball was stationary when AAC picked it up then it would be an NZ throw – I’m not saying the ball was stationary, it was clearly still moving, but it would be more understandable that an AR would make a mistake as to fact than as to law – Or he may have thought AAC had his foot in the air when he caught the ball. Or, obviously, he could have just made a balls up – I don’t want to be seen as apologising for the poor call or trying to minimise its impact, but it’s not always 100% clear what error has been made.
While the Wallabies can feel agrieved at some of the ref’s calls, I thought they got off quite lightly with infringements close to their line – George Smith in particular was fortunate not to get carded for coming in from the side late in the first half.
August 4th 2008 @ 9:04am
Tony from Northbridge said | August 4th 2008 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Davo, Davo, Davo,
A serious analysis would never refer to them as rules, rather than laws. Secondly, AA-C did not “catch” the ball; he picked it up. You have confused yourself by quoting the section of the Law that pertains to the situation where the ball is caught on the full.
August 4th 2008 @ 9:10am
Jerry said | August 4th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Tony, the definition doesn’t mention anything about the player having to catch the ball on the full. That would suggest that if the ball is in motion it can be caught, regardless of whether it has bounced or not.
August 4th 2008 @ 9:30am
hoy said | August 4th 2008 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I agree we were never going to win the test. But I also thought that all three refs made errors. New Zealand were getting away with a lot more at the breakdown than we were.
Something else I have noticed recently. With the ELVs there doesn’t seem to be as much onus on the tackler to release the ball carrier on the ground so he can play the ball. Several times the Wallaby got smashed, then wasn’t able to play the ball as he was obviously being held in place by the tackler. This resulted in several turnovers. Normally I find that even with a big hit against the ball carrier, there is still more than ample oppurtunity to retain the ball in the resulting ruck as the tackler must release the ball carrier to allow the ball to be played.
Can someone clarify if this rule has changed? I didn’t think it had.
August 4th 2008 @ 9:32am
JohnB said | August 4th 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Even if Jerry is mistaken regarding the meaning of “catch” (and I can’t see that it is defined), there is also a paragraph in the same law saying if a player has one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch. While I think Jerry is correct, and the ball was put out by the AB’s, it would be nice if the laws could actually be clear on a fairly basic point like that. I also agree with Jerry that, given how the ref was calling it, George Smith was a bit lucky – but then the ref didn’t seem to be calling most instances of in at the side and diving in off feet.
August 4th 2008 @ 10:02am
stillmissit said | August 4th 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Hoy – that law hasnt changed you must release the player and move away before getting to your feet to compete for the ball.
That lineout decision was tricky and the laws are ambiguous in that area. I always thought it was about catching the ball on the full not picking it up. I expect there will be a clarification of this one very soon on all the refs sites.
My thing with ARefs is that they are not assitant refs they are just touchies as we have always known them. The offside play in the Sydney test was dreadful and if they are AR’s then that shouldnt have happened.
August 4th 2008 @ 10:42am
Harry said | August 4th 2008 @ 10:42am | Report comment
The AB’S were the better team on the day, but poor refereeing certainly made the final score better than it should have been.
Once the AB’s found that they could stand offisde they made full use of iit and poor old George Smith the ref certainly had it in for him!
August 4th 2008 @ 10:55am
stillmissit said | August 4th 2008 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Regarding that lineout – the definitions of law 19 state ‘If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.’ that clearly means that AAC thought that it was similar to a dead ball from kick decision. I’m still not sure but it seems lke AAC was right and the touchie/ref were wrong.
August 4th 2008 @ 11:01am
sheek said | August 4th 2008 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Yes, I agree with the thrust of the post. I’m all for only ONE referee, but he does need help from his touchies, or assistant refs, as we should now them. I would suggest 4 – each controlling one half of a sideline & in touch (2 per sideline). Plus the TMO.
But of course, this is all meaningless unless their roles are clearly defined, & they have the commonsense to apply their juristiction. Even the TMO gets it regularly wrong, despite ad naeseum slow-mo replays from every angle.
But I’m more for the touchies having a greater hands-on role. the game is faster now, with greatr scrutiny, so the re does need every extra assistance he can get. WQithout it being overly instrusive of course. i don’t know where one of those touchies was from last Saturday night, but regrettably, he was out of his depth.