Blues v Tigers

[chopper15]

What a treat. :wow: :clap:

Thought the Tigers were that little more committed and just a about deserved it . . . 'specially with two men off at the end.

This actually prompts one of my queries.

i)How come Murphy was allowed to come back on to commence extra-time? As the name suggests it's an extension of the game not the start of a new one.

ii)And that restart kick which resulted in a PK. Did he ping for a retake/scrum choice 'cause the ball didn't go the required 10m or, as Barnes reported, there were 2 players only fractionally(?) over the line as he kicked and they protested?

If the latter was the reason, should we assume that international refs only consider applying 'm' for scrum put-ins?

iii) Murphy caught the ball seemingly on his 22m and was about to kick when the ref. shouted 'taken back in'. He then paused and appeared to change his mind regarding the purpose of his kick.

Why should the ref give him prior warning which may've deprived the opp.
of a LO from where he kicked it.?

 

[Donal1988]

With regards to point iii) a lot of this is for the referee himself. Spreadbury was famous and criticised for how often he kept talking during the game with things like "ball out" etc which a lot of referees dont call. This was to keep things together in his head.
I found this taking back into 22 hard to get used to and I was advised to call "taken back in" when it is and call when they can kick it. This way reduces mistakes.

Its like a referee doesnt HAVE to call ruck, hands away or talk to players. He simply chooses to.

 

[SimonSmith]

What a treat. :wow: :clap:

Thought the Tigers were that little more committed and just a about deserved it . . . 'specially with two men off at the end.

This actually prompts one of my queries.

i)How come Murphy was allowed to come back on to commence extra-time? As the name suggests it's an extension of the game not the start of a new one.

ii)And that restart kick which resulted in a PK. Did he ping for a retake/scrum choice 'cause the ball didn't go the required 10m or, as Barnes reported, there were 2 players only fractionally(?) over the line as he kicked and they protested?

If the latter was the reason, should we assume that international refs only consider applying 'm' for scrum put-ins?

iii) Murphy caught the ball seemingly on his 22m and was about to kick when the ref. shouted 'taken back in'. He then paused and appeared to change his mind regarding the purpose of his kick.

Why should the ref give him prior warning which may've deprived the opp.
of a LO from where he kicked it.?

I assume Murphy's 10 minutes were up. He came on, and then the whistle for FT went.

The PK was apparently for dissent. He awarded the scrum for being ahad of the kicker, and a Leicester voice opined "c'mon ref". PK.

It's good management, that's why.

I thought overall Rolland had a great game. His management was just a pleasure to watch.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But what a dreadful way to decide a match.

I am not, never have been, and never will be satisfied with some kind of manufactured and "fake" way to decide a winner. I have never liked it in Wendyball, and I don't believe it has any place in Rugby Union.

They should either decide it within the context of the game itself, (e.g. most tries, least RC/YC, least penalties, or failing that, do what they do in NFL.. just keep playing "sudden death" extra/over times until one of them scores.

 

[chopper15]

But what a dreadful way to decide a match.

I am not, never have been, and never will be satisfied with some kind of manufactured and "fake" way to decide a winner. I have never liked it in Wendyball, and I don't believe it has any place in Rugby Union.

They should either decide it within the context of the game itself, (e.g. most tries, least RC/YC, least penalties, or failing that, do what they do in NFL.. just keep playing "sudden death" extra/over times until one of them scores.

Perhaps the other way around, Ian?

Up to 20 mins 'sudden death' (so's not to upset Sky schedulers) then consideration to the sides' performances, priority given to discipline, perhaps.? Why should a try be considered more valuable than goal points and kicking excellence?

 

[Account Deleted]

I thought it was a great game and advert for NH rugby. Bitterly disappointed with the result but Leicester were the better side.

Some of the calls? Well we see them differently when we have our club colours on don't we. Though I thought the "blood bin" to get the kicker back on was a little cynical.

Rolland calling the "taken back" is good refereeing for me. I'll, when a scrum / line out is about to set give a quick "line out is outside the 22 ", to let them know.

Two good sets of supporters too.

 

[Gracie]

With no allegiances i thoroughly enjoyed the game, on balance Leicester seemed to want it more - much like Leinster the day before and it could be a great final.

Some great rugby from two totally committed performances - well doe to both teams.

On the downside:


Please can Sky create a Stuart Barnes Off button - his constant drivel is very annoying!!

The Shoot Out just doesn't seem like rugby to me - going for a sudden death score after extra time seems far better - i was disappointed by the crowd booing

I thought Rolland had yet another disappointing game, with a series of odd decisions:

Scrums - how far round does a scrum have to wheel before he does something about it, on a couple of occasions it went 180? When players popped up again nothing and flankers were consistently unbound.

why on a number of occasions did he encourage the Tigers to use the ball when it was at the feet of the no 8?

the Blues consistently appeared to be off their feet at virtually every ruck killing the ball - i can't recall if the team was ever penalised for this - latterly the Tigers seemed to realise this was not on his agenda and joined the party so it would be fair to say he was consistent. I see a lot of this at top level rugby; at the start of every match i ref i always advise both teams that off your feet = pen regardless of what happens on the telly!


the 'c'mon ref' penalty seemd very extreme and i can only assume he thought he heard something else

I did like the way he handled the return of Duprey checking he really was bleeding, still seemd like gamesmanship by the Tigers though


As for the referee chat on the whole i am a fan, even when some of it seems at odds with the rules, because it gives players a chance to avoid an infringement, hands off, leave the ball alone. carried back into 22 etc should be encouraged to keep the game moving in my view letting the players know what you as a ref will and will not accept

 

[Davet]

1) Murphy's sin bin expired at 77 minutes and some seconds - but he could not get back on at that point as play was continuous. The ball has to be dead before the binned player rejoins.

2) Rolland made a critical error, which I am sure is on his asessment. When he pinged players for being in front at the KO they were not - as the replays show. To then call a penalty for simple "Oh c'mon ref!", and note no swaeringh simply a cry of dissappointment seems wholly over the top. The reason the combination of errors here is a critical incident is that it lead to a 3 point kick which, enabled Blues to draw the game.

3) It is good refereeing to call "taken back in", he did it consistently fr both sides and on occasions where the call is marginal it allows the players to know the refs opinion. It is similar to the call of "Ruck" which again Rolland called consistently - as to do all good referees. It is soemthing I would suggest all refs make habit of doing - you must have the thought - simply vocalise it and we get a better game.

4) As Dean Richards pointed out last week, you need to know the Law. A substituted player may return to cover for a player with an open or bleeding wound. Hipkiss was bleeding quite profusely from a scalp wound, so Dupuy was entitled to come on.

5) Its the fron rows that have to be round 90, the back of the scrum can go further, though they must not, of course, unbind.

6) The laws provide that a ball that is available at the back of a scrum should be played - hence the call to use it.

 

[PaulDG]

I was particularly impressed with the speed with which players at this level can roll away from a tackle when giving away a kickable penalty will lose them a place in the final.

From the time Cardiff drew level and all the way through the extra time, "rolling away" really did happen "immediately".

(Proves to me that if you want to stop referees deciding matches by awarding penalties, the best way isn't to make breakdown offences FKs - make them much, much more important!)

 

[ex-lucy]

paul: good point ... the tacklers rolled quite quikcly in the last few mins of normal time and in extra time didnt they !!

 

[Account Deleted]

Eurika!

Make a penalty 10 points and watch the teams change their approach.

 

[oldman]

RE 'Penalty shoot out' at end.
Guy near me suggested that they put all 22 numbers in a bag and pick out which players take the kick in order.
Has a certain perverted logic to me.

 

[Account Deleted]

Make the Coaches kick the penalties instead of the players. Result more teams coached by backs! Less huff and puff stuff:chin: .

 

[chopper15]

Davet's ref.2) Rolland made a critical error, which I am sure is on his asessment. When he pinged players for being in front at the KO they were not - as the replays show.

I accept, if he considered they were even fractionally in front he was correct to ping. But the question is, should he have.

When too close to call I thought it was an 'm' decision.

3) It is good refereeing to call "taken back in", he did it consistently fr both sides and on occasions where the call is marginal it allows the players to know the refs opinion. It is similar to the call of "Ruck" which again Rolland called consistently - as to do all good referees. It is soemthing I would suggest all refs make habit of doing - you must have the thought - simply vocalise it and we get a better game.

Shouldn't refs differentiate on what should and should not be called ?

I recalled the incident when Murphy caught the ball seemingly on his 22m and was about to kick when the ref. shouted 'taken back in'. He then paused and appeared to change his mind regarding the purpose of his kick.

My query for consideration asked why should the ref give him prior warning which may've deprived the opp. of a LO from where he kicked it just for the ref's convenience?

By all means warn players while the ball is still dead regarding the 22, but why help out a less informed/disciplined side?

 

[dave_clark]

Eurika!

Make a penalty 10 points and watch the teams change their approach.

IIRC, Stellenbosch concluded about 7 or 8 years ago that the optimum value for a PK (to discourage people from cheating and to encourage running rugby) was 5 points...

 

[SimonSmith]

Davet's ref.2) Rolland made a critical error, which I am sure is on his asessment. When he pinged players for being in front at the KO they were not - as the replays show.

I accept, if he considered they were even fractionally in front he was correct to ping. But the question is, should he have.

When too close to call I thought it was an 'm' decision.

3) It is good refereeing to call "taken back in", he did it consistently fr both sides and on occasions where the call is marginal it allows the players to know the refs opinion. It is similar to the call of "Ruck" which again Rolland called consistently - as to do all good referees. It is soemthing I would suggest all refs make habit of doing - you must have the thought - simply vocalise it and we get a better game.

Shouldn't refs differentiate on what should and should not be called ?

I recalled the incident when Murphy caught the ball seemingly on his 22m and was about to kick when the ref. shouted 'taken back in'. He then paused and appeared to change his mind regarding the purpose of his kick.

My query for consideration asked why should the ref give him prior warning which may've deprived the opp. of a LO from where he kicked it just for the ref's convenience?

By all means warn players while the ball is still dead regarding the 22, but why help out a less informed/disciplined side?

What is an "m" decision?

He was perfectly right to call "taken in". If a player isn't sure whether or not he took it in, why shouldn't he advise? Every time a referee offers any kind of preventative refereeing or advice, one side "profits" from that. You seem to suggest that we should referee in silence. And your question has already been answered.

 

[Ian_Cook]

All Super14 refs call "taken back" in any situation where the ball is passed or rolls back and it might not be immediately obvious, such as a set piece just outside the 22.

Good game management so I do not have a problem with it. No different to calling "ruck" or "hands off" or "advantage".

As a point of note, S14 refs will even call the type of advantage they are playing, e.g. "advantage, offside" or "advantage, knock-on". I presume most NH refs do the same? Again, its good management, so that the ref, the ARs and both sides are all on the same page, and do not need to hone their ESP skills!!

 

[Davet]

As a point of note, S14 refs will even call the type of advantage they are playing, e.g. "advantage, offside" or "advantage, knock-on". I presume most NH refs do the same?

Even down at grass roots level I always called "Advantage, Knock on by Blue", or "Advantage, Red offsde"

Where possible I would call a number, but I did find it hard to pick out the offence the team AND the number, unless his back was to me.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

He was perfectly right to call "taken in". If a player isn't sure whether or not he took it in, why shouldn't he advise? Every time a referee offers any kind of preventative refereeing or advice, one side "profits" from that. You seem to suggest that we should referee in silence. And your question has already been answered.

In my games when a TJ gives a LO "on" the 22 I advise defending side that if they win it - it is not taken in :chin: . I do this before the throw into the LO. This message is usually relayed from SH to FH/FB. Attackers have never questioned it as favouring defenders . TJs (the usual press-ganged replacement) will often use 22 if LoT is "close" which has a significance in the "taken in" stakes but this has not caused a problem for me in any games so far. Lack of knowledge of the implications for "taken in" by both teams perhaps? Oh the joys of L9 and below rugby. :biggrin:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Even down at grass roots level I always called "Advantage, Knock on by Blue", or "Advantage, Red offsde"

Where possible I would call a number, but I did find it hard to pick out the offence the team AND the number, unless his back was to me.

The RFU protocol (at Panel and Group Level 5) is immediately get the signal arm out and call "Scrum Advantage, Red" or "Penalty Advantage, Blue". Also "Advantage Over " is required once correct territorial or tactical advantage is gained, and the correct time differential is applied to scrum/penalty advantage in the context of that event.

To omit any element of the three words or not call over, or incorrectly bring back / call over, or apply incorrect tactical/territorial lor time length, will be marked as a non-compliance on the assessment form.

Some Panel and Group referees also signal (arm up to show penalty and then back down to advantage position), or a knock-on sign. Personally I like this added signal, as showing additional communication and management skills.

If you 'come back' for a penalty advantage then you should, signal primary and secondary, as well as verbals 'blue 6 offside, no bind at scrum' to both remind and explain to all involved what has happened. Tired players forget you were playing advantage sometimes !

Lee is quite sensible to make his calls as he does when on or around the 22m. Making both sides very clear that the l/o or scrum is inside or outside (and mark it well outside if it is !) is useful. To do so for both sides when they are defending is equitable and good match management imho.

For balls taken back-in during open play (again as good management practice), we expect Panel and Group Refs to call it early (and so give a reference should there be a no-gain kick after a number of passes and no tackle/ruck/maul/oppo contact), as well as the call of 'inside' when a 22m kick is correct for gain in ground. Again clear communication and match management.

All the above should attract player approval, better spectator understanding of your decisions, and hopefully adviser / assessor plaudits !