What were Super Rugby referees thinking?
Roar Guru Related coverage
Referees made three key errors in their rulings throughout this year’s Super Rugby tournament. And I’m not talking about the abnormally lax refereeing of forward passes which I am going to assume was just error rather than a plan.
Nor am I talking about the fact that every side which plays my team seems to be allowed to leave their feet at the breakdown – of course my team never cheat! Rather, three things were consciously ruled on incorrectly throughout the year.
Let’s get the obvious and perennial one out of the way first. Scrum feeds – why on earth are half backs allowed to feed the ball into the second row? The game is meant to be a contest, why are scrum feeds allowed such laxity?
The rule book not being applied really annoys me – I’d like to use stronger language here, instead I’ll just have to type really hard.
The scrum contest is one of my favourite parts of the game, there are a lot of problems with resets, and refereeing of collapses that are hard to get right. Fixing the feed is simple so why isn’t it being done?
I noticed the second one mostly by the Cheetahs and Lions but they were certainly not alone. Forward runners had players binding to them as they hit the ball up. My understanding is that this is illegal; you are not allowed to bind to the ball carrier until after a tackle is made.
With the emphasis on releasing tackled players on the ground prior to competing for the ball, one way to create turn over ball (if you have a competent scrum) is to hold the tackled player on his feet and lock him and the ball up.
This creates the situation that the ball does not come out of a maul and the defending team gets the put in.
The Irish did this to great effect against the English in the 6N’s this year and it is certainly a tactic that teams are looking to use.
Ironically enough the Cheetahs in the few matches that they had Brussow on the field kept attackers on their feet so that Heinrich could strip them of the ball.
If players are allowed to bind to the ball carrier early then this area of the contest is hampered and the forward momentum the ball carrier gets going into contact with one or two guys already driving him creates an unfair advantage to the attacking team. So why did referees allow it?
Most worrying though are the changes that have been allowed at the clean out. This season players over the ball are being grasped over the shoulders and twisted to the ground.
The pressure that is being applied to player’s necks has me very worried for player safety – the Highlanders v Lions game had a sickening clean out it in it that was almost disastrous.
Apart from safety though this style of clean out is illegal in my opinion on two counts. The tackle rule has applications at the clean out in that you must use your arms and must connect below the shoulders – these cleanouts involve reaching over the shoulders so break that rule.
The breakdown has rules about collapsing – these are mainly applied at the maul but in a ruck you are still not allowed to pull a man off his feet. You can push or drive him off his feet but not pull down – these wrestling manoeuvres are a pull off the feet so I think they break that rule as well.
Does Paddy O’Brien read the Roar? Any referees on here – have I misunderstood the rulebook?
Tactically I think the last point I’ve made has the biggest impact as it influences a huge number of rucks.
Between this and allowing the dastardly opposition off their feet I think the ruck contest is not quite right at the moment. What do people think – any other rulings that seemed off to anyone?
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby, Super Rugby 2011
July 17th 2011 @ 9:42am
Brendon said | July 17th 2011 @ 9:42am | Report comment
In a ruck, why can’t u pull a man off his feet? He has to keep his balance and support his own weight. A clean out is allowed in any direction and by pulling him off his feet u are really just helping his clean out by making the ball on his side of the ruck
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 17th 2011 @ 11:00am
jeznez said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Brendon, I’ll leave it for a referee to answer – hopefully we get a couple on here who read and comment. I thought it was against the law to pull a man out of the breakdown – I thought you could only push an opponent out.
July 17th 2011 @ 9:18pm
mitzter said | July 17th 2011 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
It’s tackling a player without the ball – you have to push in a ruck not pull and wrestle
July 17th 2011 @ 10:54am
Crazy Horse said | July 17th 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Watching Premier Grade the other day it occurred to me that on the majority of occasions there is a clean scrum the first attempt so why doesn’t this occur in S15?
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 17th 2011 @ 11:08am
jeznez said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:08am | Report comment
There are two main theories.
1. The extra weight of professional packs and the power of the hit leads to collapses.
2. Front rowers intentionally collapse if they are not winning the battle.
If a scrum collapses immediately on engagement it is likely to be the first reason. Most scrums however successfully engage, the ref then holds them to allow them to settle and then the halfback puts the ball in and pushing commences. Collapses that occur after the ball is fed are usually from the second, either a wilful collapse or seeking every advantage of getting low the props are putting scrums into unstable positions.
I guess the question this article is focussed on is how do referee’s interpretations impact the game. In the case of scrum collapse they blew penalties very quickly this year – do people think that as the season wore on that the referees were able to clean up this area? I can think of a few games that were shocking in this respect.
July 17th 2011 @ 11:05am
PeterK said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
The law in the ruck is a player must not intentionally collapse a ruck 16.3.c (not pull a player down).
A player must also endeavour to stay on their feet law 16.3.a and this is the one I hate that refs allow especially when they counterruck and fall down on the wrong side.
In the maul you cannot drag a player out 17.3.a as well as not collapse it 17.2.e., I see players being dragged out with choke holds and its ignored.
I believe you are able to bind to a ball carrier before contact ie pick and drive it is done all the time and sometimes in general play. What is not allowed is the flying wedge where off a free or penalty kick they preform a wedge of players and drive at the line and then the ball is tapped and passed to them whilst they are in motion (flying).
July 17th 2011 @ 11:14am
jeznez said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Pete, thanks for the law numbers on the breakdown.
In that case I am even more convinced that the referees are interpreting the breakdown wrongly and should be penalising players for these grappling, choke hold cleanouts.
I wasn’t sure the ‘flying wedge’ was still a term that people would recognise! But it is exactly what I was thinking of. You seem to be saying that it is ok to bind to a man after he has the ball but not before. I thought the rule was that you couldn’t bind to him before he was tackled. Don’t disagree that it happens all the time – that is my point I thought that it wasn’t allowed and I’m wondering why referees let it happen.
July 17th 2011 @ 11:24am
PeterK said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
You can bind to a player before he is tackled. The flying wedge is a specific case because the defence cannot move until the ball is tapped, and the flying wedge can have significant momentum and mass by the time the ball is tapped.
July 17th 2011 @ 11:29am
jeznez said | July 17th 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
If Pete is correct then I only have two gripes but that is still two too many. Given the large number of NH referees for the world cup does anyone know if they allow the same type of choke hold clean out that we have seen throughout the Super season?
July 17th 2011 @ 9:23pm
mitzter said | July 17th 2011 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
yes the rulings about pre binding to the ball carrier were more about blockers in front of the carrier (like off some lineouts) then players binding behind the carrier. The pick and go and ‘hammer’ are still allowed
July 18th 2011 @ 9:19pm
Jack Petro said | July 18th 2011 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Jeznez _ I don’t think the Referees allowed “choke holds” to be left unsanctioned – there may have been a Red Card or two for that exact practice in the SupeRugby comp this season. The “Croc Roll” is legal so long as you bind under the arms of the opponent and you may use your momentum to remove him from the Tackle Contest so long as the player enters via ‘The Gate’ – nothing illegal in that!
At Scrums time your assertions that “Let’s get the obvious and perennial one out of the way first. Scrum feeds – why on earth are half backs allowed to feed the ball into the second row?” is false. My question to you is are you mistaking Rugby Union with Rugby League? In rugby the ball (or part of it) must cross the midline of the scrum, so if the Scrum Half feeds the ball and the LHS of the ball goes through the midline of the scrum, then it is deemed to be fed correctly.
Oh, and my pet hate …. “The rule book not being applied really annoys me – I’d like to use stronger language here, instead I’ll just have to type really hard.” – we have LAWS in Rugby Union not RULES. May not mean a lot to you but LAWS are interpreted (by the Referee in rugby as they are the sole ajudicator of Law), whilst RULES are ‘Black and White’ and can’t be broken (i.e. Rugby League). If the Referee interprets the Law in the “Spirit of the Game” then we have a fair contest where material effect of indiscretions are measured, advantage applied and continuity of play allowed.
July 20th 2011 @ 11:48am
jeznez said | July 20th 2011 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Apologies Jack, I should also not have said that I thought referees ‘rulings’ were incorrect – I guess they are called ‘lawings’?
On a serious note – have I understood the scrum feed correctly that a half back can propel the ball towards his locks feet as long as the ball crosses the midline of the scrum? In that case I apologise to referees they are interpreting the law correctly but the law itself is wrong.
On the choke hold – I think I have described badly – I’m talking about what you call the Croc Roll – hadn’t heard that term for it before but it is very appropriate. Many times I’m seeing players bind over the top of an opponent so that they are reaching one arm over the shoulder and one arm under the other shoulder then gripping in the middle. This is forcing the pilfering player’s head down onto his chest – what I was incorrectly calling a choke. The fact that players are often binding over the top of a shoulder and that they then twist to get to ground says to me they have gone high and intentionally left their feet. Is your point that this is a Tackle Contest mean that it isn’t being seen as a Ruck?
You say that players can use their momentum to remove the player but if in the act of removing they voluntarily lose their feet isn’t that a penalisable offence?